Safety Collaboration: How is Your Organization Doing?

No doubt, collaborative organizational approaches are designed to increase productivity, quality and safety performance. In fact, in many cases, "collaborative involvement and decision making" at the customer and production level have become a competitive necessity. Among the many approaches to improving safety performance, "active involvement" must be viewed as a critical construct. Intuitively, participation and collaboration seem sound. But have these concepts been researched and tested?

The work of Kurt Lewin was instrumental in this regard (Lewin 1947, 1951, 1952; Raven 227+). In his study of interpersonal conflict, Lewin observed that teachers influenced their students in one way, but that these students were being pushed/pulled in the opposite direction by peer pressure.
He extended this reasoning to group dynamics and subsequently discovered that in these "push-pull" situations, where an authority attempts to influence someone against group pressure, it was more advantageous to present the reasons for change to the group (rather than try to affect change via an individual). The group could then discuss the possibilities and arrive at decisions for action. This was found to be particularly effective if the group's solutions were similar to (or as good as) those offered by the manager trying to initiate change.

Coch and French expanded Lewin's research to test participative approaches in a manufacturing environment. The focus: increased productivity. Their work supported Lewin's research. They found:
1) When management simply told workers what changes should be made without first involving them, employees adhered to group standards instead - in effect resisting management's desires. This produced a hostile work environment and created a frustrated workforce.
2) When mutual participation led to "group decision making," employees accepted change more readily - it became an internalized component of their decision-making process. Management was not viewed as a dictator; rather, its participative influence was seen as that of a friend. As a result, production improved (Coch and French 512+).


BENEFITS OF INCREASED COLLABORATION

Several dynamics occur when actions and attitudes are the focus of the change process "with participation being key among them." Several benefits can be realized via collaboration. Greater "upfront" acceptance as the result of group decision making increases the quality of work. Cooperation and participation set the stage for further collaboration. People begin to anticipate success and look forward to working together. Mutual respect and open dialog follow. A greater sense of community and corporate citizenship develops. People recognize that they must work together, so they consistently strive to build relationships in which reciprocation is a priority (Sarkus 26+).

The force and effectiveness of the "collaborating group" overcomes individual pressures to disrupt changes that the group has already accepted. In other words, the force of the group can propel it through individual forms of resistance. Group-oriented work fosters positive relationships and builds trust. Members begin to understand that the "inter-related work" of others in the workplace helps them reach individual and collective goals.


PRACTICAL COLLABORATION

1) When implementing a change process, how can safety professionals use active involvement to the benefit of all workers?
2) In behavioral approaches, target behaviors can be defined by groups of people--the more employees who contribute the better. These behaviors become the norm that the workforce has established--they are no longer the "rules of management."
3) Behavioral approaches should involve as many peer observers as possible. Regular "informal coaching" (feedback that occurs when trained observers are not at work) should be encouraged as well. In many cases, supervisors should not serve as "formal observers" because they may be perceived (by employees) as figures who could act punitively rather than positively. Instead, supervisors should be facilitators, helping peer observers overcome resistance to change.
4) Action and activity-based recognition and rewards should also be developed via collaboration. They should reflect the workers' ideas and be meaningful to the group.
5) Encourage group discussion and employee input during the kickoff session and all regular meetings. Look at group members as true advocates - they can use their personal appeal to influence others, especially if these individuals are trusted.Efforts that are designed to clarify goal-setting or progress toward some objectives should be inclusive as well; again, involve as many employees as possible.
6) Some personal "storytelling" activities about how a work-related injury was avoided (or how someone became a safety "champion") can influence behavior and attitudes - especially when the stories are recent and relevant.
7) Seek employee input when considering equipment improvement, ergonomic changes or new personal protective equipment. Employees know the work environment well and can contribute to design changes and related improvements.
8) Role-playing exercises that portray specific safety procedures (i.e., lockout/tagout) are valuable as well. Such activities can positively influence a broad spectrum of actions and attitudes.


CONCLUSION

Even though the seminal work of Kurt Lewin is some 50 years old, it still remains as insightful as it is practical with regard to participation and collaboration. Despite this, many firms continue to struggle with participative approaches. How is your organization doing?

(Adapted from Professional Safety, October 1997)


REFERENCES
Cock, L. and J.R.P. French Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to Change." Human Relations. 1 (1948): 512-532.
Lewin, K. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." Human Relations. 1(1947): 541.
Lewin, K. "Constructs in Field Theory." In Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, D. Cartwright ed. New York: Harper, 1951.
Lewin, K. "Group Decision and Social Change." In Readings in Social Psychology, G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley eds. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952.
Raven, B.H. "The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments." Journal of Social Issues. 49(1993): 227-251.
Sarkus, D. "Servant-Leadership in Safety: Advancing the Cause and Practice." Professional Safety. June 1996: 26-32.
~~~~~~~~

Working Through The Safety Change Cycle

In 2004, I wrote a fun and enlightening book that walks and talks the reader through a cycle of safety-related change.  I modified Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ work which takes everyone though a journey of denial, struggle, examination, and commitment.  It’s a book that uses four main characters on the journey and reveals how people can work through each of the stages or cycles of change.  If you are looking for a fun and informative way to help your leaders embrace and work through your next safety-change process, please follow this book link.

Below is the Foreword from Dave Johnson, Editor, Industrial Safety & Hygiene News.

What David Sarkus gives us in these 120 pages or so is a clever modern safety parable. Sure, it's about an organization going through change. Employees are uncertain about where they stand and what happens next. Trust is in low supply, and the employees would rather just be left alone. Sound familiar?

We can all relate. David's short tale is deceptively simple, though. It's fun to read, no doubt, and you can go cover to cover in an evening. But don't miss the layers of lessons that lie beneath the easy — flowing dialog.

In 2000, Malcolm Gladwell wrote The Tipping Point, a national bestseller describing how small word-of-mouth buzzes can grow — or tip — into mega-trends. Well, David's story shows how an organization tips the scales in favor of safety. How you can create a safety "epidemic" — to use Gladwell's term — that spreads through the workforce. One of the lessons David shows us is that it's not the plant safety director's job to tip the scales, lead the charge, or infect the workplace with an enthusiasm for safety.

Kandu Corporation aims to create a cultural revolution, a culture of positive change that will be healthier for employees and the company. That's too big of an assignment for the "safety man" or "safety woman." The Tipping Point explains that you need the help of Mavens, Connectors, and Salespeople. In our story here, the safety director is the Maven, the technical expert who lends ideas, solves problems, and provides direction. All the main characters are Connectors. They've worked in the plant for years and have built well-connected networks of friends. Connectors are essential to transmit your safety message; they're agents that spread the safety epidemic. Finally, Connie Committed, the main character, is the indispensable Salesperson.

Through Connie, David shows us one of the bottom-line truths of safety — it's largely about influencing. Selling. And through Connie, David provides us with many of the attributes needed in a champion for safety. Connie is honest, upbeat, candid, confident, sharing and open. She's got guts and strong convictions. She can admit to her shortcomings, invites opinions and even dissension, and she wants to listen. One of Connie's strongest traits is her empathy. She senses what others are thinking. Dan the resister calls her a mind reader. Empathy is essential to furthering the cause of safety. Finally, Connie is thorough. She's very observant of others. Does her homework and research. Knows what she's talking about. And has a great sense of humor to boot.

You Can Champion Change! also gives us lessons in human nature, lessons we all can relate to and apply to the very people-oriented work of safety. Yes, people are always comfortable with the way things are, especially when there are no serious problems. Yes, change never comes easy — it's difficult, inconvenient, and frustrating. “People hate it”, as one of the characters says. And yes, it pays to be positive. Catch people working safely and commend them. Rather than slam them for taking a shortcut or ignoring a procedure, correct them. Coach them. The tone of David's book, along with some of the safety ideas and events, point to another truth of safety — You've got to have fun.

To me, the most valuable lesson of You Can Champion Change! is the power of conversation. From beginning to end, the book gives us a series of down-to-earth conversations, all about safety. To paraphrase one of the characters: "We want to talk about safety in everything we do."

A plant can have the best machine guards, ventilation systems, safety rules and training programs. But safety doesn't become a matter of habit and doesn't settle into an attitude unless everyone is talking about it every day. On almost every page of this book, the characters engage and encourage each other about safety. They probe and ask questions about safety, about feelings and concerns regarding safety. And they listen.

So how did David develop his ear for dialog? Back in the late 1990s, he wrote an article for my magazine, Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, where he introduced the characters Joe and Willie. Joe and Willie were named for two grunts popular in Bill Maudlin's famous World War II cartoons in the Stars and Stripes News. David captured their earthy spirit and applied it to workplace safety experiences. That's when I first thought David might head off to Hollywood to write scripts instead of being a safety speaker and coach. It wasn't long after that I offered him the job as ISHN's Technical Editor, doing my part to keep him in the safety field.

I think it's in David's blood to connect with working folks. His dad worked for U.S. Steel in a mill outside Pittsburgh for decades, then became a record-setting door-to-door insurance salesman for the next 20 years. David's success as a safety speaker, author and coach comes from that same feel for people, empathy and a sense of conviction.

Just read You Can Champion Change! and find out for yourself.

Dave Johnson
Editor
Industrial Safety & Hygiene News

“Not-Invented-Here” Debilitates Safety Advancement

Many of us have been stalled or blocked from progressing with newly formed ideas, thoughts, programs or processes because a particular group or leader did not think of it first.  Perhaps an innovative safety approach was put forward in an inopportune way and was viewed as very “external to others” and was brought to an abrupt halt.  Well, all of this is about the “not invented here” (NIH) phenomena. 

Although NIH is commonly talked about in management circles, its theoretical and empirical underpinnings are somewhat shallow and vague.  Nonetheless NIH is real and occurs regularly.  And even though there are individual and group biases that support our understanding of NIH, the attitudinal and behavioral antecedents and consequences are not well understood.  Nonetheless, NIH continues to hinder the advancement of safety performance.

Although the antecedent and consequent conditions of NIH are not well founded, we can rely on common psychological constructs to help us better understand the “whys” behind NIH.   In general, individuals and groups may want to protect their knowledge and self-serving identity within their organizations so specific roles and positions can remain without disruption.   Groups may want to maintain specific relationships with others that could be threatened by the NIH phenomena.  And still more, there may be a desire to control particular outcomes that could be threatened by external sources of innovation or advancement.   Such outcomes advanced by external sources and NIH may harm the careers or positions of various organizational members. 

In other ways, we can see the harmful outcomes of NIH on three different levels that uniquely hinders safety advancement on a broader scale and scope.   

In associations within our own profession and practice, competing thoughts and schools for advancing safety can offer a healthy vetting process.  Unique ideas, concepts, principles, and solutions from external sources quite distant from regularly accepted safety-related sources may offer possibilities not otherwise known. 

In our organizations we need to acknowledge that NIH exists even in the best of firms.  And we need to remain open to evaluate and accept innovative thoughts and ideas from other groups within our companies and from those outside of our industries, organizations, commonly accepted disciplines, and practices. 

As individuals we need to recognize that there are many schools of thought and approaches to improve safety and we must remain open to use a wide variety of supporting ideas, disciplines, and approaches.  These sources will help us to remain innovative and engaging for our organizational members, and help our leaders to continually advance our cultures for safety.

Astute and intellectually honest leaders need to recognize, and at times, incentivize innovative advancements regardless of the source, the distance, design, or dissimilarities from those that we are most used to, and which bring us the most comfort.   Any school of thought that brings too much comfort will end up bringing too little advancement.  In contrast, difficult ideas, concepts, and constructs that usher in discomfort, may be the most beneficial in bringing about the most creative and impactful types of safety advancement.

Leaders must become appropriately open to external innovations in order to unlock the doors to more advancement through increasingly creative solutions.


Antons, D. and Piller, F.T. (2015).  Opening the Black Box of "Not Invented Here": Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences.  Academy of Management Perspectives, 29 (2), 193-217.

Safety Benchmarking is Over-Hyped

Benchmarking can uncover gaps. I happen to believe benchmarking against other companies is over-hyped. I don’t believe as much of it goes on today as in the past. Today many major corporations see safety and health as a competitive advantage, and EHS insights and technology are locked down and protected more and more.

Instead, benchmark against yourself. Compare region versus region, facility versus facility, locations versus locations. Look at the scorecards or scoreboards you have set up internally.

Your assessment should include the climate and culture for safety through perception surveys. Climate is the perception, the mood, the feeling that you have when the ship being tossed about. It’s a bit superficial but it’s a reflection of your culture for safety. It can change like the weather, or with new programs and celebration events. It’s a snapshot in time. It’s what’s happening right now.

Culture runs like a submarine. It is much deeper. It turns slowly and deliberately. It can take five to seven years to change the movement of a culture. The beliefs and value structure of an organization are anchored deeply.

You can also set up a model for progression. Many companies do this. They break down the evolution of a safety culture into phases or stages. Various analyses, data inputs, survey results, audit findings and the like position a culture at one of the stages. This is communicated to everyone. The safety vision often encompasses the journey from stage one to stages three, four or five, however many you decide to have.

Through sensing sessions and interviews, plus surveys and simple observation, you can reassess what Peter Drucker calls the “critical factors of focus and concentration,” in our case on safety. “Performance requires clear focus and narrow concentration,” said Drucker. “Whenever an institution goes beyond a narrow focus, it ceases to perform,” he said.