Supervisor Accountability Jim Arendas Construction Advancement Foundation

1
Supervisor AccountabilityJim
ArendasConstruction Advancement Foundation
2
Levels of Responsibility

• Executive Management
• High level commitment lower accident rates
• (Cheyne et al., 1998 Zohar, 1980)
• Supervision
• Work group encouragement and support
• (Donald, 1995).
• Worker
• Participation/ownership
• What motivates workers to take responsibility?
• (Lee, 1995)

3
OSHA Elements of Management Duty

• Establish policies, procedures and rules
• Safety Training
• Providing the right tool and equipment
• Enforcing the rules

4
Supervisory Challenges

• Characteristics of the work (Physical Hazards)
• Psychological and behavioral characteristics of
  the individual
• Organizational environments (Culture)
• (Cheyne, 2002)

5
Competing Organizational Influences

• Organizational values
• Short-term profits
• Customer needs
• Organizational Culture

6
Organizational Culture
Ela Oney-Yazici, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer
Topcu-Oraz, Emrah Acar, (2007) "Organizational
culture the case of Turkish construction
industry", Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss 6, pp.519
- 531
7
Safety Culture?
8
Management Commitment

• Management Resources
• Leadership from Executive Management
• Time
• Involvement
• Support
• Evaluation
• Leading Indicators
• Measure positive behaviors
• Measure coaching and correcting
• Close calls
• Root cause of negative behaviors
• Measure history not TRIR
• Employee surveys
• Lagging Indicators
• Enforcement
• Throughout all levels of management and
  supervision
• The food chain
• Recognition

9
Worker Duty

• Not required by OSHA
• Duty to employer
• Follow rules or get wacked
• Duty to self is a personal choice

10
Relational Leadership Support

• Leader-member exchange
• Leaders have limited time
• Cross organizational support
• Relational support from supervisor
• Self-developed relational support
• Culture supported relational support
• No relational support
• (Uhl-Bean, 2006)

11
Team Dysfunctions of Safety Leadership

• Absence of Trust
• Absence of Conflict
• Lack of Commitment
• Avoidance of Accountability
• Inattention to Results
• (Lencioni, 2002)

12
Evaluating Safety Culture Maturity (RSSB UK)

• Level 1 Emerging
• Level 2 Managing
• Level 3 Involving
• Level 4 Cooperating
• Level 5 Continually Improving

13
Level 1 Emerging

• Safety is focused on
• Technical
• Procedural
• Compliance
• Safety not a key business risk
• Safety department responsibly for safety
• Accidents seen as unavoidable
• Most front line staff not interested in
• Safety used as a lever on other issues

14
Level 2 Managing

• Safety recognized as a business risk
• Management devoted to accident prevention
• Safety focus is on rules, procedures and
  engineering controls
• Accidents seen as preventable
• Management believes most accidents are due to
  behaviors of front-line staff
• Measures performance with lagging indicators
• Incentives based on reducing loss time incidents
• Senior managers only become involved in health
  and safety if accidents increase punishment
  likely to be used
• Accident rates are near the industry sector
  average but tend to have more serious accidents
  

15
Level 3 Involving

• Accident rates are low, but have reached a
  plateau
• Organization realizes employee involvement is
  essential for improvement.
• Management recognize that a range of factors lead
  to accidents such as management decisions.
• Most front-line employees will work with
  management to improve safety.
• The majority of staff accept personal
  responsibility for their own health and safety.
• Safety performance is monitored and the data used
  

16
Level 4 Cooperating

• The majority of staff believe that health and
  safety is important from both a moral
  economic reasons
• Management recognizes that a range of factors
  lead to accidents and the root causes stem from
  management decisions
• Front-line staff accept responsibility for their
  own and others health and safety
• Employees are valued and treated fairly
• Organization proactive measures indicators to
  prevent accidents
• Organizations addresses healthy lifestyle and
  non-workplace accidents

17
Level 5 Continually Improving

• Injury prevention is a core company value
• Organization has several years without a
  recordable accident or high potential incident
  but there is no feeling of complacency
• Leading and lagging indicators used to monitor
  performance but it is not performance driven it
  has confidence in its safety processes
• Organization strives to be better and finds
  improved hazard control approaches
• Employees believe safety is a critical aspect of
  their job and accept that prevention of non-work
  injuries is important
• Company invests considerable effort in promoting
  health and safety at home

18
References

• Cheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., Tomas, J. M.
  (1998). Modelling safety climate in the
  prediction of levels of safety activity. Work and
  Stress, 12, 255-271.
• http//ergonomie.com.au/our-services/safety-and-ma
  nagement-systems/safety-culture/
• RSSB.UK.co
• Construction Industry Institute
• Donald, I. (1995). Safety attitudes as a basis
  for promoting safety culture An example of an
  intervention. In Work and well-being An agenda
  for Europe conference, Nottingham, 7-9 December.
• Ela Oney-Yazici, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer
  Topcu-Oraz, Emrah Acar, (2007) "Organizational
  culture the case of Turkish construction
  industry", Engineering, Construction and
  Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss 6, pp.519
  - 531
• Lee, T. R. (1995). The role of attitudes in the
  safety culture and how to change them. In
  Conference on Understanding Risk Perception
  Offshore Management Centre, Robert Gordon
  University, Aberdeen, 2 February.
• Oliver, A., Cheyne, A., Jose, M. T., Cox, S.
  (2002). The effects of organizational and
  individual factors on occupational accidents.
  Journal of Occupational and Organizational
  Psychology, 75, 473-488.
• Lencioni, P., (2002), The Five Dysfunctions of a
  Team, A leadership Fable, Jossey-Bass, San
  Francisco, CA.
• Uhl-Bean, M., (2006). Relational leadership
  theory exploring the social processes of
  leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6),
  654-676.