Leadership and Change Q&A

The quest for an absolute fail-safe -– when none exists -– can make leaders more vulnerable to being sold a bill of goods, with wild promises followed by crashing disappointments.

• By Robert Pater
• Dec 01, 2012

I'm always interested in messages I receive, some of which ask for my take on a vexing problem. While I regrettably can-t respond to all questions –- and many are so unique that I'd need much more information before attempting a response -- I recently got one I'd like to share because it could be useful to many leaders. I've changed some of the identifying information to protect the innocent.

Robert,

I have been reading your articles for a few years, and I need some insight if you have time.

My response:

Thanks for writing.

1. First off, it's essential to set realistic expectations. I haven't found that any "time after time with no exceptions" proposed fix is realistic. Nothing works with all people all of the time. Even the best machines wear or break down (and people usually aren't as "reliable" as the best machinery.) I never think of Safe procedures or actions as "fail-safe" guarantees, but as putting the odds much more in favor of people not getting hurt or, at very least, of minimizing injury from "unavoidable" incidents.

While this may sound like splitting hairs, this shift in approach can make a world of difference in a culture that is past-focused, head-hunts/assigns blame to those who become injured and another higher-level culture that is forward-thinking and emphasizes continuous improvement (as in, "you can't change what already happened, only what might otherwise occur in the future.")

Further, the quest for an absolute fail-safe -– when none exists -– can make leaders more vulnerable to being sold a bill of goods, with wild promises followed by crashing disappointments.

I generally make the assumption that any time a "solution" to a longstanding problem seems "easy," it likely means I don't fully understand that problem.

2. Determining the roots leads to the treatment. In my experience, many LOTO-related and other safety problems are associated with:

• Complacency, variation 1 (as you've identified), where people default toward taking safety for granted, followed by prevention efforts hyper-ramping up after an incident ("locking the barn door...").
• Complacency, variation 2, an "external locus of control." That is, an over-reliance on machinery and procedures (that people may not even follow) to keep them safe. If/when something goes wrong, this can lead to anger toward management or to the safety function (professionals, safety committee members, etc.) with these attributed blame for the accident (as in, "It's their job to keep me safe.").
• Workers not seeing return benefits for effort expended. Persuading prevention is difficult because it tends to be accepted mostly by those already forward-thinking or wanting control over their lives. By far the majority of people aren't so geared toward prevention; you have to get their buy-in in other ways.
• The inability to direct/control their own attention. These are skills that can be learned, not merely just expecting or communicating the need for "will" or "Try hard" or "Just pay attention!", all of which are very limited. People tend to become distracted, are mentally pulled away by worries of all sorts, have a habitually flitting focus, etc.
• Mixed pressures, concerns that LOTO takes too much time or slows down work -– and more.

3. Some potential approaches (and no 100 percent "easy fix"):

• Move toward employee-driven LOTO and many other safety interventions (vs. safety professional- or safety committee-driven). Determine the range of reasons workers don't fully follow LOTO procedures. Do this in a no-blame atmosphere to elicit honest, dispassionate responses.
• Elevate near-miss/close-call LOTO reporting through interview and report-back (without embarrassing anyone, or you'd likely "win the battle and lose the war").
• Improve their autopilot "program" by providing tangible skills for directing attention that they find useful and of interest. These skills have to be simple to use and show them immediate benefits to what they do. The key is they value these skills, rather than drilling them with more procedures (that only work to a point and can result in pushback).
• Enlist the home connection. Bring in applications of LOTO off work. (Where does LOTO apply where they live? How can they use this to protect their family? How can they show/demonstrate LOTO to family members? etc.)

Obviously, anything you do has to fit with your specific culture, workforce, what you've tried. But I do know that trying to force compliance will always be extremely limited and often backfires, especially with an experienced or a younger workforce.

Best wishes,
Robert Pater

This article originally appeared in the December 2012 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.