Safety can only happen through people.

Don't let the Hallmark-greeting quality of these words fool you. This is a powerful statement about business and safety. It's above all a statement about the concept of empowerment and what it means for safety success. Let me explain.

The Empowerment Principle

I think I can best give you a sense of the point by quoting a few sentences from the September 18, 1995 issue of FORTUNE magazine (which happened to be the 11th annual quality report):

"In the flattened network organization, styles of command and control have changed. Collaboration is in. Today's managers and workers alike have to practice co-operation and collaboration with everybody. . . . The environment increasingly encourages this by devolution of power and delegation of duties, right down to the empowered, self-managed worker."

That same article also makes the following observation on empowerment:

"The essence of the idea is simple. Organize employees into teams that can cut across old boundaries. Train them. Put them into jobs that challenge their abilities. Give them the information they need. Tell them what they need to accomplish. Then turn them loose. Self-directed teams make decisions, set their own goals, and take responsibility."

Applying the Principle to Safety

Now consider this principle from a safety perspective. In a traditional safety program, the establishment and enforcement of rules and regulations is the responsibility of a head office safety individual. This is perceived to be a position of power. Workers are supposed to follow this person's lead. Similarly, accountability resides mostly with the safety individual. When performance improves, he or she takes the credit; when it doesn't, he or she shoulders the blame.

The modern safety program, by contrast, vests more of the power in the workers themselves. It also diffuses accountability for safety across the organization instead of focusing it on one individual. In other words, the modern safety program is about empowerment and is more in line with the statements in the FORTUNE magazine article. As such, it represents a challenge to traditional programs and the leadership role of a safety individual.

Traditional vs. Modern Safety Programs

Consider the differences between a traditional and modern safety program.

Characteristics of a Traditional Program:

• A central, head office individual with responsibility for corporate safety;
• A team of safety specialist on staff, or one local staff safety specialist;
• Safety deemed a staff function with a manager responsible for safety and a supporting staff reporting to that manager;
• Rules, standards and regulations, developed and prescribed by management; and
• Little line commitment, ownership, responsibility or accountability for safety, and minimal involvement in accident prevention or safety management issues.

Characteristics of a Modern Program:

• Workers and work teams take responsibility for accident prevention initiatives and safety performance improvements;
• Staff safety specialist employed as a safety coordinator and support function;
• Increased emphasis on total communication with all stakeholders;
• Executive and senior management provide strategic leadership for safety strategy. Content and initiatives left to workers and work teams; and
• Total integration of safety performance into all job responsibilities and accountabilities.

Conclusion

Which program is "better"- the traditional or the modern version? This is a question that's impossible to answer. The effectiveness of a safety program in improving safety performance is determined to a large extent by how well it reflects an organization's style and business. So when fashioning your own program, ask yourself:

• Which one of these types would you rather be part of?
• Which style best reflects your current business reality?

THIS DATE IN HISTORY  

Chernobyl: The worst nuclear disaster in world history..

April 26, 1986

By Glenn Demby

Twenty years ago today, at 1:21 A.M., local time, an explosion occurred at the No. 4 reactor at the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Plant in an obscure Ukrainian city on the Pripiat River called Chernobyl. The blast released 30 to 40 times the amount of radioactivity as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The subsequent evacuation of cities and villages within a 30-mile radius forced hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, Russians and Belorussians from their homes. The plume of radioactive fallout drifted westward reaching as far as the eastern United States.  

The Costs

The Soviet government's cover up has made it hard to calculate the toll of the disaster. The number of deaths and injuries are still the subject of fierce debate. Estimates vary widely. Greenpeace has claimed that at least 93,000 and as many as 200,000 died as a result of the accident. According to a more credible source, a 2005 World Health Organization report:

• 56 people died as a direct effect of the accident;
• 47 accident workers and 9 children developed thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to radioactivity;
• At least 9,000 more people are expected to die from some form of cancer.

The Legacy

The legacy of Chernobyl is also still debated. Environmental groups point to the accident as proof that nuclear power is too dangerous to be controlled and should be abandoned; defenders of nuclear power point to the egregious lack of safety controls at Soviet nuclear power plants.

The Chernobyl disaster did significantly curb the development of Soviet nuclear power and exposed the cruel indifference of the regime to human safety and suffering. It also helped to fuel separatist movements that led to the 1991 fall of the Soviet system and establishment of independent Ukrainian and Belorussian states.

SAFETYXCHANGE ANNIVERSARY MOMENTS

Safety Horoscopes, Nick O'Shay & the Search for Boundaries

By Glenn Demby

Unlike Catherine, I don't have one favorite memory from SafetyXChange's first year. I have a series of them. What ties the moments together is a single word: Experiment.

Some of our experiments have failed. Like Safety Horoscopes. We knew that many workers like to read their horoscope. So why not package safety advice in the form of a horoscope? It didn't take long to discover that this was a bad idea. The day we ran the first Safety Horoscope, we received a barrage of notes criticizing the feature as "unprofessional" and "unworthy." Chalk up one to the failure ledger.

Sometimes, though, the experiments work. Nick O'Shay is my favorite example. When we created a fictional character to deliver real-life insights about OSHA inspections, we knew we were pushing things. But the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. So Nick survived and became a staple.

Still, the results of our experiments remain hard to judge, even today. After all, we still get occasional requests for Safety Horoscopes. By the same token, we also get lots of notes from members who detest Nick O'Shay and demand his retirement.

Ultimately, though, what's most important isn't the results of any individual experiment; it's the experience of trying new things and having an audience that we can count on to weigh in with opinions. The combination of innovation and back-and-forth best represent what SafetyXChange is all about.

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top