Improving Safety Culture in Public Transportation (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

33 Safety Culture Outside Public Transportation Introduction An important part of this research was to examine indus- tries and companies outside public transportation that have created positive safety cultures and identify lessons that can benefit safety culture at transit agencies. Identifying Interview Candidates Companies to be interviewed were recognized industry leaders that have made significant and sustained improve- ments to their safety cultures. The primary goals of the inter- views were to determine how these improvements were made to their safety cultures and to identify key findings that might benefit public transportation systems. The research team compiled a list of 21 candidate com- panies, drawing from the literature review; National Safety Council, OSHA, and various industry and trade organization awards and honors; and panel recommendations. Diverse candidates were sought, including companies that were large and small, union and nonunion, and singular and plural in services offered—much like transit agencies of various sizes and with various services. Following panel approval of the list of candidate companies and of the interview protocol, the research team began to contact senior safety executives and managers from the list of candidate organizations for interviews. Nine of the organizations agreed to interviews and to provide pertinent materials. Each interview was approximately 1 hour long. This chapter presents the key findings from these interviews and the materials received. List of Interview Companies and Participants The individuals interviewed represent a cross-section of industries, and each interview contributed valuable informa- tion on safety culture that will benefit transit agencies. The list of those interviewed is shown in Table 5. Summary of Current Safety Cultures in Nine Companies The interviewees all take pride in their companies as safety leaders within their industries. When most inter- viewees discussed the priority given to safety within their company’s culture, they said safety is a principle rather than just a priority. To label safety a priority suggests a possible lack of permanence; while principles are deeply ingrained in a corporate culture and seldom change, priorities may shift by the hour. Overwhelmingly, positive safety cultures were described as being deeply ingrained at every level of the organization, and each interviewee expressed a belief that employees are the company’s most valuable assets; keeping the workplace safe and protecting employees from safety incidents make the workplace and the company more productive. Interviewees also stated that all their employees are champions of safety culture and that, while it’s important that top-level executives exhibit positive safety practices and demonstrate a commit- ment to safety, the real responsibility for safety in day-to-day operations must rest with each employee. The research team compared and contrasted performance at the nine companies against the same set of safety culture components or elements that emerged during the nine transit agency case studies in Chapter 2: • Strong leadership, management, and organizational com- mitment to safety; • Employee/union shared ownership and participation; • Effective safety communication; • Proactive use of safety data, key indicators, and bench - marking; • Organizational learning; • Consistent safety reporting and investigation for prevention; • Employee recognition and rewards; and • High level of organizational trust. C H A P T E R 3

34 Key findings from the interviews with companies outside public transportation are presented in the following, and more detailed information may be found in Appendix C. Strong Leadership, Management, and Organizational Commitment to Safety All the interviewees consider the CEO and the board of directors as vital to their safety culture, but employees at the field and supervisory levels are overwhelmingly acknowledged to be the key players in keeping the workplace safe and making safety the most fundamental component of day-to-day work. Some companies create opportunities for the CEO to interact with employees through site visits or webcasts and make safety the first item on the agenda for all of these encounters. Safety is a key point in all corporate meetings and correspondence, from board meetings to daily worksite meetings. Employee/Union Shared Ownership and Participation Companies with positive safety cultures include employees at every level in the definition and execution of their primary processes. Table 5. Completed interview contact list. Company Title Industry AA Safety Coordinator Manufacturing BB Vice President (VP), Risk Management Construction/equipment rental CC Director of Capability and Compliance Aviation manufacturing VP, Environment, Health and Safety DD General Manager, Safety Railroad VP, Safety EE Director, Environment, Health, and Safety Chemical manufacturing Director, Safety Programs FF Director, Global Employee Safety Practice Multiple products Senior Public Affairs Specialist GG Safety Programs Manager Oil/gas production and distribution HH Corporate Safety Director Construction Corporate VP, Business Development and Marketing II Head of Safety Office Airline Senior VP, Quality Manager, and Head of Operation Management and Supply

35 Most of the companies interviewed employ union workers, and all of these companies agree that the key to safety success is a joint labor–management relationship and management– union cooperation. With the exception of one company, where most business is done in the Midwest and unions are typically less active than in other areas of the country, all companies agree that lesser distinction between union and corporate employees leads to higher-functioning safety cul- ture results. A common thread among the companies with significant union representation and successful safety pro- grams and cultures is the ability to work with union repre- sentation on safety committees and councils. More detailed information on the aspects of employee/union shared owner- ship and participation may be found in Appendix C. Effective Safety Communication The nine companies use a wide range of methods to com- municate with their employees. They each communicate fre- quently and allocate significant resources to communication. Many companies use message devices, such as LED (light- emitting diode) screens in facilities and mounted on equip- ment to reinforce the safety message. Weekly management conference calls at one company are conducted and led by the CEO and begin with a review and discussion of safety performance and safety incidents. The company also conducts quarterly meetings in which all employees are invited to participate. Key performance indica- tors, goals, and objectives, and any training needs that might be unmet, are discussed in an open forum. After all safety issues are addressed, other teams, such as sales and opera- tions, are given the opportunity to address any issues they deem necessary. While the company is union organized, and attendees at the meetings are not paid for this time (meetings are after-hours, typically lasting from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.), the attendance rate is approximately 85% of the available workforce in any region. Another company communicates safety points and inves- tigation results at morning stand-up meetings at a local level. These meetings are typically conducted in manufacturing facilities and include reviews of safety issues or activities that are relevant from the preceding 24 hours. The company believes that the best way to communicate safety informa- tion is employee to employee. Supervisor–employee discus- sions are viewed as a positive tool to communicate safety information. Supervisors in a third company conduct a weekly locker- room talk that uses actual case studies of past safety incidents. Several companies believe that open and available informa- tion is key to safety success and communicate with employees regularly and share safety concerns, issues, and solutions in frequent e-mail correspondence. One of these companies worked with a development company to create a smart-phone application that puts crisis management flowcharts at people’s fingertips. Another company uses 55 leading safety culture indicators and monitors them in real time. When the numbers indicate that there is a problem, the issues are identified collaboratively and discussed, and all parties work together toward address- ing the problem. The CEO informs the board of directors monthly of all safety issues addressed. The board of directors monitors the degree of accountability in the field as well as at the management level. Proactive Use of Safety Data, Performance Indicators, and Benchmarking Because the size of the companies interviewed varied, pro- cesses that monitor safety culture and safety performance vary as well. These processes produce both quantitative and qualitative results. Some companies express the importance of measuring themselves against organizations in their industry. One company, however, believes that benchmarking against other companies is not as rigorous a process as establish- ing the highest possible standards internally and measuring itself against those standards. Overwhelmingly, all companies interviewed expressed the importance of being open and honest with all employees about information gained from performance measurement practices and allowing employees to play an active role in the process by providing feedback and suggesting ways to improve safety performance. Various means are employed to ensure continuous improve- ment in safety culture. All companies interviewed expressed the importance of periodic surveys and interviews with employees and management to gauge their perceptions of safety culture and safety culture improvement. One company surveys employees annually, while others believe that it is more beneficial to gather this information every 2 years or more; this allows employees more direct experience with any changes or adjustments to safety programs. Another company gathers focus group data every 18 months. Previously, one company had used employee safety culture survey data as a gauge for climate and culture in its plants. However, at the time of the interviews, this company was mak- ing an effort to use near misses, incidents, and other leading indicators to design enhancement programs. Another com- pany tracks dozens of leading and lagging metrics through its management system and uses these data to improve safety programs and performance. Organizational Learning According to Senge (1990), learning organizations are those in which “people continually expand their capacity to

36 create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.” Each of the organizations interviewed uses reporting systems analysis to gauge organizational learning/ safety training needs. Most of these companies make a great effort to make safety information and the lessons learned from that information available to all employees across the business and/or across industries. This access to informa- tion allows the culture to remain open and allows employees to actively engage in the safety process. Company AA posts safety information on an online safety bulletin board; Compa- nies DD and EE employ company-wide intranets to disseminate safety facts and information; Company DD produces a monthly safety DVD that is distributed to every division, allowing every employee an opportunity to review with a supervisor; and Company II maintains its safety tracking system online using 55 factors developed specifically for the organization. Training and Education Most companies delineate the qualifications and respon- sibilities for each job and include detailed training require- ments. For example: • Company II mandates a certain number of annual training hours for each position and uses its real-time safety data system to monitor positions for additional training needs and to adjust schedules based on that information. • Company HH monitors employee progress and gauges retention of information based on safety performance, and when employee performance indicates a need for addi- tional training, it is provided. • Company GG’s training and compliancy insurance needs are monitored through the management system. Measure- ment tools and solutions to training needs are tailored to fit the person and the position. • Company CC bases training needs and programs on OSHA requirements and results from internal reporting. • Company DD uses company-paid union officers as safety trainers; these trainers are responsible for sharing a mes- sage that the “symptoms” that indicate that safety may be compromised are ambiguity, distraction, fixation, and complacency. • Company BB makes training employee-centered, train- ing a “handful” of employees on new equipment when it arrives and allowing those employees to train others in the workforce who will be using that equipment; employees who are training others are compensated for their time. The company believes that this process encourages a self- directed and empowered workforce. • Company EE has online training resources that are available to employees all over the world in their native languages. These programs are available any time of day, increasing the likelihood that employees will take advantage of them. • Each company shared a belief that while management- led training programs can be beneficial, the most effec- tive form of training and performance improvement is employee-to-employee interaction. Company BB views mentorships and coaching as being essential both to its success and to building its craft. While there may be only one person assigned to a specific role on a job site, he or she is responsible for ensuring that an equally capable, safety-minded employee can take over in an absence or emergency. Company CC believes that strong mentoring and succession planning around safety and safety culture leadership enhance organizational learning. • While Company GG recognizes the value of mentorship and coaching programs, a company-wide mentorship and coaching program does not exist. Some regions have a sup- port system in place within smaller segments of the company to ensure that safety is a focus in each and every position. • Company HH considers it a priority to engage the CEO and corporate safety director in mentorship and coach- ing opportunities. They interact regularly with area safety directors and visit job sites and area offices to connect with employees on a regular basis. Specialty groups get together and mentor and coach each other in different areas; each office has distinct areas of expertise. Some might build sky- scrapers and others might build medical offices. Each group is viewed as having valuable contributions to make to the other. The opportunity to share information is valued. Recruitment and Succession Planning Senge states that only those organizations able to adapt quickly and effectively will be able to excel in their field or market and that two conditions are essential: (1) the ability to design the organization to match the intended or desired outcomes, and (2) the ability to recognize when the initial direction of the organization will not lead to the desired out- come and adjust accordingly (Senge, 1990). Part of designing an organization to match desired outcomes and adjusting as necessary has to do with the recruitment of new employees and succession planning. Each interview participant believes that recruiting employ- ees who are safety-centered and who think in alignment with corporate philosophy makes the organization a better place. The large organizations believe that employees can be taught specific skills but that alignment with corporate philosophy (especially safety) is a more essential criterion. At the time of the interviews, Company DD was in a unique position to improve culture, with 50% of its workforce having been

37 with the company for 5 years or fewer. This has afforded the company the opportunity to recruit a large percentage of its workforce for safety through a process that includes safety messaging on advertisements for open positions and a set of 10 to 20 key interview questions about candidates’ safety expe- rience on the job—such as the extent of past involvement in safety committees. Companies that use subcontractors place great emphasis on those subcontractors’ safety practices and philosophy. Company GG’s safety program manager shared his concern that incorporating safety and safety culture con- siderations into the recruiting process may be fraught with potential legal issues. At the same time, he said that the com- pany is looking into ways to do just that. Company BB and Company GG have formal succession planning in place, allowing employee mentorship programs to feed this process. While Company BB certainly prefers to operate with a “grow-your-own” philosophy, they are not hesitant to provide positive recommendations to employees who have opportunities for growth in other companies before something is available for them in-house. The only positions for which Company BB regularly recruits outside the com- pany are in senior financial and sales/marketing management. Candidates are recruited with safety in mind. Regardless of the length of time a person has served or the qualifications he or she has, safety is a key part of the succession planning process. Consistent Safety Reporting and Investigation for Prevention In the majority of interviews with companies outside the public transportation industry, employee involvement and open reporting environments were found to be common threads in discussions of safety reporting and investigation. Each interviewee made it a point to say that, since employees are a company’s most valued assets, their participation in safety reporting and issue resolution is vital. Several compa- nies expressed pride in the fact that, while anonymous report- ing mechanisms are available, incidents and near misses are almost always reported openly. One company attributes an increase in incident reporting to active union representation on safety committees. Many interviewees shared the belief that, when employees are engaged and interested in finding resolutions to safety issues, they are more enthusiastic than apprehensive about reporting and more likely to contribute to creating solutions and resolutions. They also become more engaged in the safety process. One company places great emphasis on ensuring that safety investigations are not fault-finding processes. In most cases, when incidents are investigated, employees are kept on the job—not because the company is driven by production, but because it recognizes that employees need to work. Engag- ing in a nonthreatening process leads to greater cooperation and better fact finding. There is no punishment associated with the fact-finding process; rather, there are opportunities to remain engaged in the work environment and engaged in safety issue resolution. This company and three other compa- nies specifically mentioned their use of a root cause analysis process that involves employees at various levels within the company. These fact-finding processes and root cause analy- ses are clearly delineated and create a sense of progress around what might otherwise be a demoralizing event. Employees at every level, often up to and including the CEO, examine near misses and incidents to identify key facts and contributors, create reports, implement processes for improving safety, and analyze the effectiveness of such fact-finding processes and root cause analyses. Across the board in the companies interviewed, one of the most important elements of root cause analysis is that results and findings are shared with all employees. Another company stated that it is vigilant when investigating near misses, which are entered into a company-wide database. While there is little punitive action taken, a close eye is kept on those involved, allowing the company to address any trends in risk-taking behavior that might arise. Employee Recognition and Rewards Views on incentives and rewards varied significantly among the interviewees. While some companies believe that incen- tivizing safety performance leads to improvement, others are wary that the unintended consequence of the incentives would be employees not reporting accidents and incidents in order to secure rewards. One company offers employees with strong safety records added vacation days and sporting event tickets, while another offers monetary rewards to corporate employees and safety-related gear to field employees who demonstrate a commitment to safety excellence. One company’s safety program manager expressed a con- cern about the balance of incentivizing safety versus the risk of inhibiting reporting of near misses and incidents. The com- pany is trying to steer leadership away from offering incentives tied to measuring lagging indicators. A revised approach seeks a more balanced incentive program that includes analysis of leading indicators such as hazard reports, near-miss reports, and participation in inspections, surveys, and risk assessments. Conclusions Following are conclusions regarding safety culture outside public transportation. • Each participating company emphasized the importance of strong leadership. The companies with the strongest safety cultures consistently noted the role and level of involvement of the CEO. One company said that safety consciousness should be “in the DNA” of the CEO.

38 and there is unanimous agreement on the importance of near-miss reporting. • Employee recognition and rewards is the area in which there is the greatest diversity of practice within the group of companies interviewed; some use employee rewards, but others are concerned that the unintended consequence of such rewards could be employees not reporting accidents and incidents in order to win the awards. • Each interviewee expressed the need for a trusting envi- ronment, which encourages open reporting of near misses or unsafe actions, potentially forestalling disaster; a good indication of a successful safety culture is the willingness of employees to waive the option of anonymity to place their names on a report or safety document; such a level of trust clearly demonstrates a positive safety culture. • All organizations with positive safety cultures empower employees to champion safety values. • The companies interviewed employ many different ways to communicate with their employees. What is common to all is the intensity of communications and the significant amount of resources allocated to that purpose. • All of these companies accumulate and analyze data and use it to great advantage; most use employee surveys. • The benefits realized in the areas of retention, recruitment, and return on investment that stem from the significant training expenditures characteristic of the private sector are frequently not fully appreciated by public transporta- tion organizations. • The practice of reporting and investigating in an environ- ment free from fear is common to all companies interviewed,