Safety Programing

MetricsMetrics

S

Leading Measures

Enhancing safety climate and driving safety performance By Earl Blair and Michael O’Toole

www.asse.org AUGUST 2010 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 29

SH&E PROFESSIONALS KNOW several applications for trailing measures, such as trend analysis, control charts and evaluating the effectiveness of safety initia- tives. The problem many organizations encounter is that the measures they use do not provide adequate feedback for continuous improvement of the safety process nor do they contribute to the development of the safety culture. The safety culture is unlikely to be positively affected when trailing indicators are the pri- mary focus or are the sole safety metrics an organiza- tion uses to assess performance.

Leading indicators measure actions, behaviors and processes, the things people actually do for safety, and not simply the safety-related failures typically tracked by trailing measures. Performance has two aspects: “Performance is a function of both the behavior and accomplishment of a person or a group of people. Performance includes the actions of a person or peo- ple and the result of the action or actions” (Stolovitch & Keeps, 2004, p. 8). This distinction is important to understanding activity measures (behaviors) versus results measures (accomplishments).

A Recommended Approach The best approach to comprehensive safety meas-

ures includes a mix of trailing indicators (accomplish- ments, results and outcomes) and leading indicators (behaviors, processes and activities). ANSI Z10-2005 encourages such a mix, particularly in Part 6.1, Monitoring, Measurement and Assessment, which includesthefollowingstatementintheright-handcol- umn (the “should” or recommendations column):

E6.1: The purpose of these processes is to help evaluate the performance of the management system by measuring its effectiveness in con- trolling and reducing risk. Organizations should develop predictive or “leading” per- formance measures or indicators. The organi- zation can use these measures to identify and correct problems and identify opportunities for risk reduction before injuries or illnesses occur. The leading indicators can be used in combination with carefully collected injury

and illness rates to measure performance. Some examples of indicators of potential prob- lem areas are human factors risks, near-miss incidents and nonconformances found during inspections” (ANSI/AIHA, 2005, p. 18).

The standard further states: E6.1C: These (injury and illness) rates, however, should rarely be the sole or primary tool to eval- uate performance of an OHSMS (Occupational Health and Safety Management System), for several reasons. Primarily, these rates measure the very injuries, illnesses and material losses that a management system is trying to prevent. When injury indicators are the only measure, there may be significant pressure for organiza- tions to “manage the numbers” rather than improve or manage the process (ANSI/AIHA, 2005, p. 19).

Customize Safety Metrics by Site Specific strategies for how to best integrate this mix

of trailing, concurrent and leading indicators become a challenge when planning how to improve safety performance and the ways to develop the safety cul- ture. First, SH&E practitioners want to know what specific metrics are indicated for their organization. Since no set of measurements is right for all (Rinefort, 1976), the safety metrics that are best for any particu- lar site must be determined on a case-by-case basis and customized based on the current circumstances.

Earl Blair, Ed.D., CSP, is an associate professor and director of the graduate program in safety management at Indiana University in Bloomington, and interim director of the Heartland Safety and Health Education Center. Blair holds a degree in Psychology from Asbury College, an M.S. in Safety Management from West Virginia University and an Ed.D. in Vocational Education from University of Kentucky. He is a professional member of ASSE’s Central Indiana Chapter.

Michael O’Toole, Ph.D., is an associate professor of safety science at Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University. He holds a B.S. in Behavioral Psychology and an M.A. in Industrial Psychology, both from Western Michigan University; an M.S. in Safety Engineering from Northern Illinois University; and a Ph.D. in Public Health from the University of Illinois at Chicago. O’Toole is a professional member of ASSE’s Central Florida Chapter.

Abstract: One way to influence and enhance safety culture is to establish and imple- ment safety metrics that drive safety per- formance. This article provides suggestions about various kinds of measures and related approaches to accom- plish this goal.

30 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY AUGUST 2010 www.asse.org

ees are likely to apply their efforts to the process of improving the safety culture through the application of the established metrics.

So Which Metrics Drive Safety Performance? For individual accountability, well-chosen lead-

ing measures will drive specific behaviors and activ- ities. This is especially true if, when those metrics are implemented, individuals are evaluated and re- warded based on those objectives/metrics. To ensure that process metrics are robust:

•include them in employees’, managers’ and supervisors’ evaluations;

•ensure that the operating line implements the metrics and follows up as appropriate.

SH&E professionals can add value to their compa- nies by identifying the specific metrics that enhance site safety culture. Determining the best metrics and the best mix for a specific site or organization is both an art and a science. Manuele (2008) notes that when measuring risk assessment systems “the fact is, risk assessment process is as much art as science” (p. 165).

SH&E professionals can use powerful tools such as Manuele’s risk score formula, but must keep in mind that the numerical scoring system is derived from subjective assessments of the risk levels. It is not straight science; it involves art and an element of subjectivity as well. As Manuele notes more than once, “Numerical risk scores carry an image of pre- cision that can influence decision making and prior- ity setting. In reality . . . they should not be the sole or absolute determinant” (p. 182).

Priorities for selecting measures are based on existing hazards, risk levels and site history, includ- ing an in-depth analysis of injuries and near-misses. The areas of the safety culture that might be meas- ured include those actions that employees at all lev- elsconsistentlytaketo reduceoreliminatelatentand active hazards. Consider tracking specific manage- ment activities on an ongoing basis to support the development of a positive safety culture.

Well-Chosen Soft Metrics = Big Impact Elements of the safety process that have typically

beenconsideredsubjectiveorsoftcanofferthegreat- est return on improving safety performance. The challenge is to choose specific aspects that most pos- itively influence the culture, then add numeric rat- ings to make measurements meaningful.

Stewart (2002) exemplifies the potential impact of soft measures. “Management commitment, line ownership and workforce involvement are the fun- damental drivers of safety. These ‘soft’ factors are supported by comprehensive safety systems and practices . . . in organizations with excellent safety; these systems and practices are meticulously imple- mented and continuously improved.” The challenge is to develop and use meaningful measures based on these key factors.

EchoingStewart’scomment, thebasicelementsof OSHA’s Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines remain as relevant today as when they were first published in 1989. For customizing safety

Second, consideration may be given to the mix of leading indicators versus trailing indicators. For example,shoulditbe50/50orfavoronekindofindi- cator over the other? The authors recommend a mix thatfavorsleadingandconcurrentindicators,suchas 80% leading/20% trailing, or an even greater empha- sisonleadingindicators.This isbasedonthefactthat when a company does a good job of focusing on what it is doing for safety, over time, the trailing indi- cators will reflect the safety accomplishments and thus lower injury rates, workers’ compensation costs and other outcome measures.

A Useful Strategy: Establish Measures Designed to Improve Safety Culture

Various researchers and experts agree that culture is a primary driver and predictor of improving safe- ty performance (Carder & Ragan, 2003; Flin, Mearns, O’Conner, et al., 2000). Manuele (2001, 2008) is emphatic that “the level of safety performance achieved is dictated by the culture of the organiza- tion.” Geller (2005) notes that “safety should be driv- en by the local culture” and that “culture change requires that people understand the principles (of long-term culture change) and know what to do about them” (p. 5).

Manuele (2008) elaborates on the significance of organizational culture:

Safety is culture-driven, and management establishestheculture . . .anorganization’scul- turetranslates intoa system of expected behav- ior. . . . The injury and illness experience that results is a direct reflection of an organization’s safety culture. . . . Major improvements in safe- ty will be achieved only if a change in culture takes place—only if major changes occur in the system of expected behavior” (p. 82). Obviously, the system of expected behavior is

greatly influenced by what is measured and reward- ed. To provide meaningful direction, develop safety measures to continually improve the safety culture over the long-term. Well-chosen leading indicators contribute to continual improvement of the safety culture in the following ways:

•Leading indicators serve as a catalyst for change. •Meaningful metrics are motivational for both

employees and management. •Leading indicators ultimately drive safety per-

formance (Blair & Spurlock, 2008). Expanding on each point, metrics do not necessar-

ily produce change but when well-chosen, with cul- ture development in mind, they may fuel the changes needed in organizational culture. This is especially true when established safety metrics provide strong directional focus and specific, expected safety-related responsibilities and accountabilities at all levels.

Employees at all levels can fully buy into mean- ingful safety metrics. Metrics that encompass direction, elucidate specific responsibilities and demonstrate a direct connection to reduced injuries tend to be highly motivational. With focus, clarity and regular measurement of accountability, employ-

www.asse.org AUGUST 2010 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 31

risk matrix (sidebar above). Measuring safety per- formance is about developing the safety manage- ment system and the related safety culture. ANSI Z10-2005 is currently state of the art for safety man- agement systems, and Manuele’s (2008) book is an excellent resource for additional details on risk for- mula scoring and ways to reduce serious injuries.

Examples of Leading & Concurrent Measures From Industry Qualitative Metrics for System & Employee Behaviors

The oil drilling industry provides a case study on using leading measures in construction (Toellner, 2001). During a highly hazardous project, both safe system behaviors and employee behaviors were emphasized. Five specific measures were evaluated

metrics, consider these guidelines and develop detailed metrics that support their accomplishment:

1) management’s commitment level to safety, as perceived by employees;

2) employee involvement in specific safety efforts related to their job function;

3) worksite analysis focusing on priori- tizing and reducing or eliminating the most severe hazards and exposures;

4) hazard prevention and control using the concept of the working interface (Krause, 2005);

5) safety and health training including quality level of training and transfer of learning to the workplace.

ANSI Z10-2005 suggests examples of leading indicators an organization can use in its metrics mix:

Examples of indicators that demon- strate the effectiveness of the OHSMS are the reduction of average exposure levels, the rate and timeliness of com- pletion of corrective actions, the com- pletion of required maintenance or the completion of required training, and tests of their effectiveness. Indicators should be designed according to the hazards in the workplace (p. 18).

Safety Audits as Effective Drivers of Safety Performance

The authors are familiar with several large organizations, including multination- als, that use elaborate auditing processes to verify and measure improvements in their comprehensive OHSMS. Although none of these organizations has published its inter- nalsafetyandhealthresults,allreportanec- dotally that the audit results correlate strongly with reductions in injury rates. Several of these organizations report that one benefit of the audit process is the opportunitytotakecorrectiveactionsbased on the findings. These actions allow the management team to support the safety process as well as its continuous improvement.

Manuele (2008) suggests that the principle pur- pose of the safety audit is to improve the safety cul- ture. Kase and Weise (1990) state, “Success of a safety auditing program can only be measured in terms of the change it effects on the overall culture of the operation” (as quoted in Manuele, 2008, p. 362). For safety audits to be genuinely useful, they should be designed for the purpose of improving safety management systems and the resulting culture. Additionally, effective audits must include meticu- lous follow-up to address any weaknesses revealed.

Developing Measures: Prioritize Risks A good tool for measuring risk level and, conse-

quently, establishing measurement priorities, is Manuele’s risk score formula, a three-dimensional

Developing Measures: Prioritize Your Risks A good tool for measuring your risk level, and consequently establishing meas- urement priorities, is Manuele’s Risk Score Formula, a three-dimensional risk matrix. With permission from the author, his formula from Advanced Safety Management is presented here:

RS = (PR + FER) x SR Where:

RS = risk score PR = probability rating FER = frequency of exposure rating SR = severity rating

Risk score = (probability rating + frequency of exposure rating) x severity rating

Descriptive Words & Ratings Probability Frequent (15): Likely to occur repeatedly Likely (9): Likely to occur several times Occasional (4): Occurs sporadically Remote (1): Not likely to occur, but possible Improbable (0.5): So unlikely can assume occurrence will not be experienced

Frequency of Exposure Often (13): Continues to occur daily Occasional (10): Daily to monthly Infrequent (7): Monthly to yearly Seldom (4): Less than yearly

Severity Catastrophic (50): Fatality, exceeds $2 million Critical (40): Disabling injury or illness, $500,000 to $2 million Medium (25): Minor injury or illness, $50,000 to $500,000 Minimal (10): No injury or illness, less than $50,000

Risk Score Action or Acceptance High 800+ Operation not permissible Serious 500-799 High priority remedial action Moderate 200-499 Remedial actions taken at appropriate time Low < 200 Risk is acceptable, remedial action discretionary

Application Examples Probability FRE Severity Risk Score 1) Frequent (15) Often (13) Critical (40) (15 + 13) x 40 = 1,120 2) Likely (9) Occasionally (10) Catastrophic (40) (9 + 10) x 50 = 950 3) Remote (1) Seldom (4) Minimal (10) (1 + 4) x 10 = 50

Note. Adapted from Advanced Safety Management: Focusing on Z10 and Serious Injury Prevention, by F.A. Manuele, 2008, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

When using tools such as Manuele’s risk score formula, SH&E professionals must keep in mind that the numerical scoring system is derived from subjec- tive assessments of the risk levels. It is not straight science; it involves art and an element of subjectivi- ty as well.

32 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY AUGUST 2010 www.asse.org

or5%ofthetotalSMPmeasure, thesiteteamdesigned it in such a way that compliance training went from approximately 39% of the 2,000 employees participat- ing to more than 99% participating after SMP imple- mentation. Consequently, the brewery became one of the top safety performing breweries in the U.S., work- ing more than 1 million hours without a lost-time injury multiple times. The SMP has been so successful it has spread throughout the organization.

Concurrent Measures From Industry Risk Mapping for Loss Patterns

Concurrent measures are process-based measures of performance. Traditional measures may be inap- propriate for monitoring and diagnosing deficiencies at the operational or process level. The construction products industry provides the following example.

One firm implemented a risk-based intervention that involved a risk mapping process. In this case, the company analyzed 3 years of incident data and identified several common factors associated with injuries to local concrete delivery truck drivers. The two most prevalent factors used to predict future outcomes were a failure to use three points of con- tact when mounting or dismounting the truck, and injuries resulting from the handling of chutes before and after pouring concrete.

The risk mapping process revealed patterns of his- torical loss as well as potential seasonality of loss since this organization’s business volume increased in March, peaked during the summer and tailed off in November. The company identified at-risk jobs or tasks based on injury and incident occurrences over time. The process was blended with a simplified risk assessment where the most significant hazards with the greatest exposure to employees are ranked in order to help focus corrective actions given limited resources.

Once the two prevalent factors were identified, the mean time between incidents (MTBI) was calculated for each factor noted. This metric revealed that one loss incident involving three points of contact occurred every 22 days on average. Injuries resulting from chute handling exposures occurred an average of one incident every 33 days.

Several actions followed. First, management met with employees and managers to share the findings of the risk mapping process. Second, managers were asked to focus their behavioral observation and feedback sessions with employees on these two prevalent factors. Third, lighter weight chutes (approximately 15 lb less) were introduced system- atically into the fleet.

After 6 months, the MTBI for incidents related to three points of contact went from an average of one incident every 22 days to an average of one incident every 45 days. In 9 months, it was an average of one incident every 78 days. One year later, the MTBI was nearly one incident every 120 days.

For chute handling losses, after 6 months, the MTBI went from an average of one incident every 33 days to an average of one incident every 51 days. After 9 months, the MTBI was one incident every 86

and scored for quality and quantity: 1) safety meet- ings; 2) housekeeping; 3) barricade performance; 4) job safety analysis; and 5) safety walks.

These proactive metrics included qualitative assessments, not just quantitative tallies of the num- ber of times per month and so on.

For example, safety meetings were not simply tal- lied; they were evaluated for qualitative elements such as starting on time, facilitator competence (someone had to observe) and employee participa- tion. Likewise, safety walkthroughs were not simply tallied; instead, they became a way for supervisors to talk with workers about specific safety issues and to follow up on the performance level of other safety metrics such as housekeeping, job safety analyses and barricade performance.

The safety walks were initially viewed by some as the “traffic cop” coming through, but employees eventually accepted and embraced them. These walks became a way for management to emphasize safety and demonstrate that it cared about employ- ees. In a real sense, walkthroughs became a way to actively care (Geller, 2005) for safety. The result of applying these measures were 2 million hours of work performed with only one recordable injury.

Emphasizing Employee Engagement The efforts of a large U.S.-based brewery provide

an example from manufacturing. This site devel- oped a safety management process (SMP) that involved an aggregate score of 100 possible points. The process metrics were designed to measure all aspects of the site’s safety management system.

The SMP is a proactive process that is skewed 85% toward a focus on leading indicators and 15% on trailing indicators. As the site involved a team approach to the work, this was incorporated as part of SMP. The 100 points breakdown as 60 points for individual safety participation, 20 points for team safety participation, 5 points for compliance training (for a total of 85 points related to leading metrics) and 15 points for case incident rates.

The company implemented several innovative methods to help ensure success. First, since the site used scorecards, employees were also “scorecarded” for safety performance. Second, while employees were given a quota for the number of safety activi- ties in which they were expected to participate, they were also given a choice about which safety activi- ties they would participate in. Those involved con- sidered employee choice to be a key factor to the program’s success.

The types of activities used to measure individual safety participation included:

•observation cards; •job safety analysis (JSA) (including training and

auditing); •safety meetings and safety audits; •maintenance walkthroughs; •preshift stretching; •industrial hygiene sampling requests/results; •ergonomic assessments. Although compliance training was given 5 points

www.asse.org AUGUST 2010 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 33

influence the perceptions of their subordinates. Hourly and production workers’ perceptions about their organization’s safety and health processes affect their tendency to act in a safe manner (follow prescribed safety procedures, for example) or at- risk manner.

Research suggests that safety culture establishes norms of behavior with cohesive work groups that influence injury rates (McDonald, Corrigan, Daley, et al., 2000). Perception surveys attempt to measure various factors considered to be indications of the safety and health culture. A more recent study (O’Toole, 2002) suggests that employees’ percep- tions of management and the company’s commit- ment to safety and health directly affect the reduction of injuries over time.

Safety climate perception surveys can 1) identify safety trends; 2) enable an organization to focus on the most problematic areas; 3) serve as a leading indicator of safety performance; and 4) establish a baseline for future measurements. A climate scale developed at Indiana University includes these five dimensions: 1) supervisor safety support; 2) co- worker safety support; 3) management commitment to safety; 4) employee participation in safety-related decision making and activities; and 5) employees’ safety competence level (Seo, et al., 2004).

When organizations address weaknesses discov- ered by measuring these dimensions through per- ception surveys, the information is available to develop countermeasures that influence the safety culture and enhance safety performance.

Conclusion The following suggestions are offered to those

seeking to develop effective safety measures: •Customize by site. No measures will work

effectively for all industries or even all locations within the same organization. Sites must use more than one safety metric to create a more robust pic- ture of their safety results and culture.

•Prioritize by severity, based on risk assess- ment. Since all organizations have limited resources (time, money, personnel), the focus must be on the hazards with the highest risks. Conducting risk assessments across the organization, within a facili- ty, by department or shift, or for a specific job func- tion or task will likely yield the greatest benefits.

•Simplify by limiting the total number of safety metrics. The adage “what gets measured and rewarded, gets done” is familiar to all. However, if too many things are measured, nothing tends to get done. Lagging indicators will likely continue to be used. Despite the statistical issues related to tradi- tional safety metrics, these data can provide valuable information, especially when used in combination with well-selected current and/or leading indicators.

•Engage employees in development of safety measures and related goals. Like any other aspect of the SH&E process, employee engagement is essen- tial. Enlisting employees to help develop safety met- rics will increase their understanding of them and

days and after 1 year, it was one incident every 155 days. The resulting reduction in workers’ compen- sation costs associated with the chute handling inci- dents (which often caused ligament damage requiring corrective surgery) more than offset the costs of the lighter replacement chutes.

Employee Perception Surveys as Measurement Tools

Moreorganizationsarerecognizingtheimportance of a positive safety culture in achieving and maintain- ing exceptional safety results. Research has demon- strated that an organization’s safety culture is a major influence shaping the safety- and health-related behaviors of employees (Seo, Torabi, Blair, et al., 2004).

The term safety climate is often used to describe the tangible outputs or indicators of an organization’s safety culture, as perceived by individuals or work groups at a given point in time. Examples include:

•how employees view the importance the organ- ization gives to safety relative to quality, production or customer service;

•how committed the employees believe their superiors or peers are to safety.

Various commercial questionnaires are available. They consist of a series of statements about which participants indicate a relative degree of agreement. They are designed to record employees’ perceptions of key aspects of SH&E management within the organization and on some key issues that are recog- nized as important to successful injury prevention.

Managers, supervisors and workers are asked to express the extent to which they agree or disagree with these statements on a Likert (or similar) scale. Such a questionnaire seeks the perceptions of employees in these three discrete groups so that their results can be compared in order to detect dif- ferences between them. Organizations with relative- ly high agreement between the groups tend to have lower injury rates than organizations in which agreement is lower (O’Toole, 2002). Previous re- search suggests that employees’ positive perception of management’s commitment to safety can result in reduced incidents that lead to injury (Bailey, 1988; Clarke, 1999).

Generally, these surveys provide a snapshot of an organization’s culture and can be a useful tool in developing measures to drive safety culture. Well- designed and customized safety perception surveys provide the following benefits to an organization:

•Practical. Address the primary safety issues. Even if just perception, the perceptions are real to those who hold them and must be addressed.

•Predictive. They fulfill the definition of what a leading indicator is supposed to do.

•Prescriptive. The results generally indicate clearly what needs to be addressed.

•Proactive. Preferable to accident investigation which is a reactive measure (Blair & Spurlock, 2008).

Employee and managerial perceptions are criti- cal to the success of a safety and health process. If the perceptions held by managers are not positive, those perceptions translate into behaviors that

Research suggests that employees’ perceptions of manage- ment and the com- pany’s commitment to safety and health directly affect the reduction of injuries over time.

34 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY AUGUST 2010 www.asse.org

Daniels, A.C. & Daniels, J.E. (2006). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness (4th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications, 2006.

Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P., et al. (2000). Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177-192.

Geller, E.S. (2005). People-based safety: The source. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal Training Technologies Corp.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown & Co.

Haney, J. (2002). Making culture pay: Solving the puzzle of organizational effectiveness. Lees Summit, MO: Visionomics Inc.

Hopkins, A. (1999). The limits of lost-time injury frequency rates. In Positive performance indicators beyond lost-time injuries. Australia: Worksafe, 1999.

Iyer, P.S. & Haight, J.M. (2005). Leading indicator research: Understanding industrial safety programs and optimizing their component intervention strategies. Proceedings of the ASSE 2005 Professional Development Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Janicak, C.A. (2003). Safety metrics: Tools and techniques for measuring safety performance. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.

Kase, D.W. & Weise, K.J. (1990). Safety auditing: A management tool. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaydos, W. (1999). Operational performance measurement: In- creasing total productivity. London: Taylor & Francis.

Krause, T.R. (2005). Leading with safety. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Manuele, F.A. (2008). Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Manuele, F.A. (2001). Innovations in safety management: Addressing career knowledge needs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mathis, T.L. (2005). Safety metrics: The big picture. Proceedings of the ASSE 2005 Professional Development Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA.

McDonald, N., Corrigan, S., Daly, S., et al. (2000). Safety Management systems and safety culture aircraft maintenance organizations. Safety Science, 34, 151-176.

Newell, S.A. & Woodhull, D. (2001). A new paradigm for safety and health metrics. Washington, DC: Organization Resources Counselors.

Niven, P.R. (2002). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and maintaining results. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

OSHA. (1989, Jan. 26). OSHA’s safety and health program management guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Author.

O’Toole, M.F. (2002). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 231-243.

Petersen, D. (2005). Measurement of safety performance. Des Plaines, IL: ASSE.

Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R.I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Phillips, J.J. & Stone, R.D. (2002). How to measure training results: A practical guide to tracking the six key indicators. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Rinefort, F.C. (1976). A study of some of the costs and benefits related to occupational safety and health in selected Texas industries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Seo, D.C., Torabi, M.R., Blair, E.H., et al. (2004). A cross-vali- dation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 427-445.

Simon, S.I. Creating a positive, proactive and participative safety culture. Presentation atASSE’s 2009 Seminarfest, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Spurlock, B.S. (2000). The dilemma of measuring safety perform- ance: A close look at reliability in safety performance measurement. Unpublished thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY.

Stewart, J.M. (2002). Managing for world class safety. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stolovitch, H.D. & Keeps, E.J. (2004). Training ain’t perform- ance: Why training doesn’t guarantee job performance. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Toellner, J. (2001, Sept.). Improving safety and health per- formance: Identifying and measuring leading indicators. Professional Safety, 46(9), 42-47.

their value to the organiza- tion’s efforts to reduce loss- producing incidents.

•Use a thoughtfully cho- sen mix of performance and outcome measures. The first responsibility and function of management is planning. During the planning phase, carefully consider what to measure and why. Also con- sider how the data generated by the safety metric(s) select- ed will be used to help the organization continuously improve safety results.

•Design measures to spe- cifically improve the safety culture. The why of measure- ment makes a statement about the organization’s safe- ty culture. The selection of specific performance and out- come measurements tells the entire workforce whether the organization values safety. If measurements selected are

counter to the existing safety culture, confusion will occur and begin to adversely affect the safety culture. This clearly connects to the planning aspect of identi- fying which factors to include within the metrics mix.

Leadership exerts the primary influence on an organization’s culture and the derivative safety cul- ture. However, this culture can be influenced in other ways as well. Thoughtfully developed safety metrics, with the support and inclusion of leader- ship in their development and as a level included in the measurement, can also have a powerful impact on the journey to a strong safety culture. �

References ANSI/AIHA. (2005). American National Standard for occupa-

tional health and safety management systems (ANSI/AIHA Z10- 2005). Alexandria, VA: Authors.

Bailey, C. (1988). Using behavioral techniques to improve safety program effectiveness. Washington, DC: Association of American Railroads, 1988.

Bevington, A.M. Safety management process: Proactive safety metrics that drive performance in manufacturing facilities. Proceedings of the ASSE 2005 Professional Development Conference, New Orleans, USA.

Blair, E.H. (2003, June). Culture and leadership: Seven key points for improved safety performance. Professional Safety, 48(6), 18-22.

Blair, E.H. & Geller, E.S. (2000, Sept.). Becoming world class in HSE management. Occupational Health & Safety.

Blair, E.H. & Spurlock, B.S. (2008). Leading measures for safety performance. Proceedings of the ASSE Safety 2008 Professional Development Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Brauer, R.L. (2006). Safety and health for engineers (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Carder, B. & Ragan, P. (2003). A survey-based system for safe- ty measurement and improvement. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 157-165.

Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: Impli- cations for the development of safety culture. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 20, 185-198.

Six Guidelines for Effective Safety Measures �Customize measures specifically for

individual sites.

�Use risk assessment to prioritize safety measures by severity.

�Simplify by limiting the total num- ber of safety measures used at any time.

�Engage employees meaningfully in the development of safety meas- ures and related safety goals.

�Use a thoughtfully chosen mix of performance and outcome measures.

�Design your measures to specifical- ly influence the safety culture.