|
Fortune Cookie Wisdom: A Danger Foreseen is Half Avoided
Curt Johnson, CPEA, Senior Program Director, Richmond, TX
"I knew this would happen." "I told you so." "If only you had listened to me."
Hear these phrases in a personal relationship and you might merely feel chastised, and perhaps need to bite your tongue while you figure out how to realign your priorities. But hear these same phrases in the context of a business discussion, particularly if related to an environmental or health and safety matter, it is very likely that something devastating has occurred, such as a serious injury or death, or a spill or explosion for which the damage to public image and financial consequences will have a long-lasting affect. How then can an organization keep from having to deal with the hindsight of "we should have known better"?
The planning stage of management systems involves identifying possible negative events, rating the potential consequences of those events and identifying steps that will be taken to prohibit or reduce the likelihood of high consequence events. When developing an environmental management system (EMS), the organization bears the responsibility for determining the level of significance for which it will assure objectives, targets and programs for its environmental aspects. Similarly, an organization is responsible for determining how much OH&S risk it can tolerate, and therefore, what are the unacceptable risks for which the organization will implement new controls or change existing controls as part of its OH&S safety management system's (OH&SMS) objectives and programs.
Independent of whether an organization is trying to develop an ISO 14001- or an OHSAS 18001-compliant management system, organizations can be expected to base their decisions on what interested parties think, existing technology, and financial, operational and business considerations. This is just good business sense. Yes, the organization will face serious consequences following an explosion or death, but the business will likely be short-lived if finances are managed poorly, solutions are just not technologically feasible, or the manner in which the organization has gone about their business turns employees or the public against them.
Because effectively balancing all these elements takes time and significant effort, many organizations are tempted to skimp on this planning phase of EMS and OH&SMS development. Some are convinced that they know it all already - they are the experts after all. Because the concepts of significance and acceptable risk are complicated and because it does take time to do it right, there is a tendency to limit involvement in the process to certain higher level persons in the organization, rather than provide training and develop a broader organizational base of understanding and involvement.
Encouragingly there are organizations who do devote the time and effort needed to seriously commit to these planning efforts. We know this is true because these organizations are still in business, and we know you can stay lucky only for so long. These organizations have teams of employees thinking about potential problems and efficient solutions through safety committees. Job hazard and job safety analyses have been conducted and are regularly reviewed and updated. High hazard activities have thorough consideration of how change should be managed. Systems are being monitored, audits and self-inspections are being conducted, and there always seems to be some training, management system planning or review activity underway.
With all these systems in place and personnel involved, why then do some organizations still fail -and oftentimes fail catastrophically? One possible reason is that despite highly functional committees and groups of competent employees performing evaluations, the organization still does not have enough employees involved.
If you've followed any of my previous writings, you know that I often find the wisdom of the ages in the fortunes received from my favorite Chinese restaurant. I've found one such fortune helpful when trying to get across the point that all employees should be encouraged to express concerns and present ideas -- before an incident occurs:
An occasional unintended consequence of safety committees, trained evaluation teams and other "experts" in the workplace, particularly in large organizations, is development of an insulated group of "responsible" people. Persons who are not on the committees or who did not receive the additional training, can fall into the trap of letting the "experts" do their thinking for them.
Supervisors need to be watched closely to assure that they encourage involvement by everyone on their team. An even worse situation can develop if someone asks a question or makes a suggestion and gets ignored or put down by an unthinking or arrogant supervisor. Don't expect that employee to come forward with concerns or ideas in the future if they've been shut off in the past.
The insidious development of a culture of silence - of not speaking up - is far too commonplace. In an article is ASSE's August 2011 Professional Safety, Joseph Grenny and David Maxfield (Five Crucial Conversations That Drive Workplace Safety) point out "The ugly secret behind most workplace injuries is that someone is aware of the threat well in advance, but is either unwilling or unable to speak up." Data they presented showed how well over 60% of workers admit to having seen coworkers violate safety precautions or take unsafe shortcuts, and that close to 1 one in five can cite an injury or death that occurred as a result.
A secondary reporting outlet can help alleviate the problem, whether it is a full-fledged "hot-line" or other internal reporting format (e.g., suggestion box, dedicated email address) to deal with concerns that were not addressed. How many times issues are reported around or in spite of a supervisor can be an important indicator of that manager's performance as well.
A frequent omission from job descriptions is the expectation to report concerns about safety or the environment to a supervisor. Including this expectation on all job descriptions is a start, but the concept of identifying your concerns to someone else needs regular reinforcement, through posters, notices and more. Many organizations have reward/recognition programs for the person who reports a problem or improvement opportunity so that it can be acted upon.
Employees need to believe that they will be supported if they act in good faith to stop a job that they believe is unsafe, or hold up a project because they believe that an environmental concern is not being adequately addressed. There are too many examples of people letting something happen because they assumed that someone else knew better, or believed that their own job was in jeopardy if they questioned an assignment. If the questioning employee is wrong, it is a learning opportunity for he or she to gain a better understanding of the controls in place. It may also represent a failure in assuring the competency of the involved employees. If the employee is right, the danger can be fully avoided.
No matter what, it is better to know before the job starts.
Maintaining a culture of inclusiveness, where safety and protection of the environment are not just someone else's responsibility but everyone's responsibility, takes diligence. Sure, people make mistakes of judgment and risks are sometimes underestimated. But being only halfway across a bridge at the point that one person thinks there might be a problem and not being all the way across to where that person expresses their concerns so a decision can be made to act on it, still leaves you half-way across the river and at risk of getting wet. No one should be in the workplace without the understanding that they are expected to express their concerns. No supervisor should be in the workplace if he/she is not willing to accept input from others.
Curt Johnson, CPEA, is a Senior Program Director located in Richmond, TX. He has more than 30 years experience in the development and implementation of environmental, health and safety management systems. Curt is the current author of the ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems - A Complete Implementation Guide published by Specialty Technical Publishers of Vancouver, B.C. He recently completed a new "Continual Improvement" chapter for this Guide.
To discuss this article or for more information about the ISO 14001 Guide, contact Curt at (281)341-8289 or email: cjohnson@stcenv.com
| 
