Safety Discussions versus Safety Monologs

Phil La Duke — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:13:50 GMT

I was thinking the other day, about the monumental waste of time that are safety talks. Typically the scenario plays out something like this: Someone gets hurt and the immediate reaction is to hastily throw together a safety talk that addresses the topic. A harried supervisor reads a page of text to a group of bored associates, or worse yet, he passes around the sheet and expects the team to read it. The supervisor is quick to make sure everyone signs the attendance sheet and then everyone goes on their merry ways.

In the spirit of proactivity and improved safety culture, why not shake up the safety talk by integrating some discussion? And better still, what if we integrated a safety discussion into the safety inspections? Here's what that might look like:

A supervisor prepares for his/her weekly safety inspection by calling the team together for a huddle and asking, "what's different about our work environment than last week?", "how might this variation create problems for us?" and finally, "what can we do to prevent problems or protect us from injuries should our preventative measures fail?" These questions should spur a dialog about potential failure modes and further, it will raise awareness not only of safety but of delivery and quality issues as well.

Does a change in culture necessarily mean a reduction in workers comp costs?

Bill Sagy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:17:10 GMT

Many HR managers, Safety Managers and Operations supervisors are initially skeptical of the claims that by changing the safety culture it ripples through the organization and sometimes magically transforms the incident rates, lost work day rates and positively impacts the bottom line through reduced comp costs. The history of Safety Impact in automotive, aerospace, and heavy truck and bus manufacturing has proven time and again that savings of 35 to 88% are indeed achievable even if unbelievable.

The accounting facts do not lie. Call it the Hawthorne effect of Safety or whatever you want to attribute it to but the savings are real and the intangible rewards to the employees are evident through increased morale and participation in the process. When they realize that this process brings accountability to both management and labor for a safer work environment they sub conciously or conciously become more appreciative of management and perform better day in and day out.

Is Culture-Based Safety Just the Latest Fad

Phil La Duke — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:22:58 GMT

Culture-Based Safety, a.k.a. creating a Safety Culture, is big business. The giants of the largely discredited Behavior-Based Safety are repackaging and repositioning their largely unchanged materials as "Culture-Based Safety". In theory Behavior-Based theory should dovetail nicely into Culture-Based systems approach, but in practice much of this is the same old crap.

Unfortunately, true Culture-Based safety systems like say...I don´t know...SafetyIMPACT! offer a true and practical alternative to the snake oil that is being relabeled and retreaded and recycled. Here are some reasons why I (the grand guru of corporate culture change) think that 90% of the trash that is being positioned as Culture-Based Safety is doomed to failure (after bilking unsuspecting safety professionals out of $millions):

1) Culture Change is more about CHANGE than it is about CULTURE and CHANGE is stupid and dangerous. Culture, simply defined, is how we do things. Now I can wax all academic here and talk about mores, norms, values, and throw a bunch of jargon around, but instead I´d rather speak plain English about Culture. Historically, ethnic cultures developed as a sort of a code of behavior designed to keep people alive. Both to protect the population from external dangers ("by the way, eating those berries will kill you" or "the last guy who tried that got eaten by a bear") and internal dangers ("If Zachariah catches you doing that he will kill you"). Some of these rules were codified into specific legal framework (think Moses) while most of the others became taboos and superstitions. These codes were all prohibitive---many outlined the behaviors that the population wanted to reward. Similarly, companies develop similar regulations and standard practices, some codified into specific rules and regulations typically poorly put together in an employee handbook. The vast majority of these norms become corporate taboos and superstitions that are commonly called "the way we do things".

Okay, so that having been said, what does some model that explains this do for you? Squat. What does understanding how these things develop do for you? Not much from a change perspective. People don´t resist culture, they embrace it. In societal terms, it keeps us from dying of surprise, and from an employment perspective it keeps our companies alive, our jobs secure, and our bosses off our backs. Typically, the people who are telling us to change are irritating and viewed as dangerous. Take a look at prophets from the beginning of time: they have a pretty good track record of getting themselves killed. Why? because change is dangerous and stupid.

Our central nervous system is designed to keep us alive by processing billions of bits of information in milliseconds and determining if the input represents a danger to us. When danger is present, our bodies react at the speed of thought to protect us. If the brain doesn´t have a basis for comparison---if the brain can´t accurately predict if the input is positive or life-threatening, it must assume the worst. We are generally safer in situations where the conditions around us are known, comfortable and predictable. When we change---even the most minute detail (think the Butterfly Effect)---we reduce our brain´s ability to predict outcomes and categorize the input it receives. Our bodies vigorously and chemically resist change. But if change is so stupid why do it? well, because we don´t have a choice. We live in a dynamic world, one in which the strongest don´t survive, the most adaptable do. If General Motor´s most recent troubles have taught us anything its that this is equally true in business. Big organizations tend to have the most trouble changing and so they only do so when crisis is imminent. Out of these crises the organization will break with decades of tradition and make dramatic changes quickly simply to stay alive.

2) Behavior Modification doesn´t Change Culture.

The Behavior-Based practioners would have you believe that culture is simply a codified reflection of the way people behave in an organization. Unfortunately, those of that belief overlook the emotional side, noncognitive side of culture. A principle flaw in the Behavior-Based philosophy is that people always cognitively control their behavior. This belief in the deliberateness of all action doesn´t allow for mistakes, carelessness, ignorance, or unforeseen outcomes. Think about a corporate "superstition" a.k.a. a policy that no one seems to agree with, no one knows why it is policy, and that doesn´t work, yet despite this no one is willing to change it. Call it a sacred cow, pagan idol, or any one of a dozen cutsie terms that someone who wrote a business book dubbed it. The reality is that many of the things we do daily, we do merely to conform, and we conform because, biologically speaking, it makes good sense.

The flawed assumptions of Behavior-Based Safety will carry over into their brand of Culture-Based Safety and will yield the same sloppy results within 5 years.

3) Lasting Change Comes from Crisis.

WANTING to change is far less a driving force than NEEDING to change. Take for example smoking. I know many people who smoke cigarettes and "really ought to quit". These people try quitting, relapse, and try again, sometimes for years. But once a smoker has a heart attack and faces a creditable and tangible threat of death, they give up smoking immediately, completely, and permanently. So culture change must come from within the culture and be driven by the "tribal leaders". These need not be the organizations hiearchical leaders but they most certainly won´t be the safety professionals.

4) Being the Catalyst for Change Can be Professional Suicide.

Most of the Neo-Culture-Based Safety providers put the onus and ownership of change on to the safety professionals. Because the Safety Guy becomes the proponent of major orginazational change he or she becomes the symbol of that change. I once worked for a company that was moving from being an entrepenuership to a professionally managed company. To do this, the owner hired a bright, compassionate, and competent CEO to transition the company and to return it to profitability. When I joined the company it had over 6,500 employees and when I left that number was down to less than 1,500. The new CEO layed off people (many close friends of the owner who had been with the company over 25 years) by the hundreds. He took away lavish benefit packages and replaced them with compensation more aligned with industry standards. He was successful, the company returned to profitability, albeit with less than 10% of the people who built the company. While his contributions were seen as necessary and reasonable the CEO was replaced. Why? many people believe it was because the owner knew the changes were essential, he resented the CEO and didn´t want a constant reminder of those dark days meeting him at the water cooler every morning. Whatever culture change that needs to happen must be led by someone with nothing to lose by symbolizing change. If a safety professional wants to lead the change to a safety culture he or she must be prepared to be encouraged to explore other career opportunities once the change comes to fruition.

5. Change is Most Palatable in Small Portions.

SafetyIMPACT! embraces the Lean Manufacturing/Kaisen philosophy that small, incremental changes are most likely to lead to lasting cultural changes. A prepackaged philosophy or methodology for creating a "safety culture" is likely to fail because it demands too much change in an organization too soon. True culture change must sort the taboos from the truly essential norms. By preserving the things that are working within an organization and discarding or modifying the corporate supersitions one can create a safety culture that is lasting.

SafetyIMPACT Forums / SafetyIMPACT Forums / Safety Culture

Safety Discussions versus Safety Monologs

Does a change in culture necessarily mean a reduction in workers comp costs?

Is Culture-Based Safety Just the Latest Fad