ASSE recently talked to Linda M. Goldenhar, Ph.D., director,
Research and evaluation, with
CPWR The Center for Construction Research andTraining. She will
present “Safety Culture, Safety Climate, and Safety Leadership in Construction”
at
ASSE’s Construction Safety Symposium Nov. 12-13 in New Orleans, LA.
ASSE: What is the
difference between safety culture and safety climate, and why is this
distinction important?
Linda: Specific
definitions of these two concepts vary and are often used interchangeably, but
there are distinctions. Safety culture pertains to a company’s espoused
safety-related values and norms demonstrated by its policies and procedures,
while safety climate refers to their employees’ perceptions of those values and
norms on the actual job site. Which term someone uses is probably less
important than knowing where to target needed change to improve overall safety
performance; do corporate safety policies need to be improved (culture) or is
it a matter of how good policies are implemented on the job site (climate).
ASSE: What are some
ways in which safety culture or safety climate can be measured?
Linda: Typically,
safety climate is measured by administering a perception survey instrument to
employees and management. Analysis of the data collected would include looking
for perception gaps between the groups to help identify areas where change may
be needed.
Safety culture is a bit more difficult to measure but can be
assessed using anthropologic methods such as conducting interviews and
reviewing safety-related documents. The data collected would be analyzed using
qualitative methods to determine the underlying the espoused safety culture of
the company.
ASSE: Can you give an
example of one way that safety culture and safety climate can be improved in
order to help reduce injuries on construction work sites?
Linda: At the
Safety Culture/Climate workshop in 2013, stakeholders identified eight key
leading indicators of safety climate:
1) demonstrating management commitment;
2) aligning and integrating safety as a value;
3) ensuring accountability at all levels;
4) improving supervisory leadership;
5) empowering and involving workers;
6) improving communication;
7) training at all levels;
8) encouraging owner/client involvement.
While we have not done rigorous research to determine which
of the eight is most important, industry stakeholders tell us that improving
the leadership skills of frontline foremen via skills training is probably one
of the most important, if not the key way to reduce adverse outcomes.
ASSE: What are some
key takeaways of your presentation that attendees can apply to their own work
sites after attending the symposium?
Linda: The key
takeaway will be a greater understanding of the need to strengthen job site
safety climate by identifying and improving leading indicators of safety
climate. I’m going to discuss CPWR’s workbook, Strengthening Jobsite Safety Climate by Using and Improving Leading
Indicators, which contains self-assessment rubrics and ideas for applying
and improving each of the eight leading indicators on their own job sites.
Attendees will also receive a web address from which they can download the
workbook.
Participants will also become familiar with a new supervisory
leadership module that in the not-too-distant future will be available for them
to use to improve supervisory leadership skills, a key leading safety climate
indicator.
ASSE: What types of
initiatives is CPWR trying to create greater consensus on the industry’s
definitions of safety culture and climate?
