Author Archives: Dr. Mark A. French

Engagement can lead to empathy and it can begin with safety. From a previous post, the idea was to create easy to manage employee to supervisor conversations about safety. The question was “what safety improvements need to happen in your area?” This question can be logged in something as simple as a shared spreadsheet. The metrics that are created are both interesting and actionable.

The first metric is items that are closed by the supervisor. This is my favorite metric. It shows the power of a good supervisor. This can be a key differentiator when it comes to merit or bonus pay. Those supervisors that have lots of contacts and lots of closure show a strong correlation between safety and good leadership. It is not about preventing OSHA recordability or first aid incidents. It is about making the workplace safer and more employee useable

The second metric is items that are turned into work orders. These are the items that need some additional maintenance or facilities attention. These should also be tracked to some form of days open and days to close. The data is a powerful statement of how important the safety of the people is.

The third metric is items that need capital assistance. These are the big projects that take more money, resources, and time. Sometimes, these are the projects that need a shutdown to be completed. Showing those open items and tentative dates show employees that there are methods and effort going into keeping them safe

The fourth metric is open unaddressed items. These are sometimes cultural or difficult items to address. Sometimes, they are the items that simply get a “no” assigned to them. This set of metrics is the best one for escalation to a senior management team. These are the actions that need a higher level of focus or a plan of action that can be taken.

Overall, having the data is not enough. This aggregate data should be public. The team should see the items that are being worked on and those items that have been completed. From where I have sat as an HSE Manager, it is data like this that allows me to say that we are listening and that we do care. The beginning of engagement is also the beginning of empathy toward our team.

Empathy and engagement align with each other nicely. When a person has empathy, they can better engage. When someone is good at engagement, they can help cultivate empathy. This creates an opportunity in the workplace to help begin finding a path toward better people relations. If the organization can create methods of engagement, there is at least an opportunity for empathy to develop. The hope is that with more empathy there will then be more engagement and so the cycle would continue.

In earlier blogs, there was the idea of creating methods to standardize empathy through having work practices that created and guided team members through a process. The process was geared mostly toward health care to at least create the appearance of empathy and caring. Well if you have been a follower of my work, you probably have an idea of where I am going. Yep . . . Safety. Safety is the first means that an organization can create standardization of engagement. By creating a few simple measures that a supervisor or manager can follow each day, there is an instant requirement for engagement.

Why start with safety? There are a few good answers for that.

1) It’s the law
2) There is nothing more personal or important
3) Of all the KPIs, safety is the most personal
4) Of all the KPIs, safety is the least reversible
5) Safety is a fundamental human motivational need

What is great about using safety as that first entry to engagement is that it is relevant to everyone, it is an easy conversation, and it creates traceable proactive metrics. Here is a basic yet highly effective example. A supervisor must make four safety contacts a day. That is about a 5-10 minute conversation with an employee every two hours. The question to ask is what safety issues are in your area that needs to be corrected? Even with simple software, this can be tracked. There are now metrics of items that have been corrected, items turned in for work order, items added to a capital list, and open unaddressed items. These metrics are exceptionally powerful when creating engagement.

How above the table do you want to be with this?

I am a bit of a skeptic . . . Well, maybe more than a bit. When I see amazing safety streaks and empty OSHA logs, I immediately want to know more. I hope that there is something I can learn. My reality is usually something very different. When I hear about all the great programs, back-patting, and self-congratulations, I worry that I am doing something wrong. Those people make it seem easy and from my experience, the level of effort that goes into having a top-tier safety program is not at all easy.

Let me take a step back and tell a story. I was performing a start-up of a manufacturing site as HSE. We did not generate a lot of waste oil, but we did have some that we wanted to dispose of the right way. I was given the name of a local person that could help. The meeting was, to say the least, concerning.

It was decision time. Take the easy path or take the right path. Because so much of safety is reactive, it can be so tempting to take the easy path. Avoid the OSHA recordable rather than prevent the risk. Omit items from the OSHA log rather than research and record.

This is not to say that there are not good safety programs out there. There absolutely are. I have met some amazing and talented people. What amazes me most about them is how they keep driving for excellence. They hold firm to their values and ethics. They are fantastic leaders who know they cannot do it alone. They are team builders. They are my inspiration. Even more important is that this list is not just safety people. I have met learning, operations, maintenance, and regulatory people that have led the charge of protecting people.

Earlier I blogged about how medical settings can use standardized techniques to create a caring environment without actually fostering empathy. The same can be done in the business world, but is there a real desire for it? Profitability has always appeared to be the goal that is far and beyond empathy. Employee engagement is simply a byproduct of luck, productivity, and governmental laws. I am certainly not talking about all companies. There is a powerful line that is drawn between those that prioritize people and those that do not.

Engaging people is not a short-term approach. If your organization is focusing on your team this is an endeavor that should take years. It should be a sustainable and improving process. Even in Human Resources the plan, do, check, act methodology works well. Plan a program, implement it, ask if it works, and make corrections.

Start at the top. If there are no organizational goals, policies, and programs in place the leadership has very little room to help grow. If the team continually talks about poor benefits or low pay, there is not much a supervisor can do to help further motivate. When a company does provide better-than-average resources, leaders have a starting point for engaging and listening. What is even better is when the leaders are empowered to help make and lead the changes.

I will close with an example. There were a few people on a small manufacturing site. It was not a super long walk to the break room But by the time they washed up, walked down some stairs, and walked to the break room, there was some time that was lost. The supervisor was already well-engaged and generally had a positive group of employees. They were not complaining, but the supervisor saw an opportunity. There was a small conference room near the manufacturing area that was never used. The supervisor cleaned it up, added a mini-fridge, chairs, and a table. Improvement through empathy and awareness. Sometimes, it is all about something small yet insightful.

In the book Multipliers, Liz Wiseman gives some great comparisons of leaders who can create great moments and those that take all the greatness for themselves. What I found most interesting is that those that had short-term views were able to make some amazing progress in a short amount of time. That progress, though, was usually followed by stagnation or decline. Those that had a long-term view of the business would have steady incremental gains that could be sustained for decades. The short-term versus long-term mentality was easy to spot.

The short-term approach to organizational success was easy. Pull up a spreadsheet, look for large areas of expense (like people, learning, benefits, or safety), slash those organizations, and collect huge quarterly gains. These leaders were sometimes heralded as financial geniuses when all they did was create value for a few quarters on Wall Street at the expense of the long-term solvency of the organization. At times, when these slash-and-burn leaders were asked to leave the organization, they were further rewarded financially for not making a fuss. What is crazy to me is that this model still shows up regularly as a means of “making the quarter” for the financial forecast. Just look in the news at the layoffs.

The long-term approach is people-centric. When people are engaged and empowered, they are more innovative and driven for success. They will challenge the status quo with the hope of keeping the company competitive. This creates a team that is working toward a common goal of long-term success. When people see the investment in them, it is a signal that the company is committed to a long-term strategy. Those companies that value the talents and expertise of their team create sustainable methods of continuous success. These are the teams that rise the call and embody a company’s mission and values.

Engagement is for the long haul. I have been part of safety programs that were decimated by bad leadership. I was there to not just fix safety problem, but at the very root of the issue was cultural and people problems. And when I say “people problems” I do not mean the employees. The company had fundamentally dismantled any trust through a lack of action. I as a delegate of the company and leadership had to re-engage and create action in correcting unsafe conditions. These fixes cost money and time. If a company is only there for short-term gains, safety pays in a bad way. There is no investment. There are no fixes. There is plenty of blame. That is why I am a firm believer that if you show me a good safety system, I can show you some good leadership. It is because the company has made a conscious choice to partner for the long term with its people.

As I have traveled down the rabbit hole of empathy in the workplace, there is a common theme: healthcare. Rightfully, so the first place that empathy researchers are focusing is in hospitals and doctors’ offices. It makes perfect sense that healthcare workers should be a group of people who have empathy for others. There are some who do it much better than others.

I recently read a book about Appalachia coal mining called Soul Full of Coal Dust. The book is a deep dive into the trials and tribulations of miners trying to get black lung support. The coal companies would hire expensive attorneys who would then hire expensive doctors to refute black lung claims. One such doctor never diagnosed black lung in all the cases he reviewed. When interviewed he was steadfast that miners were trying to take advantage of the system. The system in which would give miners around $750 to $1000 a month. Even when shown the governmental standard slides for diagnosing black lung, he argued it was not.

In my opinion, this was a doctor who went to medical school for prestige and profit. This was not someone who had a great deal of empathy or even basic care for other humans. If there was a profession that I think should have the greatest amount of empathy it would be those that directly impact the life and death of others. So, it makes sense that researchers first focused on these professions when looking for empathy in the workplace.

The research is interesting as it hints that empathy is needed but may not be something that can be fully learned and accepted by all people. Instead, there are suggestions for how to standardize patient contact to create a feeling of empathy. There were ideas for frequency and duration of contact, methods of questions to bring out the needs of the patient, and methods for attentive patient care. In a broad sense, it was not learning empathy but learning how to engage with people on a human level. I found this interesting because in the business world empathy is not nearly as valued as in the medical field. Maybe there are some ways that we can use this knowledge to help create better leaders.

Have you ever heard a supervisor or manager tell you that about a hurt employee? Hopefully, you are aware they are telling the truth. When it comes to emotional intelligence you just can’t fix stupid, just like that supervisor has shown. They are emotionally ignorant. They have made a conscious choice to blame a worker for a problem they know exists and choose to not fix. That is a complete lack of empathy.

The word empathy usually invokes the thoughts of professionals and people who demonstrate an outward appearance of care and compassion. I think of doctors, psychologists, volunteers, clergy, teachers, etc. The truth is to be an effective leader EQ is as important as IQ if not slightly more important. In a leadership position, it is not about how much you know but how much you can help empower and equip others to accomplish a common goal.

Earlier in my career, I met a supervisor that told me as part of an accident investigation. “You can’t fix stupid.” I wish at the time that I had the insight that I do now. Honestly, though, I probably handled it better back then than I would now. At that time, I focused on the items that were in the supervisor’s control. I asked questions about maintenance work orders. I walked around with him and pointed out areas that needed repair. Certainly, he walked with me begrudgingly. I was not beyond the idea of taking him by the hand or sliding my arm around his elbow and gently escorting him. I think he knew that and chose to voluntarily walk rather than be led.

I was not going to change his mind about people. I was able to show that he would be accountable to his area and to assure that items were repaired and that he followed our policies. He was as emotionally adept as he was ever going to be. He was happy in his state of lack of empathy. As you can imagine, he was not an effective leader. He ran average shifts. He did not innovate. He did not inspire any level of greatness in his team. As the organization evolved, he chose not to. Thus, he was ultimately left behind and felt it.

In Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence, he states, “(those) who know and manage their own feelings well, and who read and deal effectively with other people’s feelings—are at an advantage in any domain of life.” Building empathy for those around you and in essence in the workplace creates a means of better understanding the most complex and most important part of any organization, its people. So when it comes to stupid, it’s probably best not to announce one’s faults and inability to fix them.

Today was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I spent some time reflecting on the changes I have seen in the workplace in my 20 years of HSE and HR experience. I am honestly excited about what I have seen and learned. Certainly in the space of diversity, equity, and inclusion, there is much more that can be done. Honestly, work in that area of organizations should never stop. I am, though, pleased with many of the improvements I have seen.

First, I am fortunate to have worked in organizations and with leaders who took DEI seriously. They knew that having different perspectives, thoughts, and backgrounds improved the agility and landscape of the location. I remember hearing once, “diversity is what comes in the door and inclusion is what we do with it.” Basically, they were saying that we can recruit for diversity, but that was not enough. We had to ensure that the voices were heard and accounted for.

When I first entered the world of HSE, personal protective equipment was built for a one-size-fits-all workplace. I am happy to see more and more PPE providers looking for ways to create a better fit for all workers. Again, it is not perfect, and there is a long way to go. It is positive to see that there has been a change. The fact that the manufacturers are thinking about a diverse workplace is encouraging.

I have seen the difference in an organization that prioritizes and values DEI. I am glad that there are more and more discussions at local and national levels on how to improve and accelerate DEI initiatives. On the day when we remember Dr. King, I openly admit that there is much that organizations and individuals can do (obviously myself included), and I am also optimistic that the current and future generations will keep improving.