The impact of safety leadership in preventing MSDs
Presented by: Anna Clarkson, Pyschologist, Sentis Pty Ltd
Presented on: 14 June 2018
The right safety leadership can have a significant impact on the behaviours of individual workers and the broader safety culture. In this webinar, Anna Clarkson, Psychologist, Sentis Pty Ltd, provides some insights into research that examines employee perceptions of their leaders. She outlines strategies for recognising and rewarding the safety behaviours needed to improve safety within an organisation. Anna's career has been dedicated to bringing out the best in individuals and organisations within Australia, and around the world.
Download a copy of this film (ZIP/MP4, 86MB)
The impact of safety leadership in preventing MSDs
Presented by: Anna Clarkson, Pyschologist, Sentis Pty Ltd
Presented on: 14 June 2018
We're very fortunate that a number of our presenters from the symposium have kindly made themselves available to present their presentation again, and we thank them all very much for doing so.
I'll now introduce Anna Clarkson, today's presenter. Anna Clarkson is a clinical psychologist and a principal consultant with Sentis. Sentis is a safety consulting firm which partners with organizations in Australia and around the world to improve their performance through building a safer, more engaged, and aligned workforce. Their focus is on applying psychological knowhow to shift attitudes so that workers are engaging with safety because they want to and not because they have to.
Through this work, Anna enjoys helping organizations understand their safety culture, build safety leadership capacity, and develop individual personal motivation to engage in safety. She's pleased today to share some of Sentis's international research on safety culture and safety leadership, which gives us some powerful insights into how we might better lead everyone home safely and prevent MSDs.
So I'll now hand it over to Anna and we'll get started. Thank you.
Thank you, Suzanne and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, for having me. It's a great opportunity to share again some really interesting research on the state of safety leadership around the world, so that we can learn a little bit more about what works in driving safety performance and where our areas of opportunity are to develop a stronger leadership capacity in our organization, so that we can prevent those musculoskeletal injuries.
The research that I'm sharing with you is available for free in our eBook, on our website. So please feel welcome to download that eBook. Once we finish the presentation, I'll show you the link of where to find it.
Before I jump into the research, let's set the scene as to why investigating safety leadership is so important. Our experience, working with organisations over the last few decades, tells us that workplaces have done some really good work actually in improving their environmental controls and developing safe work practices for employees to follow. And this has led to a substantial reduction in the number of incidents that are occurring out there.
However, whilst has been a downwards trend in the number of incidents, people are still getting hurt at work. And many organizations describe their safety performance as leveling out and perhaps hitting a bit of a plateau. So many leaders tell us that they're scratching their heads wondering kind of why this is happening and why they can't get that last percentage of people on board and working safely and preventing that smaller percentage of injuries that are still occurring, particularly, when they are investing so well in the safety management system and are telling their employees what to do to work safely.
So, what is the missing link? If we're investing well in our environment and we're investing well in our practices, how come we have hit that safety plateau? What is missing in our investments so far? Well, we would argue that it's an investment in people, in the way they think, the decisions they make, their engagement and their capacity to influence others.
We know that over 90% of incidents are caused, at least in part, by the decision a person makes at the time that actually puts them at risk. So, let's explore briefly how that person factor works and what this has to do with leadership.
Here we have a basic psychological model, which explains why we get certain results in life. And it's called the ABA Model. It's nice and simple. We all hold attitudes about things in life, about our job, our boss, or family, and about safety. And those thoughts and feelings then inspire certain behaviors. Now, those behaviors then contribute to the results that we get.
So take the example of someone's attitudes towards risk assessments. If someone believes that risk assessments were tools they can use to invest in their safety, then they're much more likely, when they're doing that risk assessment to be engaged in looking around for hazards and planning the controls to put in place. Now, as a result, they're much more likely to reduce the level of risk in that task. So, for example, if believe that I'm pushing or pulling a trolley, which has some heavy equipment on it, and in fact that equipment is too heavy for my back, for my load, then I'll get some other mechanical aids to support or get some other people to do that task more safely.
If, however, the worker believes that the risk assessments are a waste of time, they're just their to cover their bosses' backside, then we probably say that was a fairly hindering attitude towards safety. And in this case, the worker is more likely to engage in that risk assessment as a bit of a tick and flick exercise, which means they may miss the fact that the load on that trolley has increased and there's a potential increase in the risk to their back by pushing or pulling that trolley alone. So this means that they are much more likely to have an increased risk of a muscular strain or an injury, which is pretty bad result.
Now, what role does the leader play in influencing the attitudes and behaviours and, in fact, the results of their team? Well, of course, it's quite significant. The safety climate of a team is very much linked to the quality of safety leadership. Let's see how this works. We'll contrast two styles of leadership.
Imagine the impact of leader A, who takes the time to look at and recognize quality risk assessments, versus leader B, who puts them in a pile somewhere just to collect dust. Now, if I pay little attention to the risk assessments, what attitude does that role model to my team? Probably the risk assessments aren't terribly important.
Imagine the impact of leader A, who voices regularly why risk assessments are worthwhile and how that can help us to get home to our families, in contrast to leader B, who tells his staff to do the risk assessment because they have a quota that we have to make to get our bonuses.
So imagine how these two different leaders affect their teams' attitudes towards safety. Clearly, leader A is going to drive safer attitudes and behaviours through their role modelling and explanation of why the safety processes in a business are important, rather than leader B, who is more likely to see a higher level of risk in their team.
Leadership is a critical component of the overall safety culture. Leaders have really the biggest influence on the attitudes and behaviours that each person in their workforce holds towards both the environment and the safe work practices. So as a part of the total investment in safety culture leadership, of course, is really critical.
Now, just as a point of reflection, perhaps it's worth thinking for yourself where is your organisation investing most of your efforts. Is it in the environment, in the practices? Is it in the personal attitudes and motivations of your staff? Or is it in leadership.
Now, if like many organisations we speak to, they're investing heavily in the practices and environment part, now is a good opportunity to reflect on how you may better invest in your people and your leadership.
So we've set the scene for why leadership is important. It drives the attitudes and behaviours that deliver safer results. Let's now learn more about the research we did on the state of safety leadership in Australia and around the world.
In this project, we looked at the dataset of over 8,000 employees around the world to determine trends in how employees perceive their leaders. And this gives us some useful information about the state of safety leadership and where we ought to focus our learning and development activities.
In the study, we asked employees about their perceptions of their leaders. So whilst we didn't observe these leaders in the field ourselves, it's important to note that the employees' perception of their leader is in fact their reality. We analysed certified results of staff who completed our Safety Climate Survey, which is part of a diagnostic we do around safety culture in our client organisations around the world, in Africa, Australia, USA, Middle East, et cetera. And you can see here, the dataset has a pretty good representation of many high-risk industries, including agriculture, mining, industrial services, manufacturing, et cetera.
As part of our Safety Climate Survey, employees were asked to rate their leaders on eight safety leadership competencies. You can see them there in the slide. And these have been derived from the literature about what leadership behaviours drive a high-performing safety culture. So they are recognizing, actively caring, collaborating, demonstrating a safety vision, inspiring the team to follow them, role modelling, challenging, and supporting.
In this next slide, you can see a definition of the different competencies. So we've got challenging, which is about challenging team members to think about safety issues and scenarios differently. So the classic question here is: is there a better insightful way for us to do that task?
Vision, of course, is sharing the safety goals with the team. Recognizing is about rewarding employees based on the achievement of high safety performance. Supporting means that we're providing active monitoring of safety performance and compliance to safety standards. Collaborating means we're seeking input and using the expertise of our team, when we're making safety decisions. Inspiring is about inspiring the team to achieve the vision, so getting some followership within our team and getting a personal reason for why it's worth investing in safety.
Role modelling is about, of course, walking the talk, and actively caring is about not only caring about employees, but actively showing that you care through your conversations with them, by tailoring the safety message to the individuals in your team, et cetera.
So now it's time to reflect on your experience. And we're going to do a quick multi-choice poll. We're going to ask you to consider which of the following do you feel is the biggest area of strength in safety leaders around the world, and thinking about those eight leadership competencies. So we have a multiple choice polling question there for you to consider which do you think to be the biggest area of strength in safety leadership around the world. Recognising, role modelling, showing active care, or perhaps challenging staff to think different about safety?
So I'll give you a moment to put in your responses because we'd love to hear what you expect the research to tell us.
I'll just give you a few moments to fill out that poll and we'll get the results and I will feed that back to you.
I can see those answers coming in. Thank you.
All right, we'll close up that poll.
We'll just get those results for you in a moment.
Role modelling 33. Recognising 22. No answer 23. Active caring [inaudible 00:14:12]
Great, thank you so much for participating in our poll. So the results are that 33% of you thought that role modelling would be the strongest safety leadership competency around the world. And that makes a lot of sense because that's one of those kind of practical things, isn't it, that we do to demonstrate good safety leadership is to walk the talk. So I'm not surprised by your answer there. That makes sense to me.
Followed closely by 22% of you who thought recognising would be the strongest safety leadership competency, followed by 15% thinking active care was, and then finally, 15% thought challenging was. So that's really interesting. I'm going to share with you what the research told us were the highest competencies, in a moment, but let's just keep that thought in mind that we thought that role modelling was probably the highest competency around the world.
So let's do a second poll. And this one, I would like you to think about here is what do you see as being the biggest area of opportunity for safety leaders around the world? So which one are they likely to score lowest on? Again, the same four are presented for you, to choose because recognising, role modelling, active care, and challenging. And your answers will be recorded in the poll. Thank you for participating. I'd love to hear your feedback.
All right, so we've got the results of the polling. It sounds as though most of you believe that the highest area of opportunity for leaders is to demonstrate active care, followed by challenging their staff, followed by role modelling, and then the last one you thought was recognising. That's really interesting. Let's keep that in mind. So you thought the strength for leaders is role modelling and the area of opportunity is active care. Great.
So this is just now a question for you to consider yourself. You're welcome to talk in the Q & A area what you believe to be the answer to this question. Otherwise, just answer it yourself. So I'm going to ask you to think about what percentage of leaders out there around the world do you feel strongly demonstrate safety leadership? What percentage?
Well, our research results reveal that only one in four leaders demonstrates strong safety leadership. And so, when considering both upwards ratings from employees, so the employees rating their direct leader, as well the leader rating themselves, we found about 25% of leaders were demonstrating strong safety leadership. So this means that we have an opportunity here to greatly improve our safety leadership, and in doing so, lift that safety [inaudible 00:18:38] that so many organisations are concerned about.
So to get a sense of where we should be spending our time when investing in leadership, let's look at the overall breakdown of results. So let's see how well leaders are doing across each of the eight safety leadership competencies. And that way we know which competencies we can further strengthen and which need more investment in our learning and development initiatives.
Now, the first thing to take stop off here is how positive or negative the perceptions are of leader overall. So you can see the three colour bands here. If leaders are scoring in the red zone, it's a negative perception, in the orange zone, a fair perception, and in the green zone, a positive perception. So where do we see most of the competencies being rated? Well, as you can see, it's in that orange zone. So leaders are perceived by their staff as showing fair levels of safety leadership. They lead strongly some of the time is the key descriptor here.
So this means that either their particular skills within that competency that leaders aren't very confident or competent in delivering, or perhaps it's an inconsistent delivery of those skills. So there's an opportunity here to coach leaders to be more skilful and be more consistent in their application of the safety leadership competencies.
Now, the second thing to learn from this graph is which competencies are rated as relative strengths or relative opportunities. Now, you said in our poll, the competency that most leaders would perform better at was role modelling. And yet, our research showed actually the strength was active care. So that's a bit contrary to your expectation because you actually thought that would be probably the biggest area of opportunity.
So this is a bit of a surprising result for us, isn't it? It's counterintuitive. I think that's what's so interesting about this research is that it gives us data that we didn't necessarily anticipate. And that's the beauty of doing studies like this.
So looking at the colour band in here, we can see that leaders are seen as genuinely caring for their teams, at least to some extent. And I'm heartened, at least, that our leaders out there are seen to be caring for their teams because that's a really great starting point because we can't really fake that very well. But a word of caution here, just because we care, it doesn't mean that we have the tools to demonstrate that care effectively and to utilize that care to lead a team towards safe work and to challenge each other on our attitudes and recognize when we're doing well.
Now, let's speak about the elephant in the room, the big red result there. This represents the lowest scoring safety leadership competency, which you thought actually would be active care. Now, in fact, it was recognising, and now this is the one that you felt probably would be okay. So this tells us that out of all of the leadership competencies, leaders apply the skill of recognising positive safety performance the least. Now, that's quite surprising.
We thought this was a really curious finding and not probably expected. So we started to ask more questions about this result. So the first question we asked was did it matter where the organisation was located in the world. So for example, the differences between countries, which might be explained by cultural expectations or something.
So, having a look at the trends there, you can see actually no, most countries are following the same pattern of safety leadership. Whilst there's some differences between countries, overall, the pattern is pretty universal, isn't it? And in particular, if you have a look at the result for recognising, it's universally the lowest performing competency, which is really interesting. And active caring is universally pretty much the highest competency.
So, okay, so location doesn't explain the result. Let's have a look at industry breakdown. So we asked ourselves: did it matter what industry the employee was in because perhaps people have different cultures based on the industry they work in?
Now, again, we looked at the pattern of results and whilst some industries may be performing slightly differently than others in terms of their safety leadership, overall, the trend is the same. So universally, across industry, recognizing is still, by far, the lowest rated competency in safety leadership. And whilst there are differences between industries, the overall pattern remains the same.
So what about how long the employee doing a rating has been in the job? Well, again, the overall pattern is the same. But if you've been in your workplace for less than one year, you're more likely to see your leader as giving more recognition. This is interesting. Why might it be the case that someone who's a little green sees their leader as more likely to praise and encourage their safety performance?
Well, our theories is that perhaps it's young and new workers who either perceive recognition to be happening more than it is or that they're receiving more recognition and say that because they're learning, and maybe they're even seeking out recognition more often as they require more feedback on how they're going.
So if we were to apply the findings here to your workplace, one recommendation might be to give your longer serving employees a little more love. Give them a bit of a pat on the back for their experience and influence in driving a positive safety culture because we know that the newer employees are perceiving they get more recognition than the ones who've been there longer.
And finally, we looked at any differences between perceptions of safety leadership based on what position you held in the organisational structure. So that is we're looking at did frontline workers perceive their supervisor to be better at recognition, for example, than the supervisor saw their boss, the superintendent, or the superintendent saw their manager?
And here you can see that regardless of position, recognition is still the lowest rated, but the recognition is perceived as a caring more frequently, the higher you go up the chain in the organisational structure, with senior managers being seen as giving more recognition than frontline leaders.
So why is it that frontline workers rate frontline leaders as worse at recognizing them than the middle or senior management? Our experience tells us that many of our frontline leaders have been promoted due to technical competence, and many organizations haven't invested in a lot of formal training in leadership. And so those frontline leaders are often promoted to leadership off the toes and are expected now to be experts in influencing the mindsets and behaviours of their staff.
And we all know that leading others requires a different skillset altogether to fixing a diesel engine or operating machinery. So, if only humans would work just like machines, it ought to be a lot easier.
So perhaps frontline workers are experiencing that sort of lack of skill and training for their supervisors in leading others. Now, the implication here, of course, is to invest in skilling up your frontline leaders in leadership skills. Some organisations are starting to do this and offer their supervisors Cert IV in frontline leadership and other leadership courses around the soft skills, effective leadership, and these are great initiatives.
So why do managers do better at recognition than supervisors? So, we suspect that this is because managers are not only more experienced, but they're also more likely to have been exposed to some leadership training or higher education along the way.
Having said that, though, even those at the top still on average seem to recognise their staff to some extent, not to a great extent and not the green zone, but still only in that middle zone. So all leaders at all levels could do with some investment in recognising their staff.
We do what's important to our leaders. And how do we know what's important? By what they pay attention to and what they recognize.
So let's sum this up. Not only did recognising and rewarding employees for high safety performance score lower than any other competency, it was actually rated at a level that has significant functional impact on culture. 28% you'll see in that diagram are rated in that green zone, which means that they recognize to a little extent at most.
So if an organisation whose leaders fall into that orange zone and that red zone, which makes of about 72% of the population, they've got the same poor to average safety leadership, which means that performance could be detrimental to safety outcomes, which could result in things like misalignment of the safety vision and expectations around safety related decisions, reduce discretionary efforts and compliance, reduced willingness to report incidents and hazards, and increased incident frequency and severity.
So investing in developing leaders' recognising ability provides a potential really quick win. Think about the impact a little more recognition for doing the right thing might have on the attitudes and behaviours of your staff. Consider how this might influence staff engagement, retention, and safety focus. How might this assist your culture to mature?
We know from the literature that using reward and recognition increases the frequency of the targeted behaviour by about 30%. So imagine if we consistently hunted the good staff and really paid attention to it, showed interest in what our teams are doing safely, and reinforce the attitudes and behaviours that contribute to the culture we want to build. It seems to easy, doesn't it?
So why don't we recognise people more? What gets in the way? Let's take a quick poll. I'd like you to be thinking now about what are some of the common barriers for leaders to recognizing positive safety performance. Is it lack of motivation? Is it lack of confidence or skill, or lack of support?
I'll give you a moment to vote if you haven't voted already.
Okay, so looking at the poll results, it shows us that most of you were feeling that actually a lack of confidence and skill in how to recognize others is the biggest barrier, followed by a lack of motivation, so sort of being unaware of the benefits of doing so, then followed by lack of organisational support. And certainly that marries up with my experiences that a lot of leaders kind of know it's a good idea, but just haven't quite come up with a strategy or a plan about how to recognise their staff and how to do so effectively, and that kind of holds them back from launching into a recognition strategy.
So, in terms of that confidence and skill, one of the things that may hold leaders back is the attitude that they hold about recognition. And I'd like to just share with you some frames or attitudes that you might have heard around site before, and see whether or not you recognize these attitudes.
So we've got first one, a belief here that if people are doing a good job, leave them alone. Don't tell people when they're doing well, only when they're not performing. Why do people need prize? They get paid to do a job and that money should be enough. Treat them mean and keep them keen, so that's a great one for dating, but maybe not for safety leadership. And then, finally, praise is only for puppies and children.
So if we believe some of these to be true, we're less likely to get involved in a recognition program and thank our staff for safe work. So the first step, of course, in supporting our leaders to get on board with the recognition strategy is just to explore what their attitudes are about recognition itself.
The next step to improve recognition for safe work is to develop a small [inaudible 00:32:23] of options about how to recognise staff. So it doesn't have to be expensive or time consuming. Ruffling off the big boat for LTI free time is not really what I'm talking about here. We're talking about giving small amounts of recognition in a way that is meaningful to the employee and doing that regularly.
So how should we recognise our staff for positive safety performance? We can give people verbal and non-verbal acknowledgement of their efforts. So we can, for example, be thanking them for speaking about a task that had a safety risk attached to it. We could stop and listen to their suggestions because nothing gives people a greater sense of feeling puffed up as being heard and having their opinion valued, and being seen as expert in your area.
Give them out time. That's a really precious commodity as of later. So giving your staff time to ask for their input, their ideas, to find out what the challenges are of their job, and showing interest in them as human beings is a fantastic source of recognition. And share genuinely and honestly your appreciation for someone's attitude or behaviour. Now, it's so critical that that recognition is delivered genuinely because, of course, if the employee sees a bit of a mismatch in our tone or voice, that says that perhaps I don't really mean what I say, of course, that recognition will be instantly dismissed.
Another way to recognise staff quite creatively is actually to pass on the good news to somebody else, so that that positive feedback gets shared around your site, and the person who did the good deed gets to hear kind of positive gossip about their good work from someone else. So that can be a great way to kind of build a positive culture.
Make sure we base our recognition on real data or on observation, so that it's credible and it appears fair, and also recognition either publicly or privately, depending on what the individual prefers. So this takes getting to know your team members, whether there's someone who likes to be out in the spotlight, or somebody who would absolutely hate that and much prefer a quiet pat on the back individually.
So if you're looking for some tips now on how to improve recognition for safety at work, here's five steps that you can take. First, identify the positive safety behaviours you want to see in your team. So it might be I want them to report incidents [inaudible 00:35:00]. It might be that I want them to engage more actively in their risk assessments. It might be that I want them to speak up more to their colleagues or demonstrate active care to each other.
So identify those couple of safety behaviours you want to see and make a list of the types of reward and recognition available for you to use. So this might mean speaking to the HR department to find out what recognition systems are available because there might be things like email systems with the recognition, or there maybe money available to be able to spend on small gifts for employees who've gone above and beyond. And there might be other types of recognition strategies that are available for you to hook into.
So maybe find out what those are and also consider the list of reward and recognition that I've mentioned in the previous slide. So that we're considering both tangible and intangible opportunities.
Number three would be to spend time in the field actively looking for opportunities to recognise individuals for demonstrating the positive behaviours. So it's really hard to recognise our staff and our team for doing the right thing if we're not out there with them, on the job, being able to catch them doing the right thing. So this is really about leaders being visible and present with their teams and being able to hunt for the good staff.
Now, when we change the focus of our [inaudible 00:36:27] to being looking for the things that are going well, it's surprising how often we start to see more of that just because we are deliberately tuning our focus into seeing the good things occur. So just changing your mental focus to hunting the good staff can actually make a really big difference, but make sure you're out there with your team, so that you can catch them doing the right thing.
Number four, when you observe positive behaviours, decide on the most appropriate recognition for that individual or team. So, this takes, of course, getting to know your team and understanding what it is that they would value most.
And then, finally, take action to recognise the individual or team as soon as possible. Don't delay the reward or recognition a month and don't wait until you have a perfect strategy to get started. Get started straight away. Probably the risk is lower to get started than wanting for it to be perfect.
So that concludes the presentation per se. I'll hand over to Suzanne now, who will open up to the floor for questions. Thank you.
Thanks, Anna. We do have a couple of questions coming in, so if people just want to hand on to those, it's always good to hear Anna's thoughts on a few of the questions that people ... so do feel free to type in some more. At the moment, I guess one of the questions is around that incentivising. You mentioned the big boat. What do you think of those approaches where a big ticket item is used? You hear about groups that are offered Harbor Bridge Climbs and Disneyland. Well, how do you get the balance, any comments on that, Anna?
Absolutely. And look, organizations who put these incentives in place have their heart in the right place, I think. They're wanting to reward high safety performance, particularly for a large group of people. I think one of the challenges in providing a big ticket item like a lottery for a trip to Disneyland or something like that is that towards the end of the, for example LTI free time. So let's imagine you've set the goal that if we get 12 LTI-free, then everybody goes into a lottery to win a great big prize.
One of the challenges with that is that, as you get closer and closer to the cutoff time, if you're a worker who hasn't been involved in an injury and that's a significant one that will involve lost time, how likely do you reckon would be to put that little notification into the safety officer if we know that that's going to jeopardize the likelihood of all of our colleagues getting put in for that trip to Disneyland? So the challenge here is that usually drives reporting underground.
The other issue then is what we often see happening immediately after that prize has been handed out is an increase in the number of injuries as the focus is then shifted. So yeah, we got our 12 LTI free time, now we're back to business as usual, and the risk of injury increase ... the risk goes up typically afterwards. So, much better approach to those smaller, more regular rewards.
We've got another good question here and it's along that theme I guess where you mentioned one in four strong leaders. Does it not just equate that if you're a strong safety leader, you also are just going to be one of those really strong leaders? What's the evidence to say there? Can you comment?
Yeah, it's a really good question and there are many people out in the safety community who would say, "Look, let's not use the term safety leaders, it's just leadership." And there's a good point to be had about that. That if you look at those safety leadership competencies, they are competencies that you could apply to any goal. They are what make a good leader, but not all good leaders who are great at influencing production right apply those same competencies to safety. And we can see from the way that the population are reporting or describing their leaders.
The application of those leadership skills to safety is a big area of opportunity. So we'd say actually the application of those competencies is quite unique and requires specific focus.
I guess one from the floor here, from me actually. Being a safety regulator, we have a lot of duties, and I guess I'm wondering how you reconcile fitting in with things that just must be done. We have requirement to consult and collaborate and cooperate and some of this stuff's really just how good safety should run. And I'm just wondering if you can comment on that sort of big carrot versus stick concept.
Yeah, absolutely. And this is important, isn't it, but we know that compliance is absolutely critical. And there is an expectation that organisations are enforcing legislation and they're making sure they deliver a safe workplace for their employees to work in. So, yes, there are things that have to be done and compliance needs to be monitored and enforced.
The trick is if people aren't engaging in the safe work system and we are just using the big stick, the impact that has on culture is that people end up cooperating only out of fear of a [inaudible 00:41:57], rather than wanting to contribute and be part of the safety management system for the right reasons, so that we all go home to the people we love.
And so what that means is we actually inadvertently create a culture where more and more monitoring is actually required to keep it stable. And this puts a lot of burden on leaders to be acting as the police and on the regulator to act as the police in a workplace. Whereas, if we are looking to engage and inspire our workforce to do safe work for right reasons because there's something in this for me and for my colleagues and for us as a group, then the burden is less and it's actually much more effective in getting the [inaudible 00:42:44] we want.
Thanks, Anna. I think that's probably a good place to finish.
[End of Transcript]