TL;DR: GE Aerospace's annual report treats safety not as compliance or messaging, but as leadership responsibility. By putting safety first in SQDC and embedding it into systems, structure, and incentives, the company shows how Respect for People enables trust, learning, and real improvement.
In a recent post, I wrote about how GE Aerospace's 2025 annual report–and especially CEO Larry Culp's letter–reads less like a financial summary and more like an operations story.
One theme in that letter stood out strongly enough that it deserves its own post: safety. Safety as a leadership responsibility–and a core expression of Respect for People.
“Safety Is Always Our Top Priority”
GE Aerospace doesn't bury safety language deep in the report or surround it with qualifiers. Culp states it plainly and early:
“Safety is always our top priority. We never compete on safety, because nothing matters more.”
That's an unusually clear statement for an annual report written to shareholders.
There's no hedging. No framing safety as a trade-off. No suggestion that safety is important until delivery pressure, cost pressure, or competitive pressure intervenes.
This framing aligns closely with long-standing Lean thinking–and with what Toyota has modeled for decades–that safety is not separate from the Toyota Production System, Lean, or operational excellence. It is evidence of it.
Safety is not separate from GE Aerospace's FLIGHT DECK operating system–it's embedded within it.
Safety Comes First in SQDC — and That Order Matters
In my earlier post, I highlighted how GE Aerospace consistently frames its operating priorities as SQDC: Safety, Quality, Delivery, and Cost–in that order, and every day.
That sequencing is not accidental.
Putting safety first is a leadership signal. It tells the organization that:
- Safety is not negotiable
- Quality depends on safe, stable processes
- Delivery improves when people aren't afraid to surface problems
- Cost follows when the system works as designed
This is very Toyota-like thinking. When leaders truly mean SQDC in that order, safety becomes a leading indicator of whether Respect for People actually exists in daily practice.
Safety as System Design, Not Slogans
What makes the GE Aerospace letter particularly credible is that safety isn't treated as a standalone value or communications theme. It's described as something embedded in how the organization is structured and led.
Culp describes how the company responded to operational and supply chain challenges:
“Our work began with a candid acknowledgment of our shortcomings and an understanding that we must become better partners not only to our suppliers externally, but to our teams internally as well.”
That acknowledgment led to a concrete structural change:
“In January, we combined our safety, quality, engineering, manufacturing, and sourcing teams into a single, cohesive organization.”
This matters.
Rather than isolating safety in a function or department, GE Aerospace integrated it directly with the systems that design, build, and deliver value. The goal wasn't just oversight–it was better problem solving:
“This unified team is fostering stronger problem solving and alignment across the value chain internally, thereby enabling more effective communication with our external supply base.”
That's safety treated as an operational capability, not an after-the-fact check.
It reminds me of another CEO, the late Paul O'Neill, and his “habitual excellence” approach, which showed that safety and overall business performance were not trade-offs.
Safety isn't separate from performance. It's foundational to it.
Unsafe systems hide problems. Safe systems expose them.
And exposed problems are the raw material for continuous improvement.
Speaking Up Is an Expectation, Not a Risk
Under the report's Human Capital section, GE Aerospace is explicit about what it expects from employees–and what leaders are responsible for enabling:
“We encourage all employees at every level of the organization to take responsibility for creating a safe and healthy work environment, including the importance of speaking up when a safety concern arises.”
Encouraging people to speak up is easy to say. Making it safe to do so–consistently, across levels and situations–is much harder. It depends entirely on how leaders respond when concerns are raised.
You can't just TELL people to be safe. Leaders must react in ways that help people feel safe speaking up. Larry Culp talked about that a few years ago at the AME Annual Conference. Read more: Why Bad News Must Travel Fast: GE CEO Larry Culp on Psychological Safety and Leadership
GE Aerospace seems to reinforce that expectation with systems, not just words:
- Robust procedures and standards for high-risk activities
- Environmental, health, and safety standards that are often more rigorous than local regulations
- An annual bonus modifier tied to company safety performance
Those choices send a clear message: safety is not optional, and it's not just “someone else's job.”
Respect for People Starts With Keeping People Safe
What's especially notable is that GE Aerospace doesn't frame safety as a constraint on performance. It frames safety as a prerequisite for trust, learning, and improvement.
The report even points to employee feedback:
“Our most recent survey results showed that overall, our employees feel their safety is prioritized.”
That perception matters.
When people believe their safety truly comes first, they are more likely to:
- Speak up about risks
- Surface problems earlier
- Admit mistakes
- Participate in improvement
In Lean terms, safety is one of the strongest leading indicators of whether Respect for People actually exists in practice–not just on paper.
Why This Matters for Leaders
Many organizations say safety is important. Far fewer embed it this clearly into leadership behavior, organizational structure, incentives, and daily expectations.
GE Aerospace's letter shows what it looks like when safety is treated as:
- A leadership obligation
- A system design principle
- A condition for trust and learning
- A core expression of Respect for People
That's not “soft.” It's serious operational thinking.
A Signal Worth Paying Attention To
It's rare to see a CEO speak this plainly and concretely about safety in an annual report–especially in a way that connects safety to trust, systems, and results.
That clarity is a signal.
It suggests that continuous improvement at GE Aerospace isn't being treated as a program or initiative, but as a leadership practice–one that begins with keeping people safe and listening when they speak up.
In my earlier post, I wrote that when senior leaders truly understand operations, they don't just talk about results.
They talk about the work that creates them.
Safety is part of that work.
And when leaders treat it that way, improvement has a real chance to take hold.
Executive Takeaways: What Leaders Should Learn From This
What makes GE Aerospace's approach to safety noteworthy isn't the language–it's the consistency between words, structure, and behavior.
For executives, several lessons stand out:
-
Safety is a leadership signal, not a department.
When safety leads SQDC, it tells the organization what truly matters–especially under pressure. -
Respect for People shows up in systems, not slogans.
Integrating safety with quality, engineering, manufacturing, and sourcing reinforces that problems are solved together, not escalated or hidden. -
Speaking up must be expected–and protected.
Leaders don't get honest input by asking for it. They get it by responding well when it arrives. -
Safety is a leading indicator of culture.
When employees believe their safety is genuinely prioritized, trust increases–and learning accelerates. -
Operational excellence starts with exposure, not perfection.
Safe systems surface problems early. Unsafe systems bury them until failure forces attention.
GE Aerospace's results matter. But what's more instructive is how those results are being created–through leadership behaviors that make it safer to tell the truth, easier to improve the system, and more likely that problems are addressed before they become crises.
That's not safety as compliance. That's safety as Respect for People.
And that's what makes continuous improvement possible.
If you’re working to build a culture where people feel safe to speak up, solve problems, and improve every day, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how to strengthen Psychological Safety and Continuous Improvement in your organization.
