Safety Culture Presentation - University of Minnesota

Overview of University of Minnesota‐
DuPont program with Local Cooperatives
Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council
CEO and Board Retreat
July 2012
Michael Boland
University of Minnesota
Background
• CEP Roundtable sponsored by CoBank (lender to
cooperatives), Kansas State University and
University of Minnesota had a ½ day safety
culture education program in March 2011
– Used speakers from DuPont and Garden City
Cooperative
• Program planning committee recommended DuPont
– A number of firms wanted to know more about
DuPont’s program
– Group was formed through University of Minnesota to
contract with DuPont
Background on DuPont’s Program
• DuPont has developed a very effective method to assess a
firm’s safety culture. DuPont has found that safety culture is
highly correlated to safety performance measured by
reportable safety incidents.
• Uses a unique culture scoring system that scores firms on a
100 point scale and categorizes firms using a “Bradley
Curve” relationship that cross‐classifies safety culture with
reportable incidents.
• The classification system uses four categories of culture:
Reactive (0‐40), Dependent (40 to 60), Independent (60 to
80), and Benchmark Best (“World Class” or greater than
80). These scores are derived from a 24 question survey
which measures three variables of culture strength:
leadership, structure, and process and actions.
Objective
• Develop and implement a two‐year safety culture
education program for agricultural cooperatives
built upon the implications found from the June
2011 assessment.
• At the conclusion of the program, the same
assessment will be done to note any
improvement.
• Understand the literature on ‘why people do not
wear seatbelts even though they save lives’ and
why one’s attitudes towards risk may change
daily depending upon various circumstances

Initial June 2011 Assessment
• Seven cooperatives participated
(approximately 2,500 employees)
• Results indicated a great deal of room for
improvement
• Another cohort of four conducted a similar
assessment in December 2011
– Results suggest room for improvement
2012‐2013 Education Program
• 2012
• January – Managing Safety: Systems that Work for Operations Managers
• February – Managing Safety: Techniques that Work for Line Supervisors
• March –One‐half day Executive Leadership Workshop
• August –Incident Investigation and Felt Leadership Workshop (
• November –Safety Scorecard and Dashboard Development.
• 2013
• January ‐ Webinar to share safety scorecards and discuss process issues.
• March –webinar on preparation for June reassessment
• June ‐ Launch of reassessment
• August – discussion of assessment results
• Coordination through University of Minnesota
What have we learned (so far)
• Need to decide on what your absolutes are with regard
to safety and what that means for your culture.
– Cell Phone example –a number of large firms (including
DuPont have a no cell phones, including hands‐free, policy)
• No cell phones – enforcement?
– Parts of organization only (truck drivers)
– What about letting people pull over the road to take a call?
• Hands‐free –do you equip all employees with same phones and
install same hands‐free technology on every vehicle?
– Research says this gives people false sense of security
• Ignore it; member‐farmers and employees want immediate access
to employees. Agriculture is unique
What have we learned (so far)
• Employee backgrounds differ widely.
– There is no single source of talent for safety directors
in staff positions
– Backgrounds vary widely
• Going to market means ‘stealing from someone else’ (not
healthy for entire system) or doing extensive training of new
employee
– Turnover is irregular
• Little or no “bench strength” in organization
– No common peer network (may know safety
coordinator in company next to you but lack of a
shared group or network)

What have we learned (so far)
• Need to ensure that a senior line manager or
several senior managers (who reports to General
Manager or CEO) has safety management in their
job responsibilities.
– Staff people (especially new or junior employees) lack
credibility with long‐term supervisors and managers
– Staff people with safety in job title should report to
this senior line manager
• Move the job of safety manager to more of an education or
consultant leader as opposed to a “traffic cop”
What have we learned (so far)
• Lots of room for improvement. Why?
– Mergers, consolidation, restructuring
• Safety culture not always considered in such changes
– More to come; when change happens in
organizations, do not neglect the change in safety
cultures.
• Clear from data that different organizations can have
different cultures and this must be accounted for when
merging or restructuring.
– Employee comments are very revealing when they are
allowed to ‘talk’ in an assessment.
• Lack of linkage between safety and compliance education
and overall culture.
What have we learned (so far)
• Safety committee structure is important
– Need to have a safety committee (many do not)
– Should be composed as a leadership committee
with policy and implementation responsibilities
• Compliance is an input to the committee
– Needs to be chaired by CEO / General Manager
• Direct reports should be part of committee structure
What have we learned (so far)
• Safety observations should be done
– Many co‐ops do not do this yet
– Policy and procedures for it should be described
and implemented at every location by those with
management responsibilities
– Focus should be on education and learning and
not on ‘gotcha’ issues.

What have we learned (so far)
Questions?
• No one wants a culture of fear or intimidation
– Unclear whether one ‘fires’ an employee to make a
statement is effective or not
• Some employees want examples made and others want
change to be practical
• But a pattern of behavior that ignores safety must be
addressed for employee morale and culture.
• Literature says one needs to appeal to long‐term
employees sense of legacy, realization that future
is different than the past, altruisim, and
leadership for next generation of employees.
DRAFT VERSION 4 December 2011