One of the most common mistakes in management is to label repeated behavior as a “culture problem” before asking whether the system itself is designed to produce that behavior.
In 2020, I had the opportunity to examine a significant health and safety issue at one of the largest European corporations.
The company described the situation as an example of an “erroneous health and safety culture.”
The case looked simple on the surface. Employees regularly walked along a restricted route between two buildings, ignoring several prohibitory signs. The route was considered unsafe, and this behavior had already contributed to two safety incidents in the previous year.
For the organization, the diagnosis seemed obvious:
But I saw it differently.
The problem was not only culture
The employees were not choosing that route because they wanted to violate rules. They were choosing it because it was the most direct and practical path between the two buildings.
In other words, the unsafe behavior was not random. It was rational.
The environment had created a conflict between the official rule and the practical need of daily work. The signs said one thing. The layout of the site encouraged another.
When this happens, leaders often respond by adding more instructions, more warnings, more posters, more briefings, and more disciplinary language.
But if the physical design continues to reward the unsafe shortcut, the organization is not solving the root cause. It is simply asking people to fight the system every day.
Two possible solutions
I suggested two practical options.
The first was straightforward: physically block the unsafe route. For example, install a fence or another barrier that would make the prohibited path unavailable.
This would not rely on memory, discipline, or constant supervision. It would simply remove the unsafe choice from the system.
The second solution was more constructive: build a safe pedestrian bridge or a properly designed walkway over the problematic area.
This option would do more than eliminate the risk. It would also send a clear message to employees:
That message matters.
Why signs are not always enough
Safety signs are useful. Procedures are necessary. Training matters.
But signs are weak tools when they are placed inside a system that pushes people in the opposite direction.
If the shortest path is unsafe, people will eventually use it. If the safe path is much longer, inconvenient, or poorly designed, the organization should not be surprised when employees create their own practical solution.
That does not mean employees have no responsibility. They do.
But leadership also has responsibility for the environment in which choices are made.
Culture follows design
Culture is not only what people believe. It is also what the system makes easy, difficult, rewarded, tolerated, or ignored.
If leaders want safer behavior, they need to design safer pathways — physically, operationally, and psychologically.
In many organizations, the phrase “culture problem” becomes a convenient explanation. It places the burden on employees and keeps attention away from poor process design, unclear incentives, bad layouts, weak supervision, or impractical rules.
But real system thinking starts with a harder question:
Final thought
When employees repeatedly ignore a rule, the first reaction should not be blame.
The first reaction should be curiosity.
Why does this behavior make sense to them? What friction are they trying to avoid? What does the system reward in practice, regardless of what the procedure says on paper?
Sometimes the answer is a training issue.
Sometimes it is a discipline issue.
But very often, the problem is simpler and deeper:
That is why safety leadership is not only about correcting behavior.
It is about designing conditions where the safe choice becomes the obvious choice.