Which model of Just Culture is right for my business?

When implementing a Just Culture in your business, one of the critical decisions is what kind of Just Culture model do you want? There are different models of Just Culture out there and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. In most cases the differences are not so much whether a model has this or that feature, but rather where it places the most emphasis. In this post I set out three of the most common models and their characteristics, so that you can consider which might be most suitable for your business.

Classic Model

This model is the original form of Just Culture and was originally developed based on concepts and principles from English criminal law. This model focuses on identifying the types of actions and decisions made by individuals and classifying them to determine their level of culpability (if any). The underpinning principle is one of shared accountability, where individuals are accountable for the choices they make, while the organisation is accountable for the systems of work it creates. The classic model is used extensively in aviation and healthcare.

In approaching any situation with the guiding questions, the classic model asks are:

• What happened?

• How did the person deviate from the norm?

• What is a just way for the organisation to respond?

Strengths

Consistency through standard templates

The model uses templates, flowcharts or algorithms to assist managers to assess individual actions and decisions, leading to an appropriate outcome. These can help achieve consistency of outcomes, so that staff can have a degree of confidence in knowing how they will be assessed and what kinds of actions will lead to what outcomes.

Emphasis on Fairness

The classic model has a strong emphasis on establishing a just and fair workplace. It is concerned with holding individuals accountable for the quality of their decisions and actions, but not the outcomes of those decisions and actions, which are often out of their control. It also emphasises that individual accountability must be balanced with accountability on the organisation for the systems of work it creates, and the limitations of human of performance. This model emphasises that justice is a virtue in of itself, and important for a healthy workplace.

Weaknesses

Reputation from instances of past poor implementation

There has been some damage done to the reputation of the classic model, and just culture as a concept in general, due to instances of poor implementation. In some way one the main strengths of the classic model, consistency through standard templates, is also a weakness as it can lead to the impression that Just Culture is only a template, and easy for anyone to pick up and use. This can lead to untrained people thinking they understand Just Culture when they don’t. Even worse, there have been instances where the Just Culture framework has been co-opted and weaponised as a way to punish people, leading to the classic model being referred to as “retributive just culture”. This is a rather unfair characterisation as it arises primary from misuse of the model rather than its true intent.

Less emphasis on other stakeholders involved

The classic model focuses heavily on the individual who took the action/made the decision and the organisation itself. This can sometimes lead to the needs and concerns other stakeholders in the event being overlooked, such as customers, other staff, supervisors etc

Restorative Model

This model was developed based on theories of restorative justice. This model focuses on looking forward and considering how to ‘restore’ a situation after a adverse event, rather than looking backward to define culpability. The restorative model focuses heavily on addressing harm and restoring trust and relationships. The model appears to be focused on Just Culture as a tool to improve safety and relationship than justice as a good in of itself.

Accountability in the restorative model is reformulated as something you “tell” – ie telling your version of events, rather than as something you “owe” – ie have your actions been in accordance with organisational expectations. The restorative model recognises that when a mistake is made by an individual and harm is caused, that individual, (called second victims), also may have needs that must be met such as psychological first aid, compassion, reinstatement etc. The restorative model is primarily used in healthcare, but is also found in other industries such as defence.

In approaching any situation with the guiding questions, the restorative model asks are:

• Who is hurt?

• What do they need?

• Whose obligation is it to address each need?

Strengths

Includes a wider range of stakeholders

The restorative model more readily that the classic model embraces a wider range of stakeholders into the Just Culture process. It relies on all affected parties giving their account of what happened, aiming to obtain a richer, deeper understanding of the event and people’s need going forward.

Emphasis on restoring trust and relationships

The restorative model has a strong emphasis on restoring trust and relationships, both within and outside the organisation. The model recognises that after an adverse event staff may need to find ways to continue working together, customers may distrust the organisation and may need reassurance, and the organisation itself may have relationships and trust to restore with other stakeholders.

Weaknesses

Implementation can be complex and resource intensive

A restorative process will look different depending on what has happened and the people involved. It also requires facilitators who are well trained and practised in restorative justice practices such as listening circles. This can make the implementation of a restorative justice model complex and resource intensive. It also can make achieving consistency more difficult, and staff less sure of how the process will turn out for them.

Less emphasis on maintaining accountability and organisational learning

The reframing of accountability as something you tell rather than owe can mean the model may struggle in circumstances where there are grounds for strong individual accountability, such as malevolent action. A ‘restored’ relationship where the individual is required to leave the organisation can be seen as hollow words, undermining trust among other staff in the Just Culture process. The emphasis on restoring trust and relationships, while valuable, means there is less emphasis on individual and organisational learning from events. The model also presupposes an adverse event causing harm, making it more difficult to use in recognising exceptional performance or incidents that don’t result in harm.

Revised/Hybrid Model

The revised (or hybrid) model attempts to bring together the best elements of the classic and restorative Just Culture models. It retains the individual focus from the classic model, but places a much greater emphasis on understanding the surrounding context in which the individual was acting (particularly organisational factors such as workload, physical environment, distractions etc). From the restorative model it takes up the need to restore trust and relationships, and the needs of second victims, to blunt what can be seen as the hard edges of the classic model. The revised model has a strong emphasis on learning from events, good and bad, both at an individual and organisational level

The revised model is still an evolving concept, but has been used in industries such as offshore drilling.

In approaching any situation with the guiding questions, the revised model asks are:

• What happened?

• Why did peoples’ actions make sense to them at the time?

• What can the organisation learn from what happened?

Strengths

Emphasis on learning

The revised model a strong emphasis on learning from events, good and bad, both at an individual and organisational level. This helps to achieve a better balance between learning and restoration with individual accountability when needed. The model is also better equipped to facilitate learning from a wider range of events, normal or abnormal, and then feed that back to improve organisational performance.

Greater recognition of exceptional performance

The model also more easily allows for recognition of exceptional performance, especially where potential harm was avoided as a result, as it does not rely on an adverse event as a precursor.

Weaknesses

Implementation can be complex and resource intensive

While a revised model may still utilise templates or flowcharts, these are often more complex and contingent than those in the classic model. The revised model requires well trained staff to run the Just Culture processes. The success of the organisational learning will also require the organisation to invest in making changes to put into practice the lessons it has learned.

Achieving the right balance in learning, restoration and accountability is challenging

While the revised model tries to take the best elements of other models, achieving the right balance in learning, restoration and accountability is challenging. The precise settings will depend on the characteristics of the organisation and its circumstances. At worse, by trying to do everything one risks not doing any particularly well, so implementation requires careful planning and adjustment over time.

Conclusion

These models each have features to commend them, and all three have been used with success by businesses. However, at the end of the day every organisation is different. Your business will have its own history, story, people, culture and circumstances. The most effective Just Culture model will be one which is designed specifically for your business’ individual needs, characteristics and goals. The models outlined above can be a helpful starting point to consider different perspectives and build on, to discover what a just and fair workplace looks like in your business.

Was this post useful or interesting for you?

You can drop a comment on this post on LinkedIn, and if you think it would be helpful for others, please consider sharing it.

DISCLAIMER: This blog provides general information only, and is not intended as advice specific to your circumstances. Please contact us if you have any particular questions.