Is safety “Help” Helpful?

• By Robert Pater
• Aug 01, 2024

Leaders are typically focused on making things happen. I’ve found almost all safety leaders to be well-meaning, desirous and dedicated to preventing bad things from occurring to others. But good intentions don’t always pave the way to change-effective plans and actions.

It’s good to reflect, “Is what I’m doing actually moving us to where we should be going?” Also, “To what degree have we been successful because of what and how we’ve done things versus in spite of our decisions and actions?”

 This reminds me of “Is Help Helpful?” a short essay by Jack Gibb, one of my organizational leadership heroes (Google him to learn more). Jack was a consistent proponent for relationships having to be built on a foundation of honesty and trust in order to successfully foster higher-level individual and organizational results. 

Embedded in his beliefs was that no single leader was the star and all others merely bit players. Rather, essential leadership functions were too numerous to be invested in any one person or even in a very small group, and the numerous elements necessary for shaping high performance had to be shared and spread amongst as many as possible. 

I’ve found this to be spot on; so much so it’s built into our global work that weaves a “scissors” cultural upgrade approach (both top-down management and grassroots-up change) to propel and sustain significant reductions in injuries. Why we prepare selected workers to first share new performance methods and strategies with their peers, following up actively conversing with co-workers in informal moments and then crafting ongoing reinforcements.

In his essay, Jack wrote, “People in the service professions often see themselves as primarily engaged in the job of helping others. Help, however, is not always helpful. The recipient of the proffered help might not see it as useful. The offering might not lead to greater satisfaction or to better performance.”

Though written decades ago, this is still highly relevant. Look at any of the recent “trust” indicators to starkly see that faith in management’s intent or abilities has been plummeting. For example, a recent annual Edelman’s Trust Barometer, was titled, “Failure of Leadership Makes Distrust the Default.”

So, I suggest it can benefit our mission to consider, “To what degree is our safety ‘help’ actually helpful?” High-mindedly, the answer might appear to be yes, but how is it actually received and responded to? Has what we’ve been implementing tangibly improved incidence and severity, or have we merely maintained a status that really isn’t “quo?” Do our plans and actions energize and sustain step-ups in the ways people more safely and effectively assess, decide and do tasks at work and at home? 

Or, alternately, is some of our intended “help” in fact disregarded and reduces leaders’ credibility, even turning others off to safety? Seen as busy work, theoretical or impractical? Or, worse, generate pushback? Even making it more likely some workers go out of their way to show how independent or tough they are by disregarding safety imperatives. Or are we sending mixed messages that confuse at best or torpedo receptivity at worst (“Get this out on time and take your time to do it safely?”) Or perceived as, “We’re basically concerned with how the company looks, not so much about you?” 

Because here’s the thing: In both leadership and personal economic terms, it’s what you get to keep that counts. Many “high-powered” leaders create pushback or disconnection, which detracts from their team’s achievements. In other words, their “leadership net worth” can only be measured after subtracting their “overhead” from what their organization accomplishes. Such leadership “operating expenses” arise from the resistance they incite, the presenteeism they “inspire” (where others do the bare minimum to cover themselves), the creativity quashed out of lack of desire to push past “the way we do things around here” or fear of being cut down for even considering crafting new or creative solutions. Then there’s the turnover of the most talented that some leaders activate.

The strongest leaders don’t just call for “personal responsibility” from everyone else, they exemplify this themselves. Considering questions such as: When we don’t get the positive reactions we were hoping for — in attention, interest and actions — what might have been our part in this? (Far beyond complaining about workers “not caring enough” about their own safety or being too “stupid” to understand?) 

Was the possible “disconnect” due to what we expected them to do differently? Were we asking for too big a change all at once? Did we not do a good job of getting across what the new procedure was to their understanding and acceptance? Or, alternately, was the way we communicated not persuasive, perhaps even turning some off, seen as parental or arrogant or dismissive? Or sending “superiority” signals such as, “We’re only doing this for your own good.” Are we assuming without question that we know what the others deeply want — or “should” want — and that this is exactly what we as leaders want (shock?) This is the polar opposite of neuroscientific studies that demonstrate that “choice confirmation” is critical for improving learning and sustaining changed actions.

I’ve heard from many HSE leaders that influencing safety can be frustrating. Harness frustration. When I feel stymied, and don’t understand why others, whose best interest I have at heart, are resisting (“What’s the matter with them? Why won’t they do what’s in their own best interest?”), I remind myself to stop, take a breath and ask myself, “In what ways might my intended help not be seen as helpful? Was it the specific procedure? The way it was delivered? What am I missing? How might I approach this differently?”

As Jack wrote: “Help is most helpful when given in an atmosphere in which people have reciprocal feelings of trust, openness and acceptance.” I’ve similarly found that joint discovery, problem-solving, and learning to be highly effective towards stimulating trust and change in safety performance with nearly everyone and nearly everywhere.

This article originally appeared in the July/August 2024 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.