For most safety pros, the key to success is producing results - tangible evidence that employee safety and health is being improved to the benefit of the company. But how can a safety department, especially a small or one-person staff, produce results when there are so many regulations to comply with, and day-to-day routine tasks to handle? The answer is one word: delegation.

Delegating Benefits Everyone

Delegation is getting things done by utilizing other people. You use this technique when you assign problem-solving and decision-making authority to an assistant, subordinate, other employees or a group.

Delegating is not just dumping work on others. It is an empowerment technique enabling you to help others succeed. It's a win-win situation. It frees the safety manager to manage, and employees handling delegated assignments to develop new skills.

The Benefits of Delegating

Much more can be accomplished with assistance from others. Here are some of the benefits of delegating:

You reduce juggling: With all the OSHA, EPA, DOT, etc. regulations to contend with and the dozens of safety-related and miscellaneous projects that keep coming out of the woodwork, it's impossible to give every item on your agenda your best effort. To think you can is naive; and to attempt to do so invites worry, ineffectiveness and burnout.

You reduce stress: Stress is reduced when you shift and share responsibilities. Everyone can benefit from a reduction of stress.

It's a good career move: A person who can delegate effectively is an extremely valuable asset to an organization. It is a sign of leadership and self-confidence. Delegation is the mark of a successful manager, and mastery of this skill will help you ascend to new levels of responsibility within your organization.

You encourage learning: Delegation is one of the most efficient and productive tools available to teach subordinates. They learn your responsibilities by performing them. As you delegate more and more tasks, the self-esteem and confidence of your people will increase. This is how you groom managers.

The Obstacles to Delegating

In light of these advantages, why do so few managers delegate? Some of the more common objections (and my answers to them) are:

My people might botch it up: Yeah, that could happen. But how else are they going to learn? Every good leader knows, and expects, people to make mistakes. With a little planning and foresight, you can ensure that any mistakes that might get made will inflict minimal damage.

It takes too much time to explain everything. I can do it just as fast myself: Sure, but can you do everything yourself?

People will think I'm lazy: Wrong! People will consider you a "smart" manager of people, time and resources.

If I delegate a project, I won't have the answers to questions from my superior: Touch base periodically with subordinates to be brought up to date on progress.

Delegation is a sign of weakness: On the contrary, delegation is a sign of trust and self-confidence. Doing it enhances the prospects of being viewed as a leader.

It won't be done exactly the way I want: So? What difference does it make as long as the project is finished and meets the established standards? Plus, if the people who ultimately have to live with the final result are involved in the completion of the project, you can bet that they will do it the best way.

Conclusion:

Now that you see the advantages to delegating and the flimsiness of the objections, you need to learn how to delegate effectively. Next week, I'll show you how to do just that.

MEMBERS' REPLY

Stop Giving Wolves a Bad Name

Wolves: A safety-minded species

Last week, a reader confessed of a momentary lapse in safety witnessed by her colleagues, whom she likened to a pack of wolves. According to another reader, wolves would have responded more responsibly.

While I understand where Ms. Dixon's analogy came from and agree with her point on safety (that we all share responsibility), it is obvious she has no real experience with wolves. She subscribes to and perpetuates the fairy tale, movie, and television version and paints an untrue picture of wolf character. While very colorful, it is this sort of misinformation that has guided Alaska's aerial hunting, aka "wolf management" program, resulting in hundreds of wolves being shot in the most un-sportsman-like venture ever. In rescuing wolves and wolfdogs, we have found that wolves are family-oriented, monogamous, devoted, social, playful animals that are vital to our ecosystem (as proven at Yellowstone and by the prevalence of coyotes in urban America). They work hard and play hard and have a definite "pack order" which they respect infinitely.

From a safety perspective: wolves work together to hunt and survive, look out for each other and care for each other when necessary. They are cautious and don't take unnecessary risks unless directly threatened, know the "rules" and follow them, and they will run away from most confrontations. We could learn a great deal by watching wolves and wolf packs then translating it to our lives.

Respectfully,
Deanna L. Deppen, Secretary
Shy Wolf Sanctuary, Education & Experience Center, Inc.
Email: admin@shywolfsanctuary.org
Website: www.shywolfsanctuary.com

STAND DOWN FOR SAFETY

May 17, 2006

Last week, we asked how you planned to spend Safety Week. Here's one response we got describing the activities planned for the Dallas and Fort Worth area.

Quoin, a chapter of Associated General Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors, Black Contractors Association, Hispanic Contractors Association, and the Dallas and Fort Worth OSHA area offices are promoting a stand down on May 17th. All participating contractors will shut their projects down from 10:00 AM until 11:30 AM for the industry wide stand down. The theme for the stand down is "Stand up for Safety by Standing Down your projects."

This will be the third time we have attempted to have the entire construction industry in the Dallas and Fort Worth area participate in the stand down.

We will be focusing on "electrical hazards" for the May 17th event. We have developed a packet that includes information about the electrical hazards and injury information to be used in a safety meeting at each project. When the safety meeting is completed each crew will be provided a checklist (that includes more than just electrical) and asked to do a safety survey on their work areas. When the surveys are completed each crew will return to the meeting area and give the surveys to the general contractor so that they can be reviewed and corrections completed and documented. When all surveys are returned the general contractor will give the group an opportunity to speak about what has been found and corrected.

Each project is asked to provide their contractor organization with the number of people who participate, the number of companies who participate and the total number of unsafe acts or conditions that are corrected as a result of the stand down.

Jessy G. Cole
Safety Director
Austin Commercial LP
Dallas, Texas
214-443-5764 office
214-202-5141 mobile

THIS DAY IN HISTORY

May 11, 1996

By Catherine Jones

Search Team at Crash Site of ValuJet Flight 592

Ten years ago today, just 10 minutes after takeoff from Miami International Airport, ValuJet Flight 592 crashed into the Florida everglades, killing all 105 passengers and 5 crew members on board.

Adding to the tragedy was the difficult and dangerous nature of the recovery process. The crash site, a deep-water swampy area, was more than a quarter of a mile from the nearest road and contained the usual hazards of aircraft fluids and fuels, as well as contaminated water, heat, stormy weather and dangerous reptiles.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation determined that the accident was caused by an in-flight fire in the forward cargo compartment. In the compartment were more than 100 expired chemical oxygen generators and three aircraft tires. The generators, improperly labeled, were not protected by the installation of safety caps. One or more of the oxygen generators activated and initiated a fire.

Other factors cited by the NTSB:

1. The fact that the airline was not authorized to transport hazardous materials and did not monitor its maintenance program to ensure compliance;

2. The failure of the airline's contract maintenance company to properly prepare, package and identify the materials; and

3. The federal regulatory agency's failure to require smoke detection and fire suppression systems in the cargo compartment.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top