ccupational health and safety is about people, their work and their workplaces.  People have unique perceptions, experiences, and attitudes.  OHS is a very personal matter - possibly the most personal issue one person in the workplace may have occasion to talk to another person in the workplace about.  OHS as an issue illustrates the special, unique characteristics of people when dealing with a range of issues that affects - or could affect - their own health and safety.

Effective management of OHS requires good communication, cooperation and consultation between people in an organisation - managers, supervisors and employees (including health and safety representatives and health and safety committee members).  Participation breeds ownership; ownership breeds commitment.

Occupational Health and Safety  

It is difficult to arrive at a definition of OHS with which everyone can agree.  Not even health and safety legislation provides a definition!  Overall, as a matter of principle we contend that:

But occupational health and safety is just one significant issue in the human resources spectrum which demands attention and action from manager and employee.  Quality, productivity, business efficiency and industrial relations also are of increasing importance to the well being of all organisations.

Many people in organisations express concern about being able to comply with occupational health and safety legislation, yet we must all recognise that the law is only prescribing a minimum level of activity and a minimum standard.

Those organisations that use as their objectives, the achievement of minimum standards (ie. as expressed in OHS Acts), in the next 5-10 years are destined to fail.  The organisation may fail to successfully manage occupational health and safety, or the organisation may fail totally and go out of business. 

The attitudes and strategies developed within an organisation, which allow it to aim for minimum standards in occupational health and safety, will be the same attitudes and strategies which allow the organisation to aim for minimum standards in industrial relations, quality management, employee participation and productivity enhancement programs:  indeed, the whole span of human resources management. 

How organisations manage their human resources will be a critical factor in determining whether those organisations survive the next 5-10 years.

Whether dealing with occupational health and safety issues or other human resources related concerns, it is critical that organisations set their own standards and objectives to be achieved, which are appropriate for their own particular organisation.  Successful organisations, those in search of excellence, will not and cannot afford to set standards and objectives which merely comply with statutory requirements, but do not allow managers and employees to fulfil their personal and organisational goals and objectives.

Traditional approaches to workplace "safety" management have proved inadequate.  In the past, safety practices have not adequately addressed broader health issues affecting workers and hence the adoption of the contemporary term Occupational Health and Safety.   Indeed, we no longer just talk about "safety" on its own.  Safety and occupational health are conceptually indivisible and cannot be treated separately.  (Williams et al, 1993)

A Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy

As noted by Else (1999), as we begin the 21^st century, we find we are at the crossroads of a dramatic change in the distribution of world trade:  we are entering an era in which the global trade in services are expected to surpass the combined trade in manufactures, agricultural products and minerals (IBIS 1994).

Clearly, we are moving from the late industrial era to a new knowledge era.  Whereas in the agricultural and industrial eras, land, labour and capital were the sources of competitive advantage, the knowledge era heralds a time when competitive advantage is derived from knowledge. 

Figure 1.  Sources of Wealth and Types of Organisation associated with the Historical Eras (Savage, 1990)

Organisations that can develop and harness the collective intelligence of their employees will gain advantage over other organisations.  Research at the Australian Centre for Innovation and International Competitiveness at the University of Sydney has lead to the conclusion that: "The only basis of competitive advantage in the global economy is the ability to learn faster than others and to implement appropriate action based on that learning" (Johnston 1993).

The Australian Manufacturing Council, in its analysis of the sources of competitive advantage and growth in the global economy beyond the turn of the century, emphasises the importance of innovation (Figure 2). 

Innovation is seen as taking over from cost (the 80's) and quality (the 90's) as we go into the next century.  It would seem that if an organisation wishes to remain globally competitive in the knowledge era, it would be wise to invest in the development of its employees as learners and to find ways of stimulating and harnessing their abilities to solve problems and innovate in the work- place.

Figure 2.  Sources of Competitive Advantage (Australian Manufacturing Council, 1994)

 Personal Perception as a Factor

People may be very complex creatures, but they operate according to some very simple and basic rules.  Rule #1 follows from noting that a person perceives issues in accordance with his or her previous life experiences.

Peoples’ perceptions differ.  This difference in perceptions even applies to seemingly obvious hazards such as exposed dangerous moving parts of machinery, as well as to more subtle hazards such as chemicals, radiation or excessive noise.  What is perceived by one person to be a hazard may be regarded as "safe" by another.  Peoples’ differences in perceptions need to be recognised and acknowledged before programs can be implemented to change and improve systems in the organisation.

Each person's perception will be largely based on his/her life, work, social and educational experiences and their actual exposure to information about hazards.  A person who has survived in a work situation without injury or illness (as yet) may consider that experience to be proof that others can also survive.

Thus, in most workplaces, accidents – even those causing minor injuries - occur relatively infrequently.  Unless people are ‘seriously’ (enough) injured, their suffering goes largely unnoticed.  And we cannot rely on experience, being careful – and especially ‘common sense’ to remain healthy and safe.  Common sense is a rare commodity.

There is no single cause of injury at work.  Indeed, there are normally a multitude of complex factors involved.  Employers and employees cannot rely generally on experience.  In most workplaces, even minor injuries occur relatively infrequently.  When people are incapacitated, their suffering goes largely unnoticed. 

Many are apathetic because they believe - incorrectly - that prevention is necessarily costly.  Other do not know what to do.  Some employers have shown that health and safety at work can be dramatically reduced through good management.  They view injury and disease as waste that should be eliminated.  Their solution is comprehensive quality management, to continuously improve the work environment and work processes.  Accordingly, improvements go ‘hand in glove’ with other gains in business performance.

More than anything else, this kind of ‘risk management’ requires cultural change in the workplace.  This must be driven by top management, which is sufficiently committed to provide resources and hold line managers and work teams responsible for outcomes.

In OHS improvements, an individual can see there is something that is to his or her personal benefit.  Indeed, the most effective way to encourage and motivate managers and their employees to improve quality and productivity in their organisation, is to allow them to do something to benefit themselves.  The issue of workplace safety is the vehicle to allow this to happen - it becomes the window to the organisation.  The same concept applies to the broader issues of organisation development and restructure.

But we have to be prepared to take the broader view. 

Safety and health improvements present a significant opportunity to do things better and to add value to the organisation.

If management is willing to take safety seriously, people are keen to listen.  The improvements in safety allow everyone to win.  OHS is in everyone’s’ best interests.  OHS is the ultimate “win-win” issue!  In working towards improving standards of workplace safety and health - which directly benefit the employees - the organisation can automatically reap the benefits of improved quality and productivity.  Indeed, safety can become the 'glue' that binds the quality and productivity programs together.

OHS - An Opportunity For High Performance Organisations

Clearly, the most cost-effective time to improve health and safety is during the planning, design and purchase stages of new business ventures, when extensive changes are being made to existing plant, processes and equipment, or when new people, including managers and engineers are employed or new contractors engaged.  If we do not take the opportunity to 'turn off the tap' our workplaces will continue to be filled with hazards that will have to be tackled retrospectively and expensively.

Consistent principles for tackling health and safety have evolved, involving the systematic identification, assessment and control of occupational hazards that currently exist in the workplace and ensuring that best practices are implemented during the establishment of new workplaces or new activities.  A review of OHS practices (Else, 1992) found considerable agreement between business and unions about the principles that should underpin our attempts to improve health and safety.  These can be broadly summarised in Table 3.

Table 3:  Consistent Principles for Tackling Occupational Health and Safety (Else, 1992)

These principles – focussing on the “hierarchy of controls” - place greater value on controls that remove or control hazards at source, in preference to those that rely on behaviour modification of the people exposed to the hazards.  And although these principles of prevention can be applied to all workplaces, the principles for consultation with the workforce may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the culture of the organisation.

Consultative problem solving relies on willingness on the part of the workforce to speak up and volunteer views about how the workplace, processes and systems can be improved.  Whatever form the consultative process takes, it is essential that meaningful and timely consultation takes place with the workforce (and its representatives) to release their wealth of experience and maximise the opportunities for prevention and improvements in productivity, quality and timeliness. 

Similarly, management systems will vary with the type of organisation, its size and its stage of organisational development.  However, it is commonly agreed that to make occupational health and safety happen in the workplace it is necessary to integrate the requirements for OHS into the fabric of the organisation's management systems and audit the robustness of the application of those systems in practice. 

The most effective OHS management systems and processes are now integrated into quality assurance and other management systems.  Mathews (1994) described his analysis of the experiences of a wide range of Australian public and private-sector organisations engaged in workplace reform for the purpose of lifting productivity, quality and competitiveness.  Mathews (1997) after a decade of studying work-place reform in Australia concludes that the OHS community could be mounting a strong case that safety, productivity and quality are all delivered by the most innovative workplaces.  He calls for Australia to set a national goal for a "creative and healthy workplace".

Creative and Healthy Workplaces

But will such creative and healthy workplaces be sustainable in the cut and thrust of global competition?  Kotter and Heskett (1992) detailed their extensive quantitative studies of the relationship between corporate culture and economic performance in more than 200 companies in the USA.  They sought to understand the kinds of corporate cultures that enhance long-term economic performance.  They concluded that organisations with performance enhancing cultures seem to be driven by a value system that stresses meeting the legitimate needs of all the key constituencies - not just shareholders or customers but also employees.  They draw a telling comparison of companies that meet these criteria matched with those that do not possess these qualities.  The comparison shown in Table 3 compares their economic performance over an eleven-year period between 1977 and 1988.

Table 3.  The economic benefits from performance enhancing cultures that meet the needs of employees as well as customers and shareholders (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). 

Companies that strive to meet the needs of shareholders, customers and employees showed consistently superior performance in revenue growth, employment growth, stock price growth and net in- come growth.  Occupational health and safety is often the local and very visible 'litmus test' used by employees to judge management's commitment to their needs.

The Role of Leaders

Leadership and culture can be considered as two sides of the same coin.  If we want to have organisational cultures that are innovative, competitive, healthy and safe then CEOs, by their actions have to provide leadership and grow the culture.  Kotter and Heskett (1992) emphasise the essential role that CEOs have to play in providing leadership if organisations are to remain globally competitive. 

Peter Senge (1992) argues that the organisational structures and the roles of managers in the knowledge era will be very different from those we have known in the late industrial era.  Organisations will be even flatter.  Decision-making will be spread throughout the organisation; information technology will be placing information rapidly before team members who will have to act autonomously. 

Managers will have to become the facilitators of learning and the coordinators of teams rather than responsible for directing and controlling.  The manager's role will move to one of leadership and stewardship of the shared vision to enable all team members to respond to fast changing events in ways that advance the organisation. 

But ultimately it is the CEO that has custody and shapes the culture of the organisation.  The CEO has the opportunity to harness the energies of the organisation around a creative and healthy vision.  Warren Haynes (1997) has described how it was possible to harness the energies of ICI (Australia) around the healthy vision: "No injuries to anyone - ever".  Only 55 percent of employees thought the vision was possible when the vision was first set out in 1995.  By the end of 1996 surveys showed that 78 percent of employees believed the vision was possible.  That was the result of the continuing program that was being implemented to achieve the three key areas of safe plant, safe systems and safe decision- maker behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

1.          To be competitive in tomorrow's global economy, organisations need to harness the innovative intelligences of their employees.

2.          Solving OHS problems provides an ideal opportunity to develop competitive high performance learning organisations.

3.           Leaders have to grow the culture necessary to sustain globally competitive high performance healthy and safe learning organisations.

4.           If we want to enjoy innovative healthy and safe workplaces we will have to work together to transform OHS from being thought of as a problem into being recognised as a competitive edge.

Acknowledgement:

Parts of this article are based on an paper (Leadership – Transforming occupational health and safety from a problem into a competitive advantage for Australia), published in the newsletter of the Safety Institute of Australia, Victoria Division, July 1999) by Professor Dennis Else (Chairman of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and Protector Safety Professor of OHS, University of Ballarat.

Please contact Occupational Safety and Health Associates for details of references if required.