Safety Leadership’s Critical Function in SMS

When an organization embarks on implementing a safety management system (SMS), it is very careful that the policies, processes and procedures to support the four components and 12 elements are developed and addressed. Project plans are developed and a champion(s) is assigned to ensure not one single item is missed in fear of creating a system that is ineffective or incomplete. Likewise, for those organizations that have already implemented safety management, great lengths are gone to through self- or external evaluation to ensure all components and elements are being addressed through the implemented framework.

However, even with careful attention paid to the promulgated SMS framework, an important element seems to be missed – leadership. This may be difficult to resolve as leadership is not a discrete element on an SMS implementation plan or SMS evaluation, but is critical to the success of a functioning and effective system to manage safety.

In reality, leadership is implied in the SMS framework under two of the four components. In the first component – safety policy and objectives – leadership is a substantial part of management commitment. Under this element, leadership is called out to provide critical resources, establish risk tolerability, hold managers accountable to safety management responsibilities, establish safety objectives for the organization, and develop a positive safety culture in the organization (ICAO, 2018). Under the fourth component – safety promotion – leadership is charged with engendering engagement in the safety management system through the provision of training resources and supporting rich communication across the organization (ICAO, 2018).

In other words, leadership – specifically, what can be referred to as safety leadership – is a critical part of the safety management system that should not be overlooked if the organization wants to implement and maintain a robust SMS.

Before diving into how leadership impacts the safety management system, it is first important to state that leadership is not the same as management. Management is a function where resources are guided/allocated/procured to accomplish tasks in support of the overall mission of the organization. Management is a function of position in the organization and usually comes with status and privileges commensurate with the position.

Leadership, on the other end, is not a function of position but rather influence (Bass et al., 2008; Northouse, 2019). Leadership is about influencing and rallying followers to perform in support of understood and accepted organizational goals. There are many approaches to leadership that have been researched in academia to determine the impact on performance each one has, but the important point here is what leadership is and the importance of leadership in sustaining a safety management system.

The presence of deliberate leadership in the SMS may mean the difference between a system that works to bring risk under organizational control and one that is relegated to a manual that sits on the shelf collecting dust.

Regarding leadership approaches, there is one that is very counterproductive to developing and sustaining a robust SMS. This leadership style is referred to as Laissez-faire leadership, which is a hands-off approach in terms of influencing and guiding. While this leadership style may be acceptable, and even preferred, as a general leadership style in some of the more “hip” organizations, this approach can be detrimental to the development and sustainment of a robust SMS.

A safety management system needs deliberate, hands-on leadership to thrive. This is not an invitation to micro-management – remember leadership and management are two different things – but rather a call for intentional engagement. However, worse than Laissez-fair leadership would be leadership that actively did not care about the SMS or is even antagonistic about the SMS. Where Laissez-fair suggests hands-off, leadership that is contra to safety management efforts is hands-on in a negative way.

However, whether leadership is not present in developing and maintaining the SMS or leadership is not accepting and opposed to safety management, something called a SWAMP safety culture can develop. I first heard this term from Terry Yeomans, IS-BAH director, while working at IBAC and it stands for safety without management practices; and like in a real swamp, this is a bad place to be.

In a SWAMP environment, the following are present in the organization:

• Safety responsibility/accountability is not accepted and perceived as a burden
• Accidents are accepted as part of the business — think of the last time a leader said, “it is not a question of if, but when”
• There is minimal to no strategic planning for safety
• Organization communications are siloed, and information is not shared
• There is a lot of finger-pointing and blaming

This is a scary place to be, right? While some of these traits may be in any organization, in those with a SWAMP safety environment these traits are pervasive. What a safety management system needs is good, solid, deliberate safety leadership to not only ensure the work of safety management is done effectively but to build the culture to sustain safety management efforts.

So, what are some traits of a good safety leader in the organization? According to Sperry (2013) and cast in a safety leadership light, the following are some characteristics of a good safety leader:

• Identifies the safety vision and mission of the organization and communicates them widely
• Creates a safety strategy for the organization including the development of safety objectives
• Builds shared values regarding safety in followers (think safety culture)
• Is engaged in organizational safety management efforts

Take a moment to reflect on the safety leadership in your own organization. Are some of the above traits apparent? If so, do you see how it ultimately influences safety performance in your organization? The traits listed above imply the deliberate practice of leadership in regard to safety. Add to that the last trait is explicit in defining a leader’s position in relation to the SMS – engaged.

Earlier I stated that there are many approaches to leadership and that a given approach isn’t necessarily as important as the deliberate act of leadership. However, academic research has shown that there are two proven approaches to leadership in relation to safety. These two approaches are transactional leadership and transformational leadership.

Specifically, transactional leadership has been proven effective in inspiring compliance with safety regulations and standard operating procedures (Clarke, 2013) while transformational leadership has been proven effective in instilling and maintaining a positive safety culture (Mullen et al., 2017; Zohar, 2002). Safety leaders have used both of these approaches in tandem, but I feel that effort should be put into an approach that inspires a passion for safety in the organization which ultimately leads to creating safety citizens  — a topic for another article. The transformational leadership approach is perfectly suited to do this.

Transactional leadership is effective in that the leader will provide something to the follower in exchange for something given by that follower. For example, if you – the follower – comply with the rules and don’t have an incident, you will get a reward from me – the leader. Or, it could be that the leader provides the follower with the tools to be safe with the expectation that the follower will use those tools to improve safety.

This leadership approach is effective for instilling compliance-based behaviors, however, it is very shallow. In other words, since the behavior depends on a transaction, the behavior is based on extrinsic actions and/or rewards. What I feel we want in our organizations are followers who are intrinsically motivated to be safe and improve safety in the organization.

Transformational leadership has been shown to influence followers at the deeper level of motivation (Muchiri et al., 2019). This is accomplished through the four facets of transformational leadership which are:

• Inspirational motivation
• Idealized influence
• Intellectual stimulation
• Individual consideration

A transformational safety leader casts the vision of safety and what needs to be done to support it (inspirational motivation), sets the example regarding safety behavior (idealized influence), encourages follower participation in developing safety solutions and risk controls (intellectual stimulation) and always remembers that the safety management system is not a mechanized group of processes and procedures, but is comprised of people.

As such, the transformational safety leader will coach individuals who doubt safety management and gently hold individuals accountable for his/her safety management obligations (individual consideration).

So, what does deliberate leadership result in with relation to the safety management system? The presence of robust safety leadership will experience rewarding safety objectives being set and resources committed to achieving them, giving safety practitioners a “seat at the table” and holding line managers accountable for safety management responsibilities.

Importantly, however, is that leadership will be actively engaged in the safety management of the organization. An absence of leadership – or even an antagonistic leadership approach – can lead to safety without management practices. A quid pro quo approach to safety leadership will get you compliance, but provide a transformational experience to change hearts.

This will instill an innate sense of wanting to improve safety in the organization and set the tone for the organization in terms of safety. Finally, and importantly, leaders need to stay engaged. Be present, be accessible, lead deliberately and shepherd your organization into safe operations.

Jason Starke currently serves as the director of standards for Baldwin Aviation. Prior to this, he served as the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) operations manager, working with both the IS-BAO and IS-BAH programs. He joined IBAC from Universal Weather and Aviation where he led efforts to develop an SMS software solution and SMS training for Universal’s business aviation clients.  He also served as a part-time simulator instructor for FlightSafety International in the CL-601 and HS-800XP training programs. He has an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and is rated in the CE-500, CL-600, and HS-125. Starke started his career as a satellite systems operator in the U.S. Air Force and has a B.S. in Meteorology from Northern Illinois University and a Master of Aviation Science from Everglades University. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership at Northcentral University. Starke also teaches aviation safety and SMS at the University of Southern California, Viterbi School of Engineering.

References

Bass, B. M., Bass, R., & Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed., Free Press hardcover ed). Free Press.

Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02064.x

ICAO. (2018). Doc 9859—Safety management manual (Doc. 9859; Issue Doc. 9859). ICAO.

Muchiri, M. K., McMurray, A. J., Nkhoma, M., & Pham, H. C. (2019). How Transformational and Empowering Leader Behaviors Enhance Workplace Safety: A Review and Research Agenda. The Journal of Developing Areas; Nashville, 53(1), 257–265.

Mullen, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Teed, M. (2017). Employer safety obligations, transformational leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance. Safety Science, 91, 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.007

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications.

Sperry, L. (2013). Executive coaching and leadership assessment: Past, present, and future. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(4), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035453

Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.130