Visit our website: http://www.sacsconsult.com.au/ Vist us on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/sacs-consulting

1. The Psychology of Safety at Work
Andrew Marty
Managing Director
SACS Consulting

2. Objectives
• To identify team and organisational
characteristics which create safer behaviours
• To review research into personality as a
predictor of workplace safety behaviours
• To consider how to create a climate with better
safety outcomes
• To consider how we can cause employees and
other stakeholders to change their behaviour in
respect to safety.

3. What is Safety Climate?
• The degree to which employees perceive that
management and leadership are committed to
safety. Research demonstrates that this is a
driver for real world safety outcomes.

4. Key determinants of safety
behaviour
Research has shown that the key determinants of
safety behaviour at work are:
• Environmental factors
• Workplace policies/procedures/practices
• Human relationships
• Personality.
De Joy, Schaffer and Wilson et al, 2004; Brown,Willis, and Prussia 2000; Cheyne et al. 1998; Shannon, Robson,
and Sale (2001)

5. Mirror neurons, yawning, and emotional
contagion
Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from
http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/

6. Leadership matters
• The most persuasive people are those we consider to
be part of our own group and with whom we closely
interact.
• Local leaders – managers, coordinators, union
officials – will be crucial to the success of our attempts
to optimise safety behaviours in organisations.
• If the objective is to maximise behaviour change, each
team within an organisation will need its own local,
and largely self-developed, plan for safety
optimisation.

7. The influence of culture on safety
outcomes
• A key driver of safety climate is the general climate
of interactions within teams and the organisation.
• The quality of the overall climate in an organisation
or team causes safety climate. A happier and more
positive work environment is a safer work
environment.
• Policy and process is crucial, but without cultural
vitality you will not optimise safety outcomes.

8. Employees live in three “worlds”
My job
My team
My organisation
Above the line is between 70 and
85% of employee engagement
and wellbeing
This is why corporate
initiatives such as mission,
vision, values sometimes
have little impact
• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in
Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.
• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian Psychological Society, 33(2).
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2): 268-279.

9. Drivers of safety climate
• A key driver of safety climate is the general
climate of interactions within teams and the
organisation (e.g. Bjerkan, 2010)
• The quality of the general climate in an
organisation is a cause of safety climate
• A happier and more positive work environment
will mean a safer work environment
• A positive work environment causes higher
levels of discretionary effort – people do things
above and beyond what is necessary for them
to retain their jobs.

10. Bjerkan 2010
• Anne Mette Bjerkan conducted a large cross-sectional
survey amongst employees in the Norwegian offshore
oil and gas industry, published in Journal of Risk
Research
• The study concluded that the work group (team level)
is crucial for understanding work safety climate, the
perception of the work environment on subjective health
status, as well as accident frequency
• The results also suggest that OHS interventions should
be targeted towards the work group level, in addition to
the organisation as a whole.

11. How the brain responds to events
• It is helpful to identify two main subsystems in the brain:
Old Brain
- approximates the
“old” part of the brain
The New Brain
• Affiliation, generosity, goodwill
• Reflective
• Options considered
• Imaginative/creative
• Higher order learning
• Slow/resource intensive
• Manages impulsive desires
• Labels emotional states
• Not ‘fully functional’ until
adulthood
• Seat of optimism
The Old Brain
• Focused on self
• Sensitive to threat
• Comfortable, auto pilot, or
• Fight or Flight
• Resistant to change
• Low order learning only
• Fast/efficient/instinctive
• Engages impulsive desires
• Anger/fear/depression
• Highly developed at birth
• Seat of pessimism
Energy use is more or less fixed – plus or minus 1 %. If you are in one
Zone you are not in the other

12. Foundations of Cultural Vitality
Esteem – valuing, recognising, supporting
Alignment – outcomes focus, cascading of
strategic intent, clarity about acceptable
behaviours, performance development
Belonging – team inclusion and cohesion,
collaborative decision making, justice
Growth – job satisfaction, learning by
doing
“New Brain” emotional tone
Optimism, positivity, future focus

13. What are we aiming for?
• Many safety efforts focus on avoidance – of risk,
of injury, of lost time – old brain message
• Is avoidance of something as motivational as
pursuit of a positive goal? – perhaps not
• This is why we see in some organisations a
pursuit of wellbeing as a stated objective
• Do we want to get from minus 30 to zero, or
from minus 30 to plus 30? A positive
psychology perspective.

14. Relationship between positive emotions
and stress
productivity
productivity
Positive emotions Stress

15. Outcomes – research suggests that better
wellbeing delivers:
• Internal:
– Lower staff turnover and higher retention.
– Better OH&S outcomes.
– Lower absenteeism.
– Higher levels of discretionary effort – staff willingly
doing more than is necessary for them to retain their
jobs.
– Therefore higher rates of productivity.
– Higher levels of evidence of harmony and absence of
negative behaviours – bullying, harassment, etc.
Manion, Jo. (2005) ‘The Business Case for Happiness’. Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4102/is_200511/ai_n15744775
Lucas, R.E. & Diener, E. (2004). ‘Well-Being’, Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 3, 669-676

16. Outcomes – research suggests that better
wellbeing delivers:
• External:
– Higher levels of independent measures of
stakeholder, customer, or client satisfaction.
– Higher levels of effective advocacy on behalf
of the organisation.
– Higher levels of growth, profit, budget
achievement and other financial outcomes in
relevant entities.
Manion, Jo. (2005) ‘The Business Case for Happiness’. Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4102/is_200511/ai_n15744775

17. Wellbeing at work has two
key causes
• The environment in which the person lives and
works.
• The psychological makeup of the individual.

18. Can personality predict safety
behaviours in the workplace?

19. Australian study:
• N = 2049 – big enough to form a normative
sample
• 1120 male participants
• 929 female participants
• Average age of participants = 43 years
• Average time to complete = 50 minutes
• Candidates on our employee database
• Questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and
the personality dimensions as assessed by
HEXACO personality inventory.

20. Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO
3: Extraversion
• Social Self-Esteem
• Social Boldness
• Sociability
• Liveliness
4: Agreeableness
• Forgiveness
• Gentleness
• Flexibility
• Patience
1: Honesty-Humility
• Sincerity
• Fairness
• Greed Avoidance
• Modesty
2: Emotionality
• Fearfulness
• Anxiety
• Dependence
• Sentimentality
5: Conscientiousness
• Organization
• Diligence
• Perfectionism
• Prudence
7: (Interstitial scale)
• Altruism

21. Recent research into CWBs – employees
or employer………
• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common:
1. Lateness – unpunctuality
2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so
3. Inability to get on with others
4. Being distracted from core work tasks
5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others
6. Theft of organisation property
7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices
8. Being openly critical of the employer
9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices
10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employees
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,
11(1), 0-42

22. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational
Health and Safety rules at work
0.4%
1.7
19.2
46.3
32.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.4% 1.7% 19.2% 46.3% 32.3%
Cumulative
percentage
0.4% 2.1% 21.4% 67.7% 100%

23. Personality predicting
OHS-related CWBs
(HH) Sincerity
(HH) Fairness
(HH) Greed-Avoidance
(HH) Modesty
(EMO) Fearfulness
(EMO) Anxiety
(EMO) Dependence
(EMO) Sentimentality
(EX) Social Self-Esteem
(EX) Social Boldness
(EX) Sociability
(EX) Liveliness
(A) Forgiveness
(A) Gentleness
(A) Flexibility
(A) Patience
(C) Organisation
(C) Diligence
(C) Perfectionism
(C) Prudence
(O) Aesthetic
Appreciation
(O) Inquisitiveness
(O) Creativity
(O) Unconventionality
Altruism
Best predictors of OHS CWB Beta weights
(HH) Fairness -0.201
(C) Prudence -0.197
(EMO) Fearfulness -0.128
(C) Organisation -0.107
I have ignored or not followed
safety or Occupational Health and
Safety rules at work
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .491a .241 .232 .688

24. Ability of CWBs to predict
OHS-related CWBs
Best predictors of OHS CWB Beta weights
Respect for Work Policies CWB 0.276
Have taken Company Property CWB 0.230
I have ignored or not followed
safety or Occupational Health and
Safety rules at work
Model Summary(CWB1) I am late for appointments
(CWB2) When I have been ill but not so
ill I could attend work I have taken a
sick day
(CWB3) I have left jobs in the past
because I could not get on with
someone I worked with
(CWB4) When I am at work I have found
myself distracted by activities such as
conversations
(CWB5) I have found it necessary to be
impolite to others at work
(CWB6) I have taken the property of
organisations I have worked for
(CWB8) I have been critical of
organisations I worked for to others
(CWB9) I have ignored or got around
policies at work which I did not respect
(CWB10) If I don’t like someone at work I
ignored or snubbed them

25. OHS compliance - differences
between males and females
* Statistically significant difference p<.05
Male = 1120
Female = 929
1.84
1.86
1.88
1.9
1.92
1.94
1.96
CWB I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety
Male
Female

26. Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours
I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health
and Safety – Gender Differences
Male Female
R2 .225 R2 .285
Adjusted R2 .207 Adjusted R2 .265
Facet Beta Weights: Facet Beta Weights:
• (HH) Fairness -.224 • (C) Prudence -.231
• (C) Prudence -.171 • (HH) Fairness -.188
• (C) Organisation -.113 • (EMO) Fearfulness -.149
• (A) Flexibility -.117
• (A) Patience .120
• (EX) Social Self Esteem .106
• (C) Organisation -.102

27. Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours
I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health
and Safety – Age and Gender Differences
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
30 years or younger 31 -40 years 41 -50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female
Male = 1120
Female = 929

28. Optimising safety at work

29. Change champions – preferably elected by
colleagues
Exec
Middle Management
Staff

30. A destination-based approach
• This is a “destination based change” approach
to safety, requiring preconditions such as a
belief in the value of empowerment and
engagement, a belief that safety is not a
specialist function to be left to specialist
organisation officers and finally, commitment of
time and resources to what is a highly
decentralised and empowered approach.

31. SACS Model of Destination
Based Change
NB: default state is flatline, in absence of confident forecasts
The Environment The Environment
Time Horizon – eg 2 years
ENABLERS – Process and Culture (including Leadership)
Current
State
Future
StatePeople
Plan 1
People
Plan 2

32. An action learning approach
to safety….
• Goal – let’s identify what it would be like for this
work group to be optimum in terms of wellbeing
• Reality – where are we now, where 10 is perfect
and zero means we are nowhere near this ideal
• Options – what options do we have in order to
optimise our wellbeing in this work group?
• What next – Let’s make a plan to get from
where we are now to where we want to be.

33. Preconditions for destination based
approach to safety
• A belief in the value of empowerment and engagement. This is the
opposite of a top down approach. It is really a top down, bottom up and
inside out approach with each work group required and empowered to
develop its own safety optimisation plan and enact it. The acceptability of
such an approach will be determined by the leadership beliefs of each
organisation.
• A belief that safety is not a specialist function. Safety is sometimes seen
as a separate function – perhaps like audit. For any organisational function
to be optimum the commitment and action of each leader and each staff
member must be both empowered and required. In this context safety
officers take a facilitation role – providing resources and support for each
work group to ensure that they have and achieve their plan.
• Commitment. Such an approach takes time and therefore money. This will
be determined by a cost benefit analysis of the benefit of optimum safety.

34. Key points for optimising
safety at work

35. 1. Higher wellbeing = safer organisation
Safety climate is strongly caused by general
organisation climate. An engaged, committed
organisation is a safer organisation.

36. 1a – Hire good people
• Intelligent
• Trustworthy – less CWBs and higher integrity
• Stable, positive personality – fair minded,
organised and prudent.

37. 1b – Effective leadership
Esteem – valuing, recognising, supporting
Alignment – outcomes focus, cascading of
strategic intent, clarity about acceptable
behaviours, performance development
Belonging – team inclusion and cohesion,
collaborative decision making, justice
Growth – job satisfaction, learning by doing
“New Brain” emotional tone
Optimism, positivity, future focus

38. 2. Close is better
Close is better, which is why high level
messages from senior people or OH&S specialists
can be less successful.
Ensure that key messages are delivered by
people who are close to the recipients.
E.g., If you seek to influence policy makers, find
message sources who are close to them.
For groups of workers, facilitate a self managed
workplace improvement process which will occur
in each team.

39. Employees live in three “worlds”
My job
My team
My organisation
Above the line is between 70 and
85% of employee engagement
and wellbeing
This is why corporate
initiatives such as mission,
vision, values sometimes
have little impact
• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in
Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.
• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian Psychological Society, 33(2).
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2): 268-279.

40. 3. “Doing” causes change
• The more active and involving we can make
change efforts the more likely people will
change.
• At the work group level this is why self
generated action learning programmes are most
effective.
• The role of the organisation is to facilitate and
support these programmes and to hold work
groups accountable to participate in them for the
sake of safety.

41. 4. New brain messages versus old brain
messages
• Old brain, fear based messages can work, but
tend to lose their effectiveness quickly
• Differential impact for different groups – eg
gender
• The most enduring messages are “let’s define
where we want to be in respect of wellbeing,
and let’s get there.

42. 5. Influence decision makers
• Seek to influence decision makers – business
leaders, policy professionals – with evidence
which demonstrates benefits in terms of human
wellbeing and commercial return.

43. References
• Bjerkan, A. M. (2010). Health, Environment, Safety Culture and Climate – Analysing the Relationships to Occupational
Accidents, Journal of Risk Research, 13(4): 445-477.
• Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G., & Prussia, G.E. (2000). Predicting Safe Employee Behavior in the Steel Industry: Development
and Test of a Sociotechnical Model, Journal of Operations Management, 18: 445-465.
• Cheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., & Tomas, J. M. (1998). Modelling Safety Climate in the Prediction of Levels of Safety
Activity, Work and Stress, 12: 255– 271.
• DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., Wilson, M. G., Vandenberg, R. J., & Butts, M. M. (2004). Creating Safer Workplaces:
Assessing the Determinants and Role of Safety Climate, Journal of Safety Research, 35: 81-90.
• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in Uncertain
and Independent Contexts, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction,
Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.
• MacLean, P.D. (2002) The Brain’s Generation Gap, The Social Contract, 12(3)
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1203/article_1072.shtml (retrieved 24.04.11)
• National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA). (2009). National Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Agenda for
Occupational Safety and Health Research and Practice in the U.S. Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities (TWU)
sector. Author: Washington, DC,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nora/comment/agendas/transwareutil/pdfs/TransWareUtilAug2009.pdf (retrieved 09.01.09).
• Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M. (2000). The Impact of Organizational Climate on Safety Climate and Individual
Behaviour, Safety Science, 34: 99-109.
• Rock, D. & Schwartz, J. (2006). The Neuroscience of Leadership. Author: Strategy + Business Issue http://www.strategy-
business.com/press/freearticle/06207 , (retrieved 19.08.09).
• Shannon, H.S., Robson, L. S., & Sale, J. E. (2001). Creating Safer and Healthier Workplaces: Role of Organizational
Factors and Job Characteristics. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40: 319–34.
• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence, Annual Review Psychology, 51: 539-570.

44. For further information please contact Andrew
Marty, Managing Director of SACS Consulting
on +613 8622 8508 or
andrewm@sacsconsult.com.au