“Two serious injuries and a serious incident in less than a month — how on earth did this happen? What are we doing wrong?” thought Mike to himself after hearing about the latest injury from one of his supervisors earlier that morning. Visibly jarred, he desperately tried to recount the last few weeks in search of what might have led the site astray.
Recently promoted to Plant Manager, Mike prided himself on hard work, getting the job done on time and finding creative solutions. After all, these were the very behaviors that had helped him be so successful. And while the site was now more profitable since he took over, safety was now becoming a major issue. But why? He always told people that safety was important. Was his message being received?
Mike’s story is familiar to many. A well-intentioned, successful leader who works their way up through the ranks by overcoming obstacles and getting things done. Believing that they prioritize safety by saying the right things, they lack the self-awareness to recognize how those same behaviors that made them successful in other areas can be detrimental when it comes to leading safety.
Four psychological factors make up the SafetyDNA Model
Leaders play a vital role in creating and sustaining organizational safety culture. Their words and actions have a profound impact on safety within any organization. Studies have shown a strong link between leader behaviors and safety climate, which in turn, directly impacts safety culture and injury rates. Yet many organizations still lack a basic understanding of the individual characteristics which shape leader behavior in a safety context.
One model which can help us to better understand these characteristics and behaviors is SafetyDNA Model, which is based on published research in the field of Industrial & Organizational Psychology. It consists of four psychological factors that have been strongly linked to health and safety outcomes. As we review this model, let’s have a look at how it influenced Mike’s leadership behavior.
The first factor in the model is Control, which is the extent to which one believes they can control future outcomes through present actions. Individuals low in Control feel that events tend to occur due to luck or circumstances, whereas those high in Control believe they can influence the environment around them. In order to create a strong safety culture, it is important for leaders to believe that injuries can be prevented. However, developing this mindset is difficult for those who are lower on Control because they tend to see things as outside of their sphere of influence. Why would injuries be any different? Interestingly, one of Mike’s immediate responses to a recent injury was, “Sometimes you’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Second is the Awareness factor, which deals with an individual’s attention to detail, working memory, and focus over time. Some individuals are naturally able to see and remember more details compared to others — particularly in a multi-tasking environment. Awareness is critical in any working environment where safety hazards exist. Leaders must display awareness in many aspects of their role, such as monitoring working environments or ensuring that plans and instructions have sufficient detail. Mike always considered himself to be a “big picture guy” who didn’t get stuck on the minutiae. While this trait helped him handle more responsibility over time, it was now resulting in unclear directions and hazards being overlooked on the shop floor.
The third factor — Rules — shapes how we perceive policies and procedures. People who are naturally rule-bound rarely question a policy. Instead, they follow rules consistently and see things as very black or white. In contrast, those low on Rules tend to be more flexible when it comes to rules. Their first inclination is to ask “why?” They often find rules to be restrictive and tend to trust themselves over policies and procedures. Interestingly, when employees pushed back on safety rules, Mike often agreed with them and sent mixed signals, allowing some exceptions to be made. His flexibility was an asset in most situations, but it also created a culture where clear rules turned into gray areas.
Caution, the fourth factor, refers to one’s risk tolerance and impulsivity. Individuals lower on Caution tend to be comfortable with risk and make decisions quickly based on instinct. By comparison, those higher on Caution tend to avoid risk and prefer to make slower, more deliberate decisions. Mike was very decisive and willing to try new ideas, but he often made risky decisions, such as delaying maintenance to keep up with production or utilizing contractors with low prices but poor safety practices.
Creating an action plan
As this story illustrates, self-awareness is essential for leaders. While leaders may have great intentions and believe they are supporting safety, without a clear understanding of their behavioral tendencies, they can easily go astray. Psychometric assessments provide a valuable solution to this problem. Assessments that measure relevant traits and demonstrate validity can be used to measure critical competencies such as the four-factor SafetyDNA model. The resulting information can then guide skills development by helping leaders to understand their own profile and create an action plan tailored to their unique strengths and developmental areas.
An assessment could measure these characteristics for Mike and highlight potential risk areas for him as a safety leader. When coupled with an effective learning and coaching process, his assessment results could enable him to create a meaningful action plan to address areas that pose a risk to safety. For example, Mike could set tangible goals such as:
Meeting with safety staff to review incident investigations and recent audits to better understand how the recent injuries can be prevented (Control)
Using a checklist during site walk-throughs to help him identify specific hazards he might otherwise miss (Awareness)
During interactions where team members challenge safety rules, responding in a way that conveys why the rules are in place and why he believes it is important to follow them consistently (Rules)
Seeking a second opinion before making decisions that impact safety and making a commitment to ensure that preventative maintenance is always conducted on schedule (Caution)
By combining data-driven assessment insights with personalized training and coaching solutions, leaders can truly make safety personal.
