In the modern workplace, safety is a paramount concern that significantly impacts employees’ well-being and an organisation’s overall productivity. However, approaches to safety vary widely. On one hand, safety can be positioned as a force for good, emphasising its inherent value and benefits. On the other hand, safety can manifest as ritualistic adherence to protocols and procedures. Understanding the distinction between these approaches is crucial for developing strategies that genuinely enhance workplace safety.
Positioning Safety as a Force for Good
Positioning safety as a force for good integrates safety into an organisation’s core values and culture. While this phrase is often used as a cliché, it warrants deeper scrutiny. Managers frequently assert that safety is a core value in their organisations, but do workers share this view?
This perspective sees safety not merely as a set of rules – the traditional view – but as an integral part of the organisational ethos. It prioritises the proactive promotion of safety to protect and empower employees, foster trust, and boost morale. Notably, these elements – empowerment, trust, and morale – are pivotal.
When safety is a force for good, it becomes a shared responsibility. Employees at all levels are trusted to contribute to a safe working environment. This collaborative approach fosters an engaged and committed workforce. Employees feel valued and respected, knowing their well-being is a top priority. This results in increased job satisfaction, reduced absenteeism, and higher productivity.
Beyond Selling Safety to the Workers
Often, organisations respond by “training” employees about how important safety is, assuming that more cognitive understanding will translate into safer behaviour. This is a fallacy. Few individuals intend to harm themselves or others at work. In fact, many would undo an unsafe action instantly if they could reverse the harm caused. Telling them how important safety is makes no difference to this.
What is the Alternative?
Positioning safety as a force for good demands more than explaining its importance. It requires a focus on four critical factors:
- Safe Work Environment and Necessary Tools: Ensure the physical workplace and tools are safe and well-maintained.
- Training and Skill Development: Equip workers with the knowledge and skills needed to perform their work safely.
- Fostering a Safety Culture: Cultivate an environment where safety is a shared value and standard practice. Safety is not forced upon workers; workers are involved in the shared value
- Mental Well-being: Establish a work environment free from obstacles that negatively impact mental health.
By addressing these factors, and combining it with trusting employees, means safety will transcend compliance, becoming a genuine force for good.
Trust is the Key
Trust is central to this approach—but trust does not come free. It means that when something goes wrong, even terribly wrong, the organisation must stand by its workers, both morally and practically. Even if there is clear evidence that mistakes were made, the company must uphold its trust in workers, recognising that errors are a part of human nature rather than acts of negligence or malice.
When an organisation reaches this level of trust, safety ceases to be just a policy—it becomes a deeply embedded value, creating a sense of security and purpose that no amount of money can buy.
Performing Safety Rituals
Conversely, performing safety rituals often involves rigid, routine adherence to protocols and procedures. This approach is sometimes marked by a “tick-box” mentality, focusing on regulatory compliance over meaningful engagement. Everybody always say they do not have a tick-box mentality, however, when procedural adherence is essential, this method can lack the depth required to foster a truly safe environment.
Safety rituals, such as drills, inspections, and compliance checklists, are vital but can become superficial if devoid of genuine understanding and concern. Employees may follow these routines mechanically, without appreciating their significance or feeling personally invested. This can lead to complacency and a false sense of security, where appearances are prioritised over actual safety.
Furthermore, excessive emphasis on rituals can create a culture where avoiding penalties becomes more important than fostering a safe workplace. This undermines the development of a safety culture in which employees feel empowered to take personal responsibility for their and others’ safety.
Conclusion
The distinction between positioning safety as a force for good and performing safety rituals lies in the depth of engagement and underlying motivations. This aligns with the dichotomy between Safety I and Safety II. In my book, Safety 2.1 – The Safety Envelope , I explore this distinction, challenging the ritualistic approach of Safety I and offering practical insights into achieving Safety II. Drawing on the philosophies of thinkers such as Dekker, Hollnagel, and Conklin, my focus is on actionable strategies – the “how” of Safety II – hence the term Safety 2.1.