SafetyInsights.org

This study explored how worker perceptions of positive and negative procedure attributes were linked to procedure compliance, and the influence of management approaches to procedures.

Data came from 176 maintainers in the mining industry.

For background:

·        They briefly cover the model 1 and model 2 thinking of procedures (which notably are more complimentary than confrontational). Model 1 conceptualises procedures as a means of standardising and controlling behaviour, and thus reducing human error and accident risk

·        Model 2 conceptualises procedures as ‘resources for action’, forming a type of cognitive resource, among other resources, for operators to draw on to make skilled judgements about adapting procedures to circumstances

·        A range of procedure attributes exist influencing perceptions and use around procedures. Some that lead to poor compliance include procedures difficult to access, unclear, vague, poorly written, outdated, providing too much or too little info, inappropriate for the task, or unworkable

·        One study observed that procedures lacked real-world understanding, there was too many to remember, too inflexible, not written in plain language, or poor or wrong in content were the most frequently reported problems in their sample

·        Dutch railway employees reported procedures were difficult to find, too complex, or didn’t think work could be finished on time if all procedures were followed

·        These factors are summed up by advice from Besnard and Greathead being “design workable instead of exhaustive procedures” (p20)

·        Compliance with procedures is influenced by other factors than procedure attributes. Three aspects are covered here: 1) extent to which users are involved in procedure development, implementation and updating 2) extent to which managers use instances of non-compliance or poor compliance as opportunities for feedback, learning and skill development, 3) punishment-oriented approaches to procedure management

·        User involvement: User participation in procedures is likely to enhance user perceptions of procedures. Non-participative management styles and poor cooperation between management workers is likewise likely to relate to non-compliance with rules. One study suggested that participation is more likely to occur when adaptations are made to existing rules compared to designing new rules

·        Learning orientation: Procedure use is likely to be higher if management treat non-compliance of procedures as learning opportunities/feedback rather than as negative perceived violations. This involves understanding context – e.g. the reasons why procedures aren’t being followed (lack of clarity, complex etc). Leader involvement can be critical here, with one study finding that leadership involvement in daily work positively influenced safety compliance and another study concluded that “A learning orientation needs to be regularly supported through the observation and interaction of the employees with their leader” (p22)

·        Punitive approaches: Here they note that punitive approaches to non-compliance have generally not been effective; amplified particularly with a well-qualified and highly motivated workforce. They argue that “A punitive approach to managing procedure violations tends to create a culture which reinforces the “natural disinclination to confess one’s blunders” (p22)

The hypotheses in this study were:

·        H1. Compliance and non-compliance behaviours are distinct constructs.

·        H2a. Positive and negative procedure attributes will be perceived as distinct constructs.

·        H2b. Perceived positive procedure attributes will be associated with higher compliance.

·        H2c. Perceived negative procedure attributes will be associated with higher non-compliance.

·        H3a. Greater involvement in the design, modification, and implementation of procedures will be associated with higher ratings of positive procedure attributes, and lower ratings of negative procedure attributes.

·        H3b. A learning-oriented approach to non-compliance will be associated with higher perceived positive procedure attributes, and lower perceived negative procedure attributes.

·        H3c. A punitive management approach to non-compliance will be associated with negative perceptions of procedure attributes.

Results

Overall they found that, as hypothesised under H1, positive and negative dimensions of procedure attributes and compliance/non-compliance are perceived by workers as distinct constructs.

That is, compliance vs non-compliance of procedures are not “opposing poles of a single scale”, but rather different behaviours with potentially different antecedents and thus should be treated separately.

Although both measures were significantly negatively correlated (as one goes up, the other goes down), the item loadings for each scale were said to fall on different factors in their confirmatory model.

For H2a, similarly findings to H1 were observed such that positive and negative procedure attributes were perceived as different constructs.

For H2b and H2c, both positive perceptions of procedures are associated with compliance and negative perceptions of procedures are associated with non-compliance. However, the magnitude of the relationship was greater for the negative path to non-compliance than for the positive path towards compliance (i.e. the things that are negatively perceived about procedures have a strong effect on non-compliance than then the positively perceived things leading to stronger compliance).

H3a was only partially supported. Greater involvement in procedure design and review was associated with higher ratings of positive attributes, involvement wasn’t significantly related to negative attributes; which may support the idea of participation reinforcing psychological ownership of procedure attributes. However, contrary to their expectations, involvement in procedure design and review didn’t reduce negative perceptions of procedures.

Here they hypothesise that perhaps “such involvement does not always mitigate negative perceptions, but could serve to reinforce them if procedure users find their concerns disregarded when procedures are reviewed” (p26).

An interview quote they believed highlighted this point by stating that even when workers mark up procedures with potential improvements, the procedure comes back after the review cycle looking the same and workers thereby ask what’s the point in trying?

H3b was fully supported, supporting the value of management viewing non-compliance as opportunities for learning and feedback. This was associated with significantly higher ratings of positive procedure attributes and lower ratings of negative attributes.

Interestingly, 3c was not supported. That is, punitive management responses to procedure non-compliances were found to directly and positively relate to compliance. Thus, interventions to improve procedure compliance can be enhanced both by enhancing positive perception of procedure attributes and, as this data suggests, use of punitive measures for non-compliance.

Further, quoting the paper “punitive responses were associated with greater compliance independently of procedure attributes” (p27), which may run contrary to the view that disciplinary action isn’t an effective means of reducing non-compliance.

Providing context here, however, they cite other research that workers, at least in safety-critical industries, are already pretty familiar with punitive consequences of non-compliance, so for them this is all pretty normal and part and parcel with work. One interview statement highlighted that the biggest risk for some workers isn’t a safety risk, but terminated for not following a rule

The authors suggest a rather pragmatic way to interpret these findings. That is, management should, of course, take a primarily supportive and co-operative role to their work groups – a focus on learning and improvement. But, may also respond more punitively if the circumstances demand it.

Authors: Kanse, L., Parkes, K., Hodkiewicz, M., Hu, X., & Griffin, M. (2018). Safety science, 101, 19-32.

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.003

Link to the LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-sure-want-me-follow-study-procedure-management-user-hutchinson