www.artofsafety.ca

Gary

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!

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.

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.