Just Do This and Just Do That - Avoiding the Quick-Fix Mentality

In an effort to improve safety performance, organizations often find themselves seeking the magic bullet. Millions of dollars are spent annually by organizations on what Dan Petersen describes as "islands of safety". In other words, these are stand-alone programs that are believed (and even touted by some) to be the holy grail of safety.

It would be nice if someone could simply sprinkle some magic safety dust on an organization and make everything o.k. Unfortunately, no such wonder cure currently exists. Even more unfortunately, this quick-fix type mentality is virtually epidemic in most organizations when it comes to safety.

Forces both inside and outside of an organization often perpetuate such thinking.  Inside organizations there is often a strong desire to "throw money at the problem" in hopes of improvement. The thinking goes something like this: "If we throw enough money at it, it will get better and we can move on to other (more core) issues".

We often see this thinking in organizations that are reacting to a negative event such as; being removed from a bid list for poor safety performance, dramatic insurance premium increases due to losses, or severe OSHA fines for non-compliance. Following a negative event, organizations often set up safety training sessions, write a new safety manual, or implement some type of "new program". Once such efforts have been completed, it is typical for organizations to simply drift back to the way things were before the event.

Consultants, insurance representatives, and even OSHA officials perpetuate quick fix thinking. They often promote some stand-alone program as the organizational cure.  We refer to this as the just do this and just do that method.  Just implement accountability, do behavior-based safety, do job safety analysis, initiate a return-to-work program, implement drug testing, hire a safety director, train your people, start an inspection program, write a safety program, etc.  Invariably, organizations will either assign these duties to someone on the inside or hire outside help to implement these systems. And therein lies the problem---the pure reliance on programs alone to improve safety.

Most quick fixes rely on a program to cure organizational safety ills. On the other hand, we know that a major key to success in safety is the development and nurturing of a proactive safety culture. Unfortunately, many either don't know what it takes to shape a safety culture or simply think that by implementing enough programs it will somehow take shape on its own.

While systems/programs are one component, culture is also comprised of other components such as climate, leadership, structure and behavior. Yes, systems and tools are important and in fact do help to support and sustain climate and behaviors. But they are not in and of themselves the culture, nor the total answer and certainly not the panacea regardless of the tool.

Let's examine these components a little closer. Climate consists of perceptions held by both employees and managers in relation to performance expectations. Climate is a strong component of culture. It creates an invisible force or environment that strongly influences how people in the organization perform.

Leadership (or lack thereof) has a direct bearing on climate and behaviors. When leaders abdicate their personal responsibility for leading safety or simply delegate it to someone else because they are "too busy", no amount of systems will fix this problem. Ultimately, as decisions are made that are not congruent with all the talk about safety, leadership loses credibility in the eyes of everyone in the organization.

Organizational structure also plays a critical role in culture. Structure speaks loudly in regards to how safety is valued in the organization. For example, a common problem is safety personnel reporting to an operational level manager who is not accountable for safety. In this instance, safety becomes frustrated due to the lack of support. When employees see the safety's decisions or recommendations overridden in favor of production, schedule, or budget, the perception of safety as a core value deteriorates

The behavioral component of culture is critical. When systems are not designed to provide the right activators and the right consequences, they quickly become ineffective.  Lack of specific focus on the behavioral element is a serious mistake in safety.

Of all the components of culture, leadership is the by far the most important. Leadership directly influences all of the other components. This is why safety cannot be a hand-off to a safety person or department. Leadership must be directly involved in shaping a safety culture. Leadership shapes the climate, sets performance expectations, develops the structures, and ultimately creates the culture. Senior management must also be directly involved. In fact, if senior management does not desire and actively drive the culture change, it simply will not occur. A hard pill for many safety people to swallow is that a safety department cannot effectively change the culture. Safety staff can certainly be agents for change, but ultimately it requires senior management to champion, drive, and sustain the culture change.

In summary, there is more to safety than simply implementing programs and systems. The GET REAL message is that if you really want safety excellence, you must make changes in a holistic manner. Quick fixes alone will not get it done. Instead, focus on anchoring long-term changes within the organizational culture.

Mike McCarroll, CSP

President & CEO

PROSAFE Solutions, Inc.