Episoder
-
We challenge the notion that high injury rates are punished by market forces, as we dig into this article that posits the opposite: that safety should be a performance driver. Our analysis dives deep into the credibility and methodologies of the article, emphasizing the critical role of peer review and the broader body of knowledge.
We'll also scrutinize the use of data as rhetoric versus evidence, focusing on the transparency and rigor of research methods when interviewing executives about safety practices. Is safety merely seen as a compliance issue or a strategic investment? We dissect the methodologies, including participant selection and question framing, to uncover potential biases. Finally, we critique a proposed five-step process aimed at transforming safety into a competitive advantage. From aligning on the meaning of safety to incentivizing employees, we expose significant gaps in academic rigor and alignment with established safety literature.
This conversation serves as a powerful critique of superficial analyses by those outside the safety science domain, offering listeners critical insights into the complexity of safety management and its potential alignment with organizational goals.
Re-examining the role of safety as a value driver for businessComparing contrasting research findings and cautioning about evaluating researchData as rhetoric in safetyTransparency and methodology are crucial in research, especially when interviewing executives about workplace safetyExecutives' perspectives on safety are questioned, research methods are critiquedClarifying claims and performance in business The five-step process for competitive advantage A study on the effectiveness of safety training methods Safety management is complex and requires evidence-based strategies, not superficial analysis or reliance on compliance trainingStrategic value of workplace safetySafety's impact on business success is uncertain, but exploring its alignment with organizational goals is importantTakeaways The answer to our episode’s question: “the short answer is we still don't know!” Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!
Discussion Points:Quotes:
“The trouble is, then we don't know whether what they're referring to is published research that might be somewhere else that we can look for for the details, or work that they did specifically for this article, or other work that they've done that was just never published.” - Drew
“We've got to be really careful…this is using data as rhetoric, not using data as data.” - Drew
“I wouldn't be surprised that most people see safety as both a cost and as an outcome.”- Drew
“So you've got two-thirds of these companies that don't even have any safety metric, like not even an injury metric or anything that they monitor.” - David
“So we kind of assume business performance means financial performance, but that in itself is never clarified.” - David
Resources:The Article: Safety Should Be a Performance Driver
Episode 121: Is Safety Good for Business?The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
From the perceived control in everyday activities like driving, to the dread associated with nuclear accidents, we discuss how emotional responses can sometimes skew our rational assessments of risk. Finally, we explore the ethical and practical challenges of balancing emotional and analytical approaches in risk communication, especially in high-stakes scenarios like terrorism and public safety. The conversation touches on real-world examples, such as the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the controversial discussions around gun ownership. We emphasize the importance of framing and narrative in conveying risk information effectively, ensuring that it resonates with and is clearly understood by diverse audiences.
Discussion Points:
Understanding risk perception, Paul Slovic's work and how it has shaped safety practices and decisions in everyday life“Affect heuristic” in decision making, influenced by emotions and past experiences, leading to inconsistencies in risk perception.Feeling in-control vs. “scary concepts”, risks are perceived differently due to emotions, control, and misunderstandings of probabilities, as seen in driving Risks are assessed differently based on probabilities, outcomes, framing, and context, influencing decision-makingOther studies, looking at how people see risk, assessing your personal fear or risk from causes of death from cancer to stroke to car accidents to shark attacks vs. your own bathroomBalance between emotional and analytical risk evaluationMath and statistical examples of how risk is presented and perceivedPost 9/11 terrorist fears vs. statistics Ethical considerations in communication, and challenges in conveying risk informationTakeaways The answer to our episode’s question: “the short answer is both” Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!Quotes:
“Risk is analysis where we bring logic, reason, and science or data or facts, and bring it to bear on hazard management.” - David
“There may not be a perfect representation of any risk.” - Drew
“If that's the important bit, then blow it up to the entire slide and get rid of the diagram and just show us the important bit.”- Drew
“It's probably a bit unfair on humans to say that using feeling and emotion isn't a rational thing to do.” - David
“The authors are almost saying here that for some types of risks and situations, risk as a feeling is great.” - David
Resources:
The Paper: Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk and Rationality
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Manglende episoder?
-
The discussion provides an in-depth examination of the principles of multimedia, modality, and redundancy, all of which are crucial for optimizing learning and information retention. The episode also offers a wealth of practical strategies for interactive design and meticulous preparation, aimed at enhancing audience engagement and comprehension. These strategies include the use of visual aids, storytelling techniques, and audience participation elements to create a more dynamic and immersive experience. By adopting these methods, presenters can not only convey their message more effectively but also make the learning process more enjoyable and impactful for their audience.
The Paper’s Abstract
Active training techniques are effective because they engage learners in tasks that promote deep thought, discussion, problem-solving, social interaction, and hands-on learning. Passive training is less effective because learners are relegated to merely listening and watching as an instructor does all of the mental, social, and physical work. Bullet-point lectures may be poorly suited for meaningful training because they usually adopt a model of passive learning and they tend to combine spoken words and displayed text in ways that may actually decrease comprehension. PowerPoint can serve as a tool to promote active learning if we eliminate lengthy bullet lists and use instructional images to guide group discussions, problem-solving activities, and hands-on experiences.
Discussion Points:
Background on the author Mitch Ricketts and the paperActive vs. passive learningConstructive and interactive learningBalancing text and images using multimedia, modality, and redundancy principlesUse of questions on slides to prompt discussion and interactionImportance of managing cognitive load for audience engagementClear, concise content and the value of signaling in presentationsThe significance of preparation and creating separate presentations for different needsStrategies for creating effective slides focused on visuals over textMoving away from bullet points to use impactful images and labelsTakeaways - What you SHOULD do on your slidesThe answer to our episode’s question is, the short answer here is the title of the paper- "No more bullet points."Quotes:
“This is what you might call an applied literature review. It's someone taking the literature and interpreting that literature for a particular purpose.” - Drew
“There's a lot of research that says that a lot of high school and university teachers rely on fairly outdated and disproven theories about these different modes of learning.” - Drew
“If that's the important bit, then blow it up to the entire slide and get rid of the diagram and just show us the important bit.”- Drew
“if you're a learner and you see a giant pair of goggles on a PowerPoint slide with just the word “goggles”, then all you're going to be doing now is just listening to what the presenter is saying. And hopefully they're saying something about goggles.” - David
“Slides aren't there to look interesting and slides aren't there to carry the weight of the content. Think of them as visual support.” - Drew
Resources:
The Paper: No More Bullet Points
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
We examine whether a safe work environment truly enhances productivity and engagement or if it stifles business efficiency. Historical incidents like the Union Carbide disaster and BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout are analyzed to question if neglecting safety can still lead to profitability. Finally, we break down the misconception that good safety practices automatically translate to business profitability. We highlight the tangible benefits such as enhanced publicity, stronger client relationships, and improved employee satisfaction, and stress the importance of complex discussions about the actual costs vs. benefits of safety practices.
The Paper’s AbstractThis research addresses the fundamental question of whether providing a 15 safe workplace improves or hinders organizational survival, because there are conflicting predictions on the relationship between worker safety and organizational performance. The results, based on a unique longitudinal database covering over 100,000 organizations across 25 years in the U.S. state of Oregon, indicate that in general organizations that provide a safe workplace have significantly lower odds and 20 length of survival. Additionally, the organizations that would in general have better survival odds, benefit most from not providing a safe workplace. This suggests that relying on the market does not engender workplace safety.
Is safety “good for business”? Examining the relationship between safety and business viabilityBhopal and the costs, Occidental - you can still make money without safetyThe backgrounds and qualifications of the paper’s authorsWorkplace safety can both benefit and hinder organizational survival due to productivity prioritization and potential risksWorkplace safety and business performance are complexly related, with a study showing a decrease in survival odds and length due to safety prioritizationSafety compliance at the lowest minimal cost may hinder productivity and divert attention from safety, leading to increased risksSafety is not inherently good for business; instead, it can bring tangible benefits like publicity, client relationships, and employee satisfactionStrict regulations and upfront investments in safety are necessary for fostering a safer work environment and ensuring business successTakeaways - Stop claiming safety is “good for business”The answer to our episode’s question is, “So the short answer is on average, no. At least according to this study, businesses are more likely to survive in the short term and long term if they're hurting more people more seriously.”
Discussion Points:Quotes:
“The sorts of things that you do to improve safety are the sorts of things that I thought should also improve productivity and reliability in the long run.” - David
“Which is science, right? That's what it's about. We think we're right until we get a new piece of information and realize that maybe we weren't as right as we thought we were.” - David
“Even though there is a reasonably high volume of research out there, it's really hard to look very directly at the question.”- Drew
“So we know from this data that it's not true that providing a safe workplace makes you more competitive.” - Drew
Resources:The Paper: The Tension Between Worker Safety and Organization Survival
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
David and Drew share insights into Dr. Provan’s PhD research journey, exploring the scarce guidance and fragmented views within academic research on safety practices. They discuss the challenges of painting a clear picture of the day-to-day responsibilities of safety professionals and how this prompted an in-depth investigation into the profession. As we peel back the layers of existing literature, we touch on the difficulty and complexity of condensing a vast array of theories and studies into a cohesive academic narrative.
The varied titles and the global patchwork of research that span numerous fields are explored, and although David’s search through databases and beyond revealed a trove of about 100 relevant articles, more insights may remain hidden. The discussion culminates with a look at the strategies employed by safety professionals to wield influence, foster trust, and align safety objectives with organizational goals. David's firsthand experiences and academic findings paint a vivid picture of the complex identity and influence that safety professionals must navigate in their pivotal roles.
The Paper’s AbstractSafety professionals have been working within organizations since the early 1900s. During the past 25 years, societal pressure and political intervention concerning the management of safety risks in organizations has driven dramatic change in safety professional practice. What are the factors that influence the role of safety professionals? This paper reviews more than 100 publications. Thematic analysis identified 25 factors in three categories: institutional, relational, and individual. The review highlights a dearth of empirical research into the practice and role of safety professionals, which may result in some ineffectiveness. Practical implications and an empirical research agenda regarding safety professional practice are proposed.
Safety professionals - are they a “necessary evil”?The role and perception of safety professionals, scarcity and fragmentation of literature, and challenges in condensing research. Safety positions have many varying titles globally.Institutional, organizational, and individual factors, regulatory environments, and professional associationsSafety professionals face challenges when reporting to line managers, limiting their ability to challenge leadership and prioritize protection over workers.Balancing safety independence and bureaucracyA construction industry study - testing bureaucracyAlliance vs. Influence - Safety professionals act as the conscience of the organization, using constructive challenge and alliances to advocate for safety and align goals with broader objectives.Influence and trust in safety management - relational legitimacy, influence tactics, and symbolic enablers to promote best practices and trust within organizations.Practical takeaways from the paperThe answer to our episode’s question is, “This is still an area of safety science that is a prime candidate for more PhD and postdoc research.”
Discussion Points:Quotes:
“I went into this going, what has been published on the safety profession? And to do that, went to a couple of the key databases and used very deliberate keyword searches…” - David
“That was probably one of the first challenges- is that this role gets called so many different things in one country, let alone globally.” - David
“The included pieces were all in peer-reviewed publications, but there's a range of quality to those publications.”- David
“This connection between the bureaucratic activities of safety professionals and the value that the people who are exposed to the risk see in having a safety team was one of the most stark research findings in the literature.” - David
“Don't learn how to do your job from a TED Talk regardless of how inspirational a new view that talk is.” - Drew
Resources:The Paper: Bureaucracy, Influence, and Beliefs
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Today’s paper, “Multiple Systemic Contributors versus Root Cause: Learning from a NASA Near Miss” by Katherine E. Walker et al, examines an incident wherein a NASA astronaut nearly drowned (asphyxiated) during an Extravehicular Activity (EVA 23) on the International Space Station due to spacesuit leakage. The paper introduces us to an innovative and efficient technique developed during Walker’s PhD research.
In this discussion, we reflect on the foundational elements of safety science and how organizations are tirelessly working to unearth better methods for analyzing and learning from safety incidents. We unpack the intricate findings of the investigation committee and discuss how root cause analysis can sometimes lead to the unintended consequence of adding more pressure within a system. A holistic understanding of how systems and individuals manage and adapt to these pressures may provide more meaningful insights for preventing future issues.Wrapping up, our conversation turns to the merits of the SCAD technique, which champions the analysis of accidents as extensions of normal work. By examining the systemic organizational pressures that shape everyday work adaptations, we can better comprehend how deviations due to constant pressures may lead to incidents. We also critique current accident analysis techniques and emphasize the importance of design improvement recommendations.
History and current state of accident investigationSystemic solutions in safetyTraditional root cause analysis challenged by new perspectivesNASA's 2013 EVA 23 space walk incident examinedOrganizational pressures and their impact on safetySCAD technique for accident analysis efficiencyShift from tracing causes to understanding work adaptationsEmphasis on normal work analysis for accident preventionCritique of NASA's administrative processes in safetyCognitive biases and challenges in accident investigationsContinuous evolution of safety practices Practical takeaways -how do you go beyond the immediate events to find broader systems and broader learnings?Canging language away from causes to talk about pressures and contributorsThe answer to our episode’s question is, “Yeah, it probably helps, but still doesn't fix the problem that we're facing with trying to get useful system changes out of investigations.”
Discussion Points:
Quotes:“We've been doing formal investigations of accidents since the late 1700s early 1800s. Everyone, if they don't do anything else for safety, still gets involved in investigating if there's an incident that happens.” - Drew
“If you didn't have this emphasis on maximising crew time they would have been much more cautious about EVA 23” - Drew
“Saying that there's work pressure is not actually an explanation for accidents, because work pressure is normal, work pressure always exists.” - Drew
“One of the things that is absent from this technique through and they call it an accident analysis method is there is no commentary in the paper at all about how to design improvements and recommendations.” - David
Resources:The Paper: NASA Near Miss
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Using the Waterfall incident as a striking focal point, we dissect the investigation and its aftermath, we share personal reflections on the implementation of safety recommendations and the nuances of assessing systems designed to protect us. From the mechanics of dead man's systems to the critical evaluation of managerial decisions, our dialogue exposes the delicate balance of enforcing safety while maintaining the practicality of operations. Our aim is to contribute to the ongoing conversation about creating safer work environments across industries, recognizing the need for both technological advancements and refined human judgment.
Discussion Points:
Drew loves a paper with a great nameThe circumstances surrounding the Waterfall rail accidentHow the “dead man system” works on certain trainsRecommended changes from investigation committeesIn the field of safety, we seem more certain about our theoriesExploration of narratives and facts in accident investigationsDead man's system and Waterfall derailment's investigationPost-accident list of operator failuresSafety theories and organizational fault correlation critiquedEvolution of railway safetyDiscussion on managerial decisions amidst imperfect knowledgeThe importance of context in incident investigationsSafety management systems and human judgmentInsights on enhancing organizational safetyTheoretical conclusionsPractical takeawaysThe answer to our episode’s question is, “yes, keep it in mind as a digital tool”Quotes:
“I find that some of the most interesting things in safety don't actually come from people with traditional safety or even traditional safety backgrounds.”- Drew
“Because this is a possible risk scenario, on these trains, we have what's called a ‘dead man system.” - David
“Every time you have an accident, it must have objective physical causes, and those physical causes have to come from objective organisational failures, and I think that's a fairly fair representation of how we think about accidents in safety.” - Drew
“They focused on the dead man pedal because they couldn't find anything wrong with the design of the switch, so they assumed that it must have been the pedal that was the problem” - Drew
Resources:The Paper: Blaming Dead Men
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Using the paper, “Digital Twins in Safety Analysis, Risk Assessment and Emergency Management.” by Zio and Miqueles, published in the technical safety journal, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, we examine intricate simulations that predict traffic flows to emergency management tools that plan safe evacuation routes, and we delve into how these virtual counterparts of physical systems are redefining risk assessments and scenario planning.
As we navigate the world of operational safety, we discuss the diverse array of models—from geometric to sophisticated hybrid simulations—and their groundbreaking applications in forecasting fire spread and optimizing evacuation procedures. These digital twins aren't just theoretical concepts; they're powerful, real-time lifesavers in emergency situations, emblematic of the future of safety science.
Discussion Points:
What are digital twins and how are they used?Use of digital twins is de rigueur in traffic flow, fire engineering, water flow structureIdentifying all recent papers written on digital twinsVirtual simulations offer advanced risk assessment capabilitiesOverview of tasks and functions identified, industries - construction, naval engineering, manufacturingTechnical discussion on digital twin creation and maintenanceSix key challenges of digital twinningSmart paint innovation improves virtual model accuracyCybersecurity risksReal-time operational safety monitoringDigital twins promise improved safety and operational efficiencyEmergency management potentially bolstered by real-time simulationsPractical takeawaysIndustry practice may surpass academic digital twin findingsThe answer to our episode’s question is, “yes, keep it in mind as a digital tool”Quotes:
"Ideally, a digital twin is a complete virtual copy of a product or service that is an electronic simulation that is completely accurate compared to that real product or service.”- Drew
“One of the first documented digital twins was in the aerospace industry - NASA [used it] during the Apollo 13 program.” - David
“this idea of having a complete digital picture of the thing that you're building is becoming fairly common, so that lends itself very much towards using it for things like digital twins.” - Drew
“we may never quite know exactly how different the digital twin is from the physical object itself. That’s the challenge.” - David
Resources:
The Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Ben's expertise guides us through an analysis of audit reports and accident investigations, laying bare the counterfactual reasoning that often skews post-incident narratives. It's an eye-opening examination that calls for a reimagined approach to audits, one that aligns with the genuine complexities of organizational culture and safety. Together, we confront the silent failure of safety audits and management systems, debating the need for a fundamental shift in how these are designed and conducted to truly protect workers. Join us for this critical dialogue that challenges preconceptions and seeks to reforge the link between safety audits and the real work of keeping people safe.
Discussion Points:
Ben’s background and papers authoredThe reality of safety auditsSafety plans - often perceived as comfort, not changeDocumentation versus actual safety"Audit masquerade" reveals gaps between theory and practiceExamination of 327 audit corrective actions and their efficacyAdministrative intentions vs. practical safetyThe weak connection between audits and physical safety improvements Concerns about evaluating work practices Audits can ‘fail silently’, giving false security assurancePractical steps for ensuring audit effectivenessA critical examination of safety management systemsKey takeawaysBen’s answer to our episode’s question is, “Possibly, but it depends.”Quotes:
"Some audits were very poorly calibrated to actually exploring and eliciting work - day-to-day work and operational risk.." - Ben
“you've got to pick and choose what to pay attention to. So unless something is really standing out as needing attention, then it can be hard to be curious and to notice these weak signals.” - David
“I'm proud to work in safety. I'm proud to call myself a sector professional. What really drove me to understand these systems was my love for safety, and I had just become so disillusioned with the amount of safety work I had to do. It wasn't helping.” - Ben
“Audits, like most activities, are very socio-political. There's a lot of vested power and conflicting interests.” - Ben
Resources:
Paper: Audit masquerade: How audits provide comfort rather than treatment for serious safety problems
Paper: How audits fail according to accident investigations: A counterfactual logic analysis
Ben Hutchinson LinkedInThe Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Safety isn't one-size-fits-all, especially for subcontractors who navigate multiple sites with varying rules and equipment. This episode peels back the layers on the practical safety management challenges subcontractors endure, revealing how transient work complicates the integration of safety protocols.
We scrutinize the institutional oversights and fragmented safety systems that often overlook the needs of these critical yet vulnerable players in the industry. Our conversation isn't just about identifying problems; it's an urgent call to action for better practices and a safer future for all involved in subcontracting work.
Discussion Points:
The vagaries of subcontracting workBackground on the paper being discussedFindings presented in the paperInstitutional safety vs. the subcontractor’s workExpertise in the work does not equal expertise in safetyCommunication and safety work activitiesInstitutional safety mechanismsDangerous environments and lack of safety knowledge in that environmentSubcontractors in the mining industry and the many layers and risksSafety rules are perceived differently by subcontractorsFinancial and other burdens to following safety protocols for subcontractorsKey takeawaysThe answer to our episode’s question –the short answer in some of it is that there are lots of filtered and missing communication towards contractors' gaps in situational specific expertise that don't get identified and just our broad safety management systems and arrangements that don't work well for the subcontractor context.Quotes:
"Subcontracting itself is also a fairly undefined term. You can range from anything from large, labour -higher organisations to what we typically think in Australia of a small business with maybe one to four or five employees." - Drew
“All of the normal protections we put in place for safety just don't work as well when there are contract boundaries in place.” - Drew
“the subcontractor may be called in because they've got expertise in a particular type of work, but they're in an environment where they don't have expertise.” - Drew
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Lastly, we delve into the role of leadership in addressing psychosocial hazards, the importance of standardized guidance for remote work, and the challenges faced by line managers in managing remote workers. We wrap up the episode by providing a toolkit for managers to effectively navigate the challenges of remote work, and highlight the need for tailored safety strategies for different work arrangements.
Discussion Points:
Different work-from-home arrangementsSafety needs of work from homeChallenges of remote worker representationUnderstanding and managing psychosocial risksLeadership and managing technical risksRemote work challenges and physical presencePractical takeaways and general discussionSafety strategies for different work arrangementsThe answer to our episode’s question – the short answer is that there definitely isn't a short answer. But this paper comes from a larger project and I know that the people who did the work have gathered together a list of existing resources and toolboxes and, they've even created a few prototype tools and training packagesQuotes:
"There's a risk that we're missing important contributions from workers with different needs, neurodiverse workers, workers with mental health issues, workers with particular reasons for working at home and we’re not going to be able to comment on the framework and how it might affect them." - Drew
“When organizations' number of incident reports go up and up and up and we struggle to understand, is that a sign of worsening safety or is that a sign of better reporting?” - David
“They do highlight just how inconsistent organisations approaches are and perhaps the need for just some sort of standardised guidance on what is an organisation responsible for when you ask to work from home, or when they ask you to work from home.” - Drew
“I think a lot of people's response to work from home is let's try to subtly discourage it because we're uncomfortable with it, at the same time as we recognise that it's probably inevitable.” - Drew
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
The conversation stems from a review of a noteworthy paper from the Academy of Management Review Journal titled "The Paradox of Stretch Goals: Organizations in Pursuit of the Seemingly Impossible," which offers invaluable insights into the world of goal setting in senior management.
Discussion Points:
The concept of seemingly impossible goals in organizationsControversial nature and impact of ‘zero harm’The role of stretch goals in promoting innovationPotential negative effects of setting stretch goalsPsychological effects of ambitious organizational targetsParadoxical outcomes of setting seemingly impossible goalsThe role of emotions in achieving stretch goalsFactors that contribute to the success of stretch goalsReal-world examples of successful stretch goal implementationCautions against blind imitation of successful stretch goal strategiesThe concept of zero harm in safety initiativesNeed for long-term research on zero harm effectivenessThe answer to our episode’s question – they're good when the organization is currently doing well enough, but stretch goals are not good when the organization is struggling and trying to turn a corner using that stretch goal.Quotes:
"The basic idea [of ‘zero harm’] is that companies should adopt a visionary goal of having zero accidents. Often that comes along with commitment statements by managers, sometimes by workers as well that everyone is committed to the vision of having no accidents." - Drew
“I think organizations are in this loop, where I know maybe I can't achieve zero, but I can't say anything other than zero because that wouldn't be moral or responsible, because I'd be saying it's okay to hurt people. So I set zero because it's the best thing for me to do.” - David
“The “stretch goal” was credited with the introduction of hybrid cars. You've got to have a whole new way of managing your car to get that seemingly impossible goal of doubling your efficiency.”- Drew
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
You’ll hear David and Drew delve into the often overlooked role of bias in accident investigations. They explore the potential pitfalls of data collection, particularly confirmation bias, and discuss the impacts of other biases such as anchoring bias and hindsight bias. Findings from the paper are examined, revealing insights into confirmation bias and its prevalence in interviews. Strategies for enhancing the quality of incident investigations are also discussed, emphasizing the need to shift focus from blaming individuals to investigating organizational causes. The episode concludes with the introduction of Safety Exchange, a platform for global safety community collaboration.
Discussion Points:
Exploring the role of bias in accident investigationsConfirmation bias in data collection can validate initial assumptionsReview of a study examining confirmation bias among industry practitionersAnchoring bias and hindsight bias on safety strategiesRecognizing and confronting personal biases Counterfactuals in steering conversations towards preconceived solutionsStrategies to enhance the quality of incident investigationsShifting focus from blaming individuals to investigating organizational causesSafety Exchange - a platform for global safety communityThe challenges organizations face when conducting good quality investigationsStandardization, trust, and managing time and production constraintsConfirmation bias in shaping investigation outcomesTechniques to avoid bias in accident investigations and improve their qualitySafety Exchange - a safe place for open discussionSix key questionsThe answer to our episode’s question – Very, and we all are as human beings. It does mean that we should probably worry more about the data collection phase of our investigations more than the causal analysis methodology and taxonomy that we concern ourselves withQuotes:
"If we actually don't understand how to get a good data collection process, then it really doesn't matter what happens after that." - David
"The trick is recognizing our biases and separating ourselves from prior experiences to view each incident with fresh eyes." - Drew
"I have heard people in the industry say this to me, that there's no new problems in safety, we've seen them all before." - David
"In talking with people in the industry around this topic, incident investigation and incident investigation quality, 80% of the conversation is around that causal classification taxonomy." - David
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
The research paper discussed is by Anita Tucker and Sarah Singer, titled "The Effectiveness of Management by Walking Around: A Randomised Field Study," published in Production and Operations Management.
Discussion Points:
Understanding senior leadership safety visits and management walkaroundsBest practices for safety management programsHow management walkarounds influence staff perceptionResearch findings comparing intervention and control groupsConsequences of management inactionEffective implementation of changes Role of senior managers in prioritizing problemsImpact of patchy implementationHow leadership visits affect staff perceptionInvestigating management inaction Effective implementation and consultationKey Takeaways:The same general initiative can have very different effectiveness depending on how it's implemented and who's implementing itWhen we do any sort of consultation effort, whether it's forums, walkarounds, reporting systems, or learning teams, what do we judge those on? Do we judge them on their success at consulting or do we judge them on their success at generating actions that get taken?The answer to our episode’s question – Your answer here at the end of our notes is sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the resulting actions.Quotes:
"I've definitely lived and breathed this sort of a program a lot during my career." - David
"The effectiveness of management walkarounds depends on the resulting actions." - David
"The worst thing you can do is spend lots of time deciding what is a high-value problem." - Drew
"Having the senior manager allocated really means that something serious has been done about it." - Drew
"The individual who walks around with the leader and talks about safety with the leader, thinks a lot better about the organization." - David
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
The paper reviewed in this episode is from the Journal of Applied Psychology entitled, “A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: Addressing unanswered questions” by Beus, J. M., Dhanani, L. Y., & McCord, M. A. (2015).
Discussion Points:
Overview of the intersection between psychology and workplace safetyHow personality tests may predict safety performanceAccident proneness theory to modern behaviorismResearch on personality and safety performancePersonality traits influencing work behaviorsThe influence of institutional logicPersonality tests for safety performanceThe need for further research and standardized measurement methodsExamining statistical evidence linking personality to safety performancePersonality traits and their impact on work behaviorAnalysis of research findings on personality and safety performanceThe practical implications of the research findingsThe intriguing yet complex relationship between personality and safetyTakeaways:While not total bunk, we definitely don't understand the impact of personality on safety nearly enough to use it as a tool to predict who will or won't make a safe employeeThere are lots of different ways that we could use personality to get some insights and to make some contributionsWe need people using those measurements to find out more about the relationship between personality and behavior in different situations in different contexts with different choices under different organizational influences.The answer to our episode’s question – Maybe. It depends. Sometimes, in some places not yet. I don't want to say no, but it's not yes yet either.Quotes:
I have to admit, before I read this, I thought that the entire idea of personality testing for safety was total bunk. Coming out of it, I'm still not convinced, but it's much more mixed or nuanced than I was expecting. - Drew
If there was a systemic trend where some people were genuinely more accident prone, we would expect to see much sharper differences between the number of times one person had an accident and all people who didn't have accidents. - Drew
I think anything that lumps people into four or five categories downplays the uniqueness of each individual. - David
There are good professionals in HR, there's good science in HR, but there is a huge amount of pseudo-science around recruiting practices and every country has its own pseudoscience. - Drew
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Show Notes - The Safety of Work - Ep. 109 Do safety performance indicators mean the same thing to different stakeholdersDr. Drew Rae and Dr. David Provan
The abstract reads:
Indicators are used by most organizations to track their safety performance. Research attention has been drawn to what makes for a good indicator (specific, proactive, etc.) and the sometimes perverse and unexpected consequences of their introduction. While previous research has demonstrated some of the complexity, uncertainties and debates that surround safety indicators in the scientific community, to date, little attention has been paid to how a safety indicator can act as a boundary object that bridges different social worlds despite being the social groups’ diverse conceptualization. We examine how a safety performance indicator is interpreted and negotiated by different social groups in the context of public procurement of critical services, specifically fixed-wing ambulance services. The different uses that the procurer and service providers have for performance data are investigated, to analyze how a safety performance indicator can act as a boundary object, and with what consequences. Moving beyond the functionality of indicators to explore the meanings ascribed by different actors, allows for greater understanding of how indicators function in and between social groups and organizations, and how safety is more fundamentally conceived and enacted. In some cases, safety has become a proxy for other risks (reputation and financial). Focusing on the symbolic equivocality of outcome indicators and even more tightly defined safety performance indicators ultimately allows a richer understanding of the priorities of each actor within a supply chain and indicates that the imposition of oversimplified indicators may disrupt important work in ways that could be detrimental to safety performance.
Discussion Points:
What we turn into numbers in an organizationBackground of how this paper came aboutFour main groups - procurement, incoming operator, outgoing operator, pilotsAvailability is key for air ambulancesIncentivizing availabilityOutgoing operators/providers feel they lost the contract unfairlyThe point of view of the incoming operators/providers Military pilots fill in between providersUsing numbers to show how good/bad the service isPilots - caught in the middleContracts always require a trade-offBoundary objects- what does availability mean to different people?Maximizing core deliverables safelyProblems with measuring availabilityPressure within the systemPutting a number on performance Takeaways:Choice of a certain metric that isn’t what you need leads to perverse behaviorPlacing indicators on things can make other things invisibleFinancial penalties tied to indicators can be counteractiveThe answer to our episode’s question – Yes, metrics on the boundaries can communicate in different directionsQuotes:
“The way in which we turn things into numbers reveals a lot about the logic that is driving the way that we act and give meaning to our actions.” - Drew
“You’ve got these different measures of the service that are vastly different, depending on what you’re counting, and what you’re looking for..” - David
“The paper never draws a final conclusion - was the service good, was the service bad?” - Drew
“The pilots are always in this sort of weird, negotiated situation, where ‘doing the right thing’ could be in either direction.” - Drew
“If someone’s promising something better, bigger, faster and cheaper, make sure you take the effort to understand how that company is going to do that….” - David
Resources:
Link to the Paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
This report details the full findings of the world’s largest four-day working week trial to date, comprising 61 companies and around 2,900 workers, that took place in the UK from June to December 2022. The design of the trial involved two months of preparation for participants, with workshops, coaching, mentoring and peer support, drawing on the experience of companies who had already moved to a shorter working week, as well as leading research and consultancy organisations. The report results draw on administrative data from companies, survey data from employees, alongside a range of interviews conducted over the pilot period, providing measurement points at the beginning, middle, and end of the trial.
Discussion Points:
Background on the five-day workweekWe’ll set out to prove or review two central claims:Reduce hours worked, and maintain same productivityReduced hours will provide benefits to the employeesDigging in to the Autonomy organization and the researchers and authorsSays “trial” but it’s more like a pilot program61 companies, June to December 2022Issues with methodology - companies will change in 6 months coming out of Covid- a controlled trial would have been betterThe pilot only includes white collar jobs - no physical, operational, high-hazard businessesThe revenue numbersAnalysing the staff numbers- how many filled out the survey? What positions did the respondents hold in the company?Who experienced positive vs. negative changes in individual resultsInterviews from the “shop floor” was actually CEOs and office staffEliminating wasted time from the five-day weekWhat different companies preferred employees to do with their ‘extra time’Assumption 1: there is a business use case benefit- not trueAssumption 2: benefits for staff - mixed resultsTakeaways:Don’t use averagesFinding shared goals can be good for everyoneBe aware of burden-shiftingThe answer to our episode’s question – It’s a promising idea, but results are mixed, and it requires more controlled trial researchQuotes:
“It’s important to note that this is a pre-Covid idea, this isn’t a response to Covid.” - Dr. Drew
“...there's a reason why we like to do controlled trials. That reason is that things change in any company over six months.” - Drew
“ …a lot of the qualitative data sample is very tiny. Only a third of the companies got spoken to, and only one senior representative who was already motivated to participate in the trial, would like to think that anything that their company does is successful.” - David
“I'm pretty sure if you picked any company, you're taking into account things like government subsidies for Covid, grants, and things like that. Everyone had very different business in 2021-2022.” - Drew
“We're not trying to accelerate the pace of work, we're trying to remove all of the unnecessary work.” - Drew
“I think people who plan the battle don't battle the plan. I like collaborative decision-making in general, but I really like it in relation to goal setting and how to achieve those goals.” - David
Resources:
Link to the Pilot Study
Autonomy
The Harwood Experiment Episode
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Summary:
The purpose of the Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) Strategy 2023–2033 (the Strategy) is to outline a national vision for WHS — Safe and healthy work for all — and set the platform for delivering on key WHS improvements. To do this, the Strategy articulates a primary goal supported by national targets, and the enablers, actions and system-wide shifts required to achieve this goal over the next ten years. This Strategy guides the work of Safe Work Australia and its Members, including representatives of governments, employers and workers – but should also contribute to the work and understanding of all in the WHS system including researchers, experts and practitioners who play a role in owning, contributing to and realising the national vision.
Discussion Points:
Background on Safe Work Australia The strategy includes six goals for reducing:Worker fatalities caused by traumatic injuries by 30% The frequency rate of serious claims resulting in one or more weeks off work by 20% The frequency rate of claims resulting in permanent impairment by 15% The overall incidence of work-related injury or illness among workers to below 3.5% The frequency rate of work-related respiratory disease by 20% No new cases of accelerated silicosis by 2033The strategy is a great opportunity to set a direction for research and educationFive actions covered by the strategy:Information and raising awarenessNational CoordinationData and intelligence gatheringHealth and safety leadershipCompliance and enforcementWhen regulators fund research - they demand tangible results quicklyMany safety documents and corporate safety systems never reach the most vulnerable workers, who don’t have ‘regular’ long-term jobsStandardization can increase unnecessary workWhen and where do organizations access safety information?Data - AI use for the futureStrategy lacks milestones within the ten-year spanEnforcement - we don’t have evidence-based data on the effectsTakeaways:The idea of a national strategy? Good.Balancing safety with innovation, evidenceAnswering our episode question: Need research into specific workforces, what is the evidence behind specific industry issues. “Lots of research is needed!”Quotes:
“The fact is, that in Australia, traumatic injury fatalities - which are the main ones that they are counting - are really quite rare, even if you add the entire country together.” - Drew
“I really see no point in these targets. They are not tangible, they’re not achievable, they’re not even measurable, with the exception of respiratory disease…” - Drew
“These documents are not only an opportunity to set out a strategic direction for research and policy, and industry activity, but also an opportunity to educate.” - David
“When regulators fund research, they tend to demand solutions. They want research that’s going to produce tangible results very quickly.” - Drew
“I would have loved a concrete target for improving education and training- that is something that is really easy to quantify.” - Drew
Resources:
Link to the strategy document
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
Baron's work focuses primarily on judgment and decision-making, a multi-disciplinary area that applies psychology to problems of ethical decisions and resource allocation in economics, law, business, and public policy.
The paper’s summary:
Recent efforts to teach thinking could be unproductive without a theory of what needs to be taught and why. Analysis of where thinking goes wrong suggests that emphasis is needed on 'actively open-minded thinking'. including the effort to search for reasons why an initial conclusion might be wrong, and on reflection about rules of inference, such as heuristics used for making decisions and judgments. Such instruction has two functions. First. it helps students to think on their own. Second. it helps them to understand the nature of expert knowledge, and, more generally, the nature of academic disciplines. The second function, largely neglected in discussions of thinking instruction. can serve as the basis for thinking instruction in the disciplines. Students should learn how knowledge is obtained through actively open-minded thinking. Such learning will also teach students to recognize false claims to systematic knowledge.
Discussion Points:
Critical thinking and Chat AI Teaching knowledge vs. critical thinkingSection One: Introduction- critical thinking is a stated goal of many teaching institutionsSection Two: The Current Rationale/What is thinking? Reading about thinking is quite difficult!Baron’s “Myside Bias” is today’s confirmation or selection biasReflective learning- does it help with learning?Section Three: Abuses - misapplying thinking in schools and businessBreaking down learning into sub-sectionsSection Four: The growth of knowledge - beginning in Medieval timesSection Five: The basis of expertise - what is an ‘expert’? Every field has its own self-critiquesDrew’s brain is hurting just getting through this discussionSection Six: What the educated person should knowStudying accidents in safety science - student assignmentsTakeaways:Good thinking means being able to make good decisions re: expertsPrecision is required around what is necessary for learningWell-informed self-criticism is necessary Answering our episode question: Can we teach critical thinking? It was never answered in this paper, but it gave us a lot to think aboutQuotes:
“It’s a real stereotype that old high schools were all about rote learning. I don’t think that was ever the case. The best teachers have always tried to inspire their students to do more than just learn the material.” - Drew
“Part of the point he’s making is, is that not everyone who holds themself out to be an expert IS an expert…that’s when we have to have good thinking tools .. who IS an expert and how do we know who to trust?” - Drew
“Baron also says that even good thinking processes won’t necessarily help much when specific knowledge is lacking…” - David
‘The smarter students are, the better they are at using knowledge about cognitive biases to criticize other people’s beliefs, rather than to help themselves think more critically.” - Drew
“Different fields advance by different sorts of criticism..to understand expertise a field you need to understand how that field does its internal critique.” - Drew
Resources:
Link to the paper
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
-
You’ll hear a little about Schein’s early career at Harvard and MIT, including his Ph.D. work – a paper on the experience of POWs during wartime contrasted against the indoctrination of individuals joining an organization for employment. Some of Schein’s 30-year-old concepts that are now common practice and theory in organizations, such as “psychological safety”
Discussion Points:
A brief overview of Schein’s career, at Harvard and MIT’s School of Management and his fascinating Ph.D. on POWs during the Korean WarA bit about the book, Humble InquiryDigging into the paperThree types of learning:Knowledge acquisition and insight learningHabits and skillsEmotional conditioning and learned anxietyPractical examples and the metaphor of Pavlov’s dogCountering Anxiety I with Anxiety IIThree processes of ‘unfreezing’ an organization or individual to change:DisconfirmationCreation of guilt or anxietyPsychological safetyMistakes in organizations and how they respondThere are so many useful nuggets in this paperSchein’s solutions: Steering committees/change teams/groups to lead the organizations and manage each other’s anxietyTakeaways:How an organization deals with mistakes will determine how change happensAssessing levels of fear and anxietyKnow what stands in your way if you want progressAnswering our episode question: How can organizations learn faster? 1) Don't make people afraid to enter the green room. 2) Or make them more afraid to stand on the black platform.Quotes:
“...a lot of people credit [Schein] with being the granddaddy of organizational culture.” - Drew
“[Schein] says .. in order to learn skills, you've got to be willing to be temporarily incompetent, which is great if you're learning soccer and not so good if you're learning to run a nuclear power plant.” - Drew
“Schein says quite clearly that punishment is very effective in eliminating certain kinds of behavior, but it's also very effective in inducing anxiety when in the presence of the person or the environment that taught you that lesson.” - Drew
“We've said before that we think sometimes in safety, we're about three or four decades behind some of the other fields, and this might be another example of that.” - David
“Though curiosity and innovation are values that are praised in our society, within organizations and particularly large organizations, they're not actually rewarded.” - Drew
Resources:
Link to the paper
Humble Inquiry by Edgar Schein
The Safety of Work Podcast
The Safety of Work on LinkedIn
Feedback@safetyofwork
- Vis mere
