‘Soft guidelines’ for use of NOSACQ-50
1.
Never start a safety climate survey unless
there is a clear intention of taking action if indicated.
Management should be clearly committed to taking action if indicated before
the survey takes place. A survey without subsequent action is worse
than no survey. The employees will be disillusioned and the confidence in
management will suffer.
2.
The survey results should be seen as a tool for
dialogue and development – not as a “grade book”. If a survey
shows a low level of safety climate, many people tend to look at the
results as a “grade book” in school or a court sentence. This is not a
constructive way to use a survey. If a survey identifies “problems” areas,
it is important to set priorities. First, the distinction between “basic
conditions” and “factors that should be changed” should be made (point 7
below above). Second, priority should be given to a few of the most
important among the “factors that should be changed”. It is a bad idea to
try to change everything at one time. The survey should be seen as a tool
in the ongoing development of the organization, and “problems” should be
seen as challenges and opportunities for learning.
3.
Answering the questionnaire is
voluntary!! A low response rate can decrease the quality of the
survey. The non-responders will most likely be different from the
responders.
4.
All respondents are anonymous. If
scores are calculated for groups of less than 20 persons all group members
should give their active consent. At a few workplaces the employees find it
natural not to be anonymous, but this is quite rare. In most cases
it is important to protect the anonymity of the respondents. This makes it
possible to give critique of the work environment without being afraid of
negative sanctions from management or colleagues. If groups are smaller
than 20 persons, the statistical precision will be rather small (wide
confidence limits). If the groups are small, some employees may also feel
that their anonymity is threatened.
5.
All employees have the right to see
and discuss the results. A report on the safety climate is of no
value if the employees do not have the right to see and discuss the
results. This means that the report should be available and also
understandable for the employees. In many cases it will be a good
idea that the consultant or another expert explains the results to the
employees, and that the employees are given the opportunity to ask
questions.
6.
Management as well as supervisors and
workers should participate and be committed during the whole
process. It is important that representatives from all groups at
the worksite participate in the whole process. A “participative approach”
without the commitment of the management will often run into major
problems with regard to resources and implementation. A “management
approach” without the participation of the employees will often
run into problems with lack of support and passive resistance. An approach
without support from middle managers will often fail since these
employees are key persons in any kind of changes at a workplace.
7.
It is important to distinguish between
basic conditions of work that are “part of the job” (e.g. outdoor weather
effects) and factors that could be changed. Do not try to change
what cannot be changed, as in some cases the conditions may be
considered "part of the job". When basic
conditions cannot be changed, focus should be on the strengthening of
individual and collective coping resources and competences.
8.
There are no standard solutions to the
problems. Solutions should be developed locally and integrated in
the other activities of the organization aiming at increased productivity
and better quality. Almost all safety climate challenges can be solved by
the people at the worksite. There are at least two major reasons for this:
A) The people of the worksite are the persons who have to change their
own ways of doing things. They have to be their own “agents of
change”; B) Solutions have to take into account the local resources,
conditions and barriers. All changes are context-specific. Even
two “identical” worksites may have different potentials and barriers. For
these reasons standard “cook-books” have limited value in this field.
9.
If interventions are made, it is a good
idea to repeat the survey after 1-2 years in order to see if the intended
improvements have been made. One of the advantages of using a
standardized instrument (such as NOSACQ) is that it can be used for
assessing the effects of interventions aiming at improving the working
conditions. Usually the interventions should have sufficient time to
“settle” before the second survey is performed. If the intended
improvements have not been achieved, it should be taken seriously. A proper
analysis of “what went wrong here” should be performed.
10.
Many workplaces will benefit from surveys
with regular intervals as part of the overall concept of the
“learning organization” and the “developmental work”. A “learning
organization” is an organization in which failures and successes are used
as possibilities for collective and organizational learning. Many
organizations have norms and procedures that are counterproductive or hide
the real problems.
