Communication is about the who

My own arrogance gets in the way of my objectives much more than I would like to admit.

This post will take some time to explain. But if you make the journey with me, I promise that I will make a point 🙂

Throughout my career and life, a common theme continues to emerge. Yet, I always keep doing exactly what keeps causing me grief. And even knowing that today, I am not sure that I will really embrace the change.

In high school, I was in speech and debate. I was pretty good at it too. My real ability was to be able to BS. Give me a topic and watch me ramble on about items that were like the topic but not really the topic. I competed in two different categories. Both were limited prep speech processes. One was a formal persuasive speed (extemporaneous), the other was informal and more laid back (impromptu). I really loved impromptu. It gave me a lot of joy to talk about fun things of my own interest. The problem was that I wanted all my speeches to be impromptu. It was later in college when I went back as a coach and really saw the difference. My coaches in high school would explain and explain that extemp needed to be very fact based, formal, scripted almost. I always chose to do it my way. This limited me. I did well but never as well as it could have been. Why? I wanted it my way refusing to change my style to what the audience needed.

In college as a chemistry major, there were very different types of methods that I was taught. Quantitative, qualitative, and organic chemistry were very different in their approaches, even in the way they kept lab books and wrote up findings. In a typical me fashion, if I found one way of writing something up that I liked I kept using it. I would just write it like I wanted to. My professors would comment on my writing style and try to guide me. Again, I wanted it my way.

In my first safety job, I would write reports and send emails just like a scientific write up and then wonder why no one read them. I had to have it my way. Eventually, I learned better, but I was slow to learn that lesson (and still am as you will see).

When I began work on my masters in business, I wrote my papers just like a scientific paper. Again, I did good but not great. I had to learn to write based on the topic. A statistical review is (or should be) different from a leadership case study.

In another job, I became interested in safety training. I took on a mentor as part of a company program. I deliberately wanted someone in instructional design. I was paired up with an amazing person, who again, made me focus and reflect on not only what I needed to say but who I was saying it to.

My greatest challenge was my dissertation. It was an APA format paper. During the many, many revisions there were parts of the paper that continually gave grief to my mentor, my committee, the department chair, and multiple editors. I kept wanting to cite safety information as part of the work. From a psychology perspective, it confused those not in the safety field and was very hard to format. I, being a tenured safety person, refused to change that information. Quick sidebar for background: The dissertation format was 5 chapters. Each chapter was reviewed and revised between 2-4 times. My full dissertation of all chapters combined was on revision 11 when it was accepted for publication. What made revision 11 so different? I took out the safety citations that did not add real value to the psychological study. I could have potentially completed the work sooner if I had just not been so stubborn about communicating the way I wanted. What is even worse is that my dissertation was about creating meaning in safety training. The findings pointed to making the information pertinent to the employee. Evidently, I struggle to learn from my own work. 🙂

Why have a blog? Because I want to communicate the way I want.

That was a really long story to make a simple point. One that I still struggle with everyday. Before your next email, training, talk, or paper take a moment to really consider your audience. Is this what your audience needs to hear? Is it what they expect to hear? Is it something that makes sense to them? Is it meaningful for them? Will it have meaning for them? Are you delivering it in a way that helps them see the meaning in your communication?

The Evolution of Safety Auditing

There are many ways that safety programs are audited and evaluated. There are some that are internal to the organization or site and there are others that are used external. Some companies use the idea of intra-site auditing where safety people from other sites perform a documented audit on another site. Year-over-year there are rotations among all the sites. The other choice is the organization chooses to hire an external auditor on a contract to perform these evaluations. There are also opportunities to leverage the organization’s loss prevention or insurance company to assist with performing or coordinating audits.

As a safety professional, it is easy to enter a site an find multiple unsafe behaviors or conditions. From a strictly technical standpoint, there are always opportunities for improvement. The reason an audit should be conducted is to get an idea of where the total compliance attitude sits on the organizational scale. Getting lost in the trees and forgetting that the forrest exists does not create benefit.

Regardless of how an audit is performed, there are some basic items about an audit that gives indications about the performance of the audit team, the site behavior, and the organizational culture. I have created a scaled list of how an audit should give insight to the organizational compliance.

Poor performance = few findings. High complexity

When a site is still developing the audit should be focused on big ticket items like: creating a lockout program, training employees on hazard communication, performing personal protective equipment surveys, and creating written programs. Inundating the site with lists and lists of detailed items is not helpful in this phase. They should be focused on simply developing programs. It is the idea that something is better than nothing. The natural cycle of continuous improvement will help the details become addressed.

Medium Performance = high findings, low complexity

When a site has become the typical performing organization, the transition begins to see more punch list style items. Depending on the overall performance of the site, this will drive the number of those items. The major items of program creation are gone. In their place is a list of items that need to be completed to enhance compliance such as labeling specific bottles, updating placards, and

Good performance = Few findings, low complexity

One of the best auditors I know has three categories of findings that he creates as part of his process:

Nonconformities are findings where the program is not implemented or not followed

Deficiencies are where the program is in place but there are elements that are not up to the standard

Opportunities for Improvement are where the auditor finds ways that the program can be improved and is fully in compliance.

A good performing plant will be mostly focused on the opportunities for improvement. The complexity will be low, there will be minimal findings, and the goal is to keep the momentum rolling. The site has many good aspects of the program, but even a good program can go bad if it does not seek continuous improvement.

Overall, the process of auditing is value added when it is properly scoped, controlled, and helps create improvement in the process. The sake of auditing for auditing sake is overall a losing prospect. The audit program should have a governing policy and process that should be followed. There should be a defined outcome and mission statement for the audit. It is through planning and a focus on improvement that the audit program brings true value to a safety organization.

Safety: Behavior or Motivation

I was recently at my final residency. Part of this process was to complete my dissertation research plan. The discussion around my topic about safety was talking about the theory behind the process of safety psychology.

 
On a complete side note, I did learn that with a qualitative research plan the theory is really something that gets built into the process as the research is conducted and not as a basis like quantitative research.

 
Back on topic: One of the discussions in my group was if I was studying behavior or if I was studying motivation. This whole discussion turned my thoughts upside down. Since I first began in safety over twelve years ago, I have been told that changing people’s behaviors was the ultimate goal of the safety professional. What if for all this time, I really should have been seeking to create motivation not change behavior. Mind blown!

 
With this new way of looking at how safety should be integrated into a organizational culture, it begins with the most simple thought: why do people need motivation to be safe? The over simplified answer is that going home whole should be enough motivation for anyone. Yet national statistics show that there are still 4,500 people a year that never go home to their families at the end of the work day. There are still too many people needing medical attention just by going to work. The real answer is much more complicated and infinitely more varied.

 
When evaluating motivation for safety, I personally subscribe to the Mazlow’s Hierarchy model. I feel this explanation fits the Occam’s Razor approach of being the most simplified and easiest to understand. The hierarchy shows that safety is the second key motivator of people. The first motivation is physiological: food, shelter, warmth, etc. In modern society, this need is met by having a job and affording a place to live and food to eat. So, the motivation for someone to have a job to meet their physiological need is greater than their motivation for safety. In my experience, this holds to be generally true.

Looking deeper at the motivation of the workplace, the comparison of the major metrics of business is safety, quality, delivery, and cost. Employee’s get very different messages when it comes to these and how they are motivated among them.
For example:

The site is able to have zero quality defects for a day = A reason to celebrate and congratulate

The site is able to meet all production targets for a day = A reason to celebrate and congratulate

The site is able to meet all cost metrcs for a day = A reason to celebrate and congratulate

The site is able to have zero safety incidents for a day = An expectation of the job
Another Example:

An employee misses their quality target = They are disciplined which attacks the physiological need.

An employee misses their production target = They are disciplined which attacks the physiological need.

An employee misses their cost target = They are disciplined which attacks the physiological need.

An employee misses their safety target = Probably nothing happens. They have found a work around to potentially help compensate for quality, production, or cost. They are seeking the most primal motivation of the physiological need.

Additionally with safety, the unsafe action statistically will not lead to an immediate injury. Someone could perform an unsafe act multiple times that would not lead to a direct injury. The more the act is performed, the more the individual becomes accepting of the risk. Ultimately though, risk will create a hazard and potentially an injury.

 
All that said to simply summarize that this whole time I have been wanting to change behaviors when really I need to be seeking to create motivation. As a safety professional or as a supervisor or as a manager, what can we do to create the motivation for our team to go home injury free? There is no simple answer. There is no silver bullet approach. Even though it is not all about behavior, there are cultural components and norm setting that has to occur to create that motivation for the team.

 
So here is a closing thought exercise: Look at the way your team is motivated and the systems that are in place to motivate, what behaviors and culture is it creating?

The 5 Principles of Root Cause Analysis

I have been very fortunate in my career to have learned to perform 5-why or root cause investigation in various industries and using various techniques. This knowledge from automotive, Japanese automotive, food manufacturing, chemical, and nuclear as a facilitator of RCA has given me a very unique perspective of how an effective investigation is conducted. Across all the various methods and industries, I have found there are five very important aspects of RCA that a facilitator must have to drive a successful root cause and corrective action.

1) Time
Too many times, the RCA was just another item that had a very short deadline along with dozens of other items that everyone had to get done. What this led to was a fast and easy RCA. The team or sometimes individual would look for the obvious and easiest answer to the problem that was at hand. Many times this led to the answer of human error and to conduct a retraining of the process. This was fast, simple, and cost the company no money. This was the perfect way to close the investigation. The only problem is that the training was never sustainable because the team never had the time to really find the real root cause.

The best practice is for the management team to let the facilitator know that the most important task they now have is to really seek the true root cause. That is not only for the facilitator but for anyone who the facilitator will need to complete the investigation. If there are employees, supervisors, or even managers; they should be made available with ample time to work with the RCA team to answer and participate in the process. 

If time is not given to the team to do the task, the process will immediately breakdown. There may be corrective actions that are found and implemented, but they will be as short lived just like the time spent performing the RCA. Not to say that an RCA should take an unlimited amount of time, but it should be given the time priority of the team. It should be the priority to find and prevent the incident from happening again, especially when finding ways to keep people safe.

2) Access
The team must have the resources available to make the right decisions. Of course, there are some things that the team should not have to need to have access too. There are times, though, that the information is not provided in which they need to perform the work. 

Access is a very broad term, but it includes items such as data, recreation photos, ability to go see the area, ability to interview witnesses and read statements, and access to those who can aid in the investigation. I found in the chemical industry in particular that there were some key people who had strong knowledge in certain areas. It was those people that we needed access to so as to really understand the complexity or background of an issue.

The RCA team should be able to make requests and have those granted in a reasonable amount of time. It is important that the team and organization knows that the RCA team is to have access to what they need to find the best root cause.

3) Data
Data seems like a no brainer when it comes to performing a RCA, but too many times this is the part that is overlooked. I remember a metal assembly laceration that I was facilitating. The ruling thought was that too much weld oil had led to the part being dropped and causing the laceration. What we really found was that the rack that held the part was not built to specifications and had an awkward angle that led to the potential for a weak grip. We only got lucky and stumbled on that information when a maintenance person told us about the reported issues with that assembly.

We almost missed a key point of the RCA by assuming we already knew the answer. We were not seeking data. We felt we knew. That is why the data gathering step of any RCA is so important. Some of the data will be useful, some may not be. The key is that you will not know what is and is not useful until you have it all for evaluation. The team should have the data and be able to use it appropriately. 

4) Independence
One of the critical aspects of being an RCA facilitator is having independence to be factual and based in reality. Sometimes, it is hard to admit there is a problem with a system or process. The facilitator has to be able to report that without bias, without showmanship, without personal opinion, but with total certainty that it is the truth. I have seen good RCAs go bad when a management team wants to “review” them before publishing. These little tweaks to the process take away the credibility of the work and sometimes gloss over the real issues of the organization.

This is also a deeper topic about the culture of organization. Are you in an organization that wants to learn or are you in one that wants to blame?

High blame = low independence

High learning = high independence

The RCA facilitator has some influence over this, but this is really a much larger cultural process. It is necessary, though, to allow the process to freely flow. Once people see that the process clouded by political judgement, the faith is the process is lost. This creates a significant degradation in the RCA process and corrective actions that are effective.

5) Training/Expectations
RCA is not common sense and it is not something the people learn on the fly. It is absolutely necessary that RCA facilitators are educated on the processes and procedures of the organizations investigation expectations. In my experience, I have always asked to be trained in the company’s RCA process. Some use the fishbone, 8D, charting programs, is is-not, 5-Why, and others. Those who perform the process need to know what process to follow.

The best way to comply with the expectations is to write them in a procedure. This creates the standard for the way the RCA process should work and the standard that the process will be graded to. It sets the groundwork for having a strong team and being able to benchmark when there is turnover. It has always been a relief to be able to come into an organization and find a procedure to explain the investigation process. This helps in giving clarity and streamlines the training. The key is to assure that the program can be sustained. A procedure helps to do that.

RCA facilitation can be a complicated process. There are ways, though, to make it an easier and more efficient methodology. Through making sure that the basics are provided for the team, the process will then drive a good solution. The goal of any RCA facilitation is to learn, correct, prevent, and improve. It is through allowing the facilitator to have time, access, data, independence, and training that this can be accomplished.

Nature and Nurture in Safety: Part 6

What happens when a person with a high tolerance for risk joins an organization that creates a culture of profit before safety?
Nature + Nurture = Outcome

Negative + Negative = Danger
A high tolerance for risk is not a bad personal trait. It is part of who that person is. The problem can occur with they are placed into an organization that has no priority for behavioral safety. Suddenly, the process to make the supervisor happy or to get accolades from the company is to get the job done faster, cheaper, and with fewer resources. This creates danger in its highest form. Imagine a company that chooses to save money through not performing training, chooses to no provide the tools that are needed to do the job safe,and chooses to push employees for more. In some cases that creates burnout and a complete lack of employee satisfaction. 

For those who lack the experience to know the expectations that should be in place for occupational safety this is a dangerous process and creates excessive and unnecessary risk. Again, defining safety nature as negative is not saying someone chooses to get hurt. It is simply a state of being, unknowing, or acceptance/tolerance of higher levels of risk. Once of the great dangers that of new workers. They have not been trained on the basic principles of occupational safety and so they are reliant on the company to provide that information. In the case of a company that has a negative safety culture, this set the stage for disastrous results.

Kristina Zierold of the University of Louisville has performed some really nice research on teenagers entering the workplace and the hazards associated with their work. In brief her work showed that teenagers when entering the workforce thought that any on-the-job training was the same as safety training. Much of the training was either observation of the job they were to perform or videos. This left teenagers in a risky situation without the knowledge that was needed to perform the work as safely as they could. This shows the risk that comes from not having a good safety nature and entering an organization that has a negative nature. 

It is necessary to provide the proper training to those as they enter the workforce and even as early as school. It is necessary to create a culture of safety as early as possible. Creating a natural safety personality is not really that natural. It comes through learning and experience. 

Nature and Nurture in Safety: Part 5

When evaluating what is considered a negative behavior (nature), it suits to first define that aspect of safety behavior first. This is not to imply that people got to work and choose to get hurt. This is far from the truth. There are those, naturally, who have a much larger acceptance of risk. They do not see the inherent danger that is associated with tasks in the workplace. When using the term negative nature, it not to create a connotation of a terrible employee who is seeking unsafe work or has a desire to get hurt. The truth is that this person may not have had the experience to lead to proactive safety measure and has a higher tolerance for the acceptance of personal risk. 

Nature + Nurture = Outcome

Negative + Positive = Emerging Safety
As an example, a positive safety nature would be akin to always following the speed limit while a negative nature would be to always drive 20+ over the speed limit. There risk is perceived as different with various levels of acceptability.

In the case of a negative safety nature (behavior) combined with a positive safety nurture (organizational culture) it is the “why” that matters most.

This is someone who has not seen the purpose of the safety programs in past is looking for the aspects of why these new rules or processes are going to add value to them. The use of case studies, real life examples, and the basis for how the risk is real creates value to those who have not had that exposure previously. 

This whole process creates an opportunity for the individual to having an emerging safety experience. They were unaware of the risk and that the risk can be further minimized to make sure they safe. The why is what matters most. They need to know that the risk is not worth it. They should understand that the risk is real, and the cultural expectation is that the risk is avoided through the use of the programs and procedures that are in place. 

The goal is that there is an awakening of individual safety accountability and a desire to take that new knowledge home with them. It is through the application of the newly learned safe processes that the individual can take that information home to use it in a way to create intrinsic value in their personal life. Safety is one of the few key processes in the work place that also creates a great value at home.

There are some practical application of quality and production processes at home, but safety is the one that can make a biggest impact for the employee at home. The ability to prevent fires, use a ladder properly, prevent electrocution, avoid falls, know about chemicals, etc. etc. etc. creates real value at home not only for the individual. These are skills that the employee can teach their friends and family. This is where safety creates true and last value through an emerging safety process.