Graham Winter is an Australian psychologist 
who was the chief psychologist for the Australian Olympic team and is now an author and business adviser. In August 2009 he has a book released entitled “The Man Who Cured the Performance Review”.
SafetyAtWorkBlog managed to interview Graham last week about the book, stress and safety leadership. The SafetyAtWorkBlog podcast is available for download.
There seems to be new institutes and academic schools popping up regularly over research into the issue of work/life balance. Recently one of the oldest and most prominent of the institutes, the Centre for Work + Life at the University of South Australia, released new research data.
The latest Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) was released in late July 2009. The executive summary identifies several important issues relevant to OHS:
“Three years of data about work-life interference in Australia tell us that many employees experience frequent interference from work in their personal, home and community lives, many feel overloaded at work and feelings of time pressure are also common and growing.”
“Work hours are central to work-life interference….. Many Australians are a long way from their preferred working hours and the 2008/09 economic downturn has not made any difference to the incidence of this mismatch.”
The work by Barbara Pocock and others at the Centre is characterised by recommendations for improvements rather than simply describing a situation. In this data the researchers say
“Our AWALI reports over the past three years suggest that employers and public policy makers can help workers deal with work-life pressures. This involves improving the quality of supervision and workplace culture, controlling workloads, designing ‘do-able’ jobs, reducing long working hours and work-related commuting, increasing employee-centered flexibility and options for permanent part-time work, improving the fit between actual and preferred hours and increasing care supports.”
It is obvious from these comments that OHS professionals need to work hard on these matters to create, or maintain, their workplace safety cultures.
Sometime ago SafetyAtWorkBlog wrote that “engagement” was just a new term for “consultation”. Rebadging or rebranding occurs in the safety discipline as much as any other but our internet ears pricked up at some recent comments in a Canadian podcast from Safety Excellence.
Shawn Galloway and Terry of ProACT Safety is discussing traditional approaches to safety management and how they fit into his philosophy of safety excellence. They say this about behavioural-based safety (BBS):
“[People] come back in with advanced strategies, like behavior-based safety and it’s the same old thing. Everything on the behavior-based safety list is already covered by a rule or procedure in traditional safety.
A lot of times it’s an admission of failure of their traditional safety program…”
It is refreshing to hear a BBS specialist acknowledge that the role for BBS is to progress safety beyond compliance and that compliance strategies, what Galloway describes as “traditional safety”, are fundamental to a company’s safe operation.
For those enlightened safety professionals who seek a deeper understanding of their discipline thr0ugh alternate perspectives, this particular podcast is very good.
The full podcasts are often worth listening to as they discuss safety culture issues, performance indicators and many more of the current safety management concepts.
Australian writer, Jeff Sparrow, recently recently a book that looks at violence and killing , “Killing: A Misadvanture In Violence“. As part of promoting the book he has been interviewed on several radio shows, the one most relevant to SafetyAtWorkBlog, is the 3CR program, Stick Together, about his book.
Sparrow says that he wanted to investigate the “normalisation of killing” and l0oks at occupation which have killing as part of the job. He analysed the killing of animals through the first-hand experience of kangaroo-shooting and visiting an abattoir.
Sparrow says that the abattoir was very much a factory that deconstructs animals rather than manufacturing items, such as cars. This will be no revelation to anyone who has read Eric Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation, in which he analyses abattoirs, particularly meatpacking, in the context of food production. Schlosser’s section on the worker safety and compensation processes in the US meat industry is confronting.
They are also possibly more directly relevant to OHS (or heartless capitalism) than Sparrow’s take on abattoirs, although Sparrow does mention how the structure of the workplace “controls the workers”. This harks back to the dehumanisation of workers for the purpose of productivity where repetition makes the reality of the action of killing or dismemberment, mundane.
In comparison, the roo-shooters have a more detailed understanding of their “craft” because they are working in the wild, where things can go wrong, instead of on the killing floor.
Sparrow also looks at killing that is undertaken in other occupations, such as the defence forces, and workplaces, such as deathrow. In these contexts Sparrow talks about the industrialisation of the war processes.
Ultimately, from the workplace perspective, Sparrow’s book sounds like an interesting resource for those who study the depersonalisation of the worker, or industrialisation. For those who work on, or have responsibility for, production lines, this psychological approach to the book may help.
A sample chapter of the book is available for download.
Every country has its share of high-fliers who “burn out”. Many fade away from the public eye with their careers over. Frequently this path to wealth and prominence is not perceived as a workplace health or safety matter. Some people decide that the health trade-off of multi-million dollar salaries is worth it.
Sadly the psychological reality of this personal decision is often masked by clichés. Frequently, executives say that a major motivation for their decision is “to spend more time with my family”. Many executives may believe this to be a major part of their decision, but regrettably, this worthy sentiment has become a cliché – the equivalent of a beauty pageant winner working toward “world peace”.
The family-time phrase/reason/excuse signifies an important element of the executive’s personality. They were willing to sacrifice decades of their relationship with their partner and to be absent from the development of their children for money.
If any of these departing executives use the family-time phrase in the same departure speech or media exit-interview as regaining “control of their lives” to “re-engage with the most important people in my life”, ask the executives, or politicians, “how do you justify ignoring your family over your career?”.
In some cases one could be more specific. “Do you think that your multi-million career was related to your daughter’s persistent attempts to kill herself?” “After being absent so frequently and for so long, are you still justified in describing your marriage as a loving relationship, or your partner as your ‘soulmate’?” “Was your million-dollar salary really worth it?”
Int he wake of the self-generated corporate financial crisis, some corporate executives are re-examining their ethics and morality. Not enough are going through this but it’s a start. Most say they operate for the benefit of shareholders but they cannot deny the reality of massive remuneration for their efforts. What they are ignoring is the individual cost to their loved ones of these efforts.
Should we look up to the billionaires who sacrifice the wellbeing of others they say they love to chase the dollar? Are these the paragons of our society?
People are trying to maintain or establish a work/life balance. (There are several articles at SafetyAtWorkBlog that report on this movement.) But the reality is that to achieve a work/life balance, one must be prepared to sacrifice income. This may involve the necessity of achieving a certain stage in one’s career that is not the top, but still a position of value in the company and, equally important, of value to one’s family and even one’s own psychological well-being. If one’s colleagues fail to understand this decision, the workplace culture is faulty, and probably irreparable.
If the ultimate ideal is to have a happy, functional, and sustainable community, one must examine one’s own motivations, and one’s own personal priorities. Everyone must consider whether we want to emulate those who sacrifice their family’s welfare for money or whether we support those who rebut the “glory of the high-achiever” and emulate those who love their family enough to spend time with them through their career. Maintenance is easier than repair in life as in safety management.
On 1 July 2009, the Australian industrial relations (IR) climate changed with the introduction of the Fair Work Act. Regardless of the politics of the new Act’s origin, this legislation changes the way that working conditions for Australians are negotiated and set.
The Fair Work Act has no relevance to occupational health and safety, so why mention this on SafetyAtWorkBlog?
The new IR legislation should reduce the conflict that has been existent in workplace negotiations. The new industrial climate is consultative and forward-looking. In fact, the government is hoping that, to some extent, this legislation reboots industrial relations (to borrow a phrase from current international diplomacy).
It is in this IR climate, and consultative structure, that OHS issues will need to be discussed and negotiated in the future.
In a webinar conducted by SmartCompany and Gadens Lawyers on 9 July 2009, the openness of the information/consultative processes was stressed by panellist, Kathryn Dent.
This positive management climate reflected that presented in an earlier seminar conducted by Douglas Workplace Lawyers. Fair Work Australia Commissioner Lewin and lawyer, Andrew Douglas, spoke about how the new IR system is more inclusive than the previous WorkChoices systems. However, they also admitted that the Fair Work Act has nebulous support documentation and information.
The level of prescription is much less than previous. This allows for less restrictive negotiation but it also means that clarity may rely on determinations made by the tribunal. Commissioner Lewin concurred with Andrew Douglas’ point that the operations of the Fair Work system will require several years of “settling in” and some adjustments depending on determinations.
When raising OHS issues for the next year or so in Australia, employees and professionals need to be reminded that many of the managers and employers with whom they are dealing may well be feeling swamped by new industrial relations processes. This distraction may be understandable but OHS obligations remain the same regardless of other management issues.
OHS may seem to be more messy during this period as the IR overlaps with the “safe systems of work”. Unless IR is already part of the responsibilities of an OHS professional, the advice is to keep away from the details of the Fair Work Act. However it is recommended that at least one seminar on the Fair Work Act be attended so that the “tone” of the new legislation is understood. More important is how the Act is to be applied within the workplaces of one’s clients or employer.
Safety management systems will need to be tweaked to fit with the new consultative aims and processes. Of course, they will need to be tweaked again once the harmonised national OHS legislation comes begins in 2010. Don’t expect stability in Australian workplaces for the next couple of years.
The improved safety status in workplaces that have an active union presence has been verified through research, but what of the efforts on safety management from outside the union research efforts.
Below is the abstract of an article that was published online late-2008 (and is available for purchase). The research was conducted in a country with a negative safety culture so the improvements may be more marked than from outside Spain. However, the full study (not accessed by SafetyAtWorkBlog) may provide an interesting before-and-after story.
“Occupational accidents severely deteriorate human capital, and hence negatively affect the productivity and competitiveness of countries. But despite this, we still observe a scarcity of preventive practices, an unsatisfactory management commitment and an absence of safety culture among Spanish firms. The result is evident in firms’ high accident rates. This situation is a consequence of the general belief among firms that investing in safety is a cost, and hence has negative repercussions for their competitiveness. The current work aims to identify good practices in safety management, and analyse the effect of these practices on a set of indicators of organisational performance. For this, we first carry out an exhaustive literature review, and then formulate a series of hypotheses. We then test the proposed model on a sample of 455 Spanish firms. Our findings show that safety management has a positive influence on safety performance, competitiveness performance, and economic-financial performance. Hence they provide evidence of the compatibility between worker protection and corporate competitiveness.”
The full article is available in Safety Science (Volume 47, Issue 7, August 2009, Pages 980-991).
B Fernández-Muñiz, J Montes-Peón and C Vázquez-Ordás, ‘Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance’ (2009) Safety Science 47: 980-991.