Caring: Displaying Kindness and Concern for Others

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to hear Mark Breslin, a professional speaker, author and strategist (Breslin Strategies), talk about his approach to going beyond compliance in safety performance.

He made the point that the two most important things to people in the workplace are:

  • to be sincerely praised and recognized; authenticity is key
  • to be given the opportunity to make decisions; autonomy

People need to know that management cares. These important ideas are quite consistent with some of our ideas in Partner-Centered Safety.

construction safetyIn our Partner-Centered Safety realm, we go beyond this to having everyone (the people on the floor, the supervisors, the managers, and all the others) feel they are cared about. Caring means helping each other, listening to each other, sharing information, being respectful, asking for help and receiving it, looking out for each other, saying we are sorry when we make a mistake, and treating each other as whole persons. Just what caring means for people is something on which they should all agree. Management, alone, should not do it for their approach can often be quite patronizing – treating the people in the work place as if they are children. All the people, at all levels, together, need to come up with their ideas about what caring is for them. Management should not try to dictate the answers, but management needs to open up and lead this discussion about caring or it will not be addressed. Caring is visible; as is non-caring. Partner-Centered Safety is visible caring. Mistreatment of people is non-caring.

For example, in one plant making large pumps to fracture gas wells, there was a serious injury when a guy tried to hoist a 3,200-pound pump with a 2,000-pound rated overhead crane. The pump fell onto the employee’s hand causing serious damage. When I was talking about this with another man on an adjacent work table about 10 feet away, I asked him if he had seen what was happening. He said he had. When I asked why he did not stop the work, he said that he was not the other guy’s boss. They had never talked about caring and what it meant to them. This is certainly not caring! Being your brother’s/sister’s keeper was a foreign concept.

In another example, when we have bullies in the workplace, they cause huge destruction in shutting down communications. How can there be an authentic and caring atmosphere with bullies contaminating the environment by picking on people when they speak up and try to contribute. Sometimes, the bully is in supervision, which makes matters worse. Management must deal with them for they are extremely destructive. The culture is set by the worst behavior that is tolerated!

However, when the people all come together to talk about the various ways they want to show caring, treat each other, and agree on ways to work together, the culture quickly shifts towards one that is open, healthy, and where the communications can flow freely. This is the environment where there can be good learning, growth and progress towards safety excellence. This is the environment where people can talk together about their ideas, share opportunities to improve the work, and have the opportunity for making decisions about some of the things going on and how they are cared about and treated.

Visualizing the Future to Avoid Fatalities

Visualize the Future to Avoid FatalitiesIn my reading, studying and talking with many people, I have found that over half of the fatal accidents are often unanticipated and missed using our traditional approaches to accident prevention. The Heinrich Accident Triangle is very useful as we look at unsafe acts at the base of the triangle. Lots of slips, trips and falls are avoided as we do this.

But, many potential, fatal accidents don’t show up in this work. Only very few of the unsafe acts at the base of the triangle ever lead to a fatality. Why does a man fall from a cell phone tower when he has his fall protection harness on properly? Why does a man rush down the ramp to quickly fix something at the end of his shift where big paper rolls are stored prior to loading, when he knows the dangers of getting caught between the rolls and getting killed? Why does a man jump onto a large baking oven conveyor belt in a hurry to enter the oven before it is cool enough to do some maintenance and gets killed? These sorts of impulsive, tragic actions aren’t picked up in our normal safety audits.

Yet many of the reports of fatal accidents indicate that the conditions and impulsive behavior surrounding these accidents were obvious in hindsight. As people think about the fatality, they often see that, while the obvious conditions and impulsive tendencies were there, they were not in people’s everyday conscious thinking.

Often, the causal details are a mystery like in the situation with some of the fatal falls from cell towers and the workers have their fall protection gear all on but somehow they didn’t have it hooked up for a fatal moment. Or the man caught between the big rolls of paper or the guy who got cooked.

One possible approach to eliminating these sorts of fatalities is built on the belief that the people closest to the actual work are in the best position to see the obvious if they open their minds. Suppose that, once a month, the various work groups take 30 minutes to think about their work with the focus on identifying the conditions and work practices possibly leading to unlikely events and potential fatalities. Think about what work the people actually have to do to get their job done. They would open their minds to unlikely possibilities and see if there is something coming out of this that would alert them to a potential fatality. Including a few people from another work group with fresh sets of eyes would be helpful.

Here are some questions to consider:

  • Are there high pressures to get the work done quickly?
  • Do people just jump in impulsively?
  • Do the people talk about both safety and production and the need to do both well?
  • Is there information that needs to be shared that would help to prevent a potential fatality?
  • In your safety culture, is it okay to stop the job to fix a safety issue?
  • Are procedures gradually being changed that might weaken the protection?
  • Do people really trust and help each other?
  • Can you reach out to an impulsive person and hold him/her back?
  • Those closest to the work know their work and their work-mates better than anyone else and can explore the unlikely possibilities. Supervisors and managers should also be included and support this effort.

Once they have discovered a potential fatality situation, they could put together a team to focus on it and develop ways to eliminate or modify the conditions, behaviors and procedures that could lead to a potential fatality.

This important work should be shared with all the other people in the organization so that everyone can learn and improve. Keeping track of these disaster prevention sessions could become a leading indicator of the safety culture.

Complex Systems Safety Leadership Process©

Our work in helping to create injury-free work environments is complex.

There are three major areas of work that overlap to some extent. Depending on the work of the organization the emphasis may be different for the three areas of work.

Occupational Safety:  One area of our safety work relates to Occupational Safety. Here we experience acute incidents like slips, trips and falls. Some of these lead to deaths. This area of safety work has been around a long time and is well developed. The systems, process and equipment for this work are managed by those closest to the work itself. These are the operators and mechanics as well as the first-line supervisors and the safety people who are working with them. This work not only saves the people from injuries it saves the company about $40,000-50,000 per average OSHA Recordable injury. A powerful leading indicator I have found useful is the Safe Acts Audit which is a quick and simple way to asses the safety climate as it shifts around. This is not a punishment procedure.

Occupational Health:   A second area of our safety work relates to Occupational Health. Here we experience long-term, chronic problems. These can be related to low levels of exposures to toxic materials like asbestos, benzene and lead or repetitive motion problems like carpel tunnel syndrome and poor lifting positions. This area is newer than the Occupational Safety area and we are still learning a lot. As our workforce age, we will run into more Occupational Health problems. Often, by the time that we become aware of the problem, a large number of people have been impacted and the costs for remediation are very high, running into the millions of dollars. This work is best managed by those close to the work like operators, mechanics, clerical people, and health and safety experts. The leading indictors for this area of work are the discomforts experienced by the people doing the work, and also by researchers and experts who are studying large populations of people and can see trends and wider problems that are more subtle.

Process Safety:  A third area of our safety work relates to Process Safety. A lot of new work is developing in this area of safety. Here we have acute problems like spills, releases to the air and water, fires and explosions. There can also be chronic dimensions to this like very low levels of emissions to the environment that result in public health hazards. This area of safety work is best managed by the operators, mechanics, engineers, researchers and other scientists close to the work itself. When a Process Safety incident occurs the costs in terms of lives and money can be very, very big as British Petroleum can attest to. The leading indicators in this area of safety work are things like near misses and close calls. Leading indicators are also the adherence to standards like timelines to get things repaired, schedules, the reduction of backlogs on safety work orders, and timely inspections of relief valves and thickness measurements of vessels and pipelines.

leadership safety in the workplaceOverlap:  All three of these areas of safety are often lumped together as SHE, EHS or HSE. When we lump these all together we can miss things so I think it is useful to see these three overlapping, interacting areas of our safety and health work. There is some overlap between Occupational Safety and Occupational Health like the proper selection and use of respirators. There is some area of overlap between Occupational Health and Process Safety like preventing chronic exposures to toxic chemicals. There is some overlap between Process Safety and Occupational Safety like locating trailers and offices away from operating areas using large quantities of flammable and explosive materials.

There is also overlap among all three areas of our safety and health work. This is where the people issues and culture become important. Everything happens through people! We need to have strong, effective leadership in order to bring all the work together and do a solid job in this work. There are many safety consultants who are teaching leadership of safety using linear, top-down processes that do have a good impact. However, in my experience, these are hard to do, often cumbersome and very hard to sustain. This is because these people are trying to lead safety using linear processes that are suitable for complicated situations.

Interactivity:   All the interacting people and areas of safety and health are a complex system requiring different tools for successful leadership. Coming out of my studies of chaos and complexity science and my own experience in leading safety I have developed the complex Systems Safety Leadership Process©.

Complex systems often have a few simple rules that govern their behavior. The Three Simple Rules for The Complex

Systems Safety Leadership Process are;

  1. Share all information with everyone except private personal information.
  2. Build trust and interdependence among all the people.
  3. Help everyone see their part in and the importance of fulfilling the work of the organization successfully.

Building on these Three Simple Rules are the Four Steps to Safety Excellence which are:

  • Use the Process Enneagram© with the leaders of the organization to develop clarity, coherence and commitment to achieving safety excellence.
  • Together, walking around, openly talking and sharing information, listening, sharing and learning, fixing problems, improving the safety systems and processes and building on all the safety systems, processes and tools we already have to manage the safety work.
  • In doing this with integrity, we build trust and interdependence among all the people.
  • The result of this way of engaging with everyone results in having everyone pulling towards safety excellence and continuous safety performance improvement.

This may sound rather strange to many of you yet this is the process to lead all aspects of safety to achieve sustainable excellence in our performance. The work I did with the people at the DuPont Belle, WV and with New Zealand Steel mentioned in earlier blogs, show that this way of leading safety is proven, robust and sustainable.

 

Richard N Knowles, Ph.D., The Safety Sage

Update from the 9th Global Congress on Process Safety

I recently attended the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Spring Meeting and the 9th Global Congress on Process Safety in San Antonio, TX. About 2000 people attended this Conference. A lot of papers discussed the need to improve the safety cultures of our organizations. Others talked about the big safety challenges as the global demand for energy rises, as gas import terminals are converted to export terminals, the challenges of the complex technologies that are being developed and the difficulties of getting everyone, in big and small companies, up to speed and staying abreast of the exploding knowledge.

There were a number of papers on the Management of Change Processes and the more recently recognized Management of Organizational Change. These change process require skill, discipline and persistence to do all that is necessary. These Management of Change processes are a big challenge for the larger companies because of their complexity.

These are even more difficult challenges to smaller companies:

  • Many are privately owned
  • People function in multiple roles
  • There are not enough people to do everything
  • Money is limited
  • Information is often informally shared
  • Rapid decision making is common
  • They are unique and flexible.

All the papers I attended treated safety, its culture and the Management of Change as complicated problems; this is a big barrier. Complicated problems like an assembly line use linear processes; as each, in-specification part, arrives and is put into the assembly, a new product is successfully produced. Our training programs are linear in nature where each step is presented in sequence and the final result is a new skill that is to be used.

One author showed the Management of Change Process he was presenting as a sequence of 8 steps to be done one after the other with no feedback being shown. The presumption being that if each step is done correctly then things will be just fine. But usually things are not quite right, people forget, information gets misunderstood or lost, people don’t follow through as they are expected to do, so we have to train them again. This is all very hard and inefficient.

The linear tools of complicatedness are not the right ones to be using because the systems are complex systems.

Safety culture and the Management of Change are complex processes. The tools of complexity must be used. When we shift the way that we engage with each other, everything changes. The Self-Organizing Leadership© process is a tool of complexity. Information needs to be shared freely, trust and interdependence built and people need to see how they and their work are a part of the larger whole. These tools are vital to make the transition from complexity theory to practical application. The most important tool is the Process Enneagram©. It is the only known tool that helps people to solve complex problems, make the social connections they need to do the work and releases the emotional energy and commitment to do the work quickly and well. Beverly G. McCarter and Brian E. White write on p. 152 of their 2013 book, Leadership in Chaordic Organizations, ISBN 978-1-4200-7417-8, that “Richard Knowles’ Process Enneagram seems to be the missing link between complexity theory and practical application.”

When the tools of complexity are used all the processes of change become easier and move more quickly. People co-create their future. Resistance to change almost disappears. The changes are more focused, relevant and comprehensive. While the system is full of ambiguity and feedback making things richer and more comprehensive, the on-going dialogue serves to bring things together. As information is fully shared and trust and interdependence are built, the people come together co-creating their shared future and accomplishing their goals. The whole system becomes more coherent and effective.

Richard N Knowles, Ph.D., The Safety Sage

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close