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.

Teddy Roosevelt on Safety Influence

Theodore Roosevelt once said, “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”

Contemporary research suggests that we can better influence the safety-related opinions, attitudes, and actions of others when we have a large degree of expertise and trustworthiness.  In other words, credibility helps leaders become more persuasive.  However, the individual who is trusted, is more influential than the person who is not trusted; even though he or she may be viewed as an expert.  Interesting, isn’t it?  The bottom line – when it comes to influencing safety-related attitudes and actions, trust is more important than expertise. 

If you want to build trust, you have to truly care about people by creating the right climate and culture for safety. You have to spend time with others helping them, and working with them to improve safety, regularly. You have to “walk the talk” with resources and resolve – being consistent in what you say and ultimately do. 

As leaders, we need to build trust without our personal and self-seeking agenda getting in the way.  We can’t rely on threats, coercion, or punishment for substantial change.   That will largely dissolve trust. 

Don’t worry about how much you know or may not know, communicate to those around you the importance of working safely for themselves, their co-workers, and their loved ones.  Work with them and "get dirty" with them.  Speak from your heart because you care, and because you’ve built-up your side of the trust ledger. 

Showing care and concern is about working diligently to help others remain safe and whole.  Your hard work with others will build trust and help you to become a more influential safety leader.   

Dunder Mifflin and Your Safety Teams

There’s a quote from the TV Sitcom, The Office and Steve Carell who stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch that goes something like this, “Yes, I love teamwork because that means I don’t have to take all the blame.” 

Teams can make a real difference in your own safety success but it requires that everyone contribute. But please don't hurry your teams along ― your organization has to be ready and well prepared to make the leap. Safety teams can’t flourish and succeed without the right dynamics, support, knowledge, and shared responsibilities.

1.  Team Dynamics.   Whether it's an accident investigation team or a hazard abatement team — the dynamics of the group is the foundation for greater outcomes in terms of productivity and reduction of losses.  Real teams have:  a) clear objectives and clear work tasks to complete; b) they have well defined responsibilities and boundaries for their work; and c) they've been given the authority to operate as a safety team.  All of these facets move the group in a direction that helps them to become self-managing, self-sufficient, and increasingly self-sustaining. 

2.  Emotionally Driven.  Teams also have to be given clear direction that connects the head and heart.  People have to believe in their minds that what they're doing is important and worthwhile but they also have to believe it in their hearts.  Members have to be driven emotionally — they have to be excited about possibilities, the cause, and about working with others who have the same goals.  And they have to realize what there are doing makes a difference in the lives of others.  

3.  Synergy and Balance.  Each group has to have the appropriate number of people and the right mix of skills.   If your safety teams are too large it is difficult to move though tough decisions but if they are too small the diversity of views and talents is not there.  These same people have to work well together, complement each other, and push each other to make the most of their abilities.  Some workers may have great technical knowledge, say in electricity, and others may have great communications skills.  

4.  Organizational Support.  Safety teams work in a larger arena or context than what they may readily understand ― they work within their own companies, and their own organizations.  Work teams are made up of individuals who need to be recognized for their particular safety-related efforts and achievements.  And at times, your own safety teams need to be rewarded and recognized based on their distinct accomplishments.  Recognition and rewards also need to be appropriate for your culture and must be aligned with your vision for safety. 

5.  Great Coaching.  The best of players on the best of teams need great coaching to meet their goals.  Great coaching requires great communications.  It requires honesty and openness regarding the team's direction and focus.  It also necessitates, that at times, team members be pushed outside of their comfort zones, to take risks that offer greater rewards relative to safety achievements.  Great coaches are patient yet persistent — pushing their team to new levels of success — not allowing them to give up.
 
I've seen safety-related teams make a big difference — but you have to have the right culture and right team dynamics in place.  Safety teams can move your organization to another level of achievement but their assembly, development, and ongoing performance has to be based on a number of the key elements like those addressed above or your teams will not reach their desired level of success or may fail completely.  Even if you’re not ready for self-sustaining safety teams, the elements highlighted above can help your organization move towards greater safety-related teamwork. 

Apathy and Safety - Don't Lose Them Now

About 15 years ago, I read an important engagement story regarding a line worker with a major automotive manufacturer in the United States. The story evolved from an organizational push to gain more involvement from their workers at a time when it was critical.  An employee spoke up somewhere along the way and stated, “You used my body for 40 years and paid me well, but you could have used my mind for free and chose not to use it.”  Sadly some organizations remain stuck in such a position when it comes to worker engagement and advancing safety.

Over 25 years ago, I was working for United Airlines as a young safety professional.  It was there where I first learned the importance of employee involvement and engagement.  If we left people out of an important safety-related process - shame on us.  And it was at United where I first learned the depth and breadth of getting people directly involved in improving safety and reducing related losses.  What great experiences I had there!

Influencing attitudes and actions is really important but it’s even more important to first capture the hearts and minds of your workers.  And it needs to start by improving the work environment – the materials, tools, equipment, and facilities.  At times, I believe we leave some of this out because it seems so mundane and simple.  Maybe even a little boring.  However, I believe these are critically important components of our cultures that have to be continually addressed and improved.  

Here’s a few simple and straightforward ways to get your associates and end-users involved and engaged in ongoing safety improvement that will make an impact.
 
1.  Involve workers as early as possible in the specification and review processes so that safety can be built-into materials, tools, equipment, and facilities.

2.  Ensure safety professionals, operations personnel, key stakeholders, and the workers “maintain a seat at the table” so appropriate voices can be heard and timely actions can be taken. 

3.  Communicate discrepancies or revisions in design and specification processes so that questions that might surface later can be addressed in open and honest ways.

4.  Help everyone understand the failure history of particular equipment, components, tools, and how those failure histories will be controlled or eliminated.

5.  Educate and involve workers in human factors and ergonomic measures that will make the job more productive and safer.

6.  Involve workers in near-miss reporting, hazard reviews and identification of those hazards for appropriate abatement or elimination. 

7.  Follow-up and correct hazards or specification issues as quickly as possible.  Communicate your proposed actions and timelines, especially if a given process is protracted.

If you aren’t consistently getting workers and end-users involved in improving facilities, tools, and equipment, you’re losing out on a great opportunity to advance safety and to build trust. 

Build safety into your work as early as possible.  Abate hazards and concerns quickly because the downward slope from apathy to cynicism is a steep one.  And it’s cynicism that forms a substantial barrier to the kinds of trust your organization will always need to maintain its traction.