Operacionalización de las variables

The most significant research finding is that an individual’s attributes - such as professional reputation, commitment and communication skills - are heavily relied upon to provide the personal credibility that garners enough influence to fulfil safety roles. In particular, those with any responsibility for the promotion of operational safety priorities are expected to

already have an “ability to influence others”. Persuasion and encouragement may be useful for promoting greater attention to those patent hazards that are related to personal safety, but such risks are easier to recognise. Operational safety considers latent hazards and such risks are technically difficult to detect, let alone encourage others to diagnose.

All of the interviewees discussed their own perceived influence as highly reliant on their attitude and personality. Every interviewee also discussed the perceived influence of other safety professionals in terms of their manifest credibility: not professional competence alone, but also their presentation as personable, reliable and endowed with authority. Several of the experienced, senior interviewees echo the sentiment that to be an effective safety professional, one’s commitment to safety has to be seen to be worth risking one’s employment. The unquestioned expectation is that the exercise of influence is ultimately an extension of a personal ability to motivate and persuade others to comprehend and consider safety priorities, whether or not there is any actual organisational support. In Company A, a senior technical specialist takes advantage of the responsibility of

interpreting regulations to include safety requirements in standard operating procedures. His expertise and experience are such that it extends his influence beyond his own

designated regional division and his advice is sought by managers from other regions. In Company F, informal relationships with the technical community create opportunities for communication and interaction that facilitate discussion and development of safety priorities. In Company G, the most-likely POSS believes that his personal lack of interest in corporate politics and “boardroom antics” reduces his effectiveness and he hopes to be replaced soon by a more skilled executive. In Company D, the most senior safety manager relies on a personal relationship with the operations manager and is apprehensive of the impact that a change in personnel will have on corporate safety management.

The other consequential research finding related to personal credibility is that there is a clear distinction made between technical specialists and safety specialists, as two distinct archetypes of safety professionals. This reflects a tendency in industry to treat operational safety as similar to occupational safety, despite the lack of common features. It is fairly obvious to safety professionals that the technical complexities of hazard and risk

management processes require a fundamentally different skill set to the educational and adult engagement skills that are used to promote personal safety practices. Yet, these archetypes have pervaded discussions with almost all interviewees in this research project. The technical specialists tend to be those with long professional backgrounds as qualified engineers with a deep understanding of operational matters, such as process control and

plant integrity, or as experts in safety analysis, such as consequence modelling and quantitative risk assessment. They may be highly competent and knowledgeable in their specific areas of expertise but are perceived to often lack the management skills or

experience to effectively coordinate operational safety activities or lead a functional team. Technical competence can greatly impact on the influence of operational safety specialists as can be seen when considering such individuals as in Company F. The operational

excellence staff in Company F have developed personal reputations based on technical credibility that extend their influence within their organisations beyond the limited authority of their operational support roles. It is more common for such technical competence to remain within engineering groups that support operating discipline and control of safety critical processes. As interpersonal skills are a priority for oversight and strategic management, such technical specialists, regardless of expertise, are typically seen to lack credibility in that forum.

On the other hand, one manager explains that “safety specialists know that they’re expected to ask the stupid questions”. If such an expectation is considered to be common knowledge, it carries with it an acceptance that safety specialists have inferior technical competencies and that, regardless of their interpersonal skills, they are seen to lack the credibility associated with operational experience.

These archetypal safety specialists tend to be those with skills and experience in non- operational matters, such as personal safety issues, emergency response planning or training and leadership. They could have long operational backgrounds, building up valuable familiarity and confidence with various work and safety processes, but they could also have only short dynamic careers with a focus on adult training, systems, strategy or leadership. While safety specialists may be very effective communicators or capable managers, they often lack the necessary knowledge and complex understanding to reliably recognise and address operational safety issues as they arise.

It is typical to observe that the competence and long experience that are fundamental requirements for technical experts are considered to be a bonus if found in a safety

specialist. Meanwhile, the interpersonal skills that are fundamental requirements for safety specialists are considered to be a rare gift in technical experts. This distinction seems to reflect an underlying bias in corporate attitudes and organisational practices that may have serious implications for the management of operational safety priorities .

As previously noted, the observed trend amongst all of the participating organisations is that safety specialists should have an “ability to influence others” as a basic competency. This widespread expectation suggests that it is quite common for safety management roles to lack any formal authority and that this is a mostly unquestioned bias within the industry. Instead of treating the lack of specific structured or designated authority as an obstacle to safety management that needs to be challenged and surmounted, safety and operations and executive managers seemingly accept this as a part of the corporate landscape. The bias is “worked around” by recruiting safety staff with the appropriate personal skillsets to promote safety when no actual authority is available.

Several of the interviewees consider that bridging this great divide is the most fundamental challenge for operational safety management as well as general safety management. They propose to ensure that young technical professionals are trained in interpersonal skillsets and that health and safety professionals are exposed to the highly technical concepts of operational safety. However, this approach does not address the more fundamental issue with operational safety problems: that mitigation and control typically require both the comprehensive understanding of production processes and the resources to analyse and design modifications to operating equipment and management systems. Such work would require impetus: justifications must extend beyond a single personal interaction.

One could say that prioritising operational safety requires that the technical specialist has to become a crusader or activist, not just the safety specialist role of teacher or advocate. Of greatest concern is that the notion is so ubiquitous: that the engineers and technical specialists lack interpersonal skills. Only one interviewee (of thirty professionals including several engineers) suggests that it really should not be necessary for safety roles to be so heavily dependent on such skills and an individual’s personal credibility to get the job done.