Mark A French, Ph.D, CSP, EMT

Compassion, Consistentcy, and Continuous Improvement: Part 3

In the first two posts of this topic, I discussed the fact that a good safety system comes at the expense of hard work. Just like any habit or cultural change, it takes time, effort, and desire. I have never found the silver bullet approach to create a sustainable safety program. Simply stated, a robust safety program takes compassion, consistency, and continuous improvement.

This post focuses on the consistency aspect of the “3Cs of Safety.” Previously, I have touched on consistency as part of the Hierarchy of Safety Needs series. Consistency sounds so easy and yet is one of the toughest aspects of the program. I used the example of someone who is trying to loose weight. The first few days are full of energy and ability. Then comes the day where the person is tired and tempted. The choice comes to drop the diet and return to old habits. When the energy of a new program has diminished and the old habits seem easier and comforting, many return to those old ways. It is critical that with any safety system, that the progress is consistent and sustained.

An organization can be the same way with safety (especially with behavior based observation programs). The new program is rolled out, there is energy and excitement for the program. Then there is trouble keeping the system. There could be cost troubles, manufacturing troubles, quality troubles, or delivery troubles. The organizations make a decision to simply put the program on hold while they overcome the obstacles. Then there is another crisis of some form. The program is put on hold again, just until the issues are fixed. This pattern continues until the whole program is just a memory. It is easy to resist and avoid what is new and time consuming. Once the program is lost, it can easily appear that safety is just one more “flavor of the month” style program.

It takes consistency to keep a safety program functional. It keeping the programs going even when faced with other organizational priorities. Creating behaviors and positive cultures takes consistency in its practice. Again taking the example of healthy living, if the process is not kept consistent the gains will slowly or never be realized.

How can an organization keep consistency in the safety program? My first argument to this point is that the organization needs to hire a true safety professional. For example, a company hires an operations manager to keep a focus on operations. A company hires a shipping manager to keep a focus on shipping. A company hires an HR manager to keep a focus on the people resources. Why would an organization think that without a safety manager that they would be able to keep a sustained focus on safety. For a safety manager to be effective, they have to create a sense of consistency, technical knowledge, business acumen, and bring a true position of leadership. If a program has to the potential to slip or be less consistent, it is the duty of the safety manager to remind the organization of the its importance. There is also a duty to find ways to make the program more sustainable, consistent, and easier to implement. One of my big complaints of the safety profession in general are there are too many “safety cops” and not enough organizational leaders.

Consistency is vitally important to keeping a compassionate safety system on the right path and moving forward. A good program is only as good as the length of time that it can be sustained. If today and organization is going to put into place a program to protect employees, the employees should be able to with some certainty guarantee that the program will still be functional a week, month, year, ten years, etc. The same applies in reverse. An employee should know with great certainty that when a legitimate safety concern is raised, that the organization will address that concern with urgency, adequacy, and most important consistency.

Compassion, Consistentcy, and Continuous Improvement: Part 2

During my time as a safety professional, I have come to the conclusion that there are no easy routes to create a safety culture. There are so many gimmicks, sales pitches, online programs, and consultants that try to sell the easy safety approach.

“Decrease recordability by 35% each year” or “The method of behavior based safety” or “Incentivize safety to reduce injuries”

The real truth is that there is not a “silver bullet” approach to creating a real safety system. Just like any other habit or any other behavior, the process has to be learned and practiced. For instance, imagine someone who is overweight and eats unhealthy food. *Can I share a secret with you? This example is me. 🙂 * It is no easy task for this unnamed person to get up one say and suddenly each healthy and workout. The first few days may have some gusto and energy, but the process has to be sustained. After a few days of going through the motions this person might think they have created a new culture. Then suddenly, someone brings doughnuts to work. Oh this person can have just a bite of one and stop. Nope! Four doughnuts later the day is lost and since the day is lost, might as well have fast food for lunch. With that complete, might as well eat out for dinner too. The next day is back to old habits. A safety system is much like this same cultural change. The early efforts are noteworthy and full of energy, but over time the old ways can have a tendency to creep back in. That is why real safety change is so difficult for many organizations. They get a few wins with a new program, and they move on to the next. All the while, the system is eroding and the culture is slipping.

I have simplified my approach to creating that safety system with the “3Cs” Compassion, Consistency, and Continuous Improvement. This post is focused on the first of the Cs, Compassion.

Honestly, without compassion the other two Cs are inconsequential. The safety process will have a large single flaw without having a sense of empathy for the endeavor. Without compassion, an organization would have to ask themselves “what are we consistent with?” Compassion is the foundation on which safety is built. Some might argue that the fear of OSHA or fines would be enough motivation for a safety system. To that I retort that OSHA’s penalty system is antiquated and most time do not affect the overall profitability of most companies. Many of the companies that do create “safety” programs just for those purposes, the programs do not benefit those they should be protecting. It is only through compassion for employees that a real safety system can be created.

How did I come across compassion as my first key element of a strong safety program? There is a great article that was written by E. Scott Geller that was published in the March 2008 edition of Professional Safety. It was called “People Based Leadership: Enriching a Work Culture for World Class Safety” In this article, he compares traditional safety approaches with new methods of people approaches.

Traditional Safety:
Engineering
Enforcement
Education

People Based Safety:
Emotion
Empathy
Empowerment

In the people based safety methodology there are two terms (emotion and empathy) that both relate to compassion. It is through compassion that the foundation of a safety system can be built.

Why do we have safety programs? Because we care!
Why do we have to use the PPE? Because we care!
Why do we have to fill out these permits? Because we care!
Why do we have to lock this equipment out? Because we care!

I am not sure that there are any other good answers to the above questions. If an organization does not have compassion, the answer those questions above are a shoulder shrug and a “meh.” Without compassion a company may have instituted programs but they are followed or even encouraged to be followed. It is vitally important that compassion is a core principle of any safety system. Without compassion the safety system is paper in a notebook, not a functional program that benefits all those in the organization.

Compassion, Consistentcy, and Continuous Improvement: Part 1

Coming up in the fall, I attend my first weekend long seminar to begin the process of writing my PhD thesis. I am a little behind in taking this first class, but that’s what life will do to you. I am both excited and nervous about this first deep dive into the process of researching and writing the paper. My goal had duality when I began my PhD journey. I will first start with the more selfish reason why I began the process. I had just completed my MBA, and I was in a job where an internal promotion was available. I was never interviewed and at that point I thought, “What’s it take to get an interview around here? A Ph.D!” Two events stemmed from that experience: 1) I started a PhD program. 2) I found a new job.

Beyond my pettiness, the real reason that I began a PhD in I/O psychology is that it really interests me. There are not many researchers that are taking that deep look at the behaviors that drive safety compliance and safer behaviors. I wanted to start my journey of learning focusing on how to influence people so that they are safer at work and home. Now that I am at the part of the program and beginning the process of drafting my thesis, I am honestly a bit overwhelmed. When I start to craft the question that I want to explore further, it continues to get bigger and bigger. I suffer from a case of scope creep. I think of a good idea, then think of a dozens ways to expand it. I do this because I am concerned that my small scope research will not be good enough, and I feel that I need to solve a bigger problem. I keep seeking that silver bullet approach to creating safer behaviors. I want to find that amazing simple answer that everyone is looking for in how to transform an organization to one of safety excellence. The problem with that thought process is that it is faulty. There is one thing my years of safety experience has taught me is that there is no one simple answer to making an organization safer.

All the prior information finally leads me to the point of this post. The answer for a safer organization is really three big topics that are neither easy nor simple. What does it take to have a safer organization (the title gives it away): Compassion, Consistency, and Continuous Improvement. It is the combination of those three items that create not only create a safer organization but creates a better organization. Safety is so people oriented, that relatively small waves in the rest of the business can create big impacts. They are also not felt immediately. Good work in the organization pays off later in safety. It takes time for those changes to impact the influence of safety. Again, it reinforces why I am studying industrial and organizational psychology. It is the interactions between people and the organization that has the largest impact on the safety of the workforce.

In Part 2 of this series, there will be a deeper dive of what does compassion, consistency, and continuous improvement mean for safety. Unfortunately, they are not easy topics to define, implement, or quantify. These items take organizational excellence to accomplish, which would also explain why so many companies struggle with safety excellence. This, though, makes sense. If it was easy everyone would have mastered it.

Example of a Task Hazard Analysis

There are many ways to perform a pre-job safety brief. The best method is a Standard Operation Procedure (SOP). This method creates a formal documented way to performing the job, the PPE required, and steps necessary to perform that work. An SOP works best with a routine job where the safest method has been previous established. Certainly, though, revisions and improvements must always be encouraged.

A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) is usually a check sheet format that has those performing the work check yes or no to is the hazards are present. It would also create an opportunity to see if other permits such as Hot Work, Confined Space, Line Break, Trenching, etc would be necessary. It is somewhat of an intermediate between the THA and SOP.

The goal of a THA is to create a working set of steps that helps in identifying the hazards (think “what if”), and evaluating ways that would make the work safer through an organized task focused approach. The process works best in team as an individual might miss some key steps in the process. The team approach allows more than one set of view points to think through the process and have time to evaluate the potential hazards and steps necessary to limit risk.

As a disclaimer, most THA templates offer guidance through the use of check boxes to ask the used to consider a wide range of potential hazards and PPE that might be necessary. The example above is one in regards to breaking a job into detailed sub-tasks so that they can be evaluated.

Typologies of Safe Behaviors and Safety Programs – Part 7

This is the final post in regards to the the safety typology based on Baumrind, Maccoby, and Martin’s parenting styes. This posting will be shorter than the rest because it focuses on the high programs and high behaviors typology of Authoritative. This the goal of any parent/organization. There are high expectations along with high support to assure success.

“Even with high expectations of maturity, authoritative parents are usually forgiving of any possible shortcomings. They often help their children to find appropriate outlets to solve problems. Authoritative parents encourage children to be independent but still place limits on their actions. Extensive verbal give-and-take is not refused, and parents try to be warm and nurturing toward the child. Authoritative parents are not usually as controlling as authoritarian parents, allowing the child to explore more freely, thus having them make their own decisions based upon their own reasoning. Authoritative parents will set clear standards for their children, monitor the limits that they set, and also allow children to develop autonomy. They also expect mature, independent, and age-appropriate behavior of children. Punishments for misbehavior are measured and consistent. Authoritative parents set limits and demand maturity. They also tend to give more positive encouragement at the right places. ”

Exchange the word parents for the work organization and remove the references to children, Voilà! You have a well functioning organization. Here is a quick recap in terms of safety and functional excellence

1) High expectations
2) Empathetic
3) Find ways to help employees solve on-the-job problems (see The Toyota Way).
4) Has limits, buts wants exploration of better ways
5) Encourages give and take communication
6) Wants the organization to make good decisions based on experience
7) High accountability
8) Discipline is measured and consistent
9) Gives positive encouragement and feedback
10) Clear expectations

Is any organization perfect? No! An organization that reaches a point and feels they have done enough lives in folly. One of the key principles of keeping an organization vibrant is continuous improvement. The key of an Authoritative environment is that everyone is engaged in the improvement process. Each day the team as a whole is looking for ways to make small improvements that keep the momentum heading the right direction. An authoritarian typology is not only a great benefit to a safety system, but a great management system. When I read book like Built to Last, Good to Great, and the Toyota Way, they each detail different versions of an authoritative system. It is an organization that relies on each member of the team to make a contribution to improve the company.

Overall, the authoritative typology is where an organization should strive to be, but with the understanding that improvement never stops.

Safety in the News 6/13/15 – Summer Safety Tips

This week there was an article on Cal-OSHA and their struggles to protect farm workers from rising summer temperatures.

Link to the news article

Summer has started to bring some very warm temperatures, so I thought it would good to post some resources for summer safety and prevention of heat related illnesses.

The first step is to better understand heat related illnesses.

Here is the NIOSH Fast Facts on Heat Illnesses

The next step is to know the trigger points for when to take precautions when the temperatures are high.

Here is the OSHA complete guide to heat stress.

Here is a nice pocket guide from the Army in regards to work rest & fluid intake.

Here is the full OSHA technical manual on heat stress

Some of the more interesting literature for hydration and heat stress is in regards to urine color. Sqwincher (the industrial version of Gatorade) has a publication to detail urine color and how that relates to hydration. The typical “bathroom” humor around posting this chart goes something like this, “Hey SafetyDude, should we laminate these and put them on retractable lanyards near the urinals? *chuckle chuckle laugh laugh*” I just wanted to give you a proper warning if you choose to post the chart. 🙂 The good news is that they do grab people’s attention and bring awareness to the situation.

The Sqwincher Chart is linked here

A conversation about heat stress is not complete without evaluating other risks from sun exposure such as burns and the potential for skin cancer.

Here is a good resource about sunscreen.

Heat related illnesses at home and work are preventable. It takes planning and preparation to assure that there are protective measures, time and places to rest, and lots of fluids available. Too many times someone thinks that taking a break makes them seem weak or unable to perform a job. The truth is that high temperatures and improper protective measures can lead to serious injuries and even death.

One of the challenges in the summer (at least for my family) is keeping the kids protected. My kids are young and definitely summer children. They love playing in the warm sun, and they hate wearing much clothing. They are most comfortable in just their bathing suits. This means that my wife and I have to go on the offensive. We are constantly reapplying sunscreen, pulling them into the shade, keeping water bottles filled up, making them drink from said water bottles, putting hats on their heads, and trying to keep sunglasses on their faces. It’s tough! It is important to keep them protected from the hazard they don’t yet fully understand.

Here are some child safety tips for being in the sun

Typologies of Safe Behaviors and Safety Programs – Part 6

In these post, I am exploring how an organization would look based on high and low criteria of behaviors and programs. I find the outcomes to be very similar to the parenting typologies of Baumrind, Maccoby, and Martin.

This time I review the opposite approach of the authoritarian typology, indulgent. This is a safety environment where there are good programs but there is no accountability for overall safe behaviors.

For the parenting typology, “permissive parents try to be “friends” with their child, and do not play a parental role.The expectations of the child are very low, and there is little discipline. Permissive parents also allow children to make their own decisions, giving them advice as a friend would. This type of parenting is very lax, with few punishments or rules. Permissive parents also tend to give their children whatever they want and hope that they are appreciated for their accommodating style.”

This relates well to how the safety environment would function with an indulgent typology. It seems that the organization is attempting to avoid conflict by simply allowing to happen what will happen. There are few expectations set of how the organization should look and perform. It is interesting to see that the goal of indulgent parenting/organizational structure is to hope that by being given everything there will be an sense of appreciation and respect. Usually, the result is entitlement.

This typology is easy to spot during a reviewed. During the records and programs review, everything looks great. Written programs are in place, training well documented, and it is well kept and organized. Once the auditor steps into the work environment, none of those programs appear to exist. In the office a lockout tagout program is well written, complies with regulations, and has training attached. Then there is someone who is waist deep in a piece of equipment with no lock, no tag, and maybe not even turned off (the interlock works, right?). The auditor might ask what is happening and the response would be something like, “we got to this equipment back up and running.” or “we do this repair like this all the time.” or might ignore the auditor all together because no one has time for a safety audit while there is production to run.

This is one of those typologies where I look toward the safety person to see how their interaction with the organization creates this result. It could be that the safety department has no real or political power within the organization. The programs and training are all in place, but when a view of the operational environment there is no evidence that the programs are followed or considered. There are a few reasons that this phenomenon could occur. The first is that the safety department never leaves the office. They write programs. The perform training. They never go see how the programs could or could not be utilized where the work happens. Another consideration is if the safety department has a good relationship with the operational department especially the front line supervisors. The front line supervisors should be a safety professionals best friend. They are able to make sure the programs are actually working. They can provide feedback on what works and what can be improved. They can help with ideas of where improvements can be made. The front line supervisor, when truly carrying a safety banner, can make a significant difference in a safety culture of an organization.

In the case of an indulgent organization, there are reasons why the well written programs are not followed. Some quick check items to review:

1) Is safety a critical ideal of the senior leadership?
2) Do supervisors and employees have all the tools they need to comply with the safety programs?
3) Is the training relevant and adequate?
4) What types of audits are being conducted to report deficiencies to the organization?
5) Are the expectations clear enough?
6) Is there an understanding of the programs and how to use them?
7) Are there work rules that require the following of safety procedures?
8) Are those work rules enforced? How?
9) Are safety performance items part of everyone’s annual performance review? (Not safety metrics but deliverables such as audits, improvements, and observations).
10) Are safety committees functional?

These examples are some quick start ways to engage the team in creating those safety behaviors based on the programs.

During job interviews that I have been part of over the years, one of the common questions I receive is, “How much time do you like to spend on the shop floor?” Why is this questions asked? It is because those who are asking it have met safety people that simply want to write programs and never leave the office. As a safety person, I do rely heavily on the front line supervision to really make safety work. But I also have to be present to see how I can help make the programs better, easier to use, and to coach others on assuring the programs are working as intended. There is a level of support that has to be given to front line supervisors to assure they are successful in making safety a functional part of the organization.

An indulgent organization can be transformed relatively quickly compared to neglectful and authoritarian. The goal is to create purpose and accountability in the workplace through the programs and by the whole team.

Typologies of Safe Behaviors and Safety Programs – Part 5

This is a continuation of the thought experiment in the consideration of what does an organization look like based on two criteria, behaviors and programs. To make the process simpler, the goal was to view the process that an organization has either high or low behaviors and programs. This gives four options for how the organization can be classified. As the exercise continued, I began to see that that four types of organizations were very similar to the parenting typologies that are theorized by Baumrind and later Maccoby and Martin.

In this post, I will remain in the low program zone and move into high behaviors. This would be categorized as an authoritarian organization for safety.

According to the parenting typology, “authoritarian parenting is a restrictive, punishment heavy parenting style in which parents make their children follow their directions with little response. Children resulting from this type of parenting may have less social competence because the parent generally tells the child what to do instead of allowing the child to choose by him or herself. Children raised by authoritarian parents tend to conform, be highly obedient, quiet and not very happy.”

These traits can be transferred to the workplace. The biggest way to categorize this type of safety organization is fear. The company creates a strong sense of fear for failing to follow a safety rule. Rather than empowering the employees with programs, training, and interaction; it is all dictated with minimal clarity and heavy discipline for those that do not conform. Some other considerations of this type of environment would be how much turnover the organization sees. Fear is a strong way to govern (see Machiavelli’s “The Prince”). It is effective in keeping the organization structured, but people exit frequently (both forced and voluntary). This type of organization might pride themselves on how many people they have terminated for safety issues and claim that this stance shows great support for the safety endeavor.

In recent years, OSHA has been critical of safety incentive plans that focus alone on recordability and lost time rates. An authoritarian safety program would rely heavily on these types of programs. The goal is not to create good programs and learning environments, but to stop the reporting of injuries and hold individuals absolutely accountable for their own safety. Safety committees might exist, but they exist only as a check-in-the-box approach. They would have no budget or empowerment for change.

Overcoming an authoritarian culture begins with empathy and empowerment. The organization has to accept that there has be consistency in the programs. The programs also have to empower the employees to help improve and create those programs. When there is a sense of ownership, there also comes a sense of pride. The organization has to directly seek out input on how to improve the way the organization performs. It cannot simply be an act of collecting data and not creating action. The trends will be apparent. There will be a certain amount of pride that will have to be put aside along with an admission that the company may need input on how to improve the programs and that all the answers cannot be simply dictated to the employees. One of the largest hurdles that would have to be overcome is defeating the sense of fear and replacing that with a sense of accountability and ownership. Investment back into the employees is a great starting point,. Specialized training and employee input to programs will go a long way in moving the process forward.

Overall, an authoritarian environment must accept that program have to be in place to help gain consistency and fairness along with eliminating an overwhelming sense of fear.

Keeping Kids Safe Around Vehicles

There were a couple of local news stories this week that applies more to home safety than to occupational safety, but they both hit home for me. Both news stories revolve around children and vehicles. One involved a toddler being backed over while in the driveway. The other involved a child who had exited a school bus and was later struck by a car near his home.

News Story 1 & News Story 2

My deepest sympathy and prayers to go all those involved in these two incidents.

As a father/safety guy, one of my focuses (especially in the summer) is to look for the kids when I am driving. With more daylight, my kids are usually playing somewhere in the yard when I get home. From the moment I first reach the drive, I start looking to where they are and what they are doing. I have to start judging what they may do. This is much harder than it sounds. My son, age 3, has become obsessed with cars, trucks, tractors, and pretty much any thing that moves. He loves to run to the car or any other moving object when he knows the vehicle. That is to say he loves my grandmother on her golf cart, my wife in her car, me in my car, or my dad on the tractor. Its an interesting challenge to keep him from running to what he enjoys and is utterly fascinated with. I have learned to pull into the drive way, stop, and let him come to me. I will get out and bring him into the car with me to finish the drive into the where I normally park. If his is with me, I know he is not around me in a blind spot.

My daughter, who is older, has learned some of the basic safety tips for traffic such as: stop, look, and listen, stay in a safe area when people are pulling into the driveway, and to stay visible to those who are driving. None-the-less, I still have to watch. Even someone who is trained in the right safety processes can make mistakes. It is part of my responsibility to watch for her just as she is watching for me. Safety at home and at work is a partnership.

My wife and I also have a partnership in safety. We know to help communicate where the kids are when either of us are driving. When I pull in, if I don’t see the kids, she points me to where they are and will signal me if I should wait or proceed. I do the same if I am home with the kids and she is leaving or arriving. One of my key steps is to keep the kids in the porch or play area until my wife as come to a full stop, car in part, and engine off. I am sure my kids feel the process us obsessive, but it is necessary to assure their safety.

When it comes to vehicle safety and kids, it is so important to not create a fear of the vehicles but a significant respect of the hazard. Each time there is a moving vehicle, we hold hands and talk him through the right way to wait and watch for traffic. It is important that kids understand to stay clear, stay in place, watch, listen, and stay visible. Anytime there is an incident involving a kids and a vehicle, lives are changed forever.

For more information, posters, and safety tips about keeping kids safe around vehicles (LINK)

Also, it is good to note that the NHTSA will require cars to come standard equipped with backup cameras in 2018 (LINK).

Typologies of Safe Behaviors and Safety Programs – Part 4

These sets of posts started with the idea that a safety system has both behaviors and programs. The idea is to categorize what a system would look like if either were high or low. At the same time, I was in a developmental psychology course and started to see how there were similarities in the Maccoby and Martin’s Four Parenting Styles and the Baumrind’s Three Parenting Styles. As discussed in the three previous posts, the process for me to get from point A to point B may have been coincidence, luck, or something in between. I still found the theory interesting. I have conducted no research to formally support these thoughts. It is more of a thought game to be played based on behaviors and psychological theory.

In this post, I am exploring an environment that has both virtually no programs and no behaviors a.k.a Neglectful.

From the parenting aspect, the neglectful category scores the worst of the four in studies. It is also called “hands-off” parenting. “Neglectful parenting can also mean dismissing the children’s emotions and opinions. Parents are emotionally unsupportive of their children, but will still provide their basic needs. Children whose parents are neglectful develop the sense that other aspects of the parents’ lives are more important than they are. Parents, and thus their children, often display contradictory behavior. The parent and the child will never come to an agreement because the child will be resentful and the parent will show a demanding, with great authority side.”

In the safety example of programs vs behaviors, there are many similarities that can be theorized. Certainly, a work place in which there are no safety programs in place and the company and employees show no interest in creating safe behaviors, there is a recipe for disaster. These are companies that have catastrophic losses and extremely high injury rates. Because of the lack of safety systems, there may be many issues that go unreported until they do become catastrophic. In this safety environment when concerns are brought up, there is no concern or follow up. The company may provide basic PPE such as gloves, ear plugs, safety glasses, and locks for lockout tagout. But, there will be a lack of training and the PPE provided will be the most cost effective regardless of effect. Another indicator of a neglectful environment would be where earplugs are on a box fastened to a wall, but there has never been any effort to conduct sound monitoring or create a hearing conservation program. Another indicator of the neglectful environment would be that the PPE is provided, but no one is using it. The programs do not enforce the policy, and the people don’t care enough to try. There is no effort from either side. When there is effort it is short lived and has no follow through or sustainability.

In a similar fashion to the parenting style, the neglectful style is contradictory in many terms. There is never consistency. One day the safety glass policy is the most important event in the company. The next week, they can’t afford safety glasses but everyone needs to be wear ear plugs. The programs come in starts and stops with no sustainability considered for the process.

The greatest issue with this style is very similar to the parenting style: The employees become resentful and the company becomes increasingly authoritative with a heavy handedness for perceived behavioral issues. A good worker (high productivity) may never lockout a piece of equipment, but a perceived poor employee could be fired for an ear plug policy that has never been enforced. In the safety realm, this might also be considered the “flavor-of-the-month” safety program.

Neglectful safety environments are dangerous. There are little to no protections for employees. On the flip side, as a safety professional, I would not have to worry much about working for a neglectful company as they would never hire a safety person. They do not have a desire to change nor do they want to face the harsh reality that the lack of safety systems perpetuate the lack of safety behaviors. I could also theorize that in a neglectful environment quality of product, cost controls, and other basic systems are non-existent. They manage for the short term and hope for long term results. Sometimes in market rich environments, these systems can be sustained simply because the product or service is in high demand.

Overcoming a neglectful environment is difficult. For every year the systems did not exist, it will take 6 months to a year to build them and the culture that comes with it. For example if a safety system has been neglected for 10 years, it will take 5 to 10 years to build it. The key word is “culture.” The programs can be written. The training can be conducted. The critical step is that the company and employees have to keep investing in the programs until it becomes the way of doing business. There will be tests, trials, and revisions. The goal is to maintain the overall course of the change.

The first step is program creation, detailed training, and feedback systems. The focus should be on quick wins and those that gain big wins. A plan, do, check, act process works best with each program. Those programs that help eliminate the biggest risk should be at the top of the list.

The view is for the long term. The goal is to create trust in the work force, sustainability in the programs, and long term continuous improvement. It is a long road, but in the end it makes the company better and protects its people. Overcoming a neglectful safety environment can be done, but is has to be done systemically with a view for the long term.