Organization Safety Culture - Literature review Example

Organization Safety Culture Report Name: Course: Professor: University: Date: Executive Summary The Australian Work Health and Safety Act of 2011, holds the employers liable for injuries or accident occurring in the workplace to any employee. The management of an enterprise is required to sufficiently conduct orientation on the premises and machinery to new workers. Further, it should enlighten the employees on the need for observation of the safety regulations, and train the employees on the proper modalities of safe handling the machinery. Full comprehension and adherence to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulations by the employees is only possible through keen supervision. The fundamental purpose of this paper is to enlighten the management on the reasons why the machine operators in the Sopranos’ factories are inclined to take risks. Further, the paper gives relevant control measures that can enable the management to make workers embrace the OHS protocols and guidelines for their own safety. The literature study informs the senior management on their legal obligations towards enforcement of OHS systems in the company. The employer should be adequately conversant with their obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2000 and the Occupation Health and Safety Regulations Act of 2001. Adherence to these enactments ensures that an employer doesn’t incur a loss from the compensation of injured employees. In addition, the inhibition of accident on the factory floor makes the company have a better corporate perception in the general public. The literature encompasses the studies into the observed behaviors and provides theoretical controls that have been researched by scholars to curb risk taking. This paper addresses the challenges of the employee willingly risking their safety in the factory by exposure to hazardous machines. Employees have the vital skills to produce the consumer goods in every factory. The labour they provide are a basic production resource. Therefore foolproof modalities to curb the phenomena of willful risk-taking are diligently recommended. Accidents from reckless behaviour can be costly; the resources used to compensate such workers diminish the company’s net profits. The company’s corporate image would also be jeopardized by a high number of casualty’s, thus, risking loss of clientele due to the sensitivity of the company’s production niche. Table of Contents Introduction 5 Literature Review 7 Safety Culture 8 Safety climate 12 Conclusion 15 Introduction The Australian Work Health and Safety Act of 2011 require employers to be responsible for any injuries or accident occurring in the workplace to any employee. The factory management is required to conduct sufficient orientation on the premises and machinery, enlighten the employees on the need for observation of the safety regulations, and train the employees on the proper modalities of handling the machinery safely. Full comprehension and adherence to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulations by the employees is only possible through keen supervision. The employers also need to consult with the employees while making the Occupational Health and Safety policies applicable to the factory. The machine operators may offer indispensable insight gained from experience of working in the factory’s facilities or gained from other work experiences. Consultation with the employees ensures that the policy framework is comprehensive; encompassing all the possible guidelines to ensure that the employees work with minimal risk to injuries or accidents. The management is obliged to avail sufficient persona protective working gear to enable the workers perform their duties safely. In addition to the provision of safety gear to the workers, the management must also ensure that the employees are adequately trained to use the work safety equipment. The workers in the factory need to be provided with equipment such as goggles, overalls and appropriate footwear. The factory’s management should ensure that there are regular checks and assessments of the prevalent the Occupational Health and Safety structures and processes to cover for all possible risks in the working environment. The nature of the risks existing in the working environment varies from time to time, thus, the employers are obliged to ensure that there are timely adjustments to the OHS policy and that the adjustment. Immediate implementation is important to ensure that delays do not result in casualties in the factory. The factory’s management should ensure that there is provision of adequate amenities for the employees working in the factory. This relieves the workers of the mental agony of having to improvise to cater for events such as periodic rests or basic needs such as appropriate sanitation amenities. The management is also obliged to ensure that there are regular risk assessment procedures on the factory’s premises as well as the operation of machinery to come up with adequate safety procedures. Basically, the employer should be adequately conversant with their obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2000 and the Occupation Health and Safety Regulations Act of 2001. Adherence to these enactments ensures that an employer doesn’t incur a loss from the compensation of injured employees. In addition, it ensures the inhibition of accidents on the factory floor, making the company have a better corporate perception of the general public. This report outlines the legal responsibilities that employers have to ensure a safe workplace. In addition, the report explains how a safety culture can improve safety behaviours of employees. Recommendations that Sopranos should implement to improve the safety culture within the organization are also provided.  Literature Review Employee safety is paramount in every aspect of business operation as labour is a basic unit of production. The cost of mitigating serious injuries to the employee is expensive, thus, several incidences of injuries a year diminish the company’s profit. The process of hiring a best fit for the loss of the labour force due to injured employee is also critical as the time delay leads to underproduction thus further loss. The company’s corporate image would also be jeopardized by a high number of casualty’s, therefore, risking loss of clientele due to the sensitivity of the company’s production niche. In many organizations, especially where operations pose a risk to the employees such as the Sopranos’ Meat Factory, there is a tendency of the workers to neglect the proper safety procedures and disable safety installations in the workplace to maximize production rate. The National Safety Council’s study indicated that there is a prolonged inability of the prevalent management practices to reduce the percentage of employees who choose not to use the safety gear issued to them at the workstations. Apparently, the contradiction can be rationalized by reference to the classical learning principles and the cognitive biases supposition that behavior is influenced by the principle of maximizing expected utility (Zohar, 2002a, p.159). Zohar and Gil adopted the ideology of Herrnstein et al of the cost/benefit analysis; the melioration bias. Also the idea of Plous’ of self-relevant negative-events bias is cited to allude that the experiential benefits of unsafe behavior will always outweigh those of safe practices, and the disparity will tend to be greater with consecutive reinforcement learning effects (Erev, 1998, p.289; Erev and Baron, 2001, p.127). Melioration bias tends to put more emphasis on short-term results when selecting action alternatives. On the other hand, self-relevant negative-events bias makes the workers, oblivious of the lower-probability accidents with the notion that the accident would not occur to them. Workers will, therefore, tend to disregard safe practices due to the cost implications such as the slower pace of working, the discomfort involved with wearing protective gear. More effort is involved in adherence to proper safety protocols. The immediate benefits attached to the negation of the safety procedures, makes the utility of unsafe behavior exceed that of safe practice. The effect is made stronger by the fact that injury or accidents have a low probability with due caution without full adherence to safety code and elicit immediate benefits such as faster production. Adoption of safe behavior by the employees, thus, poses a challenge to many companies’ managements. Safety Culture The organizational culture can be termed as the common values that guide the general perceptions and mannerisms of organizational members. Safety culture is the overall dispensation of the employees of an organization towards their attitudes and beliefs concerning the OHS performance (Cooper, 2000, p. 116.). Though closely related to safety climate, they are distinct concepts that are used to define the trend in OHS performance in an enterprise. Many definitions on safety culture do exist. This scenario is due to the emergence of the concept from many quarters whereby different scholars try to define the term. The idea was initially mentioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in their report on the analysis of the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl. Subsequent investigations into the more recent accidents such as the Piper Alpha Inquiry and the Clapham Junction train crash revealed that indeed it was not the failure of the safety guidelines and measures. It was a deeper phenomenon of safety climate and safety culture of the organizations that compromised the safety management systems that were prevalent (ACSNI, 1993, p.49.). The ACSNI developed the first definition of safety culture as the totality of the individual and group principles, outlooks, opinions, skills and the patterns of mannerisms that influence the adherence to every aspect of the organization’s Occupational Health and Safety Management. Until recently, organizations had no elaborate policy guidelines and procedures to guide the employees on the proper code of operations to ensure that potential accident or injuries in the workplace are minimized. The organizations’ managements only emphasized on adherence to the intricate specifications of machine operations and the minimization of human errors in the workplace, for example, by proper training and experiential learning. However, after the occurrence of the major accidents of the 1980s, such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident, King’s Cross fire and the explosion at the piper alpha, there was a realization that radical changes in the organizations’ were vital. The impacts of such catastrophes could have been kept to a minimal level (Fennell, 1988, p. 127). It was evident that the minimization of such catastrophes would be brought about by the adoption of favorable organizational cultures that would ensure that the employees comprehend the OHS protocols. Appreciation of the safety policies and procedures is vital in enabling employees make it their priority to adhere to the OHS policies and procedures of their organizations (Cullen, 1990, p. 300). It is, therefore, imperative for the company’s management to maintain a high level of commitment to the OHS protocols and make it clearly evident to the front line staff. There needs to be constant communication between the management, supervisors and the manual laborers to ensure that safety goals and objectives are discussed. Therefore, this calls for regular meetings where safety issues are regularly discussed (Dyer, 2001, p. 15). The management of an organization is, thus, very vital in influencing the organization’s safety culture. Past research shows that, the depiction that the junior employees have about the senior management’s perceptions of the OHS, production procedures and other issues such as the planning and discipline are key determinants of the organization’s safety climate. Different levels of management, however, will influence the health and safety perceptions differently. For instance, operations managers influence the protocols through communication to the subordinate staff. Supervisors on, the other hand, influence the atmosphere among the workers by the nature of their interactions with the manual laborers (Thompson, 1998, p.20). The perceptions the front-line workers have on the firms’ management are, therefore, crucial as they influence the success of the laid out policies and procedures. The managements should have no leniency to anyone not using protective gear or negating the safety procedure to hasten their working pace. Firm action should be taken to the laborer and the supervisor if such misdemeanors were overlooked. Only then can the employees be compelled to ensure that the safety gear and practices are obeyed. The nature of employee and management’s relations will determine the propensity of the junior employees to report any accidents or near-miss incidents on the factory floor. These statistics are vital as they indicate areas where there exist high risks of accidents. Also, they shed a light on the areas that the workers need more intense training on how to avert the imminent accidents. These areas would also need to have more prominent warning signs that enable the workers or anyone in the proximity of such areas to exercise maximum caution to avoid any accidents. The managements should, thus, be reasonable in reprimanding the employees if reckless behavior is observed, so that they can build strong rapport with the supervisors and the subordinate employees. Such attitudes make sure that all incidents are accounted for to enable the management to develop reliable safety systems that would be vital in enabling the company keep the number of casualties to the lowest level possible. The level of communication is vital in influencing the level of the willingness of the employees to adhere to the general working safety procedures such as ensuring that the meat is handled in proper sterile conditions. The end user of every product requires some preparation standards. Observance of the general working safety procedures ensures that the employees do not contaminate the products during preparations. The managements drive the fundamental values concerning the production rates and procedures. In this respect, the management enforces the values they desire to be adopted in the workplace. Therefore, employees are less likely not to take work-related risky behavior if the management doesn’t endorse it. Actions such as the manipulation of safety facilities to enable the workers work at a higher pace on the factory floor should be openly discouraged by the supervisors and the top management. The management should endorse the proper production procedures by encouraging their employees to adhere to the procedures. The removal of safety apparatus on the hazardous machinery may be as a result of production related pressures where the management is knowingly or unknowingly motivating risky production. The employees might want to work at faster paces so that they may meet the quota targeted by the management. The management, thus, should ensure that the safety procedures and regulations are not negated. The management of the organization is also tasked with ensuring that safety behavior interventions in the organization are implemented. The management influences the employee’s orientation routines by training them on the appropriate framework for the code of conduct in the factory. The management has the lowest rates of employee turnover, thus, are responsible for instilling the organizations’ spirit concerning the adherence to the OHS. This literature has clearly indicated how the management of an organization is vital to ensuring there is a positive organizational safety culture imparted in every new employee. Positive safety culture ensures that there is the commitment and the spirit of the organization to foster proper safety frameworks. In this regard, the entire organization is able to cooperate in adherence to the code of conduct stipulated in the safety management systems (Pidgeon, 1997, p. 23). According to the above literature, a dynamic safety management system enables proper management of predicted and unforeseen hazards in the workplace. In addition, a rigorous continuous assessment and adjustment of the knowledge about the possible risks to the hazards in the organization is imperative. Lastly, the orientation of the entire workforce in the organization to ensure that they do not indulge in risky practices is beneficial. Safety climate It is the general state of safety perceptions of an organization’s employee at a particular time. Researchers, however, are not sure of the safety climatic factors or dimensions that are vital in influencing the workers’ behaviors. The various definitions of a safety climate have, to a large extent, tended to dictate the variables that the researchers integrate when designing the measures of an organizations’ safety climate (Flin et al, 2000, p. 184). Different scholars formulate different measures of each organization’s safety climate in a bid to ascertain the orientation of the various elements of the organization towards the determination of the level of likelihood of willingness to adopt the safety Management systems protocols. Recommendations Since there are adequate OHS policies in the factory, the senior management needs to indulge more in the production processes to ensure that the laid out policies are followed to the letter. Impromptu supervision on the factory premises should be conducted to ensure that the supervisors and the subordinate staff are unaware when such checks can be made, thus, ensuring they are prepared for any eventuality. Such a task can be assigned to a senior supervisor who reports directly to the manager. Impromptu safety assessments have been seen to keep the employees on their toes as they are unsure of the moment the management would decide to make a visit and catch them unaware. The supervisors also need to be advised that leniency shall not be tolerated, therefore; they should enforce every safety regulation to the letter. Reasonable production forecasts need to be made to ensure that the workers are not overstretched at work. Research shows that overstretched workers end up neglecting safety procedures to meet the targets. There should be a reasonable adjustment in the number of workers and machinery if production is to be scaled up. The management in many firms has been lenient to the failure of workers to adhere to the OHS framework guidelines. The assumption is that observing the rules makes production slower, and thus, the company’s targets won’t be met. It is, therefore, reasonable to make achievable targets to ensure that workers carry out operations at efficiently and enthusiastically. Firm action against employees who are found to have removed the safety apparatus or not using safety gear in the factory should be taken. If other employees see the consequences experienced by one of their own, they will not wish adverse actions to taken against them. Thus, they will refrain from such tendencies. Supervisors are management’s major instruments to control risky behavior, and therefore, must be ready to reprimand appropriately any worker who is seen to negate the safety protocol. Sopranos should install machinery with tamper proof safety apparatus and fire employees who work without proper safety gear. Such measures need to be implemented to ensure that the employees enter the workstations fully armored in case of an accident and that the machinery in the factory is safe for workers to use. Research demonstrates that if workers start work using the appropriate gear they are unlikely to remove or to disable its function (Clarke, 199, p. 187). The installation of cameras in the workplace can make the workers intimidated to disable the safety apparatus on machinery or to forego safety gear while working. CCTV cameras can be installed at strategic locations. Security cameras can also make the workers less willing to indulge in risky behaviors as they will fear that management may fail to accept liability if personal negligence is captured on tape. Conclusion In conclusion, the development of the OHS was a major milestone for all workers as employers now cannot subject employees to deplorable conditions without legal repercussions. However, the trend of employees’ voluntary failure to adhere fully to the safety policies and procedures perplexes many as it is serves the person practicing it primarily. Therefore, the employees should be encouraged to observe the vital guidelines to their safety to ensure that career threatening injuries or fatalities don’t arise from neglect. The management should also be on the front line to encourage the organization to adhere to the safety management systems as the accidents lead to adverse effects to the company too. Employers and employees are both adversely affected by accidents in the organization, thus, it is their core responsibility to ensure that accident are averted with every resource possible. Reference List Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (ACSNI). 1993, Study group on human factors, Third report: Organizing for safety. London: HMSO Clarke, S.1999. "Perceptions of organizational safety: implications for the development of safety culture." Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, no. 2 (1999): 185-198. Cooper, MD. 2000. Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science. Vol.36. pp. 111-136. Cullen, WD. 1990. The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster. Department of Energy. London: HMSO. Dyer, C. 2001. The Cullen rail report-lessons for everyone. Health and safety bulletin. Vol.303. pp. 11-17. Erev, I. 1998. Signal detection by human observers: A cutoff reinforcement learning model of categorization decisions under uncertainty. Psychological Review, 105, 280-298. Erev, I. & Barron, G. 2001. On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Working paper, Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. Fennell, D. 1988. Investigation into king’s cross underground fire. Department of transport. London: HMSO. Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P. and Bryden, R. 2000. ‘Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features’, Safety Science, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.177–192. Pidgeon, N. & O’Leary, M. 2000. Man-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Safety Science, Vol.34, pp. 15-30. Thompson, RC, Hilton, TF, & Witt, LA. 1998. Where the safety rubber meets the shop floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety. Journal of Safety Research, 29, pp. 15-24. Zohar, D. 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve sub-unit safety: A leadership based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 156- 163. Zohar, Dov, and Gil Luria. 2003. "The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model." Journal of Safety Research 34, no. 5: 567-577. Read More