Insights in Safety: Steps to Human Performance / Culture Change

Insights in Safety: Steps to Human Performance / Culture Change:   Human performance/cultural improvement starts with the organization taking a hard look into the mirror regarding how they assess th...

Steps to Human Performance / Culture Change

 

Human performance/cultural improvement starts with the organization taking a hard look into the mirror regarding how they assess the day-to-day activities of the organization, in meeting their overall business objectives. Understanding these the norms and perceptions (culture) provides the base of the improvement plan.

The key to human performance improvement lies in leadership. It is the responsibility of top management to set the vision and expectations of the organization. Once the vision is developed, it must be communicated throughout the organization. The vision needs to be clear and must appeal to the emotions of those in the organization if change is to occur. Armed with facts and logic alone will not foster change. Without an emotional attachment to a cause, there is no ownership. In addition to appealing to emotions, expectations need to be measurable if there is to be ownership. Hence the requirement that they be clear. To increase employee engagement it is valuable that there is employee involvement in defining what is to be measured and how. When employees are an active part of the process, they will have a sense of ownership. Ownership brings with it engagement. Gallup’s 2016 Q12 Meta-Analysis that examined the effects employee engagement had on an organization’s bottom line supports this and the data confirms that regardless of the industry employee engagement consistently affects key performance outcomes.

Once the vision and expectations are established, the next step is communicating these throughout the workforce. Communication is not just a company memo, an “all hands” meeting, or posters/banners it needs to be interactive. In Stephen Covey’s book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Habit 5 states “seek first to understand, then to be understood”  I loosely translate this to mean that communication has to be a two way street especially when we are encouraging change, our mission is to create ownership and buy in. Therefore, in this step it is prudent to communicate the vision through small group settings that are encouraged to be interactive.

Implementation is next in line. Here is where vision gets put in to play it is also the step that can define success or failure. For many, change is not a comfortable situation especially when trying to affect a change in norms and perspective. When implementing an improvement process it is best accomplished in small steps. Remember that the purpose of these changes is to redirect perceptions and establish new norms, many of which have been entrenched for some time. Another advantage of starting small is that you increase the potential to realize success. The benefits of early success was coined as the “Matthew effect” in the late 1960’s by Robert K. Merton and on May 13,2014 Arnout van de Rijt , et al published Field  experiments of success-breed-success dynamics in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences that shows early success increased the possibility of further success. As you realize success, introduce additional changes. Even if you do not realize initial change, you must stay the course.

As the process evolves, it is important to monitor the progress and where required identify those barriers that are hampering growth. Those who are performing the task will be the first to encounter these obstacles in the field. When barriers are identified, discuss the options with those groups that are intimately involved; they are in the best position to provide the most insight. Feedback is then applied to strengthen or modify the vision.  

Risk Based Be More Specifc

Lately there has been more articles, blogs, and other communications touting risk based safety management techniques. This author has even contributed to this up tick. What is also evident to me is that many times we are unclear what we mean by risk based. If the message is to be clearly communicated and if we want to set clear expectations, we should be more specific in what we mean by risk.

Risk refers to an outcomes uncertainty. In the purest sense risk can have one of three outcomes they are; loss, no loss, or a gain. Risk  is also subjective and is based on one's own perceptions and experience. This combination of the definition of risk combined with perceptions is where, I believe, we as safety professionals need to be more specific. When addressing risk be more specific and refer to it as hazard risk. For a hazard risk only has two outcomes; loss or no loss. By being more specific we eliminate much of the subjectivity and the idea that a short cut will elicit a gain.

Risk Based v Compliance Based - Are They Mutually Exclusive

Risk based versus compliance based are they mutually exclusive?

Let me preface my question with this; I have always held to the belief that if an organization wants to have a world class safety culture it starts with abandoning the stance that compliance with OSHA is the main goal. That said how do we, as safety professionals, communicate to our leadership the difference between risk based and risk taking? This becomes more difficult when we are addressing low probability high consequence events.

Those that are familiar with the risk process know that there are basically four risk treatment strategies: avoid the risk, reduce the risk, transfer the risk, and accept the risk. The key to successfully applying one of these strategies starts with identifying what risks are present. This is also where, in my opinion, many organizations struggle. Risk perception goes hand in hand with our experiences and changing those perceptions can be challenging. The best examples regarding risk perception that I can point to is elevated work. We work at heights both on and off the job countless times without incident therefore to many this can be perceived as a low risk activity and the strategy chosen is accepting the risk. Unfortunately, this perception is untrue and has led to too many serious injuries or deaths. So then why does fall protection consistently year after year land in OSHA's Top 10 listed? In the December 2016 issue of Safety + Health, published by the National Safety Council they list OSHA's Top 10most cited violations for fiscal year (FY) 2016 out of the top 10 cited, elevated work was captured 3 times (#1- Fall Protection General Requirements, #3- Scaffolding, and #7 - Ladders). What is alarming is that when the top 10 "serious" and "willful" violations for FY16 were parsed, again elevated work was prominent holding 4 of the top 10 spots in the "serious" category (#1- Fall Protection, #3- Scaffolding, #6- Ladders, and #10 - Fall Protection Training) and 2 positions in "willful" (#1- Fall Protection and #6- Scaffolding).

Although I can recite chapter and verse of many OSHA standards, I have always reverted back to the preamble of the standard to understand the intent of why a particular rule was promulgated. One thing that I am convinced is that there are no proactive OSHA standards and that rules have been promulgated as a result of pain, suffering, and hardship to many not just a few. Understanding the intent of the standard helps me gain clarity on the real risk involved and this clarity along with my experiences then forms the basis of my risk assessment. From an informed position I can suggest risk treatment strategies. Using elevated work again as an example the intent of the standard is to ensure that employees are not seriously injured or killed as a fall when working at heights. The standard allows the employer to apply fall protection or fall prevention techniques to reduce this risk. Working within the content of the various OSHA standards covering aspects of elevated work there are many viable options that can be employed that can address the risk.

So back to the question risk based versus compliance based are they mutually exclusive? What are your thoughts?

Employee Engagement Starts By Looking In The Mirror

For a safety culture to thrive and be sustainable employee engagement is a must. So how do we, as an organization, foster employee engagement? Employee engagement starts with trust.  The first step is to take a hard look into a mirror. Does the reflection show a leadership team that has the trust of the workforce or is there an us and them mentality? Knowing the level of trust will be able to shed light on the next step required to improve or sustain the culture.

If your organization's paradigm is such that the level of trust is low then leadership's next move is to improve in that attribute. Start by understanding why the employees hold this belief. In Stephen R. Covey's highly acclaimed book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People habit number 5 is "seek first to understand, then to be understood" because without this base neither a person or an organization can expect to improve. Only when we understand what those challenges and barriers in our way are can develop an action plan to mitigate those obstacles. This holds true whether you are trying to improve or sustain your organization's culture.

Sustaining a strong safety culture is a challenge in of itself. Too often leadership feels once they reached a level of success and that perpetual motion will take over making their strong culture self-sustaining. History has shown that, that is not reality. What is real is that every organization is dynamic in nature. Therefore, you must continually build and maintain trust throughout the workforce, seek to understand the true status of the organization's culture, stay ahead of the inevitable decline phase by re-invigorating programs, and continue to take that hard look in the mirror.

"Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success."
Henry Ford

OSHA Regulations Are Minimum Standards Not Gold Standards

Too many organizations fool themselves and think complying with the OSHA requirements actually means that they have a good safety program and culture. The truth is, that they are actually poised to fail. Remember that these requirements are minimum standards so by adhering to them you have left little room for error. The best example I can provide to illustrate the potential for failure is employee exposure scenarios. OSHA publishes many exposure levels most are equated with a permissible exposure limit (PEL) 8-hour time weight average. You should remember that PELs are not absolutes but what most people can be exposed to without adverse health effects. So for some workers, adverse health effects may occur. Additionally, many of the PELs are outdated. This being said, I’m not advocating becoming risk adverse.

We are exposed to risk in almost everything we do. For an organization to have a progressive safety culture they need to evaluate those risk and where possible eliminate what you can. Where you are unable to eliminate the hazards then a mitigation strategy must be applied. This strategy should follow the hierarchy of controls employing engineering controls first followed by administrative controls and work practices the lastly the use of Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE).  The key is to evaluate your work processes and seek out activities where following the minimum requirements could have adverse effects if sliding off that minimum edge occurs.

“Don't lower your expectations to meet your performance. Raise your level of performance to meet your expectations.”  Ralph Marston

Are You A Safety Manager Or Safety Leader?

Many of us have the title of “Safety Manager” yet in today’s business culture the typical managers are inefficient. Organizationally what is needed, is to evolve to “Safety Leaders”. There is an axiom that states “you manage things but you lead people”.  Leading people is paramount if you are to be successful in the safety field.

During my long career I have always tried to conduct myself as a leader and not a manager. This is not to suggest that I don’t focus anytime on managerial tasks (like program management elements) but for me coaching and leadership activities is where my heart goes. This means being in the field and talking with as many people as I can. For me it is about asking if they have any concerns, are there any barriers to performing work safely, or sometimes just talking about what they did for the fun. I came up through the trades so walking among craft personnel is natural for me. Having a common background also gives me an advantage in building trust. For a leader trust is the cornerstone of a strong foundation. Trust is not given easily, especially in construction work where the work is transient. Therefore, you need to constantly work at it. We have all heard the phrase one “aw crap” will erase a trunk full of “atta boys” so remember trust can be fragile; protect it.

If trust is the cornerstone, then integrity is the mortar that holds the foundation together. Without integrity trust will erode quickly and the foundation of your program will crumble. Integrity is about doing what you say and saying what you do. It is a simple process but too many have failed to grasp it.  Integrity combined with trust is what Safety Leaders leverage to propel an organization’s safety culture in a positive direction. When you try to “manage” versus “Lead” you naturally gravitate towards an authoritative stance where you end up being a “safety cop”.

So do you still want to be a “Safety Manager”?

 I’ll choose being a “Safety Leader” because as Tom Peters so eloquently put it “Leaders don’t create followers; they create more leaders”.