Maybe we should get rid of Just Culture by Paul Reuter

 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/maybe-we-should-get-rid-just-culture-paul-reuter

Don’t get me wrong, I still think that Just Culture as a concept and especially the introduction of a definition of Just Culture in regulation EU376/2014 has been a milestone in flight safety. However, I have come to the conclusion that we have fallen short of exploring the whole potential of Just Culture, or for that, Culture in general.

In 2015, the EU Commission took the initiative to elaborate, together with industry stakeholders, the “European Just Culture Declaration” a document full of worthwhile statements, but, which , at best, has been given barely more than lip service by large parts of our industry.

Of course, when you ask organisations, they all profess that they have a “Just Culture” or a “Safety Culture”. What most of them mean, however, is that they have transposed the provisions of EU 376/2014 and the definition of Just Culture into their documentation. (They most certainly have a “safety culture” or an approach to safety in line with their organisational culture, however whether it is what they think it is, is open to debate…)

So, while many organisations are convinced that they have a Just Culture, they have merely a regulatory process in place. So, Just Culture is very often only an “Accountability Matrix” and far away from “Culture”.

Just Culture is very often only an “Accountability Matrix” and far away from “Culture”

One of the reasons for this is the very definition of “Just Culture” in EU 376/2014. It omits a very crucial point that James Reason made in his definition and that is that Just Culture requires an “atmosphere of trust”. 

This “atmosphere of trust” is, in my opinion, what differentiates “Just Culture” as a process from a Culture that is “Just” and “safety-conscious”.

When we talk about an “atmosphere of trust” what we mean is an organisational environment that is “psychologically safe”.

“Psychological safety” can be defined as “being able to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career.” (Kahn, 1990) 

It is a “shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. In psychologically safe teams, team members feel accepted and respected.” (Edmondson)

In a psychologically safe environment, team members are encouraged to speak up, sharing concerns, questions or ideas. In such an environment, organisations are able to innovate and thrive, become and stay both efficient and resilient. 

From an airline point of view, especially with regard to the safety-critical environment of anything linked to the flight operations, there are a number of prerequisites that you need to have in place if you want to build and foster a psychologically safe environment:

•  A socially responsible employment relationship 

(Disclaimer: This is neither about salaries or other working conditions but purely about the cornerstones of the primary relationship between the organisation and its staff.)

No, I’m NOT going all industrial on you, however, in times where “self-employment”, “pay to fly” and other creative employment solutions abound, it is worth noting that if you want to create trust with your staff, you need to provide a balance of rights, duties and commitments for both sides. If your employment contract, which is your first basic foundation of the relationship, leans on a one-sided approach where all the burdens are on the employee while the organization elegantly rids itself of even the most basic social commitments,, you will hardly be able to generate either motivation (except through fear) or psychological safety.

...if you want to create trust with your staff, you need to provide a balance of rights, duties and commitments for both sides...

• Clear and credible values

As culture can be seen as a system of shared values and beliefs that lead to shared and accepted social behaviors and norms, there are two things that are important, in my opinion, when it comes to values in an organisation.

First, they need to be credible and seen as such by the staff and, second, they need to be followed and lived throughout the organisation.

To achieve this, the organisation must first clearly articulate how these values are important to the organisation and what they mean in the context that the organisation is operating in. 

Usually, organisations like to display values such as “Integrity”, “Passion”, “Professionalism” and other lofty terms that tend to look good when you plaster them on a slide or a poster but they usually fail to articulate clearly to staff what they mean for the daily business.

These values, once you have articulated them, need to be “lived” and need to be reflected in every aspect of the organisation’s work and relationships with customers, regulators and staff. It is quite damaging to morale and motivation or the organisation's credibility once staff or customers find out that “Integrity” or “Passion” are actually optional, depending on the situation!

• Transparent and open communications

Organisations need to communicate openly and often and need to show that they actually value two-way communications.

Communicate about the “mission goals” of the organisation, why they are important and how the organisation plans to achieve them. Candidly share the challenges and concerns that the organisation faces and what is expected of the staff. 

People will develop a sense of belonging and loyalty to the organisation more easily if they are confident that they are kept in the loop and trusted to understand the complexities that the organisation faces. 

Organisations and those in leadership positions need to understand that communication is not limited to memos, mails or leaflets.

Communication happens in the crew room, during coffee break, in the parking lot and leaders should see and value these situations as opportunities to build credibility and trust in the organisation and its’ culture.

Communication happens in the crew room, during coffee break, in the parking lot and leaders should see and value these situations as opportunities to build credibility and trust in the organisation and its’ culture.

• Leadership

Very often, “leadership” is misused to simply mean “managing people and processes” (what I would term, provocatively, as beancounter - “leadership”).

In the context of an organisational culture that thrives on motivation and psychological safety, an organisation will need to display what is termed as “ethical” or “compassionate” leadership. Personally, I like James Comey’s take on Ethical Leadership best, as it incorporates a notion of Culture. He states that Ethical Leadership is about  “understanding the truth about humans and our need for meaning. It is about building workplaces where standards are high and fear is low. Those are the kind of cultures where people will feel comfortable speaking the truth to others as they seek excellence in themselves and the people around them.” (Comey) 

Ethical leaders show empathy and understand their role is to support both the organisation and the people to achieve the mission goals. They do this also by coaching, showing respect and “living” the values that the organisation promotes.

They understand the importance of communication skills and interpersonal relationships and generate trust and respect within the organization.

Identifying and developing such leaders will be one of the challenges that an organisation needs to address. Very often, people displaying the right human qualities for such leadership will not necessarily be those that come forward by themselves especially in cultures that are seen as overly authoritarian, exploitive or untrustworthy.

The challenge over time for the organisation will be to nurture a next generation of leaders in order to guarantee a continuity and the ability for an organization and its’ culture to adapt to a changing environment without letting go of its core values.

Ethical leaders show empathy and understand their role is to support both the organisation and the people to achieve the mission goals...

There are certainly other topics that an organisation needs to address to generate an organizational culture, such as hiring and training (“Hire for attitude, train for skills” -Herb Kelleher) but I believe that those identified above are of a prime importance if we want to build organisational cultures that are “just”, motivational, resilient and where “safety-consciousness” is a central pillar.

Beyond our industry there is a wealth of data on what makes organizations and teams effective and successful (such as Google’s Aristotle project) that we can draw on to effect change on how we view Culture in the aviation context.

It is my belief that if we want to keep the concept of “Just Culture” relevant, we need to widen our horizon and scope to organizational culture in general. We need to bring airlines and other organizations on board, as “economic entities”, not just their safety departments.

We have to show that by actively shaping their organization’s culture, they will not only reap the safety benefits but also a commercial and economical edge, an organizational resilience that will, now and beyond the current crisis, help them not only to survive but to thrive!

This article was written by Paul Reuter, Captain B737 at Luxair and Chairman of the European Pilot Support Initiative