ArchDAMS Approach | Dutyholders

10 Barriers to Leadership Engagement in Safety Management:

Bridging the Gap

Published Mar, 2024

One of the oft-repeated concerns about safety culture within organisations is achieving genuine management buy-in. This challenge is underlined by regulatory codes of practice and international standards alike, marking it as a crucial concern for safety practitioners, seasoned and new.

Discussing the necessity of leadership engagement in safety management underscores an uncomfortable truth: safety is not always at the heart of organisational operations, despite claims to the contrary. The phrase "safety first," while widely used, has become somewhat distorted, suggesting it's the foremost priority when, in reality, the commitment from management often falls short.

In stark contrast, the drive for revenue generation and profit is unequivocally a primary objective for any for-profit entity. Every member of a senior management team is acutely aware of this goal's importance, with their commitment to financial success being the central objective.

Against this backdrop, here are ten barriers to genuine leadership engagement and strategies to bridge them.

Business and Cultural Norms that Prioritise Cost over Safety

The fundamental reason a for-profit organisation is in business is generating profit. Doing so safely, sustainably and ethically is a subset of that goal, not the totality of it.

While the ideal scenario posits safety and profitability as coexisting priorities, the harsh reality often reveals a different story. When faced with critical decisions, the true priorities of an organisation come to light, frequently placing profit over safety despite the latter being proclaimed as a top concern.

In many organisations, proclaiming safety as a top priority has become a normative but superficial stance. While declarations of 'safety first' from leadership are initially encouraging, they often fail to translate into sustained action or cultural integration. This disconnect leaves organisations ill-equipped to genuinely prioritise safety, creating a gap between stated values and operational realities.

The ArchDAMS approach navigates this challenge by embedding safety into the fabric of organisational operations without necessitating its elevation above all other priorities. It conceptualises safety as an essential, ongoing responsibility of designated dutyholders, making it a standard part of operations rather than an isolated competing concern. This integration ensures accountability and consistency in safety practices, sidestepping the false dichotomy between safety and profitability.

Poor Understanding of the Value of Effective Safety Management

Investors evaluating company investments meticulously analyse various metrics, including market capitalisation, total revenue, total addressable market and dozens other metrics. This detailed scrutiny, easily done with publicly available data, allows for direct comparisons between companies in the same fields.

However, attempting similar analyses on safety performance between corporations quickly becomes challenging. Publicly available safety metrics are scarce, making it nearly impossible to find even a handful of metrics to complete any direct comparisons.

This gap leads to a limited understanding of safety management's actual value, with discussions on its impact on productivity and ROI largely remaining theoretical or tied to marketing narratives. Without clear, comparable metrics to illuminate safety performance, senior management might continue to sideline safety priorities, despite outward affirmations of its importance.

At SafetyRatios, our mission is to expand the range of leading and lagging safety metrics in use across industries. We encourage others to do the same and be bold and open with their organisation's safety performance data.

Conflation of Safety and Accidents Prevention

Merging the concepts of safety and accident prevention oversimplifies a nuanced issue. It's akin to suggesting peace is merely the absence of war. Accidents result from a complex interplay of factors, leading to outcomes ranging from negligible to catastrophic.

Once the immediate conditions for an accident are set in motion, control over the outcome is largely relinquished.

Consider a high-rise construction site lacking edge protection—a clear hazard to anyone working near the unprotected edge of a floor. Not all individuals in such conditions will fall, but for those who stumble near the edge, the sequence of events leading to an accident is activated, with potential outcomes varying from miraculous escapes to tragic fatalities.

The control over these outcomes escapes both the individual and management the moment an accident is initiated.

Yet, the potential for such varied outcomes doesn't alter the inherent risk posed by unprotected edges at a worksite. Learning organisations differentiate themselves by recognising and addressing these risks proactively, beyond mere compliance with regulations. They recognise that the absence of accidents does not itself constitute a safe operation.

A key approach to incorporating this reality into your safety management system is to treat all unplanned events as a problem that needs to be addressed irrespective of the outcome. As overwhelming as that may sound, that is exactly what cloud management systems are capable of delivering when configured appropriately.

The ArchDAMS approach focuses on cloud systems designed from the ground up to leverage technology that makes documenting all deviations from safe practices an easy task. Its modular approach interrogates each sphere of operation as an independent entity, allowing for improved accountability and better outcomes.

Confusions Surrounding Responsibility for Safety

The issue of who bears responsibility for safety within organisations often leads to widespread confusion, affecting both nascent and well-established safety cultures. Some safety practitioners typically view safety as a line management responsibility, line managers in turn wonder what the role of the safety team is.

This dilemma is not exclusive to organisations with nascent safety cultures; it is equally prevalent among those that claim to have matured safety cultures. It stems from an inability to separate the senior management's ultimate responsibility for overall safety from the immediate responsibility for various other items that feed into that ultimate responsibility.

Addressing this confusion effectively requires a nuanced understanding of where safety responsibilities should be anchored within an organisation's structure. It's about recognising that assigning tasks based on hierarchical status or conventions elsewhere is less effective than considering the specific abilities of the people involved and the contexts of the tasks at hand.

The goal is to ensure that safety responsibilities are allocated to individuals who are best positioned to manage them effectively, regardless of their rank within the company hierarchy.

The ArchDAMS approach provides a structured resolution to this challenge by offering clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities within the safety management system. It posits that safety is a collective responsibility that extends beyond the domain of line management to include designated dutyholders, each with specified tasks.

This approach eradicates ambiguity around safety accountability, ensuring that each task is carried out by the most competent and capable individuals, and they are accountable for the execution of duties they have voluntarily accepted.

Poor Embedment of Safety Roles and Responsibilities

For safety management to truly take root within an organisation, safety roles and responsibilities need to be seamlessly integrated into daily operational tasks.

When safety is relegated to an afterthought or seen as a mere addendum to primary tasks, its implementation becomes inconsistent, often overlooked in favour of more immediate operational pressures.

The practice of senior managers scheduling occasional safety walk-throughs, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently reinforce the notion of safety as an external, supplementary task rather than a core operational responsibility.

A more effective approach involves assigning tangible, routine safety responsibilities to all levels of staff, equipping them with the necessary tools and knowledge to fulfil these duties consistently. This not only fosters habitual compliance but also enhances the overall safety awareness and culture within the team.

Moreover, engaging in regular, substantive interactions with frontline staff, such as joint activity inspections alongside safety team members, can demonstrate a deeper, more authentic commitment to safety than perfunctory site visits.

These substantive interactions offer senior managers invaluable insights into field operational conditions, enabling them to more effectively contribute to strategy development and operational planning.

Poor Integration of Safety into Management Progression Metrics

Safety achievements rarely headline the list of qualifications that propel individuals into senior management positions. Typically, promotions are based on metrics other than safety performance. Simply adding safety as a criterion in performance appraisals, as has become common, often yields limited impact.

The ArchDAMS approach suggests a more integrated method: weaving safety responsibilities into the fabric of all organisational roles, supported by transparent metrics that make safety performance a natural part of performance reviews.

For instance, assigning a senior manager the duty of overseeing the ongoing coordination of residual risk information between designers and the site operations team emphasises safety as a fundamental aspect of their role.

Supporting managers in these responsibilities, documenting their performance, and highlighting their safety contributions in performance reviews can transform safety from an obligatory mention into a significant component of their professional achievements.

This method moves beyond the superficial participation in safety walks, fostering a culture where safety is practised as a default, integral part of management duties.

Perceived Onerousness of Safety Initiatives

The subtlety of safety's impact compared to the tangible results of quality control presents a unique challenge in safety management.

Quality issues, such as honeycomb defects in concrete work, are immediately visible and demand rectification, while unsafe practices during the handling and lifting of the formwork that contributed to that defect often leave no visible trace if they don't result in accidents.

This dichotomy between the observable consequences of quality failures and the invisible risks of unsafe practices underscores a fundamental issue: safety's benefits are often underappreciated because they prevent incidents that otherwise would not be evident until after they occur.

Encouraging crews to adopt safer, albeit slower, methods in high-pressure environments requires a nuanced approach. Safety practitioners must be present and engaged in the field, demonstrating the long-term value of safety over the immediate efficiency of quicker, riskier methods.

Only through persistent education, visibility, and engagement can the perception of safety's onerousness be transformed into a recognition of its essential role in preventing potential catastrophes.

Traditional Management V Workers Standoff

The relationship between management and workers in safety management is evolving. Traditionally marked by union-led negotiations, this dynamic is witnessing a resurgence in union activity, potentially impacting safety practices.

Despite the professionalisation of safety management, which has somewhat diminished direct union involvement, the fundamental challenge remains: reconciling authoritative safety measures with worker autonomy.

A skilled safety practitioner plays a crucial role in this context, acting as a mediator to integrate worker feedback into safety protocols, ensuring their acceptance and commitment. Establishing effective communication channels, beyond those mandated by regulations such as safety committees, is essential for bridging the gap between management directives and worker participation.

This collaborative approach not only reduces resistance but also fosters a culture of shared responsibility for safety, making the workplace safer for everyone involved.

Inadequate Research on the Efficacy of Safety Initiatives

The exploration into safety leading and lagging KPIs often circles back to the same metrics we've been measuring for ages. It's as if our safety KPI glossary has been stuck in a time loop, barely welcoming any new, rigorously researched entrants in recent years. This stagnation isn't just a frontline issue; it stretches up to the executive suites and across academic halls.

Hence, the succinctness of this section serves as an “ode” to the curiously scant volume of research available. Here's to hoping it serves as a wake-up call for researchers and up-and-coming safety professionals to enrich this field.

Resistance to Change

Resistance to change is a pervasive issue within organisations, particularly when it comes to initiatives perceived as adding little value to an individual’s role. This resistance intensifies for tasks seen as ancillary or, worse, obstructive to their primary duties.

The allure of quicker, more straightforward methods often overshadows the commitment to safety. The safest approach isn’t always the swiftest or most cost-effective, typically requiring more time and resources, which can provoke frustration and pushback.

While theoretically, the safest method should be aligned with the most efficient processes, practical realities on the ground frequently contradict this ideal. Implementing safety measures can initially seem more burdensome, both in terms of time and financial outlay.

Moreover, the persistence of organisations operating with less-than-optimal safety records—without apparent immediate repercussions—further fuels a reluctance to change. In an environment where a company’s next project or opportunity seldom hinges on tangible, comparative safety metrics, the incentive to overhaul existing practices diminishes.

The question then arises: in the absence of direct consequences or competitive disadvantage, what motivates an organisation to adopt higher safety standards?

In conclusion, securing leadership buy-in on safety presents a formidable challenge, with numerous obstacles seemingly stacked against it. Navigating this landscape demands a blend of skill and diplomacy, especially in contexts where genuine commitment is scant and the temptation to merely simulate engagement is high.

However, the ten reasons outlined here should not be a cause for despondency. Instead, they highlight areas for potential growth and improvement, albeit progressing at a gradual pace.

The effectiveness of the ArchDAMS approach stems from its alignment with the inherent structure of operations—a constellation of interlinked modules driven by a unified goal and supported by communal resources.

By overseeing every operation through Dutyholders endowed with concrete Accountability and equipped with appropriate Means to excel in every Sphere of operations, ArchDAMS solidifies a foundation for unparalleled safety success across all organisations. It creates robust barriers that control Hazards, mitigate Risks, and prevent Accidents, while subtly nurturing a beneficial Cultural flow.