Presented by: Tristan Casey, Lecturer, Griffith University 2019 NSW Safety Symposium.

1. To be or not to be
Safety leadership: Letting go of
behaviour
Dr Tristan W Casey
Safety Science Innovation Lab

2. How do you show leadership?

3. How do you show safety
leadership?

4. A brief history of safety leadership
- 1980s; informal and a-theoretical, grass-roots style of leadership
- Safety climate (Zohar, 1980)
- 1990s; participatory supervision style (Simard & Marchand, 1994)
- 2000s; first research-driven model; visibility, relationships, involvement,
proactive management (O’Dea & Flin, 2001)
- Barling et al (2002) study
- 2010s; qualitative investigations ‘back to the drawing board’
- 2015s; systems-based approaches
Safety Science Innovation Lab

5. What is safety leadership?
Safety Science Innovation Lab
• Using particular styles/combinations of behaviours?
OR
• Just ‘good’ general leadership?

6. The argument for safety-specific leadership
- Leaders can differentially prioritise work goals, creating behaviour-
outcome expectancies around safety in particular
- Safety items show higher correlations than non-safety items
- Safety is often in tension with other goals like productivity
Safety Science Innovation Lab

7. The argument for general leadership
- Multiple demands and goals compete for attention
- Leadership domains don’t operate in silos
- Conceptual and practical overlap in ‘safety’
Safety Science Innovation Lab

8. My position
- Weak evidence that safety-specific leadership exists (Barling et al)
- How can a leader be judged as ‘transformational’ in general but not in
relation to safety?
- How can safety climate and leadership be disentangled?
- Qualitative investigations reveal dimensions and behaviours already
covered by general leadership theories
- Multiple initiatives and models may be confusing/impractical for leaders
- Supports the bifurcation of safety and other work goals/priorities
Safety Science Innovation Lab

9. Safety leadership is about
good general leadership
applied strategically to
achieve successful work
outcomes

10. An example
Safety Science Innovation Lab
ENERGISE
Pursuing
Opportunities
ADAPT
Learning from
Mistakes
LEVERAGE
Getting Things
Done
DEFEND
Managing Risks
Clarity
Recognition
Coordination
Inspiration
Empowerment
Growth
Reflection
Voice
Resilience
Vigilance
Accountability
Monitoring

11. But safety leadership doesn’t
occur in a vacuum…

12. Towards a new way
- The ‘what’ of leadership is quite clear.
- Less clear are the ‘why, ‘when’, and ‘how’.
- The answer is to apply systems thinking.
Safety Science Innovation Lab

13. Systems thinking in a nutshell
Peter Senge:
- Systems thinking [is] a way of thinking about, and a language for
describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that
shape the behaviour of systems. This discipline helps us to see how
to change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune with the
natural processes of the natural and economic world.
Safety Science Innovation Lab

14. Systems thinking in a nutshell
Systems:
 Are comprised of interconnected parts
 Are structured, which determines behaviour
 Have emergent properties, like ‘safety’
 Are controlled by feedback loops
 Are complex and irreducible
Safety Science Innovation Lab

15. Safety leadership and systems thinking
Safety leadership:
 Emerges from the interactions between multiple actors
 Depends on vertical and horizontal integration
 Is reinforced by two-way feedback loops
 Identifies and reverses practical drift
 Contributes to cultural controls
 Results in distributed not centralised control
Safety Science Innovation Lab

16. A ‘good’ example
The GM initiated a new safety program centred around the WHS
Committee and WHS Representatives. The program focussed on
committee empowerment, consensus decision-making, workforce
consultation and representation, and transparency of decision-making.
How is this a good example of safety leadership from a systems
perspective?
Safety Science Innovation Lab

17. A ‘bad’ example
Following a fall from a safety step, the piece of equipment was apparently
‘banned’ through a off-handed comment raised by the GM. Although the
original decision was later softened, the cultural memory remains, tainting
perceptions of safety commitment (banning the steps actually makes the job
harder and more unsafe in some situations).
How is this a poor example of safety leadership from a systems
perspective?
Safety Science Innovation Lab

18. It all comes back to information
 Turner, Westrum, and Reason were all onto something…
 Following on from Griffin et al. (2014):
 Safety capability is an emergent, molar positive capacity of organisations.
 Successful management of uncertainty and interdependency.
 Discovery, interrogation, management of information are the key to safety
capability.
 Safety capability is the interactive combination of 3 capitals.
 Leadership is one ‘capital’ that combines with others to create safety
capability.
Safety Science Innovation Lab

19. Safety Science Innovation Lab
Organisational
Capital
Social Capital
(Leadership)
Human Capital
Safety Capability
Success in uncertain
and interdependent
environments

20. In summary
1. We know the behaviours, now it’s time to focus on the context.
2. We get insights into safety leadership interactions with context by unpacking
critical decisions, not exploring specific behaviours.
3. How does leadership (social capital) interact with human capital (knowledge,
motivation) and organisational capital (structures, systems) to create safety
capability?
4. How is leadership contributing to good quality information flow between and
within layers of the work system?
5. Can we educate about the context surrounding safety leadership by building
awareness of different levels’ constraints, pressures, and demands?
Safety Science Innovation Lab

21. Thank you!
tristan.casey@griffith.edu.au
LinkedIn
0424 874 787