How Organizational Culture Affects Employee Safety

Human Synergistics Canada Allan M. Stewart, MBA

About the Author Allan Stewart has been the President of Human Synergistics Canada since 1996 and is one of the country’s leading experts on Organizational Culture. He has combined over fifteen years of general management experience with over 25 years experience in organizational development. He received his Bachelor of Commerce degree from Queen’s University and his MBA, majoring in Organizational Development from Wilfrid Laurier University. He has taught at McMaster University and Sheridan College. He has also taught on the executive development programs at York’s Schulich School of Business and McMaster University. Allan has provided consulting services for many of Canada’s top businesses in practically every sector and industry. He can be contacted at: Human Synergistics Canada 214 James Street North, Box 2380, St. Marys, Ontario N4X 1A2 (519) 284 4135 [email protected] www.hscanada.com

-2-

How Organizational Culture Affects Employee Safety Introduction When most organizations want to improve their record in overall workplace safety, they focus on education; written procedures; workplace design; incident reporting; equipment design, maintenance and testing; and, management directives. These are all extremely important and can never be overlooked. But, one of the most important components is often ignored – organizational culture. Many authors have focused on the importance of human factors in safety practices such as accident prevention, risk management and emergency procedures implementation. However, organizational culture goes beyond the basic concentration on the human factors. Human factors are singular – how humans interface with a machine in an industrial setting, whereas organizational culture examines how and why people in a particular environment will think and behave. When organizations concentrate on the human factors, they provide proper safety training and education, safety leadership, written procedures and workplace and equipment design. Through legislation and industry-wide education these procedures and systems are relatively standardized. Why then, do safety records vary so much among organizations? The answer lies in the fact that each organization’s culture is different.

Culture Definition Organizational culture is the commonly held attitudes, values, beliefs, assumptions and behaviours of a group in a particular organizational unit. Or in other words; what it takes to “fit in” and meet expectations. There are two concepts of culture – strength and quality. Strength refers to the degree of commonality or intensity of the culture or, how widely accepted is the common set of values and behaviours. Tom Peters and Bob Waterman stated in their landmark book, In Search of Excellence, that effective organizations have strong cultures with a common set of shared values.1 However, strength of culture alone does not ensure an effective organization. What if it is commonly expected that each employee only works at half of their capacity or speed? Of greater importance is the quality of the culture. Quality refers to the degree to which the cultural norms approximate an ideal culture in terms of how people should be expected to behave to maximize the effectiveness of their organization.

Measuring Culture While there are many ways to measure the quality of an organization’s culture, one of the most respected methods is done by using Human Synergistics Organizational Culture Inventory® (Current and Ideal), developed by Rob Cooke and Clayton Lafferty.2 The inventory provides 120 statements to which participants respond on a five-point, “to what extent” scale. -3-

The OCI inventory, when completed and scored, provides normed results in twelve different cultural norms that can be further grouped into three cultural clusters. The twelve styles, by cluster are3: The Constructive Cluster (Consists of cultural norms that promote the higher-order satisfaction needs of members.); • Achievement (Members are expected to set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach those goals, and pursue them with enthusiasm.) • Self-Actualizing (Members are expected to enjoy their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting activities.) • Humanistic-Encouraging (Members are expected to be supportive, constructive and open to influence in their dealings with one another.) • Affiliative (Members are expected to be friendly, cooperative and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group.) The Passive / Defensive Cluster (Consists of cultural norms that promote self-protective behaviour in interactions with people.); • Approval (Members are expected to agree with, gain the approval of and be liked by others.) • Conventional (Members are expected to conform, follow the rules and make a good impression.) • Dependent (Members are expected to do what they’re told and clear all decisions with superiors.) • Avoidance (Members are expected to shift responsibilities to others and avoid any possibility for being blamed for a mistake.) The Aggressive / Defensive Cluster (Consists of cultural norms that promote selfprotective behaviour with respect to the way that members approach tasks.); • Oppositional (Members are expected to be critical, oppose the ideas of others and make safe (but ineffectual) decisions.) • Power (Members are expected to take charge, control subordinates and yield to the demands of superiors.) • Competitive (Members are expected to operate in a “win-lose” framework and work against (rather than with) their peers.) • Perfectionistic (Members are expected to avoid mistakes, keep track of everything and work long hours to attain narrowly-defined objectives.)

The Need for a Safety Culture A Safety Culture is the representation of a management philosophy which reflects the values and attitudes of importance placed upon those processes within an organization which have significant consequences for safety.4 Because the term, “Safety Culture” is a relatively new concept, it is typically used in organizations where safety is the most -4-

critical. These organizations, such as nuclear power plants, military facilities, chemical plants, airlines, etc. are organizations where an accident could have catastrophic results. These are called high reliability organizations. The concept of a Safety Culture was discussed in the Second Review Meeting at the Convention on Nuclear Safety (April 2002). In response to a question posed by the Romanian delegation, the Canadian delegation said; “To ensure that staff who monitor safety are not influenced by production needs, it is necessary for the Management System to establish and maintain a Safety Culture throughout the station which puts safety first, recognizing and taking seriously the unique safety requirements of the nuclear core. Having established such values, it is important to ensure that actions of the management team are seen by staff to re-enforce, not contradict, this value system.5 Certainly, in high reliability organizations, the need to “not leave any stone unturned” is extremely important. However, anyone can make a case that an accident in any organization, high reliability or not, can be catastrophic for the recipient and possibly, the organization. Therefore, all organizations who are concerned about safety should be working towards establishing a Safety Culture. And, as this paper will show, one of the most important steps to establishing a Safety Culture is to develop a Constructive Organizational Culture, which will also provide outcomes in other areas of organizational effectiveness.

The Case for a Safety Culture There have been several organizations that have researched the impact of culture on safety. For example, in a study done on the accident response process in the nuclear industry, it was found that a traditional aggressive-defensive culture seemed to work in anticipated situations where an established anticipatory strategy was used. In situations that were not anticipated or foreseen, which required an ad hoc strategy, a constructive culture was required. 6 In another study of two nuclear power plants, the plant with the highest constructive scores also scored higher in overall commitment to the organization’s perceived hazardous nature of work, and attention to safety.7 In another study, conducted halfway around the world, a direct correlation was found between safety and a constructive culture. In a survey conducted by Human Synergistics New Zealand with a major Australian Airline, it was proved categorically that the more constructive the organizational culture, the more attention is paid to safety, while the Defensive Cultural Styles show non-compliance with safety operative values. 8 Moving towards a Constructive Culture also has many positive performance side effects. When an American Nuclear Power Plant that received poor scores in an INPO assessment, it realized that changing the culture was the first step in a long journey toward making it performance-competitive with peer plants. Their first step was to conduct a cultural assessment tool that identified behavioural gaps between the current and the ideal cultures. Next, they identified four strategic objectives – safety, operational excellence, financial and teamwork. Next, they conducted plant wide training, beginning -5-

with senior management. The overall results were startling. In three years, they achieved a near perfect INPO score, leading them to conclude that organizational culture may be the best benchmark of the quality of senior leadership over the long haul.9

The Cultural Styles Necessary for the Establishment of a Safety Culture It is evident that the establishment of a Constructive Culture is an important factor for organizations who wish to establish a Safety Culture. The normative attitudes and behaviours of a Constructive Culture must be in place if an organization is to implement the values and attitudes of a Safety Culture. The Twelve Styles from Human Synergistics Organizational Culture Inventory® either add to or detract from the development of a safe workplace. An explanation of each follows.

The Passive / Defensive Cluster and Safety Cultures Organizations that score high in the Passive / Defensive Cluster have norms that emphasize “playing it safe” by interacting with others in less than healthy ways. People are encouraged to “get along” superficially, blindly follow rules, let others make decisions and avoid change. Passive / Defensive Cultures result in poor customer service, inferior product/service quality, employee dissatisfaction and low motivation. Overall, this cluster does not lend itself to a Safety Culture because of the passive approach to people and the organization. This “keep your head down” and “not rock the boat” attitude will lead to incompetence, missed opportunities and ineffective safety procedures. The OCI® styles that comprise the Passive / Defensive Cluster and how they impact a Safety Culture, are: Approval Approval Cultures encourage everyone to “get along” with each other. Conflict is smoothed over and everyone is expected to appear “happy”. Subordinates are expected to like their bosses and bosses are expected to be well liked, to the extent where this becomes a primary performance indicator. This culture might have some positive impact on basic safety practices. It could be argued that one could get approval from his/her peers and superiors by appearing to be very safety conscious. The negative impact of this type of culture on safety far outweighs the positive ones. First, this type of culture is very superficial, only rewarding the appearance of cooperation and rule compliance. Second, the primary motivation is to “get along” with one’s peers and bosses. If someone of influence believes that the priority should temporarily switch away from safety, then everyone will comply. Finally, this type of culture relies heavily on assumptions. And, if it is an assumption that the priority on safety has switched, then the majority will reduce their safety behaviour.

-6-

Conventional Conventional Cultures insist on a “blind” loyalty to all rules and regulations; even when they don’t make sense. There is also a prevailing atmosphere of maintaining the status quo and maintaining a conservative approach to new ideas. This culture might have some positive impact on basic safety practices. Basic rules that always need to be followed will be. However, the many negative aspects of this culture override whatever benefits derive from it. It is important to distinguish between Conventional and Constructive norms, as they relate to rules and regulations. People in Constructive Cultures understand very well the importance of following certain rules and procedures. The difference is that they are encouraged to adapt those rules and procedures in new situations and when common sense dictates. Whereas Conventional Cultures penalize any deviation from established rules and procedures, regardless of the reasons; while not penalizing the following of rules, regardless of how inappropriate. As well, a Conventional Culture discourages the investigation or development of new procedures and enhancements; so that these organizations become worse over time –especially in rapidly changing environments and industries. Dependent Cultures Dependent Cultures discourage decision-making at all levels – but especially at the lower ones. People do not want to take ownership or responsibility. A Dependent Culture fosters a feeling of “my effort doesn’t count”, so why bother? In one sense, it could be said that discouraging any initiative or even small risks will lead to fewer accidents. However, the many negative aspects of this culture make it negatively correlated to a Safety Culture. The major problem is that people in this type of culture will be unable to react in any new or unanticipated situation. Another problem with this style is that it discourages upward communication. Therefore, less than ideal procedures will be followed, new ideas squashed and questions will be left unasked. Finally, a Dependent Culture encourages members to develop a “That’s not my job” attitude, which contradicts the basic edict of a Safety Culture. Avoidance Cultures Avoidance Cultures encourage people to do nothing, resist change, avoid conflict and be non-committal. People are penalized for showing initiative or taking a chance. This is probably the worst possible culture for organizational effectiveness and for safety practices. Unsafe practices and situations will be ignored, because fixing them brings a high probability of punishment and no probability of a reward: If it’s a bad fix, you will be punished. If it is a good fix, you will either be blamed for not fixing it properly or for not fixing it sooner.

-7-

The Aggressive / Defensive Cluster and Safety Cultures Organizations that score high in the Aggressive / Defensive Cluster encourage members to be tough, argumentative and superior. Managers especially, are encouraged to be autocratic perfectionists who do not tolerate mistakes and incompetence, and rely on punishment to correct problems. Aggressive / Defensive Cultures cause poor motivation, stress, and dissatisfaction among employees. These organizations experience high turnover, high sick pay, increased grievances, and inconsistent service and product quality. This cluster does not encourage a Safety Culture because it creates high levels of stress (which leads to mistakes) and discourages ownership of safe practices. Moreover, this type of culture results in high employee turnover and absenteeism, both of which will increase the number of new and inexperienced workers to be on the work site. The OCI® styles that comprise the Aggressive / Defensive Cluster and how they impact a Safety Culture, are: Oppositional Cultures Oppositional Cultures encourage people to be cynical, argumentative and always find fault. Members are rewarded (usually by peer recognition) to oppose any new ideas or initiatives and to be critical, while refusing to accept criticism. A certain amount of Oppositional behaviour could have a positive impact on safety. If people feel comfortable in looking for and pointing out mistakes in safety procedures, then improvements in existing procedures can be made. While some oppositional behaviour might be desirable in an organization, the amount of such behaviour that is ideal is relatively small. Organizations that have a predominantly Oppositional Culture will do a lot more harm to overall safety than good. The problem is that people (management especially) are rewarded for always being cynical, argumentative and oppositional. This leads to a chaotic environment where no one knows what is expected or required. Initiative is stifled and people are de-motivated. Safety initiatives will be viewed with cynicism and opposition, regardless of their obvious assets. Power Cultures A Power Culture is one that emphasizes the importance of following the “chain of command” for all decisions. In other words, the more senior you are, the more decision making authority you have; regardless of knowledge and ability. (It is assumed that knowledge and ability correlates with managerial position.) And conversely, the lower on the hierarchy you are, the less decision making authority you have; again, regardless of knowledge and ability. Any positive aspects that a Power Culture might have on safety are far outweighed by the negative ones. While one might argue that safety could be enhanced by a very safety conscious autocrat, the outcomes of this style easily counter any gains. First, a Power -8-

Culture stifles any upward communication and decision making at the “shop floor” level. All safety decisions will be made by people who are not on the “front lines”. This practice seldom works on even basic rules and procedures. Second, a Power Culture encourages Dependent behaviour in subordinates. Therefore, decisions in emergency situations will always be made by the most senior person and followed by everyone else, even when they are obviously wrong. There are many recorded instances where disaster could have been avoided if the leader had a more participative management style. (Note that Power or autocratic behaviour is not situational. Even in emergency or crisis situations, a Constructive Style is better. Being Constructive does not mean that you can’t give quick, on-the-spot orders, nor does it mean that you are democratic. It simply means that you are open to others’ ideas and suggestions – if there is time.) Competitive Cultures A Competitive Culture encourages members, departments and units to compete with one another. Typically, rewards are given to winners and punishment or negative reinforcement provided for losers. Many mission statements carry some reference to competitiveness. But, if you read the context in which it is written, the authors usually want an achievement organization, rather than a competitive one. Most organizations want as their goal to be the best they can, not to simply settle for being better than some other organization. The exaggerated focus on winning and competing seldom produces the desired effect – even in sports organizations. Competitive Cultures encourage people to take on easy assignments, while shunning more challenging ones. They foster a great deal of resentment among its members. And, an over-emphasis on competitiveness can lead to sabotage and other unhealthy behaviour at the expense of cooperation and affiliation. A Competitive Culture is never as effective as an Achievement Culture in providing end results – especially in areas such as Safety. A Safety Culture is promoted by cooperation and team work. Competitiveness (the need to beat someone else) stifles both. A Safety Culture is a win-win culture; while Competitiveness is a win-lose one. Perfectionistic Cultures A Perfectionistic Culture expects members to work hard, long hours, never make a mistake and set unrealistically high goals. In this type of culture, mistakes are not tolerated, team work is not encouraged and most people experience high degrees of stress. It could be argued that a small amount of Perfectionism will encourage a Safety Culture. But it must be remembered that a Constructive Culture will produce much more positive results. In fact, anything higher than a moderate score (relative to the Constructive Styles) in Perfectionistic will have adverse affects on Safety. In a Perfectionistic Culture, goals are not just set high – they are set unrealistically high. Procedures and directives are not just precise – they are precise, even when it’s unnecessary. And rather than work hard and make work a high priority, people are expected to work hard, long hours and view -9-

work as more important than anything else. These points, rather than producing a Safety Culture encourage people to blindly follow rules and procedures, even when wrong; and, give up on trying to achieve seemingly unattainable goals. As well, this type of culture creates an unnecessarily stressful work environment. Perfectionism, like the other Aggressive-Defensive styles will inhibit the creativity and initiative that is needed when a new hazardous situation occurs for which no emergency procedure exists. The fear of making a mistake and producing anything that isn’t perfect in an already stressful situation, freezes the development of an appropriate ad hoc response. A Constructive Culture will produce all of the desirable aspects of Perfectionism, such as competence, persistence, and the pursuit of excellence, without any of the negative ones.

The Constructive Cluster and Safety Cultures Organizations with Constructive Cultures encourage members work to their full potential, by setting and achieving challenging goals; creatively solving problems; embracing and/or initiating change; cooperating within work groups and with other departments; and, helping themselves and others to grow and develop. Organizations with a high Constructive Cluster report high employee satisfaction, superior customer service, and superior service and product quality – all leading to long-term organizational effectiveness. All aspects of a Safety Culture are enhanced, if the overall Organizational Culture is a constructive one. Conversely, an organization that does not have a Constructive Culture cannot hope to achieve a Safety Culture – especially long term. A Constructive Culture will have a positive impact on education, written procedures, workplace design, incident reporting, equipment design, maintenance and testing, and management directives. And most important, a Constructive Culture will be more effective at following rules than a Conventional one. It will be more effective at catching and pointing out mistakes than an Oppositional one. And, it will be more effective at reducing mistakes and operating safely than a Perfectionistic one. The OCI® styles that comprise the Constructive Cluster and how they impact a Safety Culture, are: Achievement Cultures Achievement Cultures emphasize the setting of challenging, but attainable goals; the practice of proactive planning; and the pursuit of excellence. The prevailing attitude in Achievement Cultures is; “My effort counts - I can make a difference.” So, the prevailing behaviour is one of action – fixing problems, taking responsibility, accomplishing goals. These attitudes, values and behaviours greatly enhance a Safety Culture. Members are encouraged to be proactive in identifying improvement opportunities, being responsible for every safety measure and goal, and taking pride in accomplishments such as safety records. Achievement Cultures exemplify the Japanese concept of Kaisan – constant

- 10 -

improvement in everything. It is important to remember that in these types of culture, achievement permeates every level of the organization – from the top down to the lowest level. Therefore, everyone will “take ownership” for all aspects of safety. Self-Actualizing Cultures Self-Actualizing Cultures encourage members to be creative, value quality over quantity, enjoy their job and seek ways to grow and develop. These organizations foster two-way communication and personal integrity. Although some “old school” managers believe that this type of “free spirit” culture will hurt productivity, the opposite is true. SelfActualizing Cultures typically have members, who on their own volition, will work long hours when necessary, to finish a project, complete even simple tasks well and “go above and beyond” normal expectations – all because they enjoy their work. Having a Self-Actualizing Culture will greatly enhance a safety culture. First, members will be constantly thinking of new, creative ways of making the environment safer. They will be encouraged to communicate ideas that they have, at any time – not just at the monthly safety meetings. Second, Self-Actualizing Cultures encourage quality over quantity and thus, safety over productivity. Third, Self-Actualizing Cultures are organizations that promote and maintain personal integrity. Safety issues will not be hidden or glossed over. And fourth, a Self-Actualizing Culture encourages thinking in new and unique ways and is therefore, the one that is best equipped to deal with nonanticipatory response situations and efficiently develop ad hoc strategies that are effective. Humanistic – Encouraging Cultures Humanistic–Encouraging Cultures encourage members to treat each other with dignity and respect, value and support others’ ideas, encourage others to grow and develop and resolve conflict in a constructive manner. Leadership is person-centered, encouraging leaders to be coaches and mentors. As a result, Humanistic-Encouraging Cultures are the most effective in developing and tapping the potential of existing human resources. Humanistic-Encouraging Cultures will greatly promote a Safety Culture. Members will be encouraged to teach other, newer members not only what the safety rules and procedures are, but why they are important. This develops a genuine respect for the need to follow rules and procedures (as opposed to following them out of fear of punishment). It also teaches every member to be a safety leader. The other important attitude that Humanistic – Encouraging Cultures develop in its members is a deep respect and concern for others. This on its own, with no safety rules or regulations, would promote workplace safety: Because an organization that values and respects its human resources above all others, is one that will protect those human resources above everything else.

- 11 -

Affiliative Cultures Affiliative Cultures are organizations that put a great deal of emphasis on teambuilding, interpersonal relations, and participative management. They tend to focus on group accomplishments and satisfaction versus individual ones. Affiliative Cultures encourage self-management and group decision-making. Leaders tend to view themselves as team members with a leadership role as opposed to managers. This type of culture will promote a Safety Culture as part of the group’s overall goals. The collegial atmosphere will encourage members to “watch out” for each other and to set group goals for safety. As well, Affiliative Cultures encourage honesty and commitment in communications and actions. All of which, are key points to having a successful Safety Culture.

Steps to Producing a Cultural Transformation There are four steps to a cultural transformation: Test, Action, Retest and Review.10 Each step involves the use of assessment instruments, designed to show strengths and development needs and strategies for improvement. Step One – Test As a start, it is very important for organizations to measure not only the prevailing organizational culture, but other goals or outcomes that are important to the organization. All members need to know first, where they and the organization “score” on important outcomes such as safety, quality, productivity, customer service and employee satisfaction – all of which will be impacted by the culture of the organization. At the same time, the company must conduct an organizational culture survey. As mentioned earlier, one of the most respected instruments on the market today is Human Synergistics OCI®. The OCI Report shows the organization’s current culture, its ideal culture and the gaps between the two. It also shows the strength (or intensity) of the culture and correlations between the culture and outcomes such as commitment to customer service. It can also provide a sub-group analysis. Even if the organization is quite certain that their organizational culture is less than satisfactory and is committed to changing it, this is a necessary step to quantitatively measure any improvements. Another organizational assessment from Human Synergistics that can assist organizations at this step is the Organizational Effectiveness InventoryTM (OEI). The OEI measures the cause and effect of the organization’s culture. As such, it can measure some of the key outcomes for the company, plus indicate the levers for change (used in Step Two)11. While not necessary at this stage, the OEI can save time and increase “buy in” for Step Two.

- 12 -

Step Two – Action Once the need for change has been identified, the next step is to initiate action. There are four categories of causal factors that can affect the culture of an organization. They are: • Philosophy and Values – Organizational mission, employee involvement, and customer service orientation. • Supervisory / Leadership Skills – Quality of communications, distribution of influence, sources of power, goal setting and facilitation. • Human Resources Management – Selection & placement, training & development, respect, empowerment and appraisals & reinforcement. • Job Design – Autonomy, variety, feedback, task identity, significance and interdependence. (Note: in the OEITM , these are measured and reported as 31 different causal factors, grouped into nine categories.) The first place to start is to establish the philosophy and values of the organization. By using focus groups, organizations can establish what is important to them. Often, management assumes that everyone knows what the organization’s values are, but this is seldom the case. For “High Reliability Organizations”, developing the values of a Safety Culture would be a key outcome. There are obvious overlaps in the above set of causal factors. One common thread of them all is the skills of the supervisory / leadership team. Therefore, the most common intervention involves leadership training. And this is usually where most organizations fail in their cultural transformation. Failure usually occurs because of a lack of commitment to the training or because the training does not address management’s responsibility to leading a Constructive Culture. A key focus of the management training has to be the development of the proper attitudes, values and beliefs in leaders and in others. This is a two-step process. The first step is to help the leader develop constructive thinking and behaviour styles that correspond with the constructive culture styles. The second step is to help them develop the leadership strategies necessary to impact the constructive thinking and behaviour styles of others. The training should also involve basic leadership and management skill development where necessary. An integral part of the training should involve the use of individual assessments. These greatly improve the learning experience for adults. Adults learn best, if there is participation, repetition, relevance, transference and feedback.12 Individual assessments contribute to all of these principles. When implementing change strategies in human resources, it is important to not only look at the systems and standards that are in place, but to also look at the human resources practices. While most Human Resources Departments have updated, sophisticated human resources systems, often the actual implementation and usage of those systems is not what was intended. For example, a company’s performance review program is usually set up to accurately and fairly rate an individual’s performance and

- 13 -

then provide commensurate rewards based on that performance. In actual practice, however, the performance review process is often superficial, at best. The important aspect to remember is to overhaul the human resources management so that it aligns with a Constructive Culture.

Probably the most difficult set of causal factors to change are the ones dealing with job design. Usually, organizations will not allow changes in job designs in the short term because of the wide-reaching effect those changes will have on other areas. However, small changes can often be made at the departmental level without affecting other areas. Jobs can be expanded (horizontally and vertically) to provide more variety, less repetition and more significance. Step 3 – Retest This step would involve using the same assessment tools as in Step One. The primary reason is to re-measure the culture of the organization, as well as outcomes to determine what gains have been made and to analyze what further interventions are required. If both the test and retest measured sub-group cultures, further interventions can better pin-point areas to focus on. The timing of the retest is usually 12 months after the test, providing that the action steps were implemented in a timely fashion. If they were not, then more time needs to be allowed because the retest is really a measurement of the effectiveness of the action plans. (Note that if an organization is conducting testing and retesting as a method of assessing action plans, the sample sizes must be large enough to be statistically valid.) Usually, the retest will show gains in many areas; but will still indicate many gaps between the new “current” and ideal culture. This will suggest more training initiatives and more emphasis on some of the other causal factors. Often the second phase of training involves the general employee population, teaching such skills as communications, teambuilding, and personal leadership. Step 4 – Review The Review stage signifies the end of the project. Here the organization should analyze the gains in culture and outcomes. It should also include an analysis of the change agents. There might even a cost-benefit analysis conducted.

Summary Despite the best intentions of internal and external consultants in developing and implementing a Safety Culture, they will not be successful unless there exists a strong, constructive organizational culture. The need for a strong Safety Culture, especially in “High Reliability Organizations” cannot be understated. But many organizations that try - 14 -

to implement one, rely on either passive-defensive practices such as coercion and rule adherence; or aggressive-defensive ones such as the use of authority or competition. When the senior management of an organization realizes the implications of organizational culture as well as how culture impacts behaviour, they then can understand the correlations between a Safety Culture and an Organizational Culture. Further, they will realize the other gains in organizational effectiveness that a Constructive Organizational Culture provides.

Bibliography 1

Peters, Thomas J. and Waterman, Robert H., In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.

2

Cooke, Robert A. and Lafferty, J. Clayton. Organizational Culture Inventory®. Plymoth, MI: Human Synergistics, 1989. 3

Szumal, Janet L., OCI Interpretation & Development Guide. Chicago: Human Synergistics / Centre for Applied Research, 2003. 4

Harber, Sonja B and Shurberg, Deborah, Safety Culture in the Nuclear versus Non-Nuclear Organization., BNL Technical Report No. 63336, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1993. 5

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Convention on Nuclear Safety Second Review Meeting – April 2002, Responses to Questions Presented to Canada. Ottawa, 2002.

6

Harber, Sonja B and Shurberg, Deborah, Organizational Culture During the Accident Response Process: Proceedings of the Risk Management – Expanding Horizons, Ronald A. Knief, Editor: La Grange Park, Ill.: American Nuclear Society’s Power Division. 7

Harber, Sonja B and Shurberg, Deborah, The Nuclear Organization and Management Analysis Concept Methodology: Four Years Later. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1993. 8

Gourley, Michael, Qantas ETOMS Safety Reliability Survey. Human Synergistics NZ Limited, Aukland, NZ, 2005. 9

Peltier, Robert, Strategic Culture Change Works Wonders. Power - McGraw-Hill, 2004.

10

Jones, Q, Dunphy, D., Fishman, R., Larné, and Canter, C., In Great Company – Unlocking the Secrets of Cultural Transformation: Human Synergistics New Zealand, 2006

11

Cooke, Robert A., Organizational Effectiveness Inventory. Arlington Heights, Il: Human Synergistics / Centre for Applied Research, 1997.

12

Schwind, H.E., Das, H., Werther, W.B., and Davis, K. Canadian Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., Toronto, 1995.

- 15 -