Norms | Safety Practitioner Modes

Reporter, Enforcer, Team Player:

Three Functional Approaches in Safety Management

Published Apr, 2024

From its roots in the workers' union movements as safety representatives to the legal frameworks outlined in national regulations and international standards, the role of the safety officer has indeed evolved through a somewhat confusing lineage.

The earliest proponents of safety standards emerged from the labour movements that followed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. As machines expanded the boundaries of human capability, entrepreneurs and factory owners' appetite for production and the profits it promised also grew.

More money became achievable with increased output, which in turn depended on advanced machinery. Yet, they could not invent enough machines to perform all tasks and had to rely on humans to fill the gaps. After the initial concerns about machines displacing jobs subsided, the focus shifted towards the man-machine interface.

The question was how to make the weaker yet smarter operator work efficiently with the stronger, faster machine. This dilemma gave rise to academic interests ranging from economics to ergonomics and industrial relations. It also led to the creation of the safety representative role, a bastion against the unsafe working conditions often associated with the relentless pursuit of profit with an ill-integrated human-machine workforce.

Today's safety practitioner is a product of over a century of evolving ideas and regulations, starting with the UK's working conditions acts in the 1800s through the seminal US OSHA Act of 1970 to the UK Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974.

The profession has further been shaped by standards like OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001, insights from major accident reports and industrial disasters, ongoing academic research, and the influence of professional organisations such as IOSH and NEBOSH.

Presently, practitioners operate in three discernible modes: the reporter, the enforcer, and the team player.

The Reporter

When safety auditors arrive at an operational site, their role is often very specific—to observe, review and report. This mirrors the function of other auditors, whether in finance or quality control, who act as independent advisors verifying conditions for a client.

When safety practitioners operate in this mode, their role appears to be limited to simple observers of the workplace, whose duties end once they report their findings to the management. This mode omits the fact that safety practitioners are in fact rarely independent of the works. They are, in fact, integral to and impacted by the workplace.

Practitioners in this mode fill-out endless checklists and piles of observation reports and recommendation reports that often end up in unread emails or archived records that are never read. Or as is more prevalent today, they generate in-app notifications that other team members have learnt to ignore until the activity to which such notifications relate have been concluded and the recommendations rendered moot.

The practitioners that seek out this mode tend to be those that want an easier pace of the safety role - observe and report. Some even believe that it is the very definition of the safety practitioner role, and they are not entirely wrong. Given the sprawling history of the profession as outlined above, it is easy to draw such conclusions.

Safety practitioners operating solely in the reporter mode are the least effective contributors to the overall safety of the operation they support. Their underwhelming effectiveness is further diminished by the confusion of the other team members as to the role of the safety team.

Unless the reporter mode is part of a safety management system that identifies the role as such and integrates its deliverables into other parts of the system, effectively, they are just safety practitioners in name only.

When used effectively though, it is a ruthlessly efficient way to manage time and other resources in the service of improved safety outcomes. In reporter mode, a safety practitioner is able to take an independent look at operations and identify areas of significant improvements.

The Enforcer Mode

The enforcer mode for safety practitioners appears to be designed into job titles such as safety officers and superintendents, both of which are common across industry. In this mode, the practitioner is not a mere observer of work conditions but an expert in the ideal processes and an authorised enforcer of compliance with such processes.

These practitioners are influencers and catalysts for change, transforming observations into actionable improvements. Their recommendations can lead to significant safety measures when they have the authority to enforce compliance.

However, a major challenge for enforcers is insufficient authority, which can undermine their effectiveness. They may face resistance from operational teams who view safety as just one of many competing priorities, with more immediate pressures related to time and budget often taking precedence.

The success of enforcers is tightly linked to the level of authority they possess and their diplomatic skills in implementing safety regulations. Those with inadequate authority are often marginalised and overlooked, while those with substantial authority may face communication barriers and deliberate isolation by operations teams aiming to mitigate the impact of stringent safety enforcement.

Whilst it is tempting to dismiss these as the hallmarks of juvenile safety cultures, their perceived absence in mature safety culture reflects a poor assessment of the profundity of the other interests that operations teams have to juggle.

Operating in the enforcer mode is an effective way of instilling discipline in team operations: communicate standards, observe compliance, enforce recommendations, repeat. The effectiveness of this mode depends on how well the practitioner is embedded into the operations team and the sources of their authority.

The Team Player Mode

The team player mode stands out as the most impactful for safety practitioners, fostering a robust sense of ownership over the entire operation’s safety. This mode transcends the roles of mere observer or enforcer, engaging the practitioner more deeply—some find this demanding, others invigorating.

In this mode, the safety practitioner is woven into the operational fabric, a position widely acknowledged as ideal for maximising safety's benefits. Here, a comprehensive understanding of the operation's strategic, commercial, and logistical facets is crucial. It’s a challenging yet rewarding approach, suited for the dedicated, not the faint-hearted.

Interestingly, this mode is the norm among safety executives at the leadership level, who, as core members of the executive team, share in the broader accountability for the operation's success. They are not mere advisors on safety but key decision-makers.

This raises significant questions about industry norms that isolate safety management into separate reporting lines lower in the organisational hierarchy. Are such structures genuinely effective in enhancing safety, or are they outdated conventions unchallenged and accepted over time?

Engendering independent safety reporting lines may simplify responsibilities, but does this really cultivate a sense of team membership? Does it align with the executive-level model, where safety is integral to overall business strategy? More importantly, does it work?

In conclusion, safety practitioners function across three primary modes: reporter, enforcer, and team player. Mastery of these modes is essential for a well-rounded safety practitioner. However, industry practices that treat safety merely as an assurance or advisory role, while simultaneously aiming for its integration across all operations, often pigeonhole practitioners into reporting and enforcing roles.

Such a focus restricts their ability to develop the cross-functional skills necessary to become integral parts of operational teams and limits their preparation for senior executive roles where safety is a collaborative effort. At the executive level, the conventional parallel reporting lines that shape many safety careers come to an end. Executives responsible for safety must adapt to a team-centric approach without external parallel structures to rely on.

The ArchDAMS Approach to safety management revolutionizes this dynamic by fully integrating safety practitioners into the operations team at all levels, making safety a shared responsibility. Under this model, the "dutyholder" is explicitly accountable for safety, enhancing the operational environment.

By ensuring that each operation is overseen by Dutyholders who possess clear Accountability and are provided with the Means to excel within their designated Sphere, ArchDAMS establishes a robust framework for safety excellence. It creates robust barriers that control Hazards, mitigate Risks, and prevent Accidents, while subtly nurturing a beneficial Cultural flow.