On a regular basis, organizations introduce new safety policies and tools. Even when support is limited, we often assume that some policy is better than none at all. In industry, for example, the VCA (Safety Certificate for Contractors) has been introduced. This certification comes with several obligations whose usefulness is not always endorsed by management. For the sake of certification, requirements such as a monthly safety walk are often accepted without conviction.
This article argues that implementing policy with limited support is not only ineffective, but can even have a counterproductive effect on organizational safety.
Behavior as a factor in organizational safety
Current safety problems are partly rooted in unsafe behavior. In roughly two-thirds of all incidents, unsafe behavior is identified as a significant contributing factor. Safety policy should therefore primarily focus on strengthening safe behavior.
Research consistently shows that the behavior of supervisors is a key influence on employees’ safety behavior. The more credible a supervisor appears, the more likely employees are to follow their lead.
Saying versus doing
Credibility is strongly related to communication. Employees continuously analyze the messages sent by their supervisors. A crucial factor here is the overlap between words and actions. When what a leader says aligns with what they do, we speak of congruent behavior.
Communication theory shows that congruence between words and actions is essential for trust in a message. That trust, in turn, directly affects compliance with policy.
The matrix of saying and doing
A leader’s safety behavior can be schematically divided into two channels, creating a four-quadrant matrix.
Columns represent what the leader does
Left: acts safely and makes decisions that safeguard safety
Right: compromises safety or behaves unsafely
Rows represent what the leader says
Top: frequently speaks about safety
Bottom: rarely or never explicitly addresses safety
Every managerial action fits into one of these four quadrants.
The highest added value
Quadrant A delivers the highest added value: leaders who act safely themselves and explicitly emphasize safety in their communication. This congruence creates clarity and trust.
Saying or doing?
The next question is which quadrant adds the most value after A. Most people choose Quadrant C: leaders who act safely but do not explicitly talk about safety.
This aligns with what neuroscience tells us. At least ten times more brain cells are involved in visual processing than in listening. We judge people more by what they do than by what they say. Actions speak louder than words.
Congruent or not?
This leaves Quadrants B and D. Opinions differ on which is worse.
Some argue that Quadrant B (talking about safety but not acting safely) is still preferable to D, because safety is at least mentioned.
Others argue that Quadrant B is actively harmful, because the inconsistency between words and actions undermines credibility.
Congruence creates trust
Communication science supports the latter view. Behavior in Quadrant B damages the credibility of the leader and, by extension, the policy they represent. It invites employees to question the entire safety approach:
“They say safety is important, but I don’t see it.”
By promoting policy without personally adhering to it, safety messages lose their value. Ultimately, the credibility of the entire safety system is put at risk.
A blind spot
Almost everyone can name examples of Quadrant B behavior — usually involving someone else, another department, or another organization. People rarely recognize it in themselves.
Sometimes leaders have good intentions but fail to act accordingly. In other cases, they do not believe in the policy themselves but still promote it, naively assuming employees will not notice. Very few people are convincing actors. As a result, Quadrant B is a major blind spot.
Examples
Beyond VCA obligations, many other examples illustrate this problem:
- Attaching 50 pages of documentation to a work permit, assuming a (foreign) technician will read and absorb it — while everyone knows there is no time.
- Mandating a Last-Minute Risk Analysis (LMRA) for every task and requiring a completed card as proof, despite knowing it adds no real value.
- Organizing daily safety briefings during a turnaround for all contractors, even though more than half cannot understand the language.
- Implementing a “Unsafe Situation Reporting” system without meaningful follow-up, leading employees to doubt management commitment.
Cleaning up policy
Employees can easily extend this list with policies that will never work in practice. This creates work for both policymakers and management.
For every rule, one question must be answered honestly:
Does this rule actually solve a real problem?
Belief in a rule is the foundation of convincing others. If that belief is absent, the rule should be abolished. If belief is present, the next question is how to translate it effectively to employees.
In summary
Compliance with policy rests on two pillars:
- The credibility of the policy itself
- The credibility of those who promote it
Poorly thought-out or poorly understood rules undermine credibility and negatively affect the entire safety system. The statement “if it doesn’t help, it can’t hurt” is therefore false. Organizations would do well to critically review their safety policies. For every rule, its purpose must be clear. Employees will only see its value — and adjust their behavior — if leaders truly believe in it themselves.
Juni Daalmans
April 2018
post@brainbasedsafety.com