The conviction a person has about human error in the workplace has consequences. There are at least three consequences resulting from these convictions which determine: i. what is tolerated; ii. what receives attention, and iii. the amount of effort applied to manage wrong behavior. That behavior which is anticipated will happen if it is no direct threat, or does not have any perceived consequence, namely, is not an immediate or short term perceivable threat, or becomes accepted if experienced more than once, and eventually is not even noticed.
In this limited research project of 19 people for exemplary safety behaviour, the one thing that was highlighted is that their convictions about human error drive their behavior. The essential differentiator between our exemplary example and the typical, normal, average manager is the conviction that accidents can be avoided, and that they have a personal responsibility in contributing to the safety of their workers. A conviction not found in the average manager.
Perception and Attention
The peak performers defined their role as that of reminding the worker of the “right way” when they drift. The worker “may just forget because they have many other issues about the work on their mind.” If the worker does it wrong a second time, or if it is noticed that there is a lack of understanding, then the discussion is more “corrective” or re-training maybe prescribed. During the behavioral observations of the exemplary examples the following was noted: They were more alert and responded immediately to minor accident prone behaviors than did the managers whose safety records were just adequate. This increased alertness of, and immediate consistent response to, minor adjustments to correct work behavior which may lead to an accident, was motivated by the two strong convictions that accidents are avoidable, and safety is a personal issue for everyone.
The average manager only pays attention to behaviors that will have a more serious consequence or bigger effect/cost and ignores the minor transgressions. A typical answer that was heard was this “that is what is expected, so I pay attention to the things that really matter.” When drift into failure is ignored; and risk adjustments are not made may possibly be the “blind spot” of the manager. When these risk adjustments become the new standard and adjustment are not made the trade-off for an accident becomes unavoidable.
Management Effort or Resilience in emphasizing “right work”
“There is always one person who only needs to corrected once, but then there are the 5000’s: who need to hear the same thing 5000 times. And because peak performers want their workers to arrive people home safely, they will repeat it 5000 times.” For them there are no let up on remaining alert to drifts into failure. They expect that is what the workers will do (i.e. drift into failure), but, because safety is personal and a powerful business driver for management, they manage right work behavior 24/7.
Another conviction that sets peak performers apart on safety is that good, effective, productive behavior is also safe behavior. This further underlines the fact that they hold to a 24/7 emphasis on working the right way. One company in the study has the following logo on their safety hats: “faster, better, safe.” In this way they think and talk about work and they do not distinguish between productive or effective work and safe work; it is one and the same thing. Unsafe work comes at a cost, and is an eater of profit, even if the cost is hidden elsewhere. The implications are that they do not hold “safety” meetings but only “operational” meetings. Safety exceptions are dealt with when planning the days work , or on the spot “huddles” are held do deal with the unexpected events and how it affects the way the work, for the interim, must be handled.
A manager from a South African company was responsible for the moving heavy equipment from one site to another. He believed that through walking and talking the new site through with the workers contributed to their 13 months LTI- free work period on that site. Daily the new site, and what it asks from a working perspective, was dealt with. But the walk-through on day one set the awareness and alertness for the differences that had to be factored in to do the job “faster, better, safe.” He did not consider the effort to walk and talk the new site as unnecessary, or too much trouble, since for him it was an investment in helping them to do the job right, to avoid injuries, and to avoid damage to equipment.
The effort to prevent drift into failure on a 24/7 basis is never questioned by safe peak performers. For them it is part of the investment to avoid accidents and for “their” people to go home the way they came to work. Following these two convictions is simply good business practice, as well as it is a fact that people do not need to be injured.
- This article was co-authored by Pieter van Wyngaard