WorkSafe.qld.gov.au redesign: We’re delighted to announce that our redesigned website has launched! Read more
Skip to content
Menu

Change management and cultural maturity

Musculoskeletal Disorders Symposium 2017

Anna Clarkson

Presented by: Anna Clarkson (Sentis)

Run time: 38:11

Download a copy of this podcast (MP3, 22 MB)

Read more about Sentis ebooks and toolkits.

Presentation 6: Change management and cultural maturity

Presented by: Anna Clarkson (Sentis)

[Start of transcript]

Madonna King:

So welcome everyone to our second session in the business integration stream, the role of safety leadership in preventing MSDs, and it's going to be presented by Anna Clarkson. And Anna is an experienced psychologist who has really dedicated her career to bringing out the best in individuals and organisations across the globe.

She's worked with Sentis to focus on building and delivering cultural change projects to create safety citizenship, increased organisation resilience, an engaged workforce, and of course importantly sustained behavioural change. And today Anna is going to share insights about the role of safety leadership and the impact of safety leaders in preventing MSDs, and to do that she's going to draw on insights from a Sentis study of more than 10,000 participants.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Anna Clarkson.

(Applause)

Anna Clarkson:

Thank you for joining me. So, this afternoon I'll be sharing with you a study that Sentis has done recently looking at a number of our clients around the world that we've worked with to improve their safety performance through intervening with safety culture. And we're sharing with you today some research we did on understanding how employees perceive the safety leadership capability of their leaders.

So it gives us really good food for thought as we're planning our learning and development for our leadership in our organisation, to learn a little bit about how leaders are being perceived not only here in Australia but around the world, and across different levels of the organisation etcetera. So there are some pretty interesting insights that come from that study, and I can't wait to share it with you.

So let's have a look at first of all how we typically intervene to help organisations improve safety performance. Now as I said before, we intervene with safety culture. And so we have on the right hand side of that slide a summary of works done by Sentis but also it leans heavily on Scott Geller's work in safety culture. And it says that there are essentially four things we need to invest in carefully to make sure that we manage risk effectively. So we need to invest in our environment and make sure that there are guards to prevent us from putting our hands in a conveyor belt, that there's good machinery design equipment, that we've got fit for purpose tools. All of those things are really important in the environment to manage well.

We also have to invest in our practices. So of course historically organisations are very good at investing in engineering design for the environment, and also writing very good specific procedures for people to follow to make sure they operate machinery safely etcetera. So we train people to follow those practices, we make sure the environment looks safe to operate in, and then the third thing we need to invest in of course is what we bring in to our workplace every day between our ears. And this is where it gets a little less predictable for us, because humans are inherently unpredictable little beings. In fact, our attitudes about the environmental controls and our attitudes about the practices or even the procedures that have been written for us by our safety team, will determine how much we engage in those things.

So if you're in a safety team and you've written those beautiful procedures and you've done your consultation and you think they're easy to find, they're easy to follow, you've trained your staff well, you'll be thinking, 'Well I earn a pat on the back for that because that's awesome,' and it is, but it doesn't predict people actually following those procedures does it? We've all trained people again and again and again on what the right method is to be able to operate that dump truck or whatever it might be, that piece of machinery, to do that safely and manage the vibration in the carriage etcetera. We do that really well and we tell people again and again what to do, and yet people are still getting hurt at work every day, right?

So one of the things that will drive whether or not people engage with the environment and the practices is what leadership tell us. If leadership endorse it then it must be good for us. So that goes some way to helping our culture become healthy and sustaining good safety performance. But there's more to the story than that. If we look at our safety performance starter, all of us are doing much better than we were due to the excellent efforts of people around the world. So we're hurting far less people than we ever used to, which is excellent, but our results are still inconsistent and we still haven't got to that beautiful utopia where nobody gets hurt at work anymore.

So if our results are inconsistent, if you're experiencing in your organisation that fluctuation between peak performance and then followed by a trough, or you've sustained good performance for a little while, you get your 100 days LTI-free or something like that and then you have a disaster, the reason why this happens from a psychologist's point of view is that even though we've trained people in the behaviours they need to follow, we're all different in the way that we think about those procedures and about those environmental controls.

So let me give you an example. Let's imagine you've got James and Bob. They're about to do some heavy manual handling in their shift that morning. They've just had their pre-shift meeting with their supervisor. And actually as they're just about to start the job, they're doing their personal risk assessment.

Now James has the attitude that this personal risk assessment is one good way of him investing in his long-term health and wellbeing, because he wants to get home and play the footy with his kids on the weekend.

Compare that to the attitude of Bob, who thinks that the personal risk assessment is a waste of time, it's there to cover the company's backside, and it's only a thing to do when the boss is around. Has anybody heard that attitude before?

So we've got two different attitudes. So the question becomes if we have those two different attitudes, what then does that predict in terms of the behaviours and the results that people get? So for James who believes that safety is worth investing in, probably engages pretty well with his risk assessment or his hazard identification and putting his controls in place, which means that he's reduced the level of risk for that task and he's more likely to go home without injury.

If we compare that to Bob who's thinking that personal risk assessments are a waste of time, when he gets to do his personal risk assessment how do you reckon he does it?

He's just tick and flick right? As a result he's not really paying attention to what might have changed in his environment since the last time he did this task, and is missing key hazards potentially, and potentially not putting the right controls in place, therefore increasing the risk for himself and others in that workplace on that tasks that day.

Now if we look at those two workers, for James he's feeling good about his results. He's working safely, and that sustains the cycle right? So the ABR is self-perpetuating. But it's also the same for Bob. So Bob's come in saying, 'PRAs are a waste of time so I'm not going to do it properly. I'm just going to do it in a rush job,' and at the end of his shift if he walks away injury-free, what happens to his existing attitude?

It's reinforced right? So now you've got this self-perpetuating cycle where Bob is now thinking – not only is he thinking, 'Great, I can take a shortcut and get away with it,' but he's also actually in his brain is getting a nice little dopamine hit, because every time we conserve a little bit of energy our brain says, 'Well done,' and gives you a nice little feel good stroke and it wants you to keep doing it. Anyway we can do the job faster, quick and more efficiently, our brains are going to take it. We're inherently lazy creatures. And so that explains I guess how complacency develops over time for Bob.

Now let's shift the lens a little bit in this story to the leader who's in that room, and the leader is watching – actually the guys are doing their PRAs and the leader is focused in on his paperwork for the shift. He's not paying attention to what's happening in terms of the discussions around the risk assessment for that job or the planning or the JSA that's happening. Instead what he's doing is focusing in on what he needs to get done, his production targets for the day. Now James, who's investing heavily in that personal risk assessment, is watching for the leader to do what when he's done it?

Acknowledge it in some way, that, 'I'm doing the right thing. I'm competent at doing a risk assessment and I'm contributing to my safety and that of people around me, therefore I'm aligning well to the organisation's values and that's a good thing'. But if he doesn't get that, it's just radio silence right? Let's see now if the boss also ignores Bob. And as soon as Bob's done his tick and flick, he races over to the supervisor and says, 'Right, done my personal risk assessment. Let's get going,' and the supervisor says, 'Awesome. You're always first to get started. You're a winner. Now you get to choose how you want to get this job done, choose the task you want to get started on while these slow coaches come on up behind'.

Now for James who's watching this interaction between Bob and the supervisor, now what's James thinking about the leader?

The leader has just in that very moment placed production over safety, right? And that then says to James, 'Well why am I doing the PRA? That's obviously not important in this business. This is a waste of time'. And this is how we start to get performance drift, by leaders recognising and attending, even in negative ways, to behaviours that aren't productive towards safety, that aren't helpful.

So as we're trying to intervene and get a whole organisation improving their safety performance, we're looking on that ABR model for each individual. And as we mature, the way we think and act changes. So much like us as human beings, we have matured over time. We've gone through developmental stages, from kids to teenagers where we think we know it all to young adults to mature adults, and organisations are no different. So Karen described the maturity models from Hudson and the simplified version of the three stages. What we've got here is I guess a more subtle model looking at what's going on internally for individuals in the organisation, if we're going to track organisational maturity around safety culture.

So our gold standard is the citizenship. So up this end, up on the right hand side you've got a very proactive culture where people are willing to go above and beyond to make sure everybody is safe. So this is where there's high levels of discretionary effort, there's high levels of trust and there's high levels of autonomy, and there's that focus on continuing improvement. But we don't start there, and a lot of us are still hoping to get there.

Down the lower end you've got the counterproductive attitudes, and this is where an individual believes that, 'My priority is just to get the job done, it's not to do it safely. And in fact I will undermine safety systems in the business in order to get the job done quickly, because the boss doesn't care about me'.

Next level up is public compliance, and this is where a lot of organisations that we work with sit. They're trying to make this change from public to private, and at public your staff are saying…

'I'll do the risk assessments and I'll wear my PPE when my boss is around because I have to. I'll get pinged if I don't. So I'm pretty much forced to. But I don't like wearing it and I don't see the point of it, and as soon as the boss walks out of the workshop my eye protection goes from on top of my head to down around my neck'. So that's public compliance. Private compliance, the attitudinal shift here is, 'I don't do safety because I'm told I have to. I do it because I want to stay safe for the things that I care about most in my life. I want to retire at a healthy age. I want to play with my kids. I want to have a wood full life, and that's why I do these things in safety'.

The next level up from there is mateship, and simply this is just people going beyond just looking at themselves and now are looking out for their crew. So if I'd worked with this half of the room all my life, you were part of my crew, I would have your back for safety for sure. If I saw you doing something a bit dodgy, I'd pick you up on it and I'd say, 'Come on mate. What are you doing? Don't be an idiot. Get this done. Wear your hat, whatever it might be, to keep yourself safe'. The crew on the other side of the room though, I don't know you guys. You might be night shift or something. And so how likely am I to pick up on if they were sort of doing something a bit unsafe or a bit risky?

Not as likely. Now in terms of mateship culture in Australia we've got another barrier here to this working world, and that is that we've got a history of mateship being perceived as something where you cover up for your mate. So at the mateship level of citizenship you get some people kind of speaking up to each other a little bit, but you also get a lot of that kind of brushing it under the carpet. 'I won't tell the boss on you. I won't get you in trouble. I'll cover for you this time.'

And of course we've described the highest level of citizenship, and at that level we see huge improvements in our lag indicators, less people getting hurt essentially the more mature our culture is, and our leading indicators improve the more mature our culture is. But what I think is really interesting here is the attitude that shifts about halfway along. So as you see people merging into private compliance, you see a marked difference in people's sense of personal responsibility for safety.

So down the lower end in the red zone, you see individuals believing that their control over safety sits in the arms squarely of the safety team or their boss. So I just do what I'm told, and if something goes wrong whose fault is it? It's someone else's. Yep. So I'm pointing the fingers out to blame. Up the top end there from the green side on, around private compliance and up, you see people taking ownership, they're being proactive, they're active problem solvers and they're willing to ask themselves, 'What's my 50 per cent in contributing to this and how can I make it better?'

So how do we get that citizenship style behaviour happening? We've done lots of research on all the theories in leadership and all of the research on what predicts safety performance, and we distilled it down to eight core competencies. And so we've got a competency matrix so that we can track our leaders through the development of those eight competencies, and we've got a series of measures that we use to assess how well they're displaying these competencies in their workplace.

And so just to very briefly run you through it – I won't labour the point – essentially leaders are much better at getting safe performance from their teams if they pay attention to when they're getting it right, when they're doing proactive kind of safety behaviour. We're much more likely to get a stronger safety culture and stronger performance when we show active care towards our employees, when we collaborate with others to find solutions and share information, when we set a clear vision. Nothing our brain likes more than a clear direction about where we need to head, so it gives us a sense of certainty. And leaders who inspire and motivate their teams to follow them have a greater level of followership, therefore a greater level of safety performance.

Of course it's important that leaders are role modelling and walking the talk, that they're able to challenge unhelpful attitudes and behaviours effectively. Now this doesn't mean doing the argy bargy, telling somebody, 'I'm going to rip you a new one. You haven't done the right thing'. It's not that. Effective challenging is a bit like what Karen said, about getting people to think in different ways by asking different questions. That's the key tool in the brain to get people to open up to different perspectives, to creative solutions and to think about another way of viewing their behaviour and whether or not it helps them to reach their goals for safety.

And then finally, of course leaders need to provide the time, the resources, the support for people to do their jobs safely also.

So this brings us to our research. We were really interested in the clients that we've worked with around the world, in how employees were perceiving leadership competence in those eight areas. And so we analysed a dataset of about over 8,000 employees, and this data came from Australia, the United States, across a couple of different countries in Africa and in the Middle East. And you can see the breakdown of the data there. And we collected data on how employees perceived their leaders through a safety climate survey. So this is a tool that we use to assess the multiple cultural factors, 23 dimensions, that contribute to a good strong safety culture.

So here we've got the industries that were represented in our sample. So you can see it's a good wide spread of industries in kind of heavy industry, which is great, where there are multiple hazards to manage. So we've got agriculture, industrial services like cleaning and waste management, mining, etcetera.

And this is just a snapshot of what our safety climate survey looks like. So I don't want to spend a lot of time on that, because that's not the focus of today's presentation. But it covers the 23 dimensions of safety culture, and in that we asked employees to rate how often their leaders displayed those eight different competencies. So they're asked to what extent does your leader, your direct leader or your manager, display these things? So you can see the definitions there for challenging, for vision, for recognising, for supporting, etcetera.

So just for argument's sake you've got actively caring is, to what extent does your boss show that they're activing caring for the health, safety and general wellbeing of team members? For recognising it's, to what extent does your leader recognise and reward employees for the achievement of high safety performance?

So the interesting findings. What you see here on the right hand side is a bit of a bar graph which summarises how leaders were perceived in performing those eight competencies. Now the first thing that strikes me about this graph is I look at the numbers. So if you just look at the numbers on the left hand axis there, if we look at the way that the questionnaire is scored, it's a six point scale. So if you score one, that means they're not showing it to any extent, this behaviour, not at all. One is to a very little extent. Two is a little extent. Three is to some extent. Four, a great extent. Five, a very great extent, etcetera. So we're going from not at all to extremely good.

Now if you have a look at the averages there, you've got all of those safety leadership competencies hitting around under four as an average, or around a four as an average, which says that really the safety leaders are only doing the safety leadership competency some of the time.

What do you think about that?

They're only displaying those leadership competencies some of the time. Not to a great extent or a very great extent, just some of the time. So what that says to me is we've got a long way to go. There's a really great opportunity here to influence the way our leaders lead safety. There's a huge opportunity here. And if you have a look at the differences, you can see that the strongest performer here is actively caring. So what this tell us is that employees see that their boss cares about them a little bit more than they do the other different competencies, but just because you care about your staff, even though it's important that you do, it doesn't mean that you're an effective leader in influencing their attitudes and behaviours. And I guess if we were an effective leader, those scores would be a lot higher. We'd be getting fives and sixes.

The other thing that stands out to me here is that recognising is the lowest. So employees are saying, 'My boss hardly ever recognises me for my safety performance'. So what impact do you reckon that has on culture and performance overall if it's not getting recognised? It's pretty powerful right? So we tried to break this down. So not only is recognising the lowest in that ranking, we broke it down into what's kind of functionally important to recognise here, and that is that if you score under four then you're essentially in the red zone, because you're saying that, 'I very, very rarely recognise positive safety performance'. From the orange zone, that's about six out of 10 leaders are saying, 'Well I do it to some extent, or my employee is saying I do it to some extent'. And only one in 10 leaders are actually doing it regularly.

So really, really powerful results there to show okay, there's some way to go here in the way that we recognise our employees. So then we tried to break it down in terms of industry. So we're like well okay, are there some industries where employees rate those leadership competencies better? And we're going to focus in on recognising here as a key point of reference for the rest of the presentation, but if you want more information about it we've got an e-book coming out in a couple of months which will go into more detail, analysing the results and beyond what I'm presenting today.

So in terms of industry, it didn't matter what industry you were in. You still all rated your leaders at doing pretty poorly at recognising. So that pattern was pretty stable. So then we thought well we'll ask what about the location we're in. Maybe there are cultural differences in how employees perceive their leaders.

No. Pretty much the same pattern. It doesn't matter what country you come from, recognising is still the poorest competency of all the eight. You've got a few little cultural differences there in the way the Middle East performs or the way Africa performs in different things, but essentially the pattern remains the same. Interesting.

And then we had a look at well does it matter what age I'm at when I rate my leader? So if I'm a younger worker or an older worker, does that somehow influence how I perceive my leaders' recognition?

It does a little bit, but overall again regardless of what age group you are, you still rate your leader as having pretty poor recognition. And so you can see there though in terms of the subtle differences, those that are under 20 and those that are over 60 rate their leader more positively.

So we need to think about why that's the case. Why are the young-uns and the oldies rating their leaders more positively? So one theory might be as a young person enters the workforce they don't know any better. So they're like, 'Oh yeah. They're alright, they're pretty good'. And maybe the person who's about to enter into retirement is pretty happy about where life is at right now and is maybe slightly more favourable in the way that they perceive their leader. Who knows? We're yet to determine why that's the case.

So then we thought well, we'll try and break it down now. Instead of looking at how old you are, maybe it's about how long you've been in the organisation. So if you've been in the company for a long time, do you see that recognition as being less or worse than somebody who's been in there for a short time. And what we found here interestingly is that those who were in the company less than a year rated their leaders' recognition as much higher than the rest. So now we have to think about, well why is that the case? So is it that people perceive recognition differently depending on what age they are or how long they've been in the organisation, or is it that we are in fact recognising those age groups or those people who have come into the business in the last year differently? Are we recognising them more? Or, is it that the people who are younger are also new to the organisation and therefore seek out more feedback from their leader because they're wanting to learn? And that creates a bit of a demand characteristic.

So then we thought okay, this is interesting. Let's now break it down on the position that you hold in the organisation. Let's see whether that determines or predicts how you rate your leader's recognition. So if I'm a frontline operator versus a frontline leader like a supervisor versus a middle manager versus a senior leader, how do I see it?

And here's the breakdown again. Recognition is still the lowest and the pattern remains consistent. And what's interesting here is that the lower down the chain you are in the food chain, in the organisational hierarchy, the poorer you received recognition, or the way you perceived recognition, it's lower. So if you're a frontline worker, you think your supervisor doesn't praise you enough. If you're a frontline supervisor, then you experience a little bit more recognition from your middle manager. And if you're a middle manager, well you've got the best deal because you're much more likely to get recognition from your senior leader. So that's your GM or CEO.

So for those of you who are in the senior leadership position, you're probably looking at that going, 'Yeah. See? I knew it was the frontline leaders. I knew that was where the problem was'. You give a little nudge to your colleague next to you. And for the frontline leaders, they're giving the nudge back saying, 'Well, it's because we're not getting recognised enough from above mate. That's why the problem's there'. And the answer is both. It's true for both.

So we've got an issue here where the lower down in the hierarchy you are the poorer you recognise or perceive to recognise your staff. So why might it be that frontline leaders struggle the most with recognition?

We would probably argue that one of the things that we see most commonly in the clients we work with is that frontline leaders are often promoted from technical competence into a leadership role for the first time as a frontline supervisor, and many haven't experienced any kind of leadership training whatsoever. So they're excellent at being a fitter and turner, but they haven't developed the unique skillset for effective psychological influence of the people around them. Totally different skillset. And so without that investment and safety leadership training or that learning and development piece, those frontline leaders are kind of having to learn through trial and error.

So, what do we do about all of this? So I guess the question here is if your safety performance isn't where you want it to be, if you want to mature your organisation further, one thing that you can be doing is investing in the eight leadership competencies of your staff and ensuring that they get good adequate learning and development opportunities to develop that skillset to drive safety leadership performance, and in particular ensure that those safety leaders are trained to deliver effective recognition of their staff.

So if we think about the takeaway from this presentation, for some of us it might be, 'Well, I'm going to go and roll out a leadership development program for my frontline staff, because that's where the most critical urgent area is,' and I would warn you against doing that as the only thing to do, the only action. And the reason being, if you just train your frontline leaders to do good effective recognition – because we know that it will get like 30 per cent improvement in behaviour and a short period of time just to focus on recognition. A really powerful strategy to lift maturity – if we just do that, the leaders get out of the training room, they're all geed up, they're all inspired, they've got the tools, then they go back to work. Now what drives a leader's behaviour, a frontline leader's behaviour?

It's what the leader above them says is important and what they recognise. So if we just train our frontline leaders, we've got the leaders above them still not recognising the types of behaviours that the leader needs to show to drive that performance lower down the organisation. So what we need to get is a top down and bottom up approach to safety leadership where all the leaders are aligned towards the importance of recognition, they've bought into it and they go out and deliver it. And whilst we think that seems like a really hard thing to do, to get everybody doing recognition, it's really easy, because recognition only has to take 10 seconds at a time.

Now all we need to do really is just thank the people for their efforts and let them know why it's helpful, how it contributes to the organisation, how it contributes to their safety, how it contributes to the safety of their peers. It takes no time at all. And when we do that we see rippling effects in the culture, and so it's the most powerful intervention you can do. It's quick, it's easy, and it's something that we shouldn't just do once. So it's a bit like eating. You can't just have a meal in the morning and expect that to sustain you for the whole week. And reward and recognition is the same. You can't just do it once and then go, 'Well, I've done that. I've ticked that KPI for myself'.

You hear that kind of objection to using reward and recognition as, 'Yeah, but it doesn't last'. Well, nothing does. Nothing lasts. And like food, we need constant sustainment in order to have our energy to perform well, and it's the same with safety behaviour, that we need constant motivation or reinforcement in order to keep doing the things that are right and good for us.

So that's where I want to leave it. I guess if we can start to help leaders to focus in on the attitudes and behaviours that they see in their workers that are helpful, then we start to get that positive self-fulfilling prophecy and that ABR works for us rather than against us.

Now if you're like me and you're thinking about recognition and you think, 'Well okay, this is all good, but how much is enough and what is the type of recognition that I need to give? Is it money? Is it bonuses? Is it barbecues? Is it social recognition? What's the most effective?' Or, maybe even thinking, 'Yeah, but shouldn't people just know what the right thing to do is anyway? Do I really have to do this stuff?' If you've got those questions, I'm going to encourage you to come along to the workshop tomorrow. I'm going to run through and debrief all of the bits and pieces about effective reward and recognition and how to deliver it effectively. And if you'd like more information about the actual research, we'll have an e-book coming out in the next month or two, so please feel welcome to connect with us and have a read.

Madonna King:

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank Anna.

(Applause)

And we have left 10 minutes now to answer your questions. If you've got one can you just raise your hand and we'll get through as many as we can in the next 10 minutes. Who wants to go first?

Yes. Thank you.

Audience member:

Hi. Rebecca. I'm a physio, injury management. Just I'm interested about the behaviour and reinforcing that. You were saying it needs to be constant. When I learnt psychology I thought you could sort of, you know, back it off, you know, and you do that constant but then you didn't have to reinforce it. Is that what you're saying?

Anna Clarkson:

Yeah. You're right. So when I say constant, I mean that it's an ongoing experience. So you can't do recognition for three weeks then leave it and expect the safety performance to be maintained five years later. So it's a constant part of the culture that needs to be there, rather than I have to constantly reward you every single time you show me that behaviour. Yep. So that's a really important point to clarify. Thank you.

Madonna King:

In your experience is any industry better than the other or is our public service way ahead of our private sector in terms of this leadership?

Anna Clarkson:

Well we didn't include any of the public sector in our research. So all I can speak from is anecdotally, and anecdotally I would say there's probably not a lot of difference actually. So we've worked with some large government enterprises, and I'd say they experience the same challenges.

Madonna King:

What about if you're in this room and you're in middle management? How do you actually advocate safety leadership up the chain?

Anna Clarkson:

Yes. This is all about finding what the sore spot is or the why for the senior leader to buy in. So there will be something that will make that senior leader look good that affects their KPIs, and you need to sell it and find a way for them to go, 'Yep. That's important. We need to do that'. And it's finding out what that driver is, because for everybody it's going to be different.

Madonna King:

Anyone else got another question? Yes. Thank you.

Audience member:

You spoke a lot about – thank you by the way. It was very informative – about perception. This is perceptions. And we all know that perception and reality might not be on the same playing field. So did you dig down further and find out what the reality was?

Anna Clarkson:

Well this is purely a survey study. So all I've presented for you here is how the employees perceived the leader, and yes, we know that that's not always reality, but it's reality to the person, which in terms of their ABR drives it. Their perception will drive it. So it has validity there in terms of how it predicts performance.

We've also got other aspects of the study which we'll publish about how the employees perceive the leader and how the leaders perceive themselves, and was that the same or different. So we'll have more data to share about that shortly.

Audience member:

Do you think that perceived culture changes from when it goes from a reward culture to an entitlement culture?

Anna Clarkson:

A reward culture to an entitlement culture? Tell me what you mean. So where people expect it?

Audience member:

Yeah. People expect to be rewarded, they start saying…

Anna Clarkson:

Yes. You can certainly set that up. I mean they talk about rewards as being something that is a symbolic representation of the intrinsic value of what you've done well. So for example things like bonuses for filling in your PRAs and that sort of stuff ends up being a problem in that people just turn it into a numbers game. So it doesn't matter how well I assess risk, I've done my 10 for the swing so I get my bonus. And as soon as the bonus is taken away in an EBA negotiation, watch out. You've got strikes all over the place.

Madonna King:

How do you prevent that? How do you welcome or encourage acknowledgment but not allow it to become entitlement?

Anna Clarkson:

Yeah. Essentially it's about providing an intrinsic feedback system. So whenever we're looking at improving behaviour, it's looking at what is it that I need to feed back to this employee that helps them feel a greater sense of autonomy and mastery and self-esteem. And that's what is more powerful than just assigning a bonus or something. Yep.

Madonna King:

Anna, can people access your presentation?

Anna Clarkson:

I think so. I think so.

Madonna King:

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, can you please put your hands together for Anna Clarkson.

(Applause)

At your request – several people have asked me are presentations available to you. That depends on the individual presenter. In both Karen's and Anna's case, they have said that is okay. So during lunch I'll find out how you will be able to access that and announce that in this afternoon's session.

We're going to break now for lunch which will be served in the foyer. Can I please ask you not to forget to say hello to the sponsors and the exhibitors and get your passport signed? Lunch will end in 45 minutes at 1:30 when we'll regroup in P6-8 for our third keynote speaker, Professor Robin Burgess-Limerick, and his presentation is Evidence-based practice for the prevention of work-related MSDs. Thank you.

[End of transcript]