Attitudes to teamwork, leadership, and stress in oil industry drilling teams

Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696 www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Attitudes to teamwork, leadership, and stress in oil industry drilling teams M. Crichton

¤

People Factor Consultants, 41 Regent Quay, 2nd Floor, Aberdeen AB11 5BE, United Kingdom Received 9 December 2004; received in revised form 1 August 2005; accepted 10 August 2005

Abstract Attitude questionnaires have been used in settings such as aviation and medicine to measure the human and organisational factors that impact on team performance and safety. This study set out to measure attitudes to teamwork, leadership, and stress in oil industry drilling teams (n D 91), across roles categorised as Decision makers, Evaluators, and Implementers. The oVshore oil drilling environment comprises a distributed team working in a complex environment, and awareness of the human and organisational factors that can inXuence safe and eVective performance has not to date been ascertained. Positive attitudes to interpersonal aspects of the task were indicated, with high levels of teamwork being reported. However, attitudes towards communication, leadership, and stress were less positive. These results provide a baseline measure which can then be re-examined following training interventions targeting human and organisational factors.  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Attitudes; Safety; Teams; Training; Human factors

1. Introduction The oil and gas industry are striving to improve health and safety performance to reduce errors and incidents. For example, a major trans-national company recently

*

Tel.: +44 1224 572210; fax: +44 1224 572053. E-mail address: [email protected] URL: www.peoplefactor.co.uk

0925-7535/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.08.020

680

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

reported improvements in safety performance between 1987 and 2003 (days away from work case frequency (DAFWCF) per 200,000 h worked dropped from 1.55 to 0.10) (BP plc, 2004). However, errors leading to incidents and accidents still occur resulting in costs in safety and economics. One of the Wrst steps in reducing errors is to understand the factors that contribute to such errors, which are, in some measure, attributable to human as well as procedural and technological failure (Cox and Tait, 1991). Reports of non-productive time data and incidents in the oVshore oil and gas production industry have revealed levels of human error similar to those in other industries, i.e. human errors are a frequent cause of accidents (Mearns et al., 1997; Ringstad and Sunde, 1997). Oil and gas exploration involves drilling project teams who are brought together to develop a planning programme for drilling a well (or series of wells), and to oversee the drilling operations. Drilling, especially exploratory wells, involves a high degree of uncertainty due often to the lack of solid facts about seismology, thus teams may also be required to deal with unexpected events, often under stressors of time and risk. Some drilling team members are located onshore and others are oVshore (on the installation), and the team may also be distributed across geographically diverse locations. In addition, additional team members are brought into the team for short periods, as their expertise is required, thus eVective performance depends on the co-ordinated activity of a team of individuals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). The drilling environment shares some characteristics with aviation and medicine, i.e. dealing with uncertainty, time constraints, and high risks. A major diVerence is that of the timescale of planning and operations, which in aviation and medicine may be measured in hours, but in drilling can be weeks or months. Questionnaires are frequently used to provide an index of respondents’ attitudes, beliefs and opinions (Oppenheim, 1992). An ‘attitude’ is a generic term that describes a state of readiness, or a tendency to respond in a certain manner when confronted with certain stimuli, and includes beliefs, opinions, values, and preferences. Attitudes can lead to speciWc patterns of behaviours or action tendencies (Fishbein, 1967). In aviation, pilots’ attitudes have been shown to clearly predict their behaviour on the Xight deck in terms of Xight crew co-ordination skills (Helmreich and Merritt, 1998). Attitudes to such skills can be modiWed through training interventions (Irwin, 1991) and can lead to improvements in behaviours that can predict performance. In both aviation and medicine, questionnaire surveys have been developed to measure attitudes towards safety and interpersonal skills, as well as stress, teamwork and error, e.g. cockpit management attitudes questionnaire (CMAQ) (Helmreich, 1984), and operating room management attitudes questionnaire (ORMAQ) (Flin et al., 2003; Helmreich et al., 1997). The CMAQ was developed to assess the eVectiveness of cockpit resource management (CRM) training provided to crews in multi-pilot aircraft (Helmreich, 1984). The CMAQ was later revised following an analysis to identify a consistent internal structure (Gregorich et al., 1990). Three attitude clusters were identiWed: communication and coordination, command responsibility, and recognition of stressor eVects. These three stable factors were considered to represent attitudes that, by themselves or in combination, can aVect crew performance, particularly co-ordination, and can consequently be used to establish a baseline measure of attitudes and a pre- and post-training measure of attitude change. Helmreich et al. (1997) also developed the ORMAQ, based on the CMAQ, to examine attitudes in operating rooms (Merritt et al., 1996), however no factor structure has been reported for the ORMAQ. Sexton et al. (2000) described themes as being perceptions of stress and fatigue, teamwork and hierarchy, and error and safety based on a core set of

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

681

23 items from the CMAQ combined with a set of error related items speciWc to the intensive care domain. In a study examining anaesthetists’ attitudes to teamwork and safety, Flin et al. (2003) proposed eight themes in a version of the ORMAQ, namely leadership structure, conWdence/assertion, information sharing, stress and fatigue, teamwork, work values, error, and organisational climate. This version of the ORMAQ has been selected as, similar to an operating room team, a drilling team comprises multiple players, i.e. a group of experts who come together to achieve a task, and safe and eVective performance is critical. One key diVerence between medicine and drilling is timescale as the duration of drilling projects is typically measured in weeks and months rather than hours. Training interventions can be designed to address speciWc attitudes and to improve performance by individuals in teams, such as crew resource management (CRM) (Bowers et al., 2000; CAA, 2002; Helmreich et al., 1990; O’Connor and Flin, 2003; Salas and Bowers, 2000). The initial measurement of attitudes cannot only identify those areas which need to be speciWcally addressed in training, but can also act as a baseline on which to gauge changes in attitudes following speciWc training interventions. In order to identify current attitudes to teamwork, leadership and stress in drilling teams in the drilling environment, a web-based questionnaire, based on the Flin et al. (2003) version of the ORMAQ, was developed and undertaken during 2003/2004. These issues have previously been identiWed as being relevant to understanding and managing error, and being sensitive to training interventions (Sexton et al., 2000). The questionnaire addressed both routine situations and non-routine situations where unexpected events arise. The aims of the survey were to assess current attitudes to those issues that may predict safe and eVective performance in drilling teams, and to investigate potential diVerences in attitudes between three types of roles categorised as decision makers, evaluators, and implementers. 2. Method 2.1. Materials The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The questionnaire had earlier been piloted with 22 members of two teams in the UK and Norway, and minor changes were made. 2.1.1. Part I: Attitudes Thirty-one attitude statements related to six themes: leadership structure, conWdence/ assertiveness, teamwork, awareness of personal limitations, communication, and organisational issues. A total of 24 items were taken from the Flin et al. (2003) version of the ORMAQ, with a further 7 items being drawn from the Sexton et al. (2000) version. Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Fully disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neither agree nor disagree), 4 (Agree) to 5 (Fully agree). The items were adapted for the drilling environment with the assistance of a subject matter expert. 2.1.2. Part II: Leader decision procedures Respondents were requested to identify the leader decision procedures under which they prefer to work, under which they Wnd themselves working, and what they think they would

682

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

work under during an unexpected event. Decision procedures used by leaders aVect the quality of a decision and decision acceptance by those who are expected to implement the decision (Yukl, 1998). The Wve decision procedures (Vroom and Yetton, 1973) from which respondents could select were: A: Leader usually makes decisions promptly, using information readily available, and communicates them to subordinates clearly and Wrmly. Expects them to carry out the decision loyally and without raising diYculties (Autocratic AI). B: Leader usually obtains the required information from subordinates and then makes the decision on his/her own. May or may not tell the subordinates what the problem is (Autocratic AII). C: Leader usually consults with subordinates individually before reaching decisions. Listens to their advice, considers it, and then announces decision. Expects all to work loyally to implement it whether or not it is in accordance with the advice they gave (Consultative CI). D: Leader usually shares problem with subordinates as a group and obtains their collective ideas and suggestions. Leader makes decision which may or may not reXect subordinates’ inXuence (Consultative CII). E: Leader usually calls a meeting of subordinates when there is an important decision to be made. Puts the problem before the group and invites discussion. Accepts the consensus viewpoint as the decision (Joint GI). 2.1.3. Part III: Teamwork Respondents were asked to rate their perception of the quality of interaction (i.e. communication and co-operation) (Helmreich et al., 1997; Sexton et al., 2000) that they have experienced with 5 key roles in drilling teams on a 4-point scale including not applicable, low, adequate, high. These 5 roles were: wells team leader (WTL), drilling superintendent (DS), senior drilling engineer (SDE), drilling foreman (DF), oVshore installation manager (OIM). Respondents were also asked to identify the major challenges to teamwork, and to make suggestions for improvements to teamwork. Major challenges to teamwork and suggested improvements had earlier been identiWed during the pilot trial. The nine most common responses were listed, with a further ‘other’ option being available for any other response that was not already included. Respondents were requested to rank the responses in order of priority. 2.1.4. Part IV: Demographics The Wnal part asked respondents to supply background information about their role, nationality, and team. The questionnaire was designed to be completed anonymously, but respondents had the option to include their e-mail addresses should they wish to receive feedback on their responses. 2.2. Participants A total of 91 respondents, across 8 teams in one major oil and gas exploration company completed the questionnaire, including 77 company staV (85%), and 14 service company/

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

683

Table 1 Demographics of participants Group

Roles

N

Decision makers

Wells team leader, drilling superintendent, senior drilling engineer, oVshore installation manager, drilling foreman Health and safety, environment, geophysicists, petrophysicists Engineers, toolpusher, drillers

33

36

19

21

Evaluators Implementers Total

%

39

43

91

100

contractor personnel (15%). Of the respondents, 28 (31%) were North American, 58 (64%) were European, and the remaining 5 (5%) were South American/Australasian. Respondents were then categorised into 3 groups (based on Crichton, 2004), namely: • Decision makers: make decisions to achieve the project objectives; • Evaluators: provide expert advice and information to the Decision makers to provide a basis for the decisions; • Implementers: responsible for performing the instructions or directions of the Decision makers to accomplish the project objectives. This grouping is based on their roles and accountabilities as shown in Table 1. 2.3. Procedure The Team Leader in each of the teams who agreed to participate in this project was asked to distribute, to all team members, an e-mail with the URL address of the website to access the questionnaire. A web-based questionnaire facilitated access by both onshore and oVshore personnel to participate in the survey. Depending on the extent of the project, the team varied in size from 8 to 25 members. The response rate from each team ranged between 52% and 100%, giving an overall response rate of 73%. 3. Results The results presented relate to the three main sections of the questionnaire, and relate to the groups described above. 3.1. Part I: Attitudes The themes in this section of the questionnaire have previously been identiWed in studies conducted with anaesthetists (Flin et al., 2003). No conWrmatory factor analysis has been conducted in this study due to the low number of respondents (n D 91), therefore these themes should be considered to be descriptive rather than deWnitive. The mean results for each theme by group are shown in Table 2 (items reversed where appropriate). Attitudes to teamwork were rated as the most positive (mean D 4.12 (SD D .414)), with the least positive being reported for conWdence (mean D 3.09

684

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

Table 2 Attitudes to leadership, conWdence, communication, awareness of personal limitations, teamwork, and organisational issues by group

Leadership structure ConWdence Communication Awareness of personal limitations Teamwork Organisational issues

Overall (n D 91)

Decision makers (n D 33)

Group evaluators (n D 19)

Implementers (n D 39)

3.87 (.324) 3.09 (.418) 3.56 (.545) 3.34 (.370)

3.84 (.316) 3.15 (.449) 3.71 (.572) 3.44 (.308)

3.87 (.289) 3.11 (.389) 3.54 (.532) 3.29 (.479)

3.89 (.352) 3.03 (.408) 3.45 (.513) 3.29 (.351)

4.12 (.414) 3.56 (.572)

4.12 (.383) 3.69 (.421)

4.15 (.461) 3.54 (.570)

4.11 (.425) 3.47 (.669)

Note: Wgures in parentheses represent SDs.

(SD D .418)). Few diVerences in mean responses between the categories of roles (Decision makers, Evaluators, and Implementers) emerged. The 5-point response scale was then reduced to a 3-point scale i.e. strongly disagree and disagree combined, and agree and strongly agree combined. The modal frequencies for individual items are presented in Table 3, which also identiWes (in bold) the most frequent response per group. 3.1.1. Leadership In terms of leadership structure, almost all respondents (98%) disagree that team leaders who encourage suggestions from other team members are weak leaders. A large majority (85%) also disagree that there are no circumstances where a junior team member should assume control of an operation. Concurring with these responses, 97% of respondents also agree that team leaders should encourage questions from team members during operations. However, only 60% of respondents agree that team members know and understand each other’s responsibilities. More than one third of respondents (42%) disagree that successful team management is a function of the team leader’s technical proWciency. 3.1.2. ConWdence/assertiveness Relating to attitudes to conWdence/assertiveness, almost all respondents (97%) disagree that junior team members should not question the decisions made by the team leader, and 81% disagree that the team leader should take over and make all decisions in non-routine events. The majority of respondents (84%) agree that they would speak up if they perceived a problem with the management of a task, and a similar percentage (85%) agree that they would always ask questions if there was something they did not understand. On the other hand, 92% agree that in critical situations they rely on supervisors to tell them what to do. 3.1.3. Communication/information sharing Less than half the respondents agree that a debrieWng of procedures and decisions is always held after each major task (39%), that team leaders always describe and explain plans for procedures/actions (40%), and that team leaders ensure that information is understood and acknowledged (45%). However it is recognised that a pre-task brieWng of procedures is indispensable for safety and eVective teamwork (91%), and that good social skills are as important as technical proWciency for eVective teamwork (92%).

Table 3 Responses (%) to items by group (scale: 1 D disagree, 2 D neutral, 3 D agree) Item

Leadership structure

I consider that team leaders should encourage questions from team members during operations I believe successful team management is a function of the team leader’s technical proWciency Team leaders who encourage suggestions from other team members are weak leaders I believe there are no circumstances where a junior team member should assume control of an operation I believe team members know and understand each other’s respective responsibilities In my opinion, decision making in our management team should include more input from team members than it does now

Overall 1

ConWdence/ assertiveness

I consider the team leader should take over and make all decisions in non-routine events I believe junior team members should not question the decisions made by the team leader In critical situations I rely on my supervisors to tell me what to do If I perceive a problem with the management of the task I will speak up regardless of who might be aVected I always ask questions when there is something I do not understand

Communication/ information sharing

3

1

2

Group evaluators 3

1

2

Implementers 3

1

2

3

2

1

97

6

0

94

0

5

95

0

0

100

42

25

33

45

18

37

68

10

22

26

38

36

98

0

2

100

0

0

100

0

0

95

0

5

85

13

2

88

9

3

90

10

0

79

18

3

12

28

60

15

24

61

10

37

53

10

26

64

24

47

29

15

24

61

32

52

16

26

36

38

81

11

8

79

12

9

84

5

11

82

13

5

97

1

2

97

0

3

100

0

0

95

2

3

3

5

92

0

6

94

5

5

90

5

5

90

4

12

84

0

9

91

5

5

90

8

18

74

5

10

85

9

3

82

5

5

90

3

18

79

30

31

39

21

36

43

32

21

47

36

31

33

33

27

40

30

21

49

42

16

42

31

38

31

26

29

45

15

21

64

26

42

32

36

28

36

4

5

91

6

3

91

0

16

84

5

3

92

3

5

92

0

6

94

5

5

90

5

5

90

(continued on next page)

685

In my team, a debrieWng of procedures and decisions is always held after each major task In my experience, team leaders always describe and explain plans for procedures/actions I have found that team leaders ensure that information is understood and acknowledged I believe a pre-task team brieWng is indispensable for safety and eVective teamwork I think that good social skills are as important as technical proWciency for eVective teamwork

2

Decision makers

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

Theme

686

Table 3 (continued) Item

Awareness of personal limitations

Even when tired, I perform eVectively during critical phases of operations I let other team members know when my workload is becoming (or about to become) excessive I consider that my decision making is as good in critical situations as in routine situations I am more likely to make errors under pressure My performance is not aVected when working with an inexperienced or less capable team member I consider that team members should monitor each other for signs of stress or tiredness

Teamwork

Organisational issues

I believe the team leader’s responsibilities include co-ordination between this team and other teams I consider it is better to agree with other team members than to voice a diVerent opinion In my experience, the concept of all personnel in this PU working as a team does not apply The culture in my team makes it easy to ask questions when there is something I do not understand I have the support I need from other team members to carry out my job I consider that procedures and policies are strictly followed in our team In this team mistakes are handled appropriately In my opinion, team members frequently disregard rules or guidelines developed for our PU I consider the PU provides adequate, timely information about events which might aVect my work

Note: Wgures in bold indicate modal response.

Overall

Decision makers

Group evaluators

1 34

2 31

3 35

1 42

2 24

3 34

21

26

53

15

33

8

21

71

3

18

1 16

2 47

52

16

79

16

Implementers 3 37

1 36

2 28

3

37

47

28

15

57

10

74

8

28

64

36

30

37

33

18

42

40

42

32

26

33

36

31

31

25

44

33

21

46

26

21

53

31

31

38

3

21

76

0

9

91

5

31

64

5

26

69

2

2

96

3

6

91

0

0

100

3

0

97

92

6

2

91

9

0

96

4

0

92

3

5

69

19

12

76

12

12

74

26

0

61

21

18

2

8

90

0

6

94

10

10

80

0

8

92

1

19

80

3

15

82

0

16

84

0

23

97

5

25

70

0

15

85

5

42

53

8

25

67

8

31

61

6

27

67

0

42

58

13

28

59

68

29

3

81

19

0

68

26

6

59

38

3

25

40

35

22

39

39

16

52

32

33

33

33

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

Theme

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

687

3.1.4. Personal limitations Some item scores indicate what could be considered to be less than ideal attitudes to awareness of personal limitations. While a third of respondents (34%) disagree that they perform eVectively during critical phases of operations even when tired, and disagree that errors are more likely under pressure (30%), a third agree with these statements. A lack of awareness of the impact of stress and fatigue on decision making is shown as 71% of respondents agree that their decision making ability is as good in critical situations as in routine situations. Almost half the respondents (44%) agree that their performance is not aVected when working with an inexperienced or less capable team member. 3.1.5. Teamwork The majority of respondents (96%) agree that the team leader’s responsibilities include co-ordination between this team and other teams, and disagree that it is better to agree with other team members than to voice a diVerent opinion (92%). Drilling team members typically agree that they have the support that they need from other team members to carry out their jobs (80%), and that the culture in the team makes it easy to ask questions when there is something they do not understand (90%). 3.1.6. Organisational issues Only 70% of respondents agree that procedures and policies are strictly followed in their team. Less than two thirds of respondents (61%) agree that mistakes are handled appropriately, and only 35% or respondents agree that they are provided with adequate, timely information about events that might aVect their work. Improvements in organisational issues are therefore required. 3.1.7. Personal limitation responses across domains Responses by drilling personnel to three items dealing with stress and teamwork were contrasted with the responses obtained by Sexton et al. (2000) with medical staV (from departments including anaesthetic, surgical and intensive care) and pilots, as shown in Table 4. Sexton et al. (2000) report that medical staV play down the eVects of stress and fatigue more than aviation personnel. The responses by drilling personnel are comparable to those of pilots, but attitudes to personal limitations could be improved in all cases. Table 4 Percentage of agree responses to awareness of personal limitation and teamwork items across domains (Sexton et al., 2000) Item

Medicine (n D 860) (%)

Aviation (n D 7556) (%)

Drilling (n D 91) (%)

Even when fatigued, I perform eVectively during critical phases of operations My decision making is as good in critical situations as in routine situations I believe junior team members should not question the decisions made by the team leader

59

26

35

70

64

71

14

2

2

688

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

3.1.8. Comparison of decision makers, evaluators and implementers DiVerences in responses by decision makers, evaluators, and implementers were observed to certain items. More than two thirds of evaluators (68%) disagree that successful team management is a function of the team leader’s technical proWciency, compared to implementers (26%) and decision makers (45%). This implies that Implementers tend to consider technical proWciency as being more important for team management. Again, implementers (31%) show less agreement that team leaders always ensure that information is understood and acknowledged than decision makers (49%) or evaluators (42%), due possibly to Implementers typically receiving information from decision makers. Decision makers (85%) also show more agreement that procedures and policies are strictly followed in teams compared to evaluators (53%) or implementers (67%). Evaluators (80%) show less agreement than decision makers (94%) or implementers (92%) that the culture in the team makes it easy to ask questions when there is something they do not understand. Decision makers (91%) also consider that team members should monitor each other for signs of stress or tiredness—more than evaluators (64%) or Implementers (69%). These diVerences in attitudes amongst the three groups may be illustrative of the perspectives taken by team members due to their diVering roles and accountabilities. 3.2. Part II: Leader decision procedures A series of questions related to leader decision procedures used within drilling teams, with descriptions of 5 diVerent procedures being provided. The procedures varied along a continuum of level of participation by team members (Vroom and Yetton, 1973; Yukl, 1998), from autocratic (A) through consultative (C) to group (E). The aim was to examine potential diVerences between preferred and actual leadership decision procedures used by team leaders, as shown in Table 5. The preferred leadership decision procedure is consultative (D) with the leader making the Wnal decision (53%). Only 44% of respondents, however, report that this is the procedure that they most often work under, with the remainder working across the range of procedures, especially C (24%) and E (24%). The leader decision procedure most often worked under diVered from that which most respondents would prefer to work under. In addition, procedure D was also identiWed as the one most likely to be used when dealing with an unexpected event (42%) but procedure A increased from 1% to 9%.

Table 5 Leader decision procedure Question

Procedure (%) A

B

C

D

E

Preferred procedure Most often worked under Procedure most likely to be used when managing an unexpected event

1 5 9

– 7 7

16 24 24

53 44 42

30 20 18

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

689

3.3. Part III: Teamwork 3.3.1. Team interactions Respondents were asked to rate the quality of interaction experienced with 5 Decision Maker roles, as applicable, as shown in Figs. 1–3. As shown in Fig. 1, the quality of interaction between Decision makers and Decision maker roles were generally high with few low or adequate interactions being noted. The DS, a key role in a drilling team who liaises with both onshore and oVshore personnel, is reported to have the highest quality of interactions with other decision making roles (79%). The OIM, on the other hand, typically works predominantly with oVshore team members and has little interaction with other decision makers as illustrated by the high number of ‘not applicable’ responses (42%). Evaluators, in contrast, rated the highest quality of interaction with the SDE role (63%), and there was no low quality or not applicable responses (Fig. 2). Again, there was little interaction reported with the OIM (74%).

Fig. 1. Quality of interactions (decision makers, n D 33).

Fig. 2. Quality of interactions (evaluators, n D 19).

690

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

Fig. 3. Quality of interactions (implementers, n D 39). Table 6 Challenges to teamwork Rating

Topic

Mode

%

1 2 3 4 5 6D 6D 8 9

Planning/anticipation Communication Team stability Time pressure Accommodation Resource limitations Distractions/high workload Co-ordination Too many processes

21 17 11 10 9 7 7 6 3

23 19 12 11 10 8 8 6 3

Similar to decision makers, Implementers rated the quality of interaction with the DS as being higher (77%) than with all other decision maker roles (Fig. 3). Interactions with the OIM were either adequate (25%) or not applicable (28%). Respondents also rated the main challenges to teamwork as shown in Table 6. Planning/anticipating events unsurprisingly was considered to be the main challenge to teamwork, followed closely by communication. Drilling teams plan extensively in the oYce for forthcoming operations, involving input from a large number of experts, and develop a drilling programme to meet the project objectives. However, intensive planning draws greatly on team members’ time and eVort as well as demanding good levels of communication. Delays can often lead to frustrations within a large team. Although team members also need to consider potential diYculties that may arise during the project, unexpected events can still arise which can result in errors arising. Respondents also suggested improvements to teamwork, as shown in Table 7. Again, communication appears as a critical area that could be improved to enhance teamwork. Second, was the integration of core team members into the decision making process, along with clarity of team member roles. The implication is that team performance would be improved through more eVective communication and that the team members would beneWt from improved role clarity i.e. understanding the roles and responsibilities of other team members.

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

691

Table 7 Improvements to teamwork Rating

Topic

Mode

%

1 2D 2D 4D 4D 4D 7 8 9

Communication Core team integration Role clarity Team leader direction Time for planning Learning from past experiences Co-location Team stability Involve team in discussions

32 10 10 8 8 8 7 5 3

35 11 11 9 9 9 8 5 3

4. Discussion Organisations are typically making continuous attempts to reduce the number of errors and incidents that occur, through training and improvement targets. Traditionally, this has involved engineering improvements, followed by system changes e.g. introducing new processes and procedures. Aviation has led the way in considering the human factor in error reduction (Green et al., 1996; Helmreich and Foushee, 1993; Reason and Maddox, 1996), an approach more recently adopted by other domains such as medicine (Flin et al., 2003), nuclear power production (Bellamy and Geyer, 1988; Stanton, 1996), and the military (Driskell and Salas, 1991). Similar to these domains, drilling teams work in a setting characterised by time pressures, and multiple players, and where safe and eVective team performance is critical. This study set out to determine the attitudes of drilling team leaders and team members to teamwork, leadership and stress, which are issues shown to impact on the work environment by reducing the likelihood of errors and thus improve safety and performance, both in routine situations and where unexpected events arise. This initial measurement of attitudes identiWes human factors issues for drilling teams that can be addressed by speciWc training interventions, and act as a baseline to gauge shifts in attitudes pre- and post-training. Respondents typically reported positive attitudes to teamwork, for example, the majority of respondents recognised that the team leader’s responsibilities include co-ordination between teams, they reported that they worked in a culture where it is easy to ask questions, and that team members support each other. Salas and Cannon-Bowers (1993) propose that the characteristics of high performing teams include not only individual task proWciency, clear and concise communication, and shared goal and mission, but also shared understanding of the task and each other’s roles and responsibilities, anticipation, and team leadership. In this survey, challenges to teamwork in drilling teams were identiWed as being planning/anticipation, and communication, followed by team stability and time pressure. Areas for improvement to teamwork were reported as being communication, core team integration, and role clarity. Although attitudes to teamwork were considered to be higher than those of the other issues addressed in the survey, it is, however, recognised that improvements in teamwork could be made in drilling teams for safe and eVective performance. Leadership is crucial to eVective and safe team performance (Mearns et al., 1997; O’Dea and Flin, 2001). Although the attitudes of decision makers (typically team leaders) and

692

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

evaluators recognise that team leadership demands more than just technical competence, the Implementers show less such awareness. The diVering attitudes of decision makers, evaluators, and Implementers appear to be related to their roles and accountabilities. DiVerences have also emerged between the leader’s decision procedure preferred by respondents and that most often worked under in a routine situation. There is little actual literature about which decision procedure is most eVective for safe and eVective performance in any particular situation, but a leadership style that motivates team members to work harder, to work eYciently, and to take ownership of safety is encouraged (O’Dea and Flin, 2001). Team leaders need to recognise the circumstances where one particular decision procedure is more appropriate than another. For example, a shift in decision procedure, e.g. more directive or autocratic, may be required if dealing with an unexpected event, especially if under time pressure. Although stress has been shown to negatively aVect performance (Cannon-Bowers and Salas, 1998; Driskell and Salas, 1996), there is little recognition of the eVects of personal limitations (i.e. stress or fatigue) on performance by members of drilling teams, as over one third of respondents agree that their performance is not aVected when fatigued. When compared to responses from aviation and medicine, the results for drilling team members (35%) are similar to those from aviation (26% agree), but medical personnel are more likely to deny the eVects of fatigue on performance (59% agree) (Sexton et al., 2000). Decision makers agree that they are more likely to make errors under pressure than Evaluators or Implementers. Recognition of personal limitations, such as stress or fatigue, and their eVects on performance can reduce the likelihood of error and increase the use of error management strategies (Sexton et al., 2000). OVshore drilling team members typically work a 12-h shift system, sometimes working up to 18 h during critical operations. Onshore personnel may also be required to work for long periods during critical operations. In addition, oVshore team members change as personnel work a regular time on/time oV rota, and service personnel join the team as required by the operation, similarly, experts may join the onshore team for short periods. Yet, respondents report that being fatigued, or working with less experienced personnel, does not aVect their performance. The topic of recognition of personal limitations is one that should be addressed by raising awareness of stress eVects and integrating the topic of stress management into training interventions targeting human factors. Communication is understandably acknowledged by all respondents as being critical to eVective teamwork, and highly eVective teams typically use communication to discuss team and safety issues (Kanki and Palmer, 1993). This survey indicates that drilling personnel recognise the importance of communication but also report that it is one of the main challenges to eVective team functioning. The results, however, also indicate that drilling teams would beneWt from improvements in communication, as attitudes to communication do not correspond to the teamwork attitudes reported. Whereas the majority of respondents agreed that a pre-task brieWng is usually conducted, there is less agreement that a post-task debrieWng takes place. There appears to be a lost opportunity to capture aspects of communication and teamwork that may have contributed to safe task completion. In terms of communication and co-operation, as measured by the quality of interactions between respondents and the Wve key decision maker roles, low quality interactions were seldom reported. Role-related diVerences emerge as Evaluators rate their quality of interaction with the SDE as being the highest, whereas Implementers rate the highest quality of interaction with the DS role. In all cases, few interactions with the OIM were cited, which

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

693

may be due to the period in the project when the survey was undertaken, i.e. prior in some cases to drilling having commenced and the installation being on site. 5. Limitations in the research The results presented here are from a self-report questionnaire completed by members of eight drilling teams in one trans-national oil and gas production and exploration company. Several limitations in the use of an attitudes questionnaire to examine attitudes to decision making in emergencies arise. Although a useful technique for gathering focussed information from a large sample size, the information obtained can often be limited. Fundamentally, a questionnaire as a single investigative technique provides limited information on attitudes, unless the questionnaire has been well validated and checked for reliability. A questionnaire should therefore be subjected to procedures such as test/re-test, increasing the number of items within each scale, piloted on independent samples, and checked for internal consistency of scale items (Oppenheim, 1992). The wording of statements can also act as a confound, as some statements, in the questionnaire by Flin et al. (2003) are more subjective in manner (e.g. “I am more likely to make errors under pressure”) whereas others are generalised (e.g. “Uncertain situations often require quick decisions”). To overcome this problem, the statements in the current study were altered such that they were all subjective. Although questionnaires are often used to obtain subjective data (Sinclair, 1992), they only allow respondents to respond to pre-determined statements, and respondents are coerced into selecting from the Wve possible responses. This therefore constrains free response, and the introduction of other associated topics. Questionnaire data can be enhanced by combining a questionnaire with additional data collection techniques such as interviews and observations, e.g. triangulation (Cohen and Manion, 1980). In the current study, the questionnaire was used as a preliminary investigative tool, and the sample was limited to only one organisation, thus its generalisability is limited and other results could be obtained with a diVerent population. The issue of human factors for the oVshore industry as a means to improve HSE performance has been promoted by the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IAOGP, 2001), and, in the UK, the Step Change In Safety initiative which aims to improve safety performance, awareness and behaviours throughout the UK oil and gas industry. Nevertheless, the oil and gas exploration and production industry lags behind other industries such as aviation, medicine, and nuclear energy production in terms of providing speciWc human factors (or team skills) training, such as CRM (Wiener et al., 1993; Flin et al., 2002). To be eVective, training in human factors has to credibly communicate the limits of human performance (physical and mental capacity) and the ability to function under stress. 6. Conclusions Drilling team members, both onshore and oVshore, recognise that interpersonal skills, such as teamwork, communication, and leadership, contribute to safe and eVective task performance. Nevertheless, some contradictions emerge from this survey of attitudes to human and organisational factors. Although respondents report positive attitudes to teamwork and high quality interactions are cited between drilling team members and team leaders, respondents also report that communication and leadership could be improved. Respondents also acknowledge that challenges to teamwork include communication,

694

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

leadership, and stressors such as time pressure. DiVerences in attitudes between the team members categorised as decision makers, evaluators or implementers emerged, notably, in terms of leadership, communication, and organisational factors. Decision makers may need to improve communication (e.g. holding brieWngs and debrieWngs), and to ensure that information is understood and acknowledged. This study has acted as a Wrst step in identifying those issues that contribute to errors in performance by examining attitudes to teamwork, leadership and stress in the context of a distributed team working in a complex, uncertain, hazardous environment. The drilling environment shares characteristics with aviation and medicine, where human factors are being speciWcally addressed through training interventions to reduce error and to train individuals to deal with error should it occur. There is growing recognition of the importance of human factors in oil and gas production (IAOGP, 2001; Mearns et al., 1997) but there is less available literature on human factors in the drilling environment. The use of an attitudes questionnaire, based on the ORMAQ, although initially developed and used in other domains, has provided some useful data about attitudes to human and organisational factors in drilling teams. These Wndings, especially if combined with further data, e.g. collected from interviews and accident/near miss analyses, can then be used to structure a speciWc training intervention to address the human and organisational factors (i.e. team skills) that are essential for safe and eVective performance by members of drilling teams. Crew resource management (CRM) was initially developed in aviation and has subsequently been introduced in high reliability industries such as nuclear production, maritime, and air traYc control (Flin et al., 2002). The aim of CRM is to avoid error wherever possible, to trap errors when they do occur, and to mitigate the consequences of errors before they escalate (Wiener et al., 1993). This survey has indicated those areas that could beneWt from speciWc training interventions to improve safe and eVective performance in drilling teams such as teamwork, leadership, and stress, as well as communication. Shifts in attitudes and behaviours that impact safe and eVective performance can then be recorded using these data as a baseline measure. Acknowledgments This project has been sponsored by BP Exploration. The views presented here are those of the authors and should not be taken to represent the position or policy of the organisations involved. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who assisted in the research. References Bellamy, L.J., Geyer, T.A.W., 1988. Addressing human factors issues in the safe design and operation of computer controlled process systems. In: Sayers, B.A. (Ed.), Human Factors and Decision Making: Their InXuence on Safety and Reliability. Elsevier Applied Science, Barking, UK. Bowers, C.A., Jentsch, F., Salas, E., 2000. Establishing aircrew competencies: a comprehensive approach for identifying CRM training needs. In: O’Neil, H.F., Andrews, D.H. (Eds.), Aircrew Training Methods and Assessment. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 67–83. BP plc, 2004. Health and safety overview. Available from: , 2004. CAA, 2002. Flight crew training: cockpit resource management (CRM) and line oriented Xight training (LOFT) (CAP 720). Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation Group, Hounslow, Middlesex.

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

695

Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. (Eds.), 1998. Making Decisions Under Stress. Implications for Individual and Team Training. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., Converse, S., 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan, Jr., J. (Ed.), Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 221–246. Cohen, L., Manion, L., 1980. Research Methods in Education. Croom Helm, London. Cox, S., Tait, R., 1991. Safety, Reliability and Risk Management. Butterworth Heinneman, London. Crichton, M., 2004. Identifying and training non-technical skills of nuclear emergency response teams. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31/12, 1317–1330. Driskell, J.E., Salas, E., 1991. Overcoming the eVects of stress on military performance: human factors, training and selection strategies. In: Gal, R., MangelsdorV, A.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Military Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Driskell, J.E., Salas, E., 1996. Stress and Human Performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Fishbein, 1967. Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. John Wiley, New York. Flin, R., O’Connor, P., Mearns, K., 2002. Crew resource management. Improving teamwork in high reliability industries. Team Performance Management 8, 68–78. Flin, R., Fletcher, G., McGeorge, P., Sutherland, A., Patey, R., 2003. Anaesthetists’ attitudes to teamwork and safety. Anaesthesia 58, 233–242. Green, R.G., Muir, J., James, M., Gradwell, D., Green, R.L., 1996. Human Factors for Pilots, second ed. Avebury, Aldershot. Gregorich, S., Helmreich, R., Wilhelm, J., 1990. The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 682–690. Helmreich, R., 1984. Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors 26 (5), 583–589. Helmreich, R.L., Foushee, H.C., 1993. Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In: Wiener, E.L., Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L. (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management. Academic Press, New York. Helmreich, R., Merritt, A.C., 1998. Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine. National, Organizational and Professional InXuences. Ashgate, Aldershot. Helmreich, R.L., Wilhelm, J.A., Gregorich, S.E., Chidester, T.R., 1990. Preliminary results from the evaluation of cockpit resource management training: performance ratings of Xightcrews. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine (June), 576–579. Helmreich, R., Sexton, J.B., Merritt, A.C., 1997. The operating room management attitudes questionnaire (ORMAQ). University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project Technical Report 97-6, University of Texas, Austin, TX. IAOGP, 2001. Human Factorsƒ a Means of Improving HSE Performance. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London. Irwin, C., 1991. The impact of initial and recurrent cockpit resource management training on attitudes. Paper Presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH. Kanki, B.G., Palmer, M.T., 1993. Communication and crew resource management. In: Wiener, E.L., Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L. (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management. Academic Press, New York. Mearns, K., Flin, R., Fleming, M., Gordon, R., 1997. Human and Organisational Factors in OVshore Safety (OTH 543). HSE Books, SuVolk. Merritt, A.C., Helmreich, R.L., Wilhelm, J.A., Sherman, P.J., 1996. Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire 2.0 (International) & 2.1 (USA/Anglo). University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project Technical Report 96-4. O’Connor, P., Flin, R., 2003. Crew resource management training for oVshore oil production teams. Safety Science 41, 591–609. O’Dea, A., Flin, R., 2001. Site managers and safety leadership in the oVshore oil and gas industry. Safety Science 37, 39–57. Oppenheim, A.N., 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New ed. Pinter, London. Reason, J., Maddox, M.E., 1996. Human error. In FAA (Ed.), The Human Factors Guide for Aviation Maintenance. FAA. Ringstad, A.J., Sunde, G., 1997. Mechanisation and automation as environmental factors. In: Brune, D., Gerhardsson, G., Crockford, G.W., Norback, D. (Eds.), The Workplace. Vol. 2: Major Industries and Occupations, pp. 797–805. Salas, E., Bowers, C.A., 2000. The design and delivery of crew resource management training: exploiting available resources. Human Factors 42 (3), 490–511.

696

M. Crichton / Safety Science 43 (2005) 679–696

Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J., 1993. Making of a dream team. Paper Presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, Canada. Sexton, J.B., Thomas, E.J., Helmreich, R., 2000. Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. British Medical Journal 320, 745–749. Sinclair, M.A., 1992. Subjective assessment. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, N.E. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 58–88. Stanton, N., 1996. Human Factors in Nuclear Safety. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London. Vroom, V.H., Yetton, P.W., 1973. Leadership and Decision Making. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Wiener, E., Kanki, B., Helmreich, R. (Eds.), 1993. Cockpit Resource Management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Yukl, G., 1998. Leadership in Organisations, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.