1. Diagnosis of safety culture: A replication and extension towards assessing "safe" organizational change processes Gudela Grote Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology Organization, Work and Technology Group ETH Zürich Collaborators: Ernst Zirngast from Swiss Re Risk Engineering Servies; Cuno Künzler and Anette Wittekind from ETH Zürich

2. Gudela Grote Page 2 Expansion of safety culture framework: Two approaches to managing uncertainties* (Grote, 2004) * Uncertainties may stem from the system environment and/or from the transformation processes within the system.

3. Gudela Grote Page 3 Sociotechnical model of safety culture (Grote & Künzler, 2000) Aim: Linking safety culture to overall organizational culture as well as to characteristics of the material organization beyond directly safety-related activities

4. Gudela Grote Page 4 Assessing safety culture by comparing judgements of employees in different departments/hierarchical positions (as complement to observations and interviews) -Assessing safety measures (=Proactiveness re: safety) Formal Safety: e.g. There are sufficient written procedures, checklists etc. to ensure process safety. Enacted Safety: e.g. Proposals developed during safety meetings are swiftly implemented. -Assessing system design strategies (=Socio-technical integration) Example: Plant personnel can intervene in automated processes to ensure quality and safety of production. vs. Plant personnel may not intervene in automated processes in order not to jeopardize safety.

5. Gudela Grote Page 5 How to include organizational change in safety management? -Organizations may need evolutionary, but also radical change in order to respond to internal and external demands  Limitations of organizational development. -Radical organizational change can harm process and work safety. -structural level: Reduced resources for safety; unsafe work processes etc. -individual level: "objective" indicators like absenteeism; "subjective" indicators like anxiety -Which effects are caused by organizational change depends also on the way the change process is carried out. -In risk audits, safety management as well as change management need to be assessed.

6. Gudela Grote Page 6 Objectives of the study -To replicate findings on the validity of an already existing instrument for assessing safety culture (Grote & Künzler, 2000); -To extend this instrument by developing and testing indicators for effective change management during radical organization restructuring; -To study the assumed link between change management and system safety.

7. Gudela Grote Page 7 Parameters for good management of radical change Content areaPossible indicators Reflected radicality of change Unquestionable need for change Proactiveness Integral success criteria Value consciousness Personal commitment Appropriate speed Support for constructive redevelopment Closing gaps Measures for growing together Balance of change and stability Esteem for employees Investing in employees Care for survivors/victims Acceptance of emotions Employee involvement Process transparence Predictability of change measures Participation in decision making

8. Gudela Grote Page 8 Change management survey - Sample items -The scope and speed of changes is not higher than the employees can cope with. (Reflected radicality) -During change processes, crucial decisions are made as fast as possible to minimize uncertainties for all involved. (Constructive redevelopment) -Individual support is offered to employees to cope with the effect of organizational changes on their personal situation. (Esteem) -Organizational units and individual employees affected by changes are adequately involved in the decision process. (Employee involvement)

9. Gudela Grote Page 9 Sample: Safety management audits in seven petrochemical companies

10. Gudela Grote Page 10 Results -Replication of the structure (AMOS confirmatory multiple group analysis) and validity of the questionnaire by Grote & Künzler (2000) -Additional evidence for the relevance of the uncertainty management framework used in the questionnaire -Four factors for change management: -Esteem (6 items, Cronbach  =.86) -Procedures for organizational change (5 items, Cronbach  =.82) -Transparence (3 items, Cronbach  =.76) -Vision (2 items, Cronbach  =.64) -Validity of change management scales demonstrated through meaningful correlations with audit results and employee overall assessment

11. Gudela Grote Page 11 Formal safety management assessment and survey responses

12. Gudela Grote Page 12 Conclusion -Change management can and should be assessed as part of safety management audits. -Good change management should include esteem for employees as most crucial element as well as appropriate procedures for organizational change, transparence and vision. -Understanding safety culture and organizational change in terms of managing uncertainties helps to unravel implicit assumptions and norms promoting/impeding safe operation. -The survey instrument developed can support this assessment.