Page 22 - Occupational Health & Safety, June 2017

SAFETY MANAGEMENT
gated risks. Employee statements such as: “I thought completing this work now was a priority” or “It was my understanding that it did not matter how it got done as long as it gets done,” are leading indicators that your culture is fostering bulletproof employees utilizing unit bias and incremental rational- ization as justifications for actions. Another example is when you hear, “We do not have the resources to get all of this done.”
Effective strategies to combat incre- mental rationalization include encourag- ing open and honest conversations with employees, understanding expectations, yours and theirs, perceived time con- straints and unit biases. Align their safety as a top priority and a value above all else. Think ten steps ahead by considering the consequences of leadership actions as they relate to the resulting employee reactions and behaviors.
The Relevance of Accountability
Accountability is one of those concepts that everyone knows but few want to recognize because it applies to someone else. It is eva- sive, hard to capture yet easy to spot. It is a riddle for most organizations. Accountabil- ity can be externally or self-imposed. We’ve seen how organizations that do not have it fail and those that have too much of it also fail. In one case, no one is responsible for anything, in the other, everyone is account- able. In both cases, too little or too much is not a good thing.
There are situations where line supervi- sors value and focus much more on person- al friendships with each of their employees over their responsibilities to the employer. In these cases, the department’s overall per- formance often leads to productivity losses, missed commitments and non-compliance with the company’s safety requirements. Employees tend to show up late for work and leave early. Employees take frequent breaks and do not wear the proper personal protective equipment to perform their jobs. The workplace suddenly transforms into a social club. In the end, this leads to injuries and a customer that may not be enamored with the organization’s performance. The issue here is a lack of accountability and a real haven for bulletproof employees.
In another case, the line supervisor values and focuses much more on his re- sponsibilities to his employer over the per- sonal relationships with his employees. The
line supervisor is quick on the attack and the blame game: “Meet the schedule, the schedule, the schedule. Lower cost, lower cost, and lower cost. Higher quality, higher quality, and more top quality. Chop, chop!” This approach leads to a high rate of dis- ciplinary actions, high employee stress and high turnover rates which convert into pro- ductivity losses, missed commitments and ultimately non-compliance with the com- pany’s safety requirements.
In the end, an unbalanced application of accountability often leads to injuries and a customer that was not enamored with the organization’s performance.
The strategy is to find a balance that pro- motes openness, the assumption of respon- sibilities and the prevention of a bullet proof employee culture. Consequential leadership is a tool that can assist in this regard.
Consequential Leadership:
If-Then Proposition
There is an arsenal of written material on the topic of leadership and even more debate about which is the best for a par- ticular situation. Undoubtedly and like accountability, too much of consequential leadership is not a good thing for any or- ganization. Achieving balance in leader- ship introduces stability within the orga- nization. One of the most useful tools in turning around bulletproof employees is the consistent and predictable application of consequential leadership at the right moment in time. Establish accountability by applying the appropriate dose. Holding yourself and others accountable for meet- ing commitments builds a sound basis for expectation management and accurate forecasts of future outcomes.
One of the most prominent examples of consequential leadership occurs thousands of times every day in the airline industry.
How is it possible to take hundreds of strangers on an airplane from diverse back- grounds and walks of life (all ages, men, women and children, multiple faiths, re- tirees, early and mid-career professionals from various global employers) and have them exactly behave as other strangers want them to act?
Think about it. These travelers allow others to physically search them at will, to tell them where and when they must sit, when they can move about, what to do with their phones and computers, what
luggage they can take on board and what luggage they must check in, what personal items they can and cannot carry onboard, when they can board the plane, who goes first, second, third and fourth and, last but not least, when they can use the restroom. Deviations are not permitted and the air- line’s demands cannot be questioned. One hundred percent compliance is required. How can this happen and why do most people comply nearly one hundred per- cent of the time?
The flight crew is on a mission:
“Ma’am, your bag is too large. You must check it. Sir, you are in group five, we are boarding group three.”
“Step aside please, wheelchair coming through.”
“At this time, all small electronic devices must be placed in airplane mode and all larger electronics must be turned off.”
“This is a reminder to all passen- gers that the seatbelt sign is illuminated. Please, return to your seats and buckle your seatbelts.”
“It is now permitted to use your elec- tronic devices in airplane mode.”
“Ma’am, please push your seat forward, turn off your computer, close and stow your table tray. We are about to land.”
Flight crews have a tough job. They are the leaders, the enforcers and the customer service representatives. Why is it then that we, as road warriors, virtually comply every time? The airlines do not have an employee/ employer relationship or anything else that can force its passengers to behave exactly as the flight attendants demand other than the power and influence of consistently en- forced safety rules.
Consequential leadership is an if-then proposition between parties. The proposi- tion is if you follow what you are directed to do, then you will have a higher probability of achieving your end goal. In the airline passenger scenario, the one commonality everyone shares on the aircraft is to achieve is a safe, uninterrupted flight to their des- tination, period. If anyone elects not to follow the flight attendant’s directives, the perpetrator(s) will be removed from the plane or, if in route, they likely will be ar- rested upon arrival thereby not achieving the ultimate goal of an uninterrupted flight.
The airline industry unequivocally en- forces the laws governing the friendly skies for the safety of all passengers. We know
22 Occupational Health & Safety | JUNE 2017
www.ohsonline.com