As you know, I always like to go back in time and pass on what I learned from my former bosses and mentors. This one is a classic and is usually in the Top 5 frustrations of non-safety management personnel:
The ever-changing safety programs and expectations every time we get a new safety leader
I hate to be the one to say it, but usually, I’m one of the few who will say it, but this problem/frustration lies SOLEY AT THE FEET OF MANAGEMENT!
As safety pros, we have all experienced this and the backlash we get when trying to improve a “safety program.” The lack of MANAGEMENT OWNERSHIP of said compliance program drives this scenario and the frustrations accompanying it. This lack of ownership may also be why there is so much turnover in a facility’s safety role(s).
But in 1999, I got many a_s handed to me by my new plant manager when I began to identify necessary changes to out-of-date or poorly written safety programs based on MY PERSONAL (and VPP Star) safety standards. He was not against me making improvements; after all, that is precisely what he hired me to do. He got fired up about how I was making those changes as if the “safety program” was all “mine” to do with as I pleased. Granted, most of the other managers on his staff were fine with me doing everything within my little world of safety. However, my PM “politely” clarified that this is a management program for which I am just the SME. They OWN it, not me or my team. And from that day forward, this is how safety got managed…
This was such a welcomed change for me, not that my previous employers did not have the same expectations, but “Jim” was a former safety manager in his younger days at BFG, and he could explain in great detail how safety was going to function under his leadership and the role he expected me to play. I found this approach far better than the typical approach many safety pros deal with today… battling management for their involvement and approvals of the safe work practices/programs.
At BFG, I was merely the SME Coach who could help the managers, who were accountable for their team members’ safety, achieve better performance via a better-written program/SMS/Safety Process. This, too, was something I was used to by 1999… I was NOT responsible for safety numbers but for putting a plan/process/SMS in place that would generate the desired numbers if the management team utilized it to its full ability. This led to me creating the LEADING INDICATORS so the plant manager could see in “real-time” who was utilizing the plan/process/SMS activities to manage their risks. This was my final plant-level assignment, and it was the solidification of all that I had learned along the way over 15 years; it convinced me beyond any shadow of a doubt that an SMS/Safety Process that utilizes Leading Indicators is a potent tool to lead a facility to unimaginable safety performance by which we can clearly articulate how those results were achieved.
This is also when I learned how to MANAGE CHANGES via a Management of Change process. I was required to use the MOC tool on every program change, and at first, I thought this was overkill, especially when the program was not part of the PSM/RMP management system. Only then did I realize that PSM is a “safety management system” and the tools provided by that SMS had validity in every change we made in safety. It was NEVER about OSHA or EPA compliance; it was about living by the SMS/Safety Process.
And this is what made the difference… living by the SMS. It is a TOOL to allow managers (outside of the EHS group) who may not be fully educated on hazards, risks, safeguards/controls, hierarchy of controls, etc., to be fully immersed in the decision-making regarding safety. Safety was NOT mine; it was the Management Team’s responsibility. When they are fully engaged in the SMS/Process, they own it, and when someone comes along, like a new safety manager, and wants to change something, they will push back. That opens many doors for the safety professional to EDUCATE and MOTIVATE the management team. But we must SELL the change/improvement to those responsible for safety performance. This requires OPEN dialog amongst the management team regarding what, how, and why the change is needed for continuous improvement (another element of a mature SMS/Safety Process). This OPENNESS and discussions provide us the platform to push management to achieve better safety and risk reduction.
However, their ownership of the SMS/Safety Process will reduce the turnover of safety personnel. After all, the #1 reason safety professionals leave a rile is the LACK of management support/participation and being held accountable for safety numbers that are out of their control. This ownership also ends the waves of changes everytime a new safety pro is promoted or hired into the role. Management ownership of safety (SMS/Safety Process) provides stability. And if the company holds them accountable for safety performance, they will be primed to hear what we say about reducing injuries and illnesses. We need to be prepared to explain why the change is needed and what it will do for them and their teams. We may not win every requested change; it’s not the end of the world. Just let the data speak for itself, and one day, that change will be the one to take them to the next level of safety performance.
So, if management is frustrated with the ever-changing “safety program,” it may be time for management to own safety and allow the safety professional/team to play their fundamental role in the SMS/Safety Process.
