Presentation Imp Presentn WCM 1488348649 236072
Presentation Imp Presentn WCM 1488348649 236072
Presentation Imp Presentn WCM 1488348649 236072
Guided by Prof.
Pratiksha Borikar
SAFETY:
Culture
Management responsibility
At its core, ethics holds up a positive vision of what is right and what is
good.
It defines what is "worth" pursuing as guidance for our decisions and
actions.
Workplace injuries and deaths are too often seen in the abstract as
statistics. But when it happens to someone we love, we suddenly see the
reality of the horrible pain and suffering and its widespread effect.
It is our ethical responsibility to do what is necessary to protect employees
from death, injury, and illness in the workplace.
This is the only foundation upon which a true safety culture can be
established in any workplace.
CULTURE NOT A PROGRAM
But, in the event the employee refuses to take the actions required to work
safely, the employer must utilize a system of progressive discipline to
enforce safety requirements and ensure the cooperation of the employee,
or the removal of the employee from the workplace in order to protect the
employee and their coworkers
ALL INJURIES ARE PREVENTABLE
ABSTRACT:
A growing body of research supports the importance of supervisors’ safety
leadership in promoting employees’ engagement in safety. However, the factors
that give rise to these safety leadership behaviours are under-explored.
The current study addressed this void by adopting a Job Demands-Resources
framework to identify contextual influences on supervisors’ safety leadership
behaviours.
Focus group data from sixty-nine supervisors recruited from the UK construction
industry showed that role overload, production demands, formal procedures, and
workforce characteristics hindered supervisors’ engagement in safety leadership.
In contrast, social support (especially from the organization and co-workers) and
perceived autonomy promoted supervisors’ engagement in safety leadership.
Exploration around these issues highlighted a need for more training for
supervisors in this role and the development of a supportive environment between
supervisors affiliated with different parent companies.
METHODOLOGY:
Each focus group comprised between 6 and 10 supervisors and took place
in a private conference room on site. All participants were given an
information sheet at the start of the focus group outlining he topic for
discussion and their right to withdraw at anytime.
All supervisors agreed to participate and gave their permission for the
discussion to be digitally recorded and later transcribed verbatim (omitting
any information that would allow an individual, or their company, to be
identified).
Each focus group was designed to be as open as possible, beginning with
the broad question of ‘‘in your opinion, what defines good safety
leadership?’’ followed by ‘‘what factors help supervisors to engage in
good safety leadership?’’ and ‘‘what factors make it difficult for (i.e.,
hinder) supervisors to engage in good safety leadership?’’
METHODOLOGY:
These questions were shown in two pilot focus groups, which were carried out
with15 supervisors (n = 7 and 8) on two different project sites, to be effective
in stimulating discussion while avoiding subjectivity from the group facilitator.
To encourage conversation during the focus groups, and to provide a point of
reference for all group participants, each supervisor was asked to provide one
factor that helped and one factor that hindered engagement in safety leadership.
Supervisors were informed that these factors did not have to be restricted to the
current project, or the current project’s main operating company, but could
include any of those things experienced during their time as a supervisor. The
factors that were identified by each supervisor was discussed at a group level,
in which each factor was probed in detail to establish if it was perceived by
supervisors as being among the most important influences on safety leadership
behaviors. Each focus group lasted between 40 and 90 min.
RESULT: