Safety Culture Presentation - University of Minnesota

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1: Overview of University of Minnesota

Safety Culture Presentation - University of Minnesota

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?