How HR Can Help Build a Safe and Healthy Workplace Culture

Share This Post

Establishing a safe and healthy workplace is crucial for any organisation. As a human resources (HR) manager, you play a vital role in fostering a safety culture within your company.

By implementing effective health and safety protocols, you not only protect your employees from potential hazards but also contribute to their overall well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity.

From establishing clear safety policies and procedures to providing comprehensive training and resources, HR managers can take several steps to ensure that safety becomes an integral part of the company’s values and operations. Doing so can foster an environment where employees feel secure, valued, and motivated to contribute their best work.

By following the guidelines in this guide, you can enhance safety awareness, reduce the risk of accidents and injuries, and create a workplace where employees can thrive.

Characteristics of a safe work culture

Safety should be a top priority for all HR managers when defining and developing a company’s workplace culture.

What does a safe work culture entail? Here are some essential characteristics:

  • Safety is the highest priority (even above things like productivity and meeting deadlines)
  • Everyone is held accountable and expected to contribute to a safe environment
  • Safety procedures are created based on feedback from on-site workers
  • All management levels understand and agree upon the importance of safety
  • Safety supervisors receive support to do their jobs effectively
  • Communication is encouraged
  • Employees receive regular training
  • Employees have easy access to the company safety protocols and procedures
  • All team members strive for continuous improvement and a better safety record

Benefits of a safe work culture

A safe work culture benefits all employees. The following are four specific ways the company can improve by prioritising safety:

Increased employee satisfaction

When employees know higher-ups care about their safety, they feel happier at their jobs, have better relationships with management, and are more likely to stick around.

Increased productivity

Having everyone follow the company’s safety protocols results in fewer accidents and interruptions, making it easier for employees to stick to schedules and meet deadlines.

Decreased legal concerns

A safe workplace is less likely to experience on-site injuries, workers’ compensation claims, and potential legal challenges.

Improved reputation: A company that cares about employee safety will likely be more popular among job seekers, meaning it’s easier to attract top talent during hiring periods.

The role of HR in building a culture of safety

A human resources manager and their team are essential to establishing rules and guidelines that increase workplace health and safety. What does this look like in action, though?

Listed below are some specific ways HR can contribute to a culture of safety:

Encourage others to care about workplace safety

Getting everyone on board is crucial to building a safe and healthy company culture. They must understand why safety is important and what they get from following health and safety protocols.

The HR department should include two crucial messages in every training meeting or discussion:

  • Accidents and injuries are unacceptable at this company
  • The business benefits from safety through reduced costs, improved morale, and increased productivity

Getting others invested in safety helps tie the company’s safety program to other values, such as innovation or integrity. Doing so further drives home the importance of safety to the company and its overall culture.

Get all employees involved in updating and enforcing safety protocols

Because all employees can benefit from precise and thorough safety and security procedures, they should be involved in updating and enforcing them.

HR should seek buy-in from managers, executives, and other higher-ups when working to improve and implement new safety plans. Otherwise, they may experience friction when they try to enforce a rule and get undermined by a colleague.

Employees should also learn about their role in fostering health and safety in the workplace. For example, they should be able to offer suggestions or provide feedback. They should also understand when to report incidents (and to whom).

Provide positive reinforcement

Instead of waiting until something goes wrong and punishing an employee for a mistake or oversight, focus on positive reinforcement. In other words, when employees practice safe behaviour or follow a specific rule in the company’s safety plan, recognise their efforts and thank them for their commitment.

You can also gamify the process of following health and safety protocols. For example, you can challenge different teams at the company to see which one has the fewest safety incidents in a given period.

Set the proper tone during hiring and onboarding

Ensure people understand how much your company values health and safety from the start.

When conducting interviews during the hiring process, make sure interviewees know that safety matters to you and your team and that they will be expected to follow specific guidelines if hired.

During onboarding, provide more information on the importance of workplace health and safety and educate employees on the company’s safety protocols. If they receive this information from day one, it’ll be easier to follow the rules and keep safety in mind.

Creating a safe and healthy workplace

Image: Pexels

Make training an ongoing practice

New hires aren’t the only ones who should receive safety training. The HR department should also ensure all team members participate in ongoing training sessions.

It’s easy to get complacent when you do the same tasks day after day. This complacency can cause employees to get lax about certain safety rules.

Requiring regular training helps employees to stay sharp and ensure they consistently follow specific rules and guidelines.

Promote overall employee well-being

It’s easier for employees to stick to health and safety rules and uphold the company’s values when they have opportunities to care for their overall well-being.

Human resources managers should ensure team members have access to health and wellness support, including comprehensive medical care and mental health support.

Employees who feel cared for on multiple levels (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.), will be more committed to the company and upholding its policies.

Foster open communication channels

Effective communication is essential in creating a culture of safety within an organisation. HR plays a crucial role in fostering open channels of communication that encourage employees to voice their concerns, suggestions, and observations regarding workplace safety.

To facilitate such communication, HR can implement the following strategies:

Establish regular safety meetings

Conduct regular safety meetings where employees can openly discuss safety-related matters, share their experiences, and propose ideas for improvement. These meetings provide a platform for everyone to contribute to the safety culture and ensure that concerns are addressed promptly.

Implement anonymous reporting systems

Encourage employees to anonymously report safety hazards or incidents through suggestion boxes or digital platforms. This allows individuals to speak up without fear of repercussions, promoting a culture of transparency and trust.

Actively listen and respond

HR should actively listen to employees’ safety concerns and promptly address them. Whether investigating potential hazards, updating safety protocols, or providing necessary resources, demonstrating a commitment to employee well-being builds trust and reinforces the importance of safety within the organisation.

By fostering open communication channels, HR creates an environment where employees feel empowered to contribute to improving workplace safety.

Embrace technology for safety enhancement

In today’s digital age, HR can leverage technology to enhance safety practices and streamline safety-related processes. Adopting innovative solutions not only strengthens the safety culture but also demonstrates a commitment to staying up-to-date with advancements in the field. Here are some ways HR can embrace technology for safety enhancement:

Implement a digital incident reporting system

Move away from traditional paper-based incident reporting and implement a digital system that allows employees to report accidents, near misses, or safety concerns online. This digital platform can streamline incident management, facilitate quick responses, and provide valuable data for analysis and improvement.

Utilise mobile safety apps

Encourage employees to use mobile safety applications that provide real-time access to safety protocols, hazard alerts, and emergency procedures. These apps can serve as handy references and reminders, ensuring employees have vital safety information at their fingertips.

Invest in wearable safety technology

Explore using wearable devices equipped with sensors to monitor employee well-being and detect potential safety risks. For example, smart badges or wristbands can track factors like fatigue levels or proximity to hazardous areas, helping prevent accidents and promoting a safer working environment.

By embracing technology-driven solutions, HR is committed to harnessing innovation to enhance workplace safety and encourages employees to adapt to new safety practices.

Encourage continuous learning and skill development

To foster a positive safety culture, HR should prioritise continuous learning and skill development related to safety practices. By investing in training and educational programmes, HR can ensure that employees have the knowledge and skills necessary to maintain a safe working environment. Consider the following strategies:

Provide specialised safety training Offer specialised training programmes that address specific safety concerns relevant to the organisation. This could include sessions on operating machinery safely, handling hazardous materials, or practising proper ergonomics. Ensure that training materials are engaging, interactive, and tailored to different job roles within the company.

Foster a learning culture

Promote a culture of continuous learning by encouraging employees to pursue safety certifications, attend industry conferences or workshops, and participate in webinars or online courses related to workplace safety. Create incentives, such as recognition or career advancement opportunities, to motivate employees to enhance their safety knowledge and skills.

Conduct safety drills and simulations

Regularly organise safety drills and simulations to test employees’ preparedness and response to potential emergencies. These drills can cover scenarios such as fire evacuations, first aid procedures, or natural disaster response. Evaluate the effectiveness of these drills and use the findings to improve safety protocols and employee training.

By prioritising continuous learning and skill development, HR supports a proactive approach to safety and equips employees with the tools they need to mitigate risks effectively.

Establish safety committees or task forces

Creating safety committees or task forces empowers employees to contribute to developing and implementing safety initiatives actively. HR can play a vital role in establishing and supporting these groups by:

Encouraging employee involvement

Invite employees from different departments or teams to participate in safety committees or task forces. Seek volunteers passionate about safety and willing to take an active role in improving workplace conditions.

Setting clear objectives

Define the objectives and scope of the safety committees or task forces, ensuring they align with the overall safety goals of the organisation. Encourage members to brainstorm innovative ideas, propose safety improvements, and share best practices.

Providing resources and support

Equip safety committees or task forces with the necessary resources, including a budget, training materials, and access to relevant safety data. HR should provide guidance, facilitate meetings, and ensure that the recommendations and initiatives put forth by these groups receive appropriate attention from management.

By involving employees in safety committees or task forces, HR promotes a sense of ownership and shared responsibility for workplace safety, fostering a culture where everyone feels empowered to contribute to a safer working environment.

In Summary

A safe and healthy workplace culture benefits all employees at your company – including you and members of your department! As a human resources manager, you are in a unique position to create and carry out safety protocols that protect team members and encourage job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and more successful recruitment efforts. Follow the guidelines discussed above to start making health and safety integral parts of your company culture.

About the Author

Yasmine Mustafa is the CEO & Co-Founder of ROAR, a technology company dedicated to cultivating safer workplaces. The company’s patented workplace panic button solution provides employees with one press of a button to protect your people, here and now.

The post How HR Can Help Build a Safe and Healthy Workplace Culture appeared first on The 6Q Blog.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get updates and learn from the best

More To Explore


Best of both worlds: Achieving scalability and quality in text clustering

Posted by Sara Ahmadian and Mehran Kazemi, Research Scientists, Google Research

Clustering is a fundamental, ubiquitous problem in data mining and unsupervised machine learning, where the goal is to group together similar items. The standard forms of clustering are metric clustering and graph clustering. In metric clustering, a given metric space defines distances between data points, which are grouped together based on their separation. In graph clustering, a given graph connects similar data points through edges, and the clustering process groups data points together based on the connections between them. Both clustering forms are particularly useful for large corpora where class labels can’t be defined. Examples of such corpora are the ever-growing digital text collections of various internet platforms, with applications including organizing and searching documents, identifying patterns in text, and recommending relevant documents to users (see more examples in the following posts: clustering related queries based on user intent and practical differentially private clustering).

The choice of text clustering method often presents a dilemma. One approach is to use embedding models, such as BERT or RoBERTa, to define a metric clustering problem. Another is to utilize cross-attention (CA) models, such as PaLM or GPT, to define a graph clustering problem. CA models can provide highly accurate similarity scores, but constructing the input graph may require a prohibitive quadratic number of inference calls to the model. On the other hand, a metric space can efficiently be defined by distances of embeddings produced by embedding models. However, these similarity distances are typically of substantial lower-quality compared to the similarity signals of CA models, and hence the produced clustering can be of much lower-quality.

An overview of the embedding-based and cross-attention–based similarity scoring functions and their scalability vs. quality dilemma.

Motivated by this, in “KwikBucks: Correlation Clustering with Cheap-Weak and Expensive-Strong Signals”, presented at ICLR 2023, we describe a novel clustering algorithm that effectively combines the scalability benefits from embedding models and the quality from CA models. This graph clustering algorithm has query access to both the CA model and the embedding model, however, we apply a budget on the number of queries made to the CA model. This algorithm uses the CA model to answer edge queries, and benefits from unlimited access to similarity scores from the embedding model. We describe how this proposed setting bridges algorithm design and practical considerations, and can be applied to other clustering problems with similar available scoring functions, such as clustering problems on images and media. We demonstrate how this algorithm yields high-quality clusters with almost a linear number of query calls to the CA model. We have also open-sourced the data used in our experiments.

The clustering algorithm

The KwikBucks algorithm is an extension of the well-known KwikCluster algorithm (Pivot algorithm). The high-level idea is to first select a set of documents (i.e., centers) with no similarity edge between them, and then form clusters around these centers. To obtain the quality from CA models and the runtime efficiency from embedding models, we introduce the novel combo similarity oracle mechanism. In this approach, we utilize the embedding model to guide the selection of queries to be sent to the CA model. When given a set of center documents and a target document, the combo similarity oracle mechanism outputs a center from the set that is similar to the target document, if present. The combo similarity oracle enables us to save on budget by limiting the number of query calls to the CA model when selecting centers and forming clusters. It does this by first ranking centers based on their embedding similarity to the target document, and then querying the CA model for the pair (i.e., target document and ranked center), as shown below.

A combo similarity oracle that for a set of documents and a target document, returns a similar document from the set, if present.

We then perform a post processing step to merge clusters if there is a strong connection between two of them, i.e., when the number of connecting edges is higher than the number of missing edges between two clusters. Additionally, we apply the following steps for further computational savings on queries made to the CA model, and to improve performance at runtime:

We leverage query-efficient correlation clustering to form a set of centers from a set of randomly selected documents instead of selecting these centers from all the documents (in the illustration below, the center nodes are red).

We apply the combo similarity oracle mechanism to perform the cluster assignment step in parallel for all non-center documents and leave documents with no similar center as singletons. In the illustration below, the assignments are depicted by blue arrows and initially two (non-center) nodes are left as singletons due to no assignment.

In the post-processing step, to ensure scalability, we use the embedding similarity scores to filter down the potential mergers (in the illustration below, the green dashed boundaries show these merged clusters).

Illustration of progress of the clustering algorithm on a given graph instance.


We evaluate the novel clustering algorithm on various datasets with different properties using different embedding-based and cross-attention–based models. We compare the clustering algorithm’s performance with the two best performing baselines (see the paper for more details):

To evaluate the quality of clustering, we use precision and recall. Precision is used to calculate the percentage of similar pairs out of all co-clustered pairs and recall is the percentage of co-clustered similar pairs out of all similar pairs. To measure the quality of the obtained solutions from our experiments, we use the F1-score, which is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall, where 1.0 is the highest possible value that indicates perfect precision and recall, and 0 is the lowest possible value that indicates if either precision or recall are zero. The table below reports the F1-score for Kwikbucks and various baselines in the case that we allow only a linear number of queries to the CA model. We show that Kwikbucks offers a substantial boost in performance with a 45% relative improvement compared to the best baseline when averaging across all datasets.

The figure below compares the clustering algorithm’s performance with baselines using different query budgets. We observe that KwikBucks consistently outperforms other baselines at various budgets.

A comparison of KwikBucks with top-2 baselines when allowed different budgets for querying the cross-attention model.


Text clustering often presents a dilemma in the choice of similarity function: embedding models are scalable but lack quality, while cross-attention models offer quality but substantially hurt scalability. We present a clustering algorithm that offers the best of both worlds: the scalability of embedding models and the quality of cross-attention models. KwikBucks can also be applied to other clustering problems with multiple similarity oracles of varying accuracy levels. This is validated with an exhaustive set of experiments on various datasets with diverse properties. See the paper for more details.


This project was initiated during Sandeep Silwal’s summer internship at Google in 2022. We would like to express our gratitude to our co-authors, Andrew McCallum, Andrew Nystrom, Deepak Ramachandran, and Sandeep Silwal, for their valuable contributions to this work. We also thank Ravi Kumar and John Guilyard for assistance with this blog post.


Zero-shot adaptive prompting of large language models

Posted by Xingchen Wan, Student Researcher, and Ruoxi Sun, Research Scientist, Cloud AI Team

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) are very promising as reflected in their capability for general problem-solving in few-shot and zero-shot setups, even without explicit training on these tasks. This is impressive because in the few-shot setup, LLMs are presented with only a few question-answer demonstrations prior to being given a test question. Even more challenging is the zero-shot setup, where the LLM is directly prompted with the test question only.

Even though the few-shot setup has dramatically reduced the amount of data required to adapt a model for a specific use-case, there are still cases where generating sample prompts can be challenging. For example, handcrafting even a small number of demos for the broad range of tasks covered by general-purpose models can be difficult or, for unseen tasks, impossible. For example, for tasks like summarization of long articles or those that require domain knowledge (e.g., medical question answering), it can be challenging to generate sample answers. In such situations, models with high zero-shot performance are useful since no manual prompt generation is required. However, zero-shot performance is typically weaker as the LLM is not presented with guidance and thus is prone to spurious output.

In “Better Zero-shot Reasoning with Self-Adaptive Prompting”, published at ACL 2023, we propose Consistency-Based Self-Adaptive Prompting (COSP) to address this dilemma. COSP is a zero-shot automatic prompting method for reasoning problems that carefully selects and constructs pseudo-demonstrations for LLMs using only unlabeled samples (that are typically easy to obtain) and the models’ own predictions. With COSP, we largely close the performance gap between zero-shot and few-shot while retaining the desirable generality of zero-shot prompting. We follow this with “Universal Self-Adaptive Prompting“ (USP), accepted at EMNLP 2023, in which we extend the idea to a wide range of general natural language understanding (NLU) and natural language generation (NLG) tasks and demonstrate its effectiveness.

Prompting LLMs with their own outputs

Knowing that LLMs benefit from demonstrations and have at least some zero-shot abilities, we wondered whether the model’s zero-shot outputs could serve as demonstrations for the model to prompt itself. The challenge is that zero-shot solutions are imperfect, and we risk giving LLMs poor quality demonstrations, which could be worse than no demonstrations at all. Indeed, the figure below shows that adding a correct demonstration to a question can lead to a correct solution of the test question (Demo1 with question), whereas adding an incorrect demonstration (Demo 2 + questions, Demo 3 with questions) leads to incorrect answers. Therefore, we need to select reliable self-generated demonstrations.

Example inputs & outputs for reasoning tasks, which illustrates the need for carefully designed selection procedure for in-context demonstrations (MultiArith dataset & PaLM-62B model): (1) zero-shot chain-of-thought with no demo: correct logic but wrong answer; (2) correct demo (Demo1) and correct answer; (3) correct but repetitive demo (Demo2) leads to repetitive outputs; (4) erroneous demo (Demo3) leads to a wrong answer; but (5) combining Demo3 and Demo1 again leads to a correct answer.

COSP leverages a key observation of LLMs: that confident and consistent predictions are more likely correct. This observation, of course, depends on how good the uncertainty estimate of the LLM is. Luckily, in large models, previous works suggest that the uncertainty estimates are robust. Since measuring confidence requires only model predictions, not labels, we propose to use this as a zero-shot proxy of correctness. The high-confidence outputs and their inputs are then used as pseudo-demonstrations.

With this as our starting premise, we estimate the model’s confidence in its output based on its self-consistency and use this measure to select robust self-generated demonstrations. We ask LLMs the same question multiple times with zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. To guide the model to generate a range of possible rationales and final answers, we include randomness controlled by a “temperature” hyperparameter. In an extreme case, if the model is 100% certain, it should output identical final answers each time. We then compute the entropy of the answers to gauge the uncertainty — the answers that have high self-consistency and for which the LLM is more certain, are likely to be correct and will be selected.

Assuming that we are presented with a collection of unlabeled questions, the COSP method is:

Input each unlabeled question into an LLM, obtaining multiple rationales and answers by sampling the model multiple times. The most frequent answers are highlighted, followed by a score that measures consistency of answers across multiple sampled outputs (higher is better). In addition to favoring more consistent answers, we also penalize repetition within a response (i.e., with repeated words or phrases) and encourage diversity of selected demonstrations. We encode the preference towards consistent, un-repetitive and diverse outputs in the form of a scoring function that consists of a weighted sum of the three scores for selection of the self-generated pseudo-demonstrations.
We concatenate the pseudo-demonstrations into test questions, feed them to the LLM, and obtain a final predicted answer.

Illustration of COSP: In Stage 1 (left), we run zero-shot CoT multiple times to generate a pool of demonstrations (each consisting of the question, generated rationale and prediction) and assign a score. In Stage 2 (right), we augment the current test question with pseudo-demos (blue boxes) and query the LLM again. A majority vote over outputs from both stages forms the final prediction.

COSP focuses on question-answering tasks with CoT prompting for which it is easy to measure self-consistency since the questions have unique correct answers. But this can be difficult for other tasks, such as open-ended question-answering or generative tasks that don’t have unique answers (e.g., text summarization). To address this limitation, we introduce USP in which we generalize our approach to other general NLP tasks:

Classification (CLS): Problems where we can compute the probability of each class using the neural network output logits of each class. In this way, we can measure the uncertainty without multiple sampling by computing the entropy of the logit distribution.
Short-form generation (SFG): Problems like question answering where we can use the same procedure mentioned above for COSP, but, if necessary, without the rationale-generating step.
Long-form generation (LFG): Problems like summarization and translation, where the questions are often open-ended and the outputs are unlikely to be identical, even if the LLM is certain. In this case, we use an overlap metric in which we compute the average of the pairwise ROUGE score between the different outputs to the same query.

Illustration of USP in exemplary tasks (classification, QA and text summarization). Similar to COSP, the LLM first generates predictions on an unlabeled dataset whose outputs are scored with logit entropy, consistency or alignment, depending on the task type, and pseudo-demonstrations are selected from these input-output pairs. In Stage 2, the test instances are augmented with pseudo-demos for prediction.

We compute the relevant confidence scores depending on the type of task on the aforementioned set of unlabeled test samples. After scoring, similar to COSP, we pick the confident, diverse and less repetitive answers to form a model-generated pseudo-demonstration set. We finally query the LLM again in a few-shot format with these pseudo-demonstrations to obtain the final predictions on the entire test set.

Key Results

For COSP, we focus on a set of six arithmetic and commonsense reasoning problems, and we compare against 0-shot-CoT (i.e., “Let’s think step by step“ only). We use self-consistency in all baselines so that they use roughly the same amount of computational resources as COSP. Compared across three LLMs, we see that zero-shot COSP significantly outperforms the standard zero-shot baseline.

USP improves significantly on 0-shot performance. “CLS” is an average of 15 classification tasks; “SFG” is the average of five short-form generation tasks; “LFG” is the average of two summarization tasks. “SFG (BBH)” is an average of all BIG-Bench Hard tasks, where each question is in SFG format.

For USP, we expand our analysis to a much wider range of tasks, including more than 25 classifications, short-form generation, and long-form generation tasks. Using the state-of-the-art PaLM 2 models, we also test against the BIG-Bench Hard suite of tasks where LLMs have previously underperformed compared to people. We show that in all cases, USP again outperforms the baselines and is competitive to prompting with golden examples.

Accuracy on BIG-Bench Hard tasks with PaLM 2-M (each line represents a task of the suite). The gain/loss of USP (green stars) over standard 0-shot (green triangles) is shown in percentages. “Human” refers to average human performance; “AutoCoT” and “Random demo” are baselines we compared against in the paper; and “3-shot” is the few-shot performance for three handcrafted demos in CoT format.

We also analyze the working mechanism of USP by validating the key observation above on the relation between confidence and correctness, and we found that in an overwhelming majority of the cases, USP picks confident predictions that are more likely better in all task types considered, as shown in the figure below.

USP picks confident predictions that are more likely better. Ground-truth performance metrics against USP confidence scores in selected tasks in various task types (blue: CLS, orange: SFG, green: LFG) with PaLM-540B.

Zero-shot inference is a highly sought-after capability of modern LLMs, yet the success in which poses unique challenges. We propose COSP and USP, a family of versatile, zero-shot automatic prompting techniques applicable to a wide range of tasks. We show large improvement over the state-of-the-art baselines over numerous task and model combinations.


This work was conducted by Xingchen Wan, Ruoxi Sun, Hootan Nakhost, Hanjun Dai, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Sercan Ö. Arık, and Tomas Pfister. We would like to thank Jinsung Yoon Xuezhi Wang for providing helpful reviews, and other colleagues at Google Cloud AI Research for their discussion and feedback.

Do You Want To Boost Your Business?

drop us a line and keep in touch