Page 84 - OHS, July/August 2024

BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGIES
BY ROBERT PATER
LIs Safety “Help” Helpful?
eaders are typically focused on making things happen. I’ve found almost all safety leaders to be well-meaning, desir- ous and dedicated to preventing bad things from occurring to others. But good intentions don’t always pave the way to
change-effective plans and actions.
It’s good to reflect, “Is what I’m doing actually moving us to
where we should be going?” Also, “To what degree have we been successful because of what and how we’ve done things versus in spite of our decisions and actions?”
This reminds me of “Is Help Helpful?” a short essay by Jack Gibb, one of my organizational leadership heroes (Google him to learn more). Jack was a consistent proponent for relationships hav- ing to be built on a foundation of honesty and trust in order to suc- cessfully foster higher-level individual and organizational results.
Embedded in his beliefs was that no single leader was the star and all others merely bit players. Rather, essential leadership func- tions were too numerous to be invested in any one person or even in a very small group, and the numerous elements necessary for shaping high performance had to be shared and spread amongst as many as possible.
I’ve found this to be spot on; so much so it’s built into our glob- al work that weaves a “scissors” cultural upgrade approach (both top-down management and grassroots-up change) to propel and sustain significant reductions in injuries. Why we prepare selected workers to first share new performance methods and strategies with their peers, following up actively conversing with co-workers in informal moments and then crafting ongoing reinforcements.
In his essay, Jack wrote, “People in the service professions often see themselves as primarily engaged in the job of helping others. Help, however, is not always helpful. The recipient of the proffered help might not see it as useful. The offering might not lead to great- er satisfaction or to better performance.”
Though written decades ago, this is still highly relevant. Look at any of the recent “trust” indicators to starkly see that faith in man- agement’s intent or abilities has been plummeting. For example, a recent annual Edelman’s Trust Barometer, was titled, “Failure of Leadership Makes Distrust the Default.”
So, I suggest it can benefit our mission to consider, “To what degree is our safety ‘help’ actually helpful?” High-mindedly, the an- swer might appear to be yes, but how is it actually received and re- sponded to? Has what we’ve been implementing tangibly improved incidence and severity, or have we merely maintained a status that really isn’t “quo?” Do our plans and actions energize and sustain step-ups in the ways people more safely and effectively assess, de- cide and do tasks at work and at home?
Or, alternately, is some of our intended “help” in fact disregarded and reduces leaders’ credibility, even turning others off to safety? Seen as busy work, theoretical or impractical? Or, worse, generate push- back? Even making it more likely some workers go out of their way to show how independent or tough they are by disregarding safety imperatives. Or are we sending mixed messages that confuse at best or torpedo receptivity at worst (“Get this out on time and take your time to do it safely?”) Or, are we sending mixed messages that confuse at best or torpedo receptivity at worst (“Get this out on time and take your time to do it safely?”), or are we perceived as, “We’re primar-
ily concerned with how the company looks, not so much about you?”
Because here’s the thing: In both
leadership and personal economic
terms, it’s what you get to keep that
counts. Many “high-powered” lead-
ers create pushback or disconnec-
tion, which detracts from their team’s
achievements. In other words, their “leadership net worth” can only be measured after subtracting their “overhead” from what their organization accomplishes. Such leadership “operating expenses” arise from the resistance they incite, the presenteeism they “inspire” (where others do the bare minimum to cover themselves), the cre- ativity quashed out of lack of desire to push past “the way we do things around here” or fear of being cut down for even considering crafting new or creative solutions. Then there’s the turnover of the most talented that some leaders activate.
The strongest leaders don’t just call for “personal responsibility” from everyone else, they exemplify this themselves. Considering ques- tions such as: When we don’t get the positive reactions we were hop- ing for — in attention, interest and actions — what might have been our part in this? (Far beyond complaining about workers “not caring enough” about their own safety or being too “stupid” to understand?)
Was the possible “disconnect” due to what we expected them to do differently? Were we asking for too big a change all at once? Did we not do a good job of getting across what the new procedure was to their understanding and acceptance? Or, alternately, was the way we communicated not persuasive, perhaps even turning some off, seen as parental or arrogant or dismissive? Or sending “supe- riority” signals such as, “We’re only doing this for your own good.” Are we assuming without question that we know what the others deeply want — or “should” want — and that this is exactly what we as leaders want (shock?) This is the polar opposite of neuroscien- tific studies that demonstrate that “choice confirmation” is critical for improving learning and sustaining changed actions.
I’ve heard from many HSE leaders that influencing safety can be frustrating. Harness frustration. When I feel stymied, and don’t understand why others, whose best interest I have at heart, are re- sisting (“What’s the matter with them? Why won’t they do what’s in their own best interest?”), I remind myself to stop, take a breath and ask myself, “In what ways might my intended help not be seen as helpful? Was it the specific procedure? The way it was delivered? What am I missing? How might I approach this differently?”
As Jack wrote: “Help is most helpful when given in an atmo- sphere in which people have reciprocal feelings of trust, openness and acceptance.” I’ve similarly found that joint discovery, problem- solving, and learning to be highly effective towards stimulating trust and change in safety performance with nearly everyone and nearly everywhere.
Robert Pater is the Managing Director and creator of the MoveSMART® system for preventing strains/sprains, slips/trips/falls, hand injuries implemented in over 60 countries. Their emphasis is on “Energizing, Engaging Expertise” to simultaneously elevate safety per- formance, leadership and culture.
82 Occupational Health & Safety | JULY/AUGUST 2024
www.ohsonline.com