How Effective Leaders Pave Safe Roads to Success: The Challenges of a Middle Managers Leadership - Research Proposal Example

How Effective Leaders Pave Safe Roads To Success: The Challenges of a Middle Manager’s Leadership (To be written last, after the study has been concluded) Chapter 1 Introduction and Statement of the Problem The success of organizations usually depends on its leader and dedicated members. Effective organizations pride themselves of positive environments where camaraderie and unity prevail. Leaders and members join efforts to achieve shared organizational goals. One central goal in most organizations is safety. The mounting cases of untoward incidences due to neglect of safety and security measures in organizations will continue to rise unless leaders and members of the organizations heighten their awareness, standards and vigilance in the establishment and maintenance of safety. With the advances in information and technology, it is no longer excusable for companies to reason out ignorance or lack of information. Leaders cannot afford to be complacent especially when the welfare of their people and customers are concerned. There are industries where safety should be the utmost priority especially when they work with combustible chemicals or products, humongous machines people work with, like in factories, or ride, like in amusement parks. Any miscalculation or slight dip in vigilance may spell a disaster. Management and security systems in organizations are usually set up, implemented and supervised by the organizational heads. It follows that accountability is mostly in their hands, and receive accolade from the public if safety is ensured and enjoyed or blame if accidents take place. This paper shall discuss the concepts of Leadership, Safety in organizations, and best practices in safety leadership. Specifically, it focuses on the middle manager, whose leadership duties extend in all directions, from their immediate supervisors, their peers and colleagues, down to their subordinates, who are directly involved in ensuring and maintaining the safety of the organization. Statement of the Problem Organizations wait upon the decisions of top leaders. Usually, the burden gets too heavy for them to handle that they need to delegate to certain trusted people, usually, their immediate subordinates, who are likewise responsible for a team. These are the middle managers. John Maxwell (2005) believes that “Leadership is a choice you make, not a place you sit. Anyone can choose to become a leader wherever he is. You can make a difference no matter where you are” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 7). This contention means that leadership is not limited to one’s position in the organization. Middle managers may find it difficult to grasp this concept, having been used to receiving instructions from their supervisors. They usually feel they have no decision-making power, leadership and ability to make a difference. However, in terms of safety leadership, middle managers must know how to take charge, if they are to ensure the safety and security of the whole organization. This leads us to the statement of this paper’s problem as: “How can middle managers be more effective in safety leadership?” Aims and Objectives This paper aims to give light to the importance of leadership in organizations, especially, the role of middle managers. It aims to empower them to take their leadership role more seriously, since the whole organization depends on them. It discusses how safety is managed in organizations, including best safety practices. The study hopes to inspire safety leaders to gain insights from the leadership models presented, and the effective practices of successful leaders before them. It aims to contribute its bit in making organizations and companies more secure and safe, putting the welfare of its members as utmost priority. Significance of the Study Leaders are very busy individuals who constantly make decisions and do never-ending tasks on the job. It is necessary for them to stop once in a while to evaluate the effectiveness of their performance, and if they maintain the traits that have made them leaders in the first place. This study gives a thorough review of the literature on effective leadership models and characteristics needed to make the organizations run more smoothly towards success. Leaders and future leaders will find this study relevant in their practice, specifically those involved in safety management. It will also make them introspect to evaluate where they are in their leadership journey, and if they are indeed successful in influencing others and making a difference in terms of their leadership. Chapter 2 Review of Literature Leadership Great leaders have been analyzed on the basis of their character and leadership styles. Many have gone to gain prominence in their respective fields and some have remained in the background while the groups they have led are celebrated for the extraordinary skill or action they have exemplified. Clark (2008) defines leadership as follows: “Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills” (Clark, 2008, para.3). Leithwood & Riehl (2003) posit that a good leader has a clear vision of where he is going and sets directions to others towards that vision. He collaborates with other people on ways and means to reach their goals and not focus the authority on himself. In doing so, he empowers them to be confident in their abilities and motivates them to welcome challenges and opportunities. Because of his positive influence, he gains the respect of everyone to follow his lead while pursuing a common mission for the growth and development of the organization. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), people seek several traits in a leader they can follow willingly. They have developed a model for effective leadership called Five Leadership Practices. Their research has yielded evidence that when effective leaders followed these five basic practices, they become successful in achieving the results they want from their followers. The leaders said they challenged, inspired, enabled, modeled and encouraged their followers. Leaders constantly challenge the established process and improve on the areas in the process that need it. They never cease in searching for opportunities which challenge them to change, grow and reach greater heights. Hence, they are willing to take risks and learn from whatever mistakes they fall upon (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). They are not afraid of change and are willing to get out of their comfort zones to choose the best options. Leaders inspire a shared vision with their followers. They communicate their vision well enough for their followers to understand clearly, and together, they see an uplifting and ennobling future (Kouzes and Posner, 2007) . Leaders enlist more people to share such a vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes and dreams (Five Practices of the Exemplary Leader, n.d.) Leaders are also enablers. They are good at encouraging people to act on their own by providing them with the tools and methods to solve their problems. Leaders foster collaboration and among their members (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). When the followers are trusted to fulfill tasks delegated to them, they feel confident and capable to do more for the team. Leaders have to be good models, most especially when the going gets tough. They should exhibit an attitude and behavior of positivism that their followers can emulate. Leaders set examples consistent with their own values. They are not afraid to stand for their beliefs. To encourage their followers, they create opportunities for their followers to experience small wins with the hopes of eventually gaining bigger ones (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Lastly, leaders should encourage their followers’ hearts by recognizing individual contributions and celebrating team accomplishments (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Such positive response further motivates others to work even harder. Fullan (2004) proposed that to be an effective and successful leader, one should have moral purpose, an understanding of change, adeptness in building relationships, creation and sharing of knowledge, and ability to see coherence in complexity. These five components of leadership altogether ignite energy, hope and enthusiasm in the whole institution, and invite members of the organisation to pledge their commitment to the leaders’ purpose. In effect, more good things happen for the institution, and bad things are lessened if not prevented. A leader with moral purpose acts with the intention of making a positive difference in the lives of the people around him and in society in general. This is the key element in the sustainability of organizations. Anyone who works for an organization that makes them feel that their potentials are expanded and their individual goals are achieved will be likely to stay on. Moral purpose infuses an organization with passion and purpose since workers become eager to know the enabling purpose of their work (Fullan, 2004). Fullan also suggest that a successful leadership has an ability to establish harmonious relationships with diverse people and groups, especially with those different from themselves. Clark (2008) discusses a study reported by Lamb and McKee (2004) that concludes that the most important keys to effective leadership are trust and confidence as well as effective communication. These employees are assured that they are in good hands and that there are safely on a journey aboard a tight ship run by an efficient captain. Such trust and confidence are won with effective communication prevalent in the organization. This is shown in three critical areas. One is in the area of helping employees understand the organization’s overall strategies. Another is in helping employees understand how they can contribute in meeting the organizational goals and objectives. The last area where effective communication must take place is in sharing information with employees how their group is performing in relation to the organizational objectives. The component of creating and sharing knowledge inside and outside the organization should be a commitment true leaders uphold. This will be possible in an atmosphere where harmonious relationships exist since using information to gain knowledge is a socially motivated process. People will not voluntarily share knowledge unless they are obliged to do so, or feel some moral commitment to do so. Leaders become conduits of knowledge, as they generate and increase it inside and outside the organization. Also, turning information to knowledge entails the establishment of good relationships since it is a very social process. Krause & Weekley (2005) identify five stable elements of personality that leaders should possess. One is emotional resilience. This is the ability to deal with frustration, worry, anger and stress by being able to spring back to normal right away and not dwell on the negative. Another is learning orientation, which is one’s imagination, aesthetic sense, willingness to experiment, intellectual curiosity, tolerance for diversity and values other than their own. The third element is conscientiousness, or the sense of competence and responsibility pushed by the will to achieve. Fourth element is collegiality or one’s agreeableness, trust, being straightforward, sympathetic and considerate of others as well as modesty and compliance with standards. Lastly, extroversion is the level of positive emotions and warmth towards others, assertiveness, optimism, level of activity and tendency to seek excitement (Krause & Weekley, 2005). Bass (1990) differentiates two basic styles of influence leaders use namely the transactional and transformational styles. The transactional style is based on an exchange that one gets for something he does while a transformational style is based on building engagement and participation, in effect, leading them to perform better altogether. Den Hartog et al (1997) contend that transformational leadership has four dimensions. Charisma is the first one, with the leader providing vision and mission while instilling pride in his followers thereby gaining respect and trust for himself. He has the ability to increase their optimism. Second come inspiration, which defines if the leader acts as a model, communicates a vision, sets high standards and uses symbols to focus efforts. Next is individual attention to each member. The leader coaches, mentors and provides feedback to each of his followers making sure they are led to the right path. Lastly, dimension of intellectual challenge gives a leader’s followers a flow of challenging new ideas aimed at rethinking old ways of doing things, challenge flawed systems and promotion of careful problem-solving behaviors. Safety In 2007 and 2008, the UK’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA) conducted visits to 26 companies implementing Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations (COMAH) (Elliot, 2009). The visits were meant to find out which safety management and leadership practices were in place, and which ones were most effective. From the visits, it was found that organizational leaders (CEO’s and directors) do not need technical knowledge in safety leadership if they are open to advise and feedback from highly competent senior managers and experts including Safety Health and Environment (SHE) managers. The companies visited had managers with extremely high levels of experience, commitment and competence and likewise, the operators exhibited a high level of awareness of the extent of the major hazard potentials in the processes they were involved with. The companies spared no expense in coming up with clearly identified process safety requirements. On the other hand, the visits also revealed that not all companies were operating at the highest level. Obviously, there was yet room for improvement, as some sites visited had experienced costly process safety incidents within the past two years that fortunately did not harm people, but still showed the need for improved control in order to prevent both personal and business risks (Elliot, 2009). It was disheartening to note that very few companies made significant progress in developing leading process safety performance indicators (PSPIs) despite the combined guidance from the CIA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (Elliot, 2009). Safety Leadership Practices Elliot (2009) reports the recommendations of the CIA based on the results of the company visits. Six key elements were identified by the CIA as essential to excellence in the safety leadership process. These have been endorsed by HSE and welcomed by other industry sectors. The first is that responsibility for process safety must be assigned specifically at the board level of the company. Being so, the board can ensure that process safety is viewed separately from routine health and safety issues. The company board needs to discuss specific issues and concerns on safety regulations, set targets, review incidents and near-misses, if any and agree on future priorities (Elliot, 2009). This is evidence that safety is prioritized by the leadership of the organization, and members are to follow suit. Once the board has clarified issues and concerns, its policy and expectations that include targets and review arrangements, need to be communicated to all operational staff. They also need to see board-level management staff doing their share in the implementation of the safety process regulations. This communicates to them the importance the company places to safety (Elliot, 2009). The CIA also recommends companies to come up with process safety performance indicators so that the effectiveness of preventive control measures (leading indicators) as well as the reporting of incidents of failures (lagging indicators) are monitored (Elliot, 2009). The development of a process safety improvement plan which includes periodic reviews of safety management systems, advise from respective departments concerned, maintenance and inspection teams, Hazard and Operational (HAZOP) reviews, risk assessments and changes in safety and environmental control standards, is likewise recommended (Elliot, 2009). It has also been noted that the current trend in the development of major hazard process safety controls is cross-reviewing of incidents from other sectors. An example is through the Process Safety Leadership Group where major hazard industries meet with regulators and trade unions to formulate and agree on standards (Elliot, 2009). Carillo (2005) discusses that there are always paradoxes or polarities that safety leaders need to manage. These are sets of opposites appearing to be in conflict, but both needing attention in order to achieve success. Examples are “cost effectiveness” versus “preventive maintenance” or “planning” versus getting the work done”. Leaders cannot focus exclusively on one and neglect the other or else negative consequences will arise. Carillo gives an example of this dilemma. A chemical plant’s unit was down because of fire damage. It was necessary to return the unit to operation as quickly as possible so the plant management decided to cancel a meeting that will address pressing safety concerns so that members can focus on repairs. The safety manager argued that the meeting should push through reasoning that many of the risks to be addressed would be more prevalent in the expected season of overtime that were to follow. The plant manager stuck to his decision of cancelling the meeting since he felt everyone was already working so many hours on overtime and he could not ask any more of his people. A leader who is ethically responsible towards his followers is seen as inspiring, motivating and caring. The ability to understand and explain polarities well to followers heightens a leader’s effectiveness in addressing certain dilemmas that often cause conflict between business and safety priorities. It shows to workers management’s commitment to safety. Paradoxes can defeat safety efforts at the first mistake when these are not handled by the leader in a constructive manner. However, when leaders are prepared to manage polarities, a misstep can become their opportunity to build credibility and trust. A usual polarity situation involves stability versus change. Everyone wants job security (stability) however, the external environment demands organizations to constantly upgrade and change to remain competitive. Companies downsize to reduce costs and save jobs, but this action makes the workforce perceive that their leaders put profit before people. In this situation, a leader must be aware of the perceived polarities and implement strategies dealing with the emotionality of events such as reversing a decision to buy new equipment. Effective strategies include leaders openly communicating with the workers about changed plans and involving them in identifying potential solutions. Carillo (2005) featured this figure in her article. The identified polarity is task versus process, with task referring to getting the work done while process referred to planning, training, meetings and other activities not directly related to urgent tasks. As Figure 1 depicts, the team started by placing task In the middle of the left-hand column and process in the right-hand column. This created four quadrants. The upper quadrants symbolize the positive aspects of each side of the polarity; the lower quadrants symbolize the negative, unintended consequences of each pole. All in all, this tool can help managers analyze a situation so that they can talk about it in a way which shows they care and still communicate the importance of getting the work done. The following questions can by leaders of their members regarding the polarized issues: 1) I care about you. What are your concerns or suggestions for safety or work improvements? How can you help to implement them? 2) We have to face reality. What are your concerns about the new discipline and budget controls? Do you understand what they are and how they will affect us? 3) What do you see for yourself? What are your aspirations? How can I help? 4) Address performance: How am I doing in keeping my commitments? How are you doing? (Koestenbaum, 1991) Leading from the Middle of the Organization Maxwell (2005) claims that leadership is not reserved for people at the top of organizations. He says ninety-nine percent of all leadership occurs not from the top but from the middle of the organization. This means that middle managers tasked to cover several duties and responsibilities over their designated teams are likewise leaders in their own right. Maxwell advocates them to be 360 degree leaders, meaning they should learn to lead in all directions: up (leading their superiors and their superiors’ peers); across (leading their peers) and down (leading their subordinates and their peers’ subordinates). Leading in all directions is quite challenging, but Maxwell gives guidelines in managing such leadership. Following the diagram below, is his “staircase of leadership” which begins with the first level of position. In this level, people will only follow an individual within the boundaries of his or her position. The lower the position, the less positional authority he possesses. He will not have enough power unless he increases his influence in that first level. In the second level of Figure 2: Maxwell’s Five Levels of Leadership the leadership staircase, Permission, the aspiring leader invests time and effort in relating to others. He treats others with dignity and respect and gains their trust in return. Since he values them as human beings and not just because of the job they can do for him, they follow him because they want to and not because they should. They give him permission to lead them. Moving on to the third level, the Production level, the aspiring leader broadens his influence over others because of his achievements. People follow him because they know he has contributed much to the organization, and is deemed effective in leading them likewise to success. The fourth level, People Development entails helping others develop their leadership skills. By this time, the leader has gained enough influence to be able to mentor others with the objective of producing new leaders in the organization. It is the ideal level to stay in. The fifth and top level of the staircase is the level of personhood. One cannot strive to reach it with his own efforts, but rather, others enthrone him there due to his excellence in leading them throughout the first four levels. Only the most accomplished leaders who have earned the reputation of a level-five leader deserve to be there (Maxwell, 2005). This staircase model is meant to guide any leader from any position in the organization. The important thing is that he gains influence over others in a way that empowers them and leads them to success. He needs to embody the qualities of a leader that have been identified all throughout this review of literature. Being a middle manager can be difficult especially in the field of safety management. If he has a high level of transformational leadership, he is not dependent on his supervisors to prompt him into placing a high priority on safety. It is already strongly instilled in him whether or not an external emphasis is placed on safety because he values the well-being of his subordinates (Avolio, 1999). He is responsible enough to mediate preventive action to safety outcomes (Barling et al, 2002). This implies that it is not only the leader’s sphere of influence that matters but what he actually does with his authority. Transformational leaders consistently talk and listen to their subordinates and take action about safety. This is one measure that lowers injury rates (Zohar, 2000) Chapter 3 Methodology The use of multiple data-collection methods contributes to the trustworthiness of the data. This practice of relying on multiple methods is called “triangulation,” a term taken from surveying and navigation. The purpose of triangulation is not “the simple combination of different kinds of data, but the attempt to relate them so as to counteract the threats to validity identified in each” (Berg, 1995). Although multiple data collection method is the most common form of triangulation in qualitative research, triangulation in order to increase confidence in research findings may also involve the incorporation of multiple kinds of data sources and multiple theoretical perspectives (Denzin, 1988). Going beyond the surface in the review of literature, this study will probe the issue of safety leadership in middle management of various organizations. The methodology will seek to get the insights of various leaders from different organizations. It inquires as to how they perceive their leadership affects their followers as well as their superiors. Qualitative Research Qualitative research is any kind of investigation that produces information not by means of statistical procedures or any other means of quantification (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Quantitative researchers determine the causes of some events, and predict and generalize their findings while qualitative researchers search for enlightenment and understanding. Therefore, different types of knowledge and information are derived from qualitative analysis and quantitative inquiry. Qualitative research uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. In contrast, quantitative methods are, in general, supported by the positivists’ paradigm, which characterizes that the world is made up of observable and measurable facts. Positivists assume that a fixed measurable reality exists external to people (Glesne, 1999). On the other hand, qualitative methods are generally supported by the interpretivist (also referred to as constructivist) who portrays the world in which reality is socially constructed, complex, and ever changing. Each represents a fundamentally different inquiry paradigm and researcher actions are based on the underlying assumptions of each paradigm. Strauss and Corbin, (1990) states that qualitative research, is any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification. Quantitative researchers seek causal determination, prediction, and generalization of findings; while qualitative researchers seek instead illumination, and understanding to similar situations. Therefore, qualitative analysis results in a different type of knowledge than does quantitative inquiry. Glesne (1999) states that qualitative researchers seek out a variety of perspectives; they do not reduce the multiple interpretations to a norm. She adds that in qualitative research, face-to-face interactions are the predominant distinctive feature and also the basis for its most common problem. Such problem she states include researchers’ involvement with the people they study and the accompanying challenges, and opportunities that such closeness brings. Straus and Corbin (1990) claim that qualitative methods can be used to better understand any phenomenon about which little is yet known. They can also be used to gain new perspectives on things about which much is already known, or to gain more in-depth information that may be difficult to convey quantitatively, or where the researcher has determined that quantitative measures cannot adequately describe or interpret a situation. Questionnaire The use of questionnaires as a means of collecting data has been selected as one of the methods for gathering data for this particular research. Campbell, et al (2004) describe questionnaires as: “…a very versatile data-gathering method; they are cheap, easy to administer, whether it be to three people or 300, and can be used to gather a great variety of data of both quantitative and qualitative nature.” (Campbell et al, 2004, p. 146). Cohen et al (2000) praise the fact that questionnaires allow an efficient use of the researcher’s time, as they can collect a significant amount of information in one attempt, rather than conducting interviews over a longer period. Gillham (2000) also highlights that questionnaires make efficient use of the respondent’s time, as they can complete the questionnaire at a time that is suitable to them and does not require the researcher and respondent to match free periods of time to conduct the research. Cohen et al (2000) and Gillham (2000) emphasize the usefulness of questionnaires for ensuring the participants anonymity, which in this study, may be requested due to its very sensitive and controversial nature. If the respondents cannot be identified, they may be more willing to write about issues and opinions more openly than they would in a face-to-face situation. It could be argued then that questionnaires are therefore most likely to generate more truthful answers as there is no personal contact with the interviewer. However, a disadvantage of using questionnaires is that the only data collected is a variety of tick boxes and brief responses, which means the data tends to have more ‘breadth’ than ‘depth’. This results from the lack of an interviewer to prompt for further information or more detail in their answers and they cannot interpret questions for the participant who is unclear about what is being asked. This may result in each participant having to decipher what they are being asked independently and may resort to their own subjective understanding of the questions. To resolve that, more probing open-ended questions may be added along with a face-to face interview, if possible. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions Interviews enable participants to be able to discuss their point of view with regard to certain questions and situations.  (Cohen et al, 2000). The interview method involves questioning one person or a focus group discussion of issues with more people.  Data which may not be accessible through observation or questionnaires, would be provided for in interviews (Blaxter et al, 2006). Robson (2002) posits that the interview is a flexible and adaptable research tool.  The possibility of following up on interesting responses is greater in face-to- face or phone interviews. Frey and Mertens-Oishi (1995) comment how respondent participation can be enhanced by the interviewer by sensitively guiding the questioning, and being able to answer any question which the respondent may ask.  Oppenheim (1992) suggests that the response rate is higher in interviews than in questionnaires, due to the fact that participants become more involved. However, there are also disadvantages to using interviews as a research tool.  Robson (2002) mentions the fact that the whole interview process can be time consuming because it entails the following: making arrangements regarding permission and schedule; the actual interview itself; the writing up of notes; transcription of the interview; coding of themes that surface, etc.  A major disadvantage in any interview situation is the possibility of bias.  (Grinnell, R.M., Jr & Unrau, Y.A. Eds, 2008) The interviewer may unwittingly divulge their own opinion or expectations by their tone of voice, or in the way questions are asked.  Even when recording the interview it is important to remain aware of bias having an effect on how answers are understood and transcribed. However, these methods are a quick way to assess participant’s knowledge of the topic involved. Although participants may not always respond truthfully, honesty will need to be emphasized. For this study, a selected group of safety leaders will be asked to convene for a focus group interview on safety leadership issues related to the questionnaires they have just filled out. Procedure Self-evaluation questionnaires on safety leadership will be disseminated among middle management organizational leaders. These are meant to help them assess their own performance as safety leaders. The questionnaires will be mailed (by post or by email) to different companies, schools and other organizations, addressing middle management to participate in the study. Among the respondents, seven to ten leaders will be randomly selected based on their availability for a focus group discussion. On an agreed schedule, the research will conduct a focus group interview with the set of leaders to discuss safety leadership practices. The interview will be based on the questionnaires they have filled out, and some open-ended questions on issues that may arise from the discussions. The participants’ responses in both the questionnaires and focus group interview shall be analyzed thoroughly. Qualitative data will be coded and sorted into specific categories. This will be done by independent and objective coders hired by the researcher. Data is classified according to whatever themes that may prevail in the interviews. For example, some answers may pertain to a common theme like positive qualities of effective leaders or attitudes and behaviors of followers towards their brand of leadership. These shall be analyzed with the backdrop of information yielded from the review of literature. Appendix (Self-Evaluation Questionnaires) LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOURS ORGANIZED BY PRACTICE Model the Way 1. I set a personal example of what I expect of others. 6. I spend time and energy making certain that the people I work with adhere to the principles and standards we have agreed on. 11. I follow through on the promises and commitments that I make. 16. I ask for feedback on how my actions affect other peoples performance. 21. I build consensus around a common set of values for running our organization. 26. I am clear about my philosophy of leadership. Inspire a Shared Vision 2. I talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets done. 7. I describe a compelling image of what our future could be like. 12. I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future. 17. I show others how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in a common vision. 22. I paint the "big picture" of what we aspire to accomplish. 27. I speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of our work. Challenge the Process 3. I seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and abilities. I challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their work 13. I search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for innovative ways to improve what we do. 18. I ask "What can we learn?" when things dont go as expected. 23. I make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and establish measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on. 28. I experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of failure. Enable Others to Act 4. I develop cooperative relationships among the people I work with 9. I actively listen to diverse points of view. 14. I treat others with dignity and respect. 19. I support the decisions that people make on their own. 24. I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work. 29. I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing themselves. Encourage the Heart 5. I praise people for a job well done. 10. I make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their abilities. 15. I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the success of our projects. 20. I publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to shared values. 25. I find ways to celebrate accomplishments. 30. I give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their contributions. Leadership Interview Guidelines Site: ……………………………………… Please answer yes or no to the activities stated below regarding specific safety actions. Answer “yes” if it is generally true and “no” if it is generally not true. NO ACTIVITY YES NO 1 Visit project sites/operations/maintenance areas to spend time on safety 2 Have a clear vision and strategy for safety in my department or section 3 Is very strict towards disciplining serious safety violations 4 Provide frequent feedback on safety performance to subordinates 5 Act as a leader and a change agent, champions safety ideas in the face of obstacles 6 Regularly hold a safety discussion with a group of workers/subordinates 7 Obey all safety and traffic rules all the time, on and off the mine/plant 8 Never allows subordinates to short-cut correct/safe work practices 9 Always wear my safety belt when driving 10 Give recognition for good safety performance 11 Received safety training this quarter 12 Attended a safety conference/seminar this year 13 Actively involved in a safety improvement project/action 14 Stopped and corrected an unsafe situation in the workplace 15 Encourage subordinates to report near misses and injuries to learn from it 16 Gets personally involved in incident/accident analysis 17 Concentrate rather on finding facts and fixing it than faults and blame fixing 18 Normally visits an injured person in hospital or at home 19 Frequently talk about recent incidents to raise awareness 20 Stopped production to repair or maintain equipment / machinery 21 Stress the importance of team work and personal commitment and accountability 22 Creates opportunities for subordinates to become involved in safety matters SCORES Statements towards First Line Supervisors’ performance in the field. 1 Highly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 4 Agree 5 Highly Agree 1. Provide frequent feedback on safety and health performances to subordinates, E 1 2 3 4 5 both positive and corrective P 1 2 3 4 5 2. Create opportunities for subordinates to become more involved in safety and E 1 2 3 4 5 health improvement efforts. P 1 2 3 4 5 3. Concentrate rather on finding root causes and fixing it, than blaming and pointing E 1 2 3 4 5 finger P 1 2 3 4 5 4. Promotes actively understanding of safety and health procedures and policies. E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 5. Make sure that health and safety information is Up-to-Date and fully available E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 6. Never pressure to perform wrong operations even when production demands exist E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 7. Is well informed about relevant safety and health issues E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 8. Is very strict towards disciplining serious safety and health violations E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 (cont.) Statements towards First Line Supervisors’ performance in the field. 1 Highly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 4 Agree 5 Highly Agree 9. Give attention to all incidents and injuries, even if they are minor E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 10. Encourages subordinates to correct problems themselves wherever possible E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 11. Encourages subordinates to report near misses E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 12. Listen to and take suggestions seriously E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 13. Make sure that a strong safety program exist on the floor E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 14. Ensure that appropriate training programs are in place E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 15. Never allow Subordinates to short cut correct work practices E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 16. Informs subordinates regularly of their scope of authority E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 17. Act as a leader and change agent E 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 Read More