Defining and Assessing Safety Culture in High Reliability Systems

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498-505.
This work discusses the revival of interest in the role that cultural, rather than rational, factors
play in how organizations function. It is argued that every organization has a distinctive culture
that has evolved through trial and error and that includes shared values, heroes that embody these
values, rituals and ceremonies, and cultural networks. In stronger, more cohesive cultures,
members’ behaviors are constrained by mutual accord rather than command. By characterizing
the business environment as having two main dimensions, degree of risk and speed of feedback,
four basic cultural types were identified in different contexts:
(1) Tough-guy/Macho culture — high risk and quick feedback,
(2) “Bet your company” culture — high risk and slow feedback,
(3) “Work hard/Play hard” culture — low risk and quick feedback, and
(4) Process culture—low risk and slow feedback.
The metaphor of organizational culture in behavioral science research helps us understand what
more rigorous concepts miss, but also leaves much uncovered and unexplained. In the realm of
basic science, the criteria to assess a concept are replicability, generalizability, and reliability; in
applied science, the criterion is usefulness. It is argued that organizational culture is a concept
that is both powerful and useful.
Eiff, G. (1999). Organizational safety culture. Paper presented at the Tenth International
Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH.
The necessary attributes of a safety culture, and what it must have as well as what it must
become in order to be effective at fostering safety at all levels, were reviewed. According to
Reason, safety cultures must be “informed cultures” characterized by being a good reporting
culture, a committed learning culture, an organizationally flexible culture and a just adjudicative
and disciplinary culture. Management and the individual employee’s role of promoting safety
culture were discussed. This article also explored the difference between “corporate cultures”
and “work cultures” and discussed how a correctly developed corporate culture provided the
opportunity for a safety culture to develop but did not insure its establishment. The paper related
research findings, concerning how charismatic workers and managers, who actually defined the
cultural focus of the workplace, influenced local cultures’ definitions of safety. The paper
concluded by answering the nagging question of how safety culture might be successfully
developed within the context of the aviation maintenance work environment by discussing an
experimental strategy currently being evaluated by Purdue researchers to integrate safety
advocacy into aviation maintenance environments. This strategy was called Safety Action Team,
which utilized a peer monitoring, mentoring, and adjudication process coupled with a highly
diversified communication strategy to insure that problems are reviewed and addressed by
representatives from all career field.
10