Changing the Language of Safety - Part 2

In Part 1 we introduced the concept of presuppositions, phrases that have negative impacts on our safety programs, here’s another example: 3. “Is it safe?” The answer to this kind of question is either a “yes” or “no” answer. It either is, or is not. This will polarize your safety program immediately. If all of your personal experience climbing ladders was not having it held, or having the top secured, and then never having fallen, it would tend to convince you that climbing a ladder without someone holding the base or tying off the top is safe.

If you’re challenged in the workplace, after climbing without someone holding the base, and asked, “Do you think that’s safe?” of course you answer, “yes.” Then you get punished for doing something you thought was safe, when you were just trying to get the job done. Now cooperation goes out the window. Since asking “Is it safe?” also provides an open invitation to spout our personal opinions about safety and invites an expression of our personal risk perceptions, it tends to be more divisive.

Instead, consider that every safety decision is really a business decision that balances three things, Cost, Risk, and Benefit. It’s better to think about what the risk assessment is in this situation and what kinds of controls offer the most benefit (risk reduction) for the least cost. It must be kept in mind that we enforce behavioral standards, not individual opinions of what is “safe”.

Another way to think about how we use language was also mentioned in Part 1. The brain is literal. And the unconscious does not process negation. Because the brain is literal, its attention is directed to whatever is suggested. If we use a negation, such as “don’t”, it doesn’t deter the brain from following the literal suggestion. Here’s an old example: Right now, don’t think about an elephant. Despite the direction to “not” think about it, the only way the brain can process the information is to think about an elephant. The parent who says, “Don’t spill your milk.” Is surprised when the child spills their milk a few seconds later. It is more useful to say, “Grip the glass firmly.”

In the workplace, people say, “Don’t forget your safety equipment.” Then, after an incident, how surprised they are when the worker says he forgot his safety equipment. Instead say, “Remember your safety equipment.”

Always express directives in the positive, while referencing the specific behaviors that are required. Safety professionals and managers often make similar mistakes when seeking support for their programs and inadvertently sabotage their own efforts. Keep in mind that we are shaping the reality of how others experience the workplace every day. As such we get the people and the programs we deserve. Think about what messages you’re sending both verbally and non-verbally. Deserve the very best!

Changing the Language of Safety - Part 1

The “art” of safety, as opposed to the science or technology, offers subtle ways to use influencing language without inadvertently or clumsily sabotaging one’s own best efforts. The recently released Art of Safety offers ingenious ways to lift stalled programs off the plateau through the use of simple communication techniques.

One critical linguistic structure, related to the concept that the brain is literal and people’s attention will go where directed, is the phenomenon of presuppositions. These are utterances, or phrases, that carry with them something that is already presupposed by that phrase. If the receiver does not challenge the utterance immediately, it generally means that, at the unconscious level, they have “bought into” the presupposition.

Here are 2 examples of the 7 Deadly Presuppositions of Safety that need to be avoided.

1. “Can I help you?” - When someone walks into your office and you say, “How can I help you?” it presupposes you’re the helper and you’re in charge of the helping process. Then, who is helpless? That other person is.

As soon as they, in response, utter a single syllable, without challenging the presupposition, they’ve unconsciously “bought into” this relationship of dependency. This only reinforces traditional approaches that the leader is responsible for safety behavior, not the worker. “How can I help you?” creates dependant people. Avoid creating dependant people.

Avoid asking, “How can I help you?” A better, neutral question is “What’s up”, no presupposition implied. Dealing with this presupposition has broad applicability, well beyond safety applications. The Art of Safety also expands on why verbally presented information further creates dependency, while visual information empowers.

2. “Safety is job 1.” Everyone believes in the importance of safety and prevention, but producing a product or delivering a service is what our organizations are primarily created to do. We believe that production or service provision need not be conducted in such a way as to compromise safety. So these, along with quality, customer orientation, environmental protection, etc., are each important. But to say “Safety is job 1” attaches a primacy to safety, because of the ordinal reference to “1.” As well intentioned as that expression may be, as soon as we have to focus on productivity, we’re accused of not believing in safety, as if it were an “either/or” choice. It’s not.

We need to stop talking as if it is. This single utterance may be responsible for more workplace safety arguments than any other. It creates unnecessary conflict that can be simply avoided by referring to safety as a goal and priority “along with” production, service, quality, environment, etc. Even the most practiced leaders and professionals are often unaware of how they come across both verbally and non-verbally, and how they create the reality of the workplace by shaping how it’s experienced.

Small improvements in communication techniques pay big dividends in maintaining positive relationships and error-free performance.

Job Safety Analysis

At the core of many safety activities is the Job Safety Analysis. In reality it is most often a “Task” Safety Analysis, an individual task is analyzed, not a job. A job will generally contain a variety of tasks.

A Job Safety Analysis is an adaptation of a Task Analysis - what do you need to know to be able to perform a given task. The classic Task Analysis identifies input and output indicators, conditions, criteria, and necessary resources. Then it breaks a task down into its component steps. The steps are analyzed to determine what knowledge and skill are required at each step.

The output of this is a lesson plan, which addresses those knowledge and skill requirements. When challenged after a serious incident, “How did you determine what to teach the worker?” a Task Analysis is the best defense. A Job Safety Analysis, on the other hand, is the same at the front end, up to the point where the steps in the task have been identified. Rather than asking what skills and knowledge are required, the Job Safety Analysis asks “What hazards or risks will be encountered at each step?” Corresponding controls are then built into the task.

The output is a procedure. REMEMBER that a procedure does not generally state what knowledge and skills are required to do a task safely, only the steps, so reading a procedure in a safety meeting, then asking “Do you understand?”, to produce a series of head nods, will leave your due diligence hanging out a mile.

Whether you’re a manager, supervisor, safety representative or safety professional, keep in mind that the use of the Job Safety Analysis to build controls into a procedure is valuable work. But when we analyze the job of ensuring that safety is taken care of, we recognize that Job Safety Analysis is only one of the tasks.

Task Analysis to determine the knowledge and skills requirements is also essential to satisfying due diligence. Setting appropriate standards, ensuring responsibility assignments are clear, keeping competence records (not training records), ensuring compliance and resource allocation, and engaging workers - are all necessary. Keep in mind as you do Job Safety Analysis that it is only part of the of the safety job, one of the essential tasks to ensure that you’ve satisfied due diligence.

Safety Incentives

The idea of offering incentives to promote improved safety performance has long been a topic of heated debate.  Some suggest that they don’t motivate al all, that they contribute to the hiding of incidents, increase negative peer pressure to under-report, and that they reward the wrong things or the wrong people.  Others point to research, and results in the field that suggest incentives do work.  Wherever you are on the debate, like all programs, incentive initiatives must be well planned and executed to satisfy a set of reasonable criteria and standards.

In the Art of Safety incentives are mentioned in the chapter on safety meetings, but not fully discussed.  The workshop by the same name goes into greater depth regarding the 15 essential criteria for an effective incentives program and also includes the following checklist of the 15 characteristics that the rewards offered by an incentive program need to satisfy.

If you’re currently running, or plan to initiate an incentives program, consider checking the intended rewards against the checklist to see how they measure up.

Rewards Checklist

    - Rewards the bottom line

    - Attractive to the participants

    - Incorporates progressive safety credits

    - Simple rules

    - Perceived as equitable

    - Perceived as attainable

    - Short accident-free eligibility period

    - Rewards group and individual performance

    - Operators participated in program design

    - Prevents incident under reporting

    - Rewards all levels of the organization

    - Maximizes the primary goal (net savings or benefit/cost)

    - Includes a research component

    - Encourages wellness participation

    - Clearly defines criteria and points, earned or lost

Art of Safety Live Event - Calgary, Alberta - April 2-4, 2008

Attention Safety Practitioners:

Ever feel you’re working way too hard and nobody is paying attention?

A special note from Gary Phillips

Do you wish that everybody around you took Safety as Serious Business?

Unfortunately most Safety Programs only go so far…

Announcing The Art of Safety Workshop

Consider what happens when a simple shift in thinking delivers the Safety performance you expect and the programs you deserve… 

And what if such a shift retained all of the successful elements of your existing programs but POWER SHIFTED them UP to the NEXT LEVEL?

Learn how to achieve Optimal Safety Performance

With The Art of Safety Workshop’s simple breakthrough techniques you’ll discover:

• The 7 deadly Presuppositions of Safety and how to avoid them.
• The 6 ESSENTIAL questions to diagnose safety problems and satisfy due diligence
• The power of “Respectful Influence.”
• The effective and easy way to maintain relationships when delivering “bad” news.
• The right way to do investigations—to get to the heart of the matter without blame!
• Simple steps to SUPERCHARGE your safety meetings.
• How to get “buy-in” from workers and managers when talking safety.
• The critical Safety Strengths of “going visual” for optimal safety performance.
• Live 1-on-1 training with the author of the Art of Safety
• Exclusive small group training environment

The Art of Safety provides you with all the information you need. It has highly-customizable:

• safety meeting tips,
• training ideas,
• presentation techniques, and
• communication tools,

that provide you and your organization with real-world functionality that anyone can use wherever they are. If your safety program isn’t where you want it to be, discover, right now, how The Art of Safety will transform your safety program.

A Live, Small Group, Personalized Safety Training Event

Space is limited to 25 people

Who Should Attend: The Art of Safety tools have been so successful that I want to share it with as many Safety Practitioners, Managers, and Supervisors as possible. 

Your next chance to learn these simple, yet powerful techniques from the author of The Art of Safety, Gary Phillips, MA, CRSP, CHRP, NLP Licensed Trainer, is:

The Next Live Art of Safety Workshop is April 2-4, 2008

Location:
Holiday Inn Calgary Airport
1250 McKinnon Drive, N.E.
Calgary AB T2E 7T7
403-230-1999

Costs:

$1,995.00 Registration Fee

$1,595.00 HRIA members (anytime!)
Please use discount code AOSHRIA1 during checkout

$1,595.00 Early Bird Registration Fee.
Must register by March 19, 2008.
Please use discount code AOSCAL1 during checkout

Group discounts available.

The easiest way to register is to use our online order form.

You may also call toll-free (888) 622-9653 or download our fax order form and send it back to us at (807) 623-7099