Select Page

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Breaking Down Psychological Distance to Improve Safety with Dr. David Hofmann

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Breaking Down Psychological Distance to Improve Safety with Dr. David Hofmann

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

We’re thrilled to welcome back Dr. David Hofmann for another compelling and thought-provoking episode of The Safety Guru! In this episode, Dave dives into his latest groundbreaking research: “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: How High-Level Construals Can Decrease the Ethical Framing of Risk-Mitigating Behavior.” He explores how psychological distance, an often-overlooked barrier, can influence perceptions, increase risk, and lead to unsafe behaviors and decisions. Grounded in solid research and real-world organizational examples, Dave highlights what leaders can do to bridge that gap, bringing risks back into focus and reducing them effectively to improve safety. Learn how organizations can keep risk-mitigating considerations front and center, ensuring that every safety decision reflects a deep commitment to protecting frontline team members and maintaining safety as a clear and consistent value and priority. Don’t miss this must-listen episode filled with practical insights to elevate safety so that it’s never out of sight, out of mind!

READ THE EPISODE

Real leaders leave a legacy. They capture the hearts and minds of their teams. Their origin story puts the safety and well-being of their people first. Great companies ubiquitously have safe, yet productive operations. For those companies, safety is an investment, not a cost for the C-suite. It’s a real topic of daily focus. This is the Safety Guru with your host, Eric Michrowski, a globally recognized ops and safety guru, public speaker and author. Are you ready to leave a safety legacy? Your legacy success story begins now.

Hi, and welcome to the Safety Guru. Today, I’m very excited to have back with me Dr. David Hoffmann. He’s a Distinguished Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at UNC Kenan Flagler. He was previously on our show. We had an excellent conversation around psychological distance, brought a lot of conversation. Really key topic. He’s just writing a new article, our new piece of research, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind”. David, welcome to the show. Very excited to have you back.

Thanks, Eric. It’s great to be back, and I’m excited for our conversation today.

Absolutely. So maybe tell me a little bit about the research you did on construal theory and psychological distance. What was some of the motivation behind that research?

Okay, great. We’ll get into the details of the research, I’m sure. But let me tell you just a little bit about where it came because it started actually a number of years ago. As this research process works, sometimes you get an initial idea, and then it just builds over time. The first nugget of this idea was I served on the National Academy of Science Commission that investigated the BP Deepwater Horizon accident. We visited as part of that investigation an onshore monitoring location of one of the major oil companies. Sure. And so that is onshore, sitting in an office in Houston, watching offshore drilling operations several hundred miles away. And I was just struck by the person being that far away from the real-time operations and the equipment and the sound and all of that thing that you’re divorced from in that location. And at the same time, one of our doctoral students was getting into this research on construal level theory and psychological distance, which we can define later. Sure. It was just the marrying of those two things. I started talking with a student about this idea. To further research the idea, we sat down with some folks that worked in an onshore command Center but had all worked offshore.

They had navigated from offshore drilling operations, et cetera, to onshore. We just got about four or five of these folks together, and we just said, you know that transition from Offshore to onshore, how did that affect how you think about your job? Super open-ended question. It was really interesting. They just started talking about, well, you just don’t feel the time pressure or the urgency. You can step back and take a little bit more of a systems view of how things are unfolding. If you see something, you can get up and you can go to the window and get a cup of coffee and you can think about it, versus being onshore where you have the equipment and the sound and this a perceived pressure to make a fast decision. They said, it just really changes your perspective. I asked, well, is it helpful having worked offshore being onshore? They said, oh, yeah, super helpful because you can imagine what it’s like being, what safety people would call the sharp end being on the rig. But then one of their other colleagues said something interesting, and they said, Yeah, but it’s amazing how quickly you go native, and you forget.

I thought that was an interesting observation. We continued to noodle on the idea after that, and we just thought there’s something to this notion of being far removed from the work environment that we think could have some interesting implications for safety. That’s where it started.

Tell me a little bit about the research. We talked about previously with psychological distance. Obviously, this comes up in this research as well as the control theory part. Tell me a little bit about what you uncovered.

Yeah, we were in the midst of this research, I think, last time we talked. I alluded to it, but I didn’t want to get into details because it hadn’t been published yet. We were still in the process of trying to get it through the journal. But okay, so let me step back for a minute and just high-level define this thing called psychological distance or construe-level theory, and hopefully, your listeners have not gone to sleep just hearing those two terms, but I’ll try to keep it high level. So can true-level theory and psychological distance, the same thing. They talk about how we can conceptualize goals and other things at certain levels of abstraction. We could think about things way off in the distance. We typically conceptualize at an abstract level, and we think about the why, why we might want to do something. Then as it gets closer in time, the details become a lot more concrete, and we think about the how. Sure. Let me give you an example. You have this amazing opportunity. Somebody reaches out and says, Eric, we would I love for you to come be a keynote speaker at this conference in Singapore, and it’s going to be all these amazing people.

You’re going to meet all these amazing people, and it’s a year from now. You say, oh, wow, that sounds amazing. I can meet all these amazing people, and I can be this keynote. It makes me feel good to get this keynote opportunity. You commit to it because of the why, because it’s way off in the distance. You’re not really thinking much about the how. Then as you get closer, close, and you think, oh, it’s going to be a 12-hour time inversion. I’m like, Bio-rhymes are going to be totally off, and it’s expensive to get there and then get back. I’ve got these other demands popping up right into this thing. What was I thinking? That’s a little bit of, we can commit to things way off in the distance because we think about the why, we don’t think about the how. As it becomes more concrete, the how becomes a lot more salient. That’s a little bit about how this control level theory works.

Sure.

It’s very, very well-researched in social psychology. Decades of research on this, and it’s a very powerful effect. What we thought with respect to safety is that moral and ethical values, religious values, typically in the literature, are construed at a pretty abstract level. That I have a certain value or religious commitment that says, I want to treat the others the way I want to be treated, the way I’d like to be treated. That’s an abstract principle. Because it’s an abstract principle, I can apply it in multiple situations. That’s why we abstract that principle so we can apply it consistently across different scenarios and situations. Ethical values and moral morality, moral ethics, typically have been found to be these abstract principles. But we thought that this notion of distance in some situations could actually work the opposite way, in that something far off in the distance might actually create less of an ethical and moral imperative. That was really what we sought out to research in this paper.

Something like safety would fall, likely in this category, where I I don’t want to harm anybody, but in a corporate head office, it’s abstract as a concept. I want to be a good person. I want to make the right decision that doesn’t harm people. I feel bad when somebody gets injured, but it’s pretty abstract if you’re a CFO or CEO or COO. Yeah. 

That’s exactly where we went with the study. Because there is a lot of research that what makes something an ethical or moral imperative is the potential to harm someone else. That when there’s a potential harming of another human, that puts an ethical moral lens on it. What we thought in the research was that, if we go back to that example to make it more concrete, pun intended, to take it out of the abstract conversation, make it more concrete, if we go back to that remote operating person. They’re sitting in front of six or seven computer screens. They’re watching operations that are happening 4,000 or 5,000 miles, or 4,000 or 5,000 miles, if it’s another part of the world. Our thought was that it’s going to be hard for them to conceptualize the harm that can construe, even if they had worked offshore and navigated onshore because of that one colleague that says, Yeah, you get acclimated quickly to this environment. We set out to look at that. I’ll just give you a couple One of the examples. One of the… What I thought was the coolest study we did is that we took offshore drillers, and we showed offshore.

We randomly assigned the offshore drillers into two conditions. In one condition, they saw abstract aerial views of drilling rigs from their company. Then the other half of the participants saw photos of a rig floor, like You’re on the offshore drilling rig. We made sure there were no people in any of the images. We didn’t have people in the close-up images and not people in the distance images. Just images, no people.

Sure.

Then we asked them just, what do you observe? They typed in some things. Then we had 10 safety behaviors, like ensuring people are wearing PPE and other types of just safety behaviors. We said, To what extent safety behaviors ethical or moral obligations? Just on a five point, seven-point scale, it’s not an ethical moral obligation at all, or it’s an ethical moral narrative. Sure. It’s a pretty simple study and what we found is that when the people saw the distant images, so the aerial views of the helicopter view of the drilling rate, they viewed these safety behaviors as less of an ethical moral obligation, in part because of the perception of harm, which we also coded in the study. Interesting. And so, what you saw is that as I get more removed from the work environment, I no longer perceive the harm. I view safety as less of an ethical moral obligation and duty. And then we did a few other studies we can talk about, but that was a what I thought was the coolest study, because I don’t know of a study that had been done. I don’t know of a study just like, hey, let’s show us some photographs.

It’s a different perspective on the work environment and see how it affects their moral and ethical judgments around safety, and we found that a pretty nice effect.

Interesting. I know my aha after last conversation was really a realization that corporate America, any country, corporate Canada, corporate Australia, United Kingdom, is very far removed from the day-to-day operation. Even if you think about Houston or Denver that have a big oil and gas presence, there’s no drilling occurring in that immediate vicinity. Even utilities have a very large service territory. Even manufacturing, they may have started with the corporate office close to the manufacturing plant, but they’re typically quite far away from the day-to-day. In some cases, we’ll probably get to that very soon, companies’ corporate offices move away from it. Boeing was a very key case study where their operations were out in Seattle, and then they moved to Chicago.

Yeah, in the flying blind, that’s one of the levers that the author talks about as a reduction of the safety culture is that it was really a double removal or a double distance because one, they moved corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. And then also the senior leaders, they started putting in place senior leaders that didn’t have an engineering aviation background. And so now there’s professional distances as well, which is professional training to really understand that. Related to what you just mentioned, the Houston and Seattle, and Chicago, we actually did two studies, but one of them with nurses, which we took a sample of nurses, and we actually manipulated this distance of the work environment in two ways. So, one way, we repeated the photographs. So, we showed them an outdoor picture of a hospital from outside the hospital. And then we showed them a picture of a hospital floor, nursing station, and hospital rooms and whatever. No people in either photo. So, we tried to eliminate that compound. But then we also said, we asked the nurses what the closest major city is to where they work. And so, you can imagine a nurse says, the major city that I work close to is your hometown, Toronto.

And so, the nurse types in Toronto, and then we randomly assign people. And so, what we did is we said, the people who saw the outside view of the hospital, and they’re working in Toronto, we actually say, imagine that This is a hospital in Miami, Florida. And then the other nurse, say two nurses do our study from Toronto. The other nurse says that they work in Toronto, and they see the inside view of the hospital. And we say, imagine that hospital is in Toronto. So, we gave outside views in a city far, far away. It was Miami for everybody because Miami is pretty far away from most everywhere. And then we did control, actually. If we had somebody from Fort Lauderdale in a sample, we controlled for that. We had outside view of the hospital, Miami, inside view of the hospital, in your hometown. Then we repeated, to what extent is there likely to be a nurse harmed or a patient harmed in this environment in the next 30 days? And then to what extent is safety an ethical moral obligation? And then we also had them look at safety behaviors. And then in one of the studies, we actually had them invest money into productivity or safety.

And again, we repeated the finding in the sense that people who were viewing a work environment that was way off in the distance via photos, a faraway city, they perceived less harm was going to happen, perceived safety is less of an ethical moral obligation. Then when they were given the opportunity to spend $10,000 on increasing productivity or ensuring safety, those folks were more likely to put the money towards productivity if you perceived less harm and you were far away. We went all the way through a behavioral investment decision, at least in one of the studies. This notion of it can be perceived distance, just the photos. It can be physical distance, the cities. They found levels of the hierarchy in an organization. The higher you are up in an organization, the more abstractly you can strew the goals and objectives of the organization. We went through. That notion of city differences, we investigated in a couple of the studies.

Phenomenal research. Scary in some ways in terms of implications. Let’s get into some of the implications.

This episode of The Safety Guru podcast is brought to you by Propulo Consulting, the leading safety and safety culture advisory firm. Whether you are looking to assess your safety culture, develop strategies to level up your safety performance, introduce human performance capabilities, free energy Organize your BBS program, enhance supervisory safety capabilities, or introduce unique safety leadership training and talent solutions, Propulo has you covered. Visit us at propulo.com.

I know one of the things that comes to mind when you bring this up is often when I speak to executives, they say, I have a 34,000-foot view or 38,000-foot view of the operation, which is very I could, based on what you’re sharing.

Yeah, that’s the good news and the bad news. Right. I mean, they need that 38,000-foot view of the organization to think about long-term strategy, to think about industry dynamics, industry changes, how to stay in front of those industry changes from an innovation standpoint, from a product standpoint, from a profitability standpoint. But simultaneously, the opposite side of that same coin, is that they do have a 38,000-foot view. They lose sight of some of the harm that can accrue in some of the perhaps financial decisions, investment decisions that they’re making, investments in safety research, or if we go back to the California wildfires, tree trimming budget. Can we just cut that 10% a little bit and then get a little bit more money for innovation for these changes that are happening in the industry. And so, they just cut that budget 10 %, nothing happens. And they’re like, okay, I guess we didn’t need to spend that much money on that. And they just keep going. And so, yeah, you need those executives to have that 38,000-foot view for a lot of different reasons. But the flip side of that is that they lose the 10-foot view, which is some of the harm that can accrue to some of the downstream implications of some of the decisions that they’re making.

Those really are key implications. Tell me about some of the ways an executive can fix that, or a senior leader in an organization How can you fix this distance?

Yeah, that’s a $64 million dollar question, right? So, we don’t have a lot of data on this, but we have other people’s research and our own thoughts on what are the implications for this and how do you fix it? And I think one of the things that you have… So, part of it is the harm is they no longer perceive the harm. Okay, so that’s one problem to solve, is that we have to make sure that they continue to have some accurate perception of the harm. Fairly frequent visits to the job site to really understanding the work that’s being done, what you’re asking there of people. This whole notion of what undercover boss, I think is actually… It’s a little bit predictable. Yes. Just as the show, they always meet an amazing person and a not amazing person and so on. But that notion of the CEO showing up to do the work when they don’t know it’s the CEO. It’s so powerful for that person to realize like, oh, wow, this is hard work. The fact that in some of those shows, it’s like, Yeah, we don’t have fall protection, and so we’re all taking risk.

They’re like, so you’re just climbing up there without fall protection. It’s like, Yeah, the company won’t invest in it. The CEO What do you mean? Oftentimes, the CEO is like, how come I didn’t know about this? There’s a filtering mechanism. But I think there’s… So, one solution is you have to make sure that people, in an ongoing way, have real exposure to keeping that perception of harm as salient as you can. That might monthly or quarterly visits from a senior executive to a job site. But I think it can’t be what we would call a performative visit, which is you show up and you take the tour and nobody’s really working, or people are working at half speed and you’re chatting with somebody and cracking a joke and moving on. But when do you really see the operations? That’s why I like the undercover boss is because Nobody’s performative. It’s like, this is the real work because we don’t know who this person is. I think that notion of we have to somehow keep the perception of harm salient. That could be visits. I think when you’re looking at onshore operations, often those communications are via chat.

That further, that coarseness of that communication channel further removes people. We We’ve thought of, would it be helpful for the onshore command center to have photos of the people on the rig, perhaps photos of the people on the rig with their family? I interact with Eric, who’s on the offshore rig, but all of a sudden, Eric is… Here’s Eric with his wife and two kids in my queue. I need to make sure like, oh, that’s who I’m interacting with. That’s who this decision is going to affect. Somehow bringing the work environment closer in so that perception of harm remains real or as real as it can be one big implication. I think it’s also a lot for senior leaders, too. But I think those middle managers often get pretty removed. I think it’s important for them to… Because they’re the ones making a lot of the day-to-day trade-off decisions across competing priorities. Absolutely. To have those middle managers really attuned to that perception of harm as well. There’s an interesting study that we signed in the paper from, I think it’s a radiologist. Radiologist reading scan. It’s just a scan. Is it really a person after I’ve seen 5,000 in a day?

But they ran an experiment where they put a picture of the patient along with the radiology scan. What they found is that if the picture of the patient was connected to the radiology, the X-ray or the scan, they improved the reading of the scan and the accuracy because the patient’s photo. That notion of bringing the work environment closer into those people that are far away, I think, is one big implication. How do we exactly I think there’s all kinds of different ways you could do that. You could visit them, you could use photos, you could have all kinds of things. But I think the problem we’re trying to solve is for it not to be just an abstract thing 400 miles in the ocean somewhere, where I forget about the people, and the people aren’t real. They’re just part of a system that’s working. Just thinking about, as a senior executive, how do we make sure that those onshore command centers, those middle managers that haven’t worked at a production facility or offshore, wherever, in six or seven or eight years, how do we just make sure those people are staying connected to for harm?

Sure. I think there’s There are all kinds of different ways you can do it, but I think that’s ultimately the goal is to make sure that harm remains salient.

I think one of the pieces that struck me from our last conversation, but I think it’s coming even more front of mind with our conversation today, is it’s not just the CEO, COO. You’ve got to do it across because you talked about middle management. It’s not just in operations. It’s the finance folks that are making decisions. When you talked about the 10% budget, they’re making abstract decisions based on a balance sheet or a spreadsheet. That is, you can’t get more removed from the day-to-day than a spreadsheet, not understanding how it translates. If I cut training as an example, the implication could be down the road skills training for a frontline team member, somebody’s not as well equipped than is in harm’s way. But that risk could be 10 years down the road, especially when you’re thinking that most of these crafts are learned through an apprenticeship type of environment.

Yeah, that’s the rub, right? I interviewed the head of cyber security and international company. Sure. I said, okay, so how do you get capital investment for essentially a cost, right? Preventing cyber security is… I mean, maybe there’s a way that generates revenue, but I mean, if you’re not a cyber security company.

It generates a lot of revenue if you’re that.

But I was like, It’s a cost. So how do you not get it slowly eaten away over time with just tweaks to the budget. The person said an interesting thing. He said, well, you only want to build the wall one brick higher than the enemy is willing to climb. My first My first take was that I wrote down that quote really quickly because I was like, oh, I’m going to use this down the road. But it actually made me quite nervous if I was a senior executive in that company, because there’s a lot of assumptions behind that, which is- No kidding. You know who the enemy is. You know that they’re climbing as opposed to digging a tunnel, and you have some perception of how high they’re willing to climb. His point was that you don’t want to gold plate everything, because you can absolutely gold plate every single system in your company, but then you’re just not competitive, and you’ll be out of business because your cost structure gets too high. Sure. There’s this tension point between you want to invest in safety training and tree trimming and those sorts of things. But at the same time, you don’t want to spend $200 million when actually $175 million is sufficient to prevent harm.

But it’s really hard to figure out where that line should be drawn. Correct. Exactly because of your point, because the feedback cycle is really, really, really long. You cut the budget and nothing happens, but nothing really is going to materialize from that in terms of a learning standpoint. Point for maybe five, six, seven, eight, nine years. Then when it does materialize, nobody tracks it back to, oh, well, it was often paid to cut the training budgets nine years ago. That’s been a major contributor to this accident. There’s just no connection back to those types of decisions. There is this tension point between you want to keep the harm salient, you want to invest. You need to make sure you’re predicting harm. But at the same time, you’re running a business, and you have to compete in the marketplace from a price and cost schedule. There is this tension point, I think, for middle managers of navigating that allocation of scarce resources across competing goals. I think the tendency is, I think what we show is that when that perception of harm goes down, it just becomes a little bit too easy to cut some of these budgets without really thinking too hard about the long-term consequences of that.

I think that’s how this operational drift and risk starts to accumulate over time.

Yeah, and you’re introducing risk across the system. Like you said, it’s not one decision that causes a fatality or a serious event. It’s accumulation of these events that are introducing risk.

And many of those decisions are not made in proximity to the event. They’re made months, weeks, or years ahead upstream from that event. It’s an ongoing challenge to how do you keep harm really salient? How do you make sure you’re not making decisions that are increasing risk and harm? But at the same time, how do you be responsible to shareholders and other investors and compete in the marketplace in terms of price and cost and schedule and everything else. It’s a complicated set of decisions that have to be made. I think our research just provides one lens into that to say, hey, there’s a tendency when you get into middle senior managers and you’re not on the sharp end anymore, there’s a psychological natural tendency to no longer perceive the harm. That has implications. We need to just remind people that there’s harm, real harm could happen, get them exposed to that in a fairly frequent, not the harm, but where harm can happen in a fairly frequent way. That just becomes a criterion or a lens through which they start to see these decisions that they’re making every day.

There’s a cost to that, but it’s also a huge investment to spend that time. But I’ve seen the rewards on a regular basis. It’s an easy fix. What you’re describing is putting pictures, getting people to go out on a regular basis. Very achievable.

Yeah, I think so. I agree.

Thank you again for joining me. Great research, great insights. What I love is how easy it is for an executive to say; I can make a difference in this area. It reminds me of the concept of Gemba Walks that comes out very much on lean manufacturing side of the equation in safety. People talk about listening tours, but it’s really saying, how do I get this across the organization as a repetitive pattern to really understand what goes on, including in the remote parts of my service territory or my business.

Yeah, 100% agree.

Thank you so much for joining me. Again, a pleasure to have you on the show.

It’s great to be back on the show, Eric, and great to see you again.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you for listening to The Safety Guru on C-suite Radio. Leave a legacy. Distinguish yourself from the past. Grow your success. Capture the hearts and minds of your teams. Elevate your safety. Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their safety leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance. Begin your journey at execsafetycoach.com. Come back in two weeks for the next episode with your host, Eric Michrowski. This podcast is powered by Propulo Consulting.

ABOUT THE GUEST

Dr. Dave Hofmann’s research focuses on organizational climate, leadership, organizational change, organizational design, and decision-making. He teaches courses in organizational behavior, leadership, and the complexities of middle management.

Dr. Hofmann served as associate dean for the full-time MBA Program, area chair of organizational behavior, and senior associate dean of academic affairs. A specific focus of his research is the impact of leadership and organizational culture on safety and errors in organizations that operate in high-risk environments. He has edited two scholarly books on these topics, including “Errors in Organizations” with Michael Frese.

In recognition of his work’s applied implications, he received the American Psychological Association’s Decade of Behavior Research Award in 2006. He received a Fulbright Senior Scholar Award to study errors and safety issues in organizations at the University of Giessen in Germany, and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant to investigate error management and organizational learning on nursing units.

He has served on two National Research Council/National Academy of Engineering committees. The first investigated the causes of the BP Deepwater Horizon accident, and the second focused on how to improve safety culture in the offshore industry.

Dr. Hofmann has presented his research or conducted executive development sessions in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, the UAE, and the U.K.

He earned his PhD in industrial and organizational psychology from Pennsylvania State University, his master’s degree in industrial and organizational psychology from the University of Central Florida, and his bachelor’s degree in business administration from Furman University.

For more information: https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/directory/david-hofmann/

RELATED EPISODE

STAY CONNECTED

The Safety Guru with Eric Michrowski

More Episodes: https://thesafetyculture.guru/

C-Suite Radio: https://c-suitenetwork.com/the-safety-guru/

Powered By Propulo Consulting: https://propulo.com/

Eric Michrowski: https://ericmichrowski.com

EXECUTIVE SAFETY COACHING

Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their Safety Leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance.

Safety Leadership coaching has been limited, expensive, and exclusive for too long.

As part of Propulo Consulting’s subscription-based executive membership, our coaching partnership is tailored for top business executives that are motivated to improve safety leadership and commitment.
Unlock your full potential with the only Executive Safety Coaching for Ops & HSE leaders available on the market.
Explore your journey with Executive Safety Coaching at https://www.execsafetycoach.com.
Executive Safety Coaching_Propulo

Bridging the Gap: Empowering Leaders to Connect, Listen, and Lead with Curiosity with Kelvin Genn

Bridging the Gap: Empowering Leaders to Connect, Listen, and Lead with Curiosity

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

“Curiosity is the number one tool a safety professional should have.” In this compelling episode, we welcome Kelvin Genn, a seasoned leader with decades of experience across diverse industries. Kelvin shares his valuable insights on how leaders can bridge the gap between the boardroom and the frontline by fostering a culture of curiosity, unlocking the power of inquiry to ask better questions, and empowering their teams. He details how leaders can connect, listen, and lead with curiosity to build stronger connections and greater engagement. This episode is filled with sound strategies and actionable approaches that will help you foster a safer, more engaged workplace culture. Tune in now for an enlightening conversation packed with valuable takeaways!

READ THE EPISODE

Real leaders leave a legacy. They capture the hearts and minds of their teams. Their origin story puts the safety and well-being of their people first. Great companies ubiquitously have safe yet productive operations. For those companies, safety is an investment, not a cost. For the C suite, it’s a real topic of daily focus. This is the Safety Guru with Your host, Eric Michrowski, a globally recognized ops and safety guru, public speaker and author. Are you ready to leave a safety legacy? Your legacy success story begins now.

Hi and welcome to the Safety Guru. Today I’m very excited to have with me Kelvin Genn, Executive director from Art of Work. We’ll be talking about how to reduce the distance between the board and the frontline, enabling leaders to ask better questions with curiosity. Kelvin has worked at the board and executive levels across aviation, healthcare, defense, manufacturing, mining, construction, government and telecommunication. A very broad range of experience. Kelvin, welcome to the show. Very excited to have you with me today.

Eric, glad to be speaking with you.

Excellent. So maybe let’s get started with your journey because you have a very interesting journey through safety over the years. Lots of experiences, learnings, pitfalls. So, tell me a little bit about how you got here.

Yeah, that’s always interesting. Good point for reflection. And I keep thinking the more I more experience I have, the more I’ve learned, the more I need to know. So, in that journey, I began my journey in the military, and I spent about 13 years in the Royal Australian Air Force. And in that job, my job was to do workplace health and safety, both in a support role, but in an operational role. And so, it was interesting from my perspective, coming into a military environment, very much command and control and very much from the format that we just need people to follow directions. And given that they follow directions, all will be good in that space. My 13 years in the military very much taught me that that was a very flawed premise.

Yes.

So that’s how I began. From there, I migrated out into industry from that point forward, I then started to work in logistics, a big, large logistics organization. And I then moved into a very large global support services company that had clients like the military and had some experiences that were unusual, like supporting the first Gulf War and doing other military operations from an external point of view rather than an internal point of view. And again, learned a lot in that perspective and from there really moved into health and I was looking after patient quality and safety for a very large healthcare organization with 110,000 clinicians in it and again had a lot of experiences in trying to understand our notions of safety and had to really reform my thinking. And that was helped a lot with my interactions, and I suppose the partnership that I formed with Professor Sydney Decker and from there moved into a large engineering business and did large mobilizations of engineering projects across Australia and Africa and North America and Europe. And it was from there that I sort of moved into where I am now, art of work, and started to take those learnings and try and reinterpret them and share them back with industry.

And over those years, I know when we originally spoke, you’ve experienced lots of different shifts in thinking and ideas and safety, from behavior-based safety to resilience engineering models and designing people out. Tell me a little bit more about kind of what were some of the takeaways you saw from a lot of those methods? What worked? What were some of the challenges?

Yeah, you go through different cycles and learnings and experiences, I think over your career. And as you can reflect, I’ve had nearly about 40 years of that experience. And coming from the military, we really started from the point that we just simply needed to design the person out of the system. All the potential for error was by having people in the system.

Sure.

So, every effort that we needed to make was to think how we could remove people from contributing to decision making to all those things. And that sort of moved forward into a large focus around, if you like, the behavioral management models. We just needed to comply and work out how we could constrain and reduce their contribution and keep them. I often talk about coloring within the lines. Just keep them coloring outside the lines.

Right.

And as we got into. And increasingly you test these ideas out and you would see that you would not be solving the core problems, you would be going and applying these strategies. And you just saw the reemergence of the same issues and problems and time and time again. And so that really questioned my thinking. And really the critical change for me was coming into the work of Professor Sydney Decker and Professor Eric Hufnagel and Dave Woods. You know, all these people. It was Sydney that introduced me into this thinking and really into the ideas of complexity. And I think it was insightful work in that resilience engineering space, which goes back to the premise of understanding complexity and that the system is imperfect, it cannot accommodate and describe the nature of the work and all the variations that people have to deal with. And from that it was clear that people were the solution in the problem, not the problem that had to be resolved. So, people were constantly bridging the gaps in what was not present in the System, what you’re not provided with the different circumstances and. And the challenge became a different challenge in how do you harness people as a solution in that space?

And how do you enable them or give them tools to make better decisions to support them in that process? So, in that shift, that shift was a shift from thinking about expertise. And I think you start to get into this mode where we’re subject matter experts in a whole range of different areas and that we simply need people to follow our direction and wisdom to achieve the right result. And increasingly I’ve learned from my experience of being out in the field that what we missed in that process is the wisdom that sits out there with where people do the work, where work is done.

Yeah.

And what we need to be able to do is harness their intelligence and insight and combine that with the subject matter expertise to work in a collaborative fashion in this space. So, it was really health that really gave me that experience. And in health, the reason was we were working with medical error in that space and the complexities of making decisions in patients. And there were nearly two schools of thought going on at that time. One was what we need to do is just create protocols, and we just want the clinical teams to follow the protocols and all will be good. Now, the problem with that protocols are linear by nature and patients are not. They’re multifactorial. And so, you would have a lot of different. And what we really learned in that space is that the clinicians that are good were much more intuitive and communicative and engagement. They were much more about being curious and learning from the patient and the people around them than being enslaved in the protocol. That tended to be somewhere where people felt safe, that they stayed with, but it wasn’t helping the patient to be safe in terms of how they were treated.

So, it was really health that made a really big difference to my thinking. And really understanding that complexity was something that we needed to engage in and use different tools. And those tools were fundamentally built around being curious.

Yeah. And I think let’s delve a little bit more into that part because I agree with you. The answer is really in those that are closest to the front line. I think you’ve made a very strong case for that in terms of the knowledge that’s there that often gets overlooked. But it’s a very simple concept, yet so often overlooked.

Why?

Why is it so often overlooked?

Look, it’s interesting. I think this comes into the nature of leadership and management to some degree. I often think about where people feel most comfortable and what people are rewarded for sure. And nearly there’s. We’ve got different domains within management, so we obviously got the executive and the senior leadership with within organizations. And then we’ve got. If you want that broadcast of people, we generally label middle management, who tend to be the people who have to deal with the resource limitations and deliver the outcomes that the business expects in that space. And then you’ve got the line management people directly in that space. I think in our work in this space, we often find that leadership are much more open to challenging the notion and thinking differently about how work is done and trying to learn differently. The group that is more challenging is the middle management piece who are much more comfortable in a controlled environment where they’re much more comfortable in defining the nature of work and how things need to be done, holding people accountable to that process because it’s a much more uncomfortable piece to step into. A piece where you’re open to curiosity, inquiry and in essence allowing things to emerge and develop, but you can’t predict exactly where that’s going to go.

So, in a controlled system, middle management, I think often more comfortable in working with a flawed system because they justify working in a flawed. In a flawed system saying, yep, we’re doing what’s been asked of us with what. With what’s been given to us and we’re getting the best results that we can, as opposed to taking a risk and doing something different, which might be much better, but it could fail as well.

And that’s been my same experience. And sometimes people talk about concrete middle or clay layer, but I think it’s actually very different. Those terms came from more of the change management space. It’s. While engaging the frontline employees is very empowering for them. It’s in many ways disempowering for middle management because I used to control the decision making. What gets escalated, what gets moved forward and suddenly I don’t fully control it. It’s empowering for the craft.

Yeah, yeah. And I suppose there’s some notions in that space it’s come around holacracy and those sorts of principles where that whole notion has been challenged as to what role that it has.

So, what are some of the ways that you bring this to life in an organization? Because as we talked about, it’s a simple yet incredibly powerful principle. But that’s so often missed in organizations. How do you bring it? What are some of the things to keep in mind as you start to empower? Obviously, the risk around the middle management and how they respond to It. But what are some of the ways that you’ve seen work successfully?

It’s interesting because I’ve been having some of these discussions with some CEOs and board members even in recent days, and we came to this notion of thinking about leadership and them expressing a notion of having informed leadership in this space, which I thought was interesting. And so, the challenge is how you enable leadership to have a clearer view to the nature of work is done and how work is done so they can have better intelligence to work with about the decisions that need to be made to enable them to achieve the business objectives. And in essence, so part of that, and our notion has been trying to have leaders more connected to where work is done and having opportunities to do that, but that is a space that they’re not comfortable in as leaders. As leaders, they don’t really want to be exposed at the front line to potentially have, if you like, a deficiency in knowledge and expertise when they’re talking to the people who are doing their business out there, doing the work. So, part of this exercise is thinking about shifting the perspective of leadership to enable them to engage more directly in that frontline space differently.

And I think it’s about giving them the confidence not to be the expert, to be the starting point of that.

Sure.

So, a lot of that has been giving them the tools of curiosity, I suppose. We’ve used a lot of tools around appreciative inquiry, thinking about how you engage and invoke and let people tell their stories and not be the person who has to judge or correct or fix anything that is presented to you in that transaction. So that’s been. I think the first part is thinking about how we reduce the gap in the distance. The big problem for senior leadership is there’s all these filters that sits between.

Oh, yes.

And where the business is. So, we all, you know, I think Sydney Deckers use a term that we have, looking good indexes. Right. So, what we. What we tend to do is that leaders try and have processes of governance, and they try and, you know, in the safety space they’re looking for all these data and feeds, most of that has been sanitized and qualified to be looking good when it comes through to them. Rarely do they get the unfiltered and difficult work. And some of the conversations we’re having with leaders now is being uncomfortable about the greenwashed dashboards that come through and thinking about how you get the other information to flow through the narrative where things are challenging or problematic and celebrating that as being a shift in that space. So really, I think the thing that we’ve been working with is firstly empowering leaders in that space, but in doing that is doing it in a way where you aren’t disempowering the operational management in space. Because the last thing that you want really is for your leadership to arrive at the front line, make all these discoveries and suddenly come back to your middle management with holding them to account for these things that they in that space.

So, part of it is about shifting them, but shifting the middle management team with you in that space to collaborate and work to shift the way that they’re engaging. And I suppose it’s engaging that space is how do we enable people; how do we get better intelligence and how do we shift from this cause and effect and blame to how do we move to being a problem-solving collaborative as such. So, it’s a, it’s a shift in that, it’s a shift in dynamics of how people interact, communicate and hopefully shift to this learning space of trying to understand and being in a continuous improvement of problem-solving loop.

Right. And I think what you describe is the most senior, at least in the conversations I had, the most senior people in an organization, CEOs, the board probably get the most filtered message. And I’ve talked to many people as they got promoted to CEO and their comment is often, I used to get information, now I’m not sure I trust the information that comes to me. And it just, it gets managed by people that are better at managing as it gets closer to the top. And that element of how we connect back to the front line, I think is really, key. How do we make this an ongoing component, Appreciative inquiry, Very, very powerful tool. I remember starting using it 20-some-odd years ago, if not more. Just great ways of getting ideas and getting people to share their stories and listening to the goodness of what’s working. Well, you touched as well. When we first connected, you talked about one inspiration you also came across was around Edgar Shine’s work around culture change. You talked about the curious inquiry. Tell me a little bit more about that part as well.

Yeah, and you know, again, I think Edgar Shine work, you know, it’s well documented, well celebrated, but yeah, safety is still immature in its adoption of the thinking of Shine. And really for me, I think one of the big things for me was the notion of expertise and of curious inquiry is it’s nearly an individual thing. But you have to start with yourself in that space and see whether you can step in and being a curious inquirer and sort of combines with Shine’s work, but also with Hufnagel’s work as well, is looking at work as done, really engaging in the stories of work. And whilst I’m saying that I’m saying don’t engage in the safety of work, engage in work is done, I think that’s a really big difference. It’s a shift because often with safety professionals, they step in and I think when they’re going to engage the front line, they have to talk about safety. I would suggest they should never talk about safety to be controversial. And what they should do is be curious. And for the things that you see that are most challenging is step into that notion that Hufnagel has about trying to understand why that makes sense to the person that you’re interacting with.

You know, how. How. What are the conditions and everything that support around that, that lead to that point, because that will then enable you to then think differently about the notion of expertise and where you might source and partner expertise and where you might harness that perspective differently. So, for me, curiosity now is the number one tool that a safety professional should have. You’ve probably experienced this, but I’ve been involved in many, you know, significant incidents and investigations, and I can remember a number of occasions where an event has occurred and the leader investigator has just been appointed and they’ve come to me, they had no interaction other than the reporting of the event at this point and told me, I know what caused this. And so, before they’ve spoken to anyone.

Before talking to anyone. Well, yeah, obviously learning very well.

Yeah, yeah. But it’s that notion of, you know, I’m going to come in here and put things right and my experience has told me these are all the reasons why this. You’re immediately in a very difficult space. And we do a lot of that safety experts is we step in knowing what the problem is with these processes and what the solutions are to them. And I think nearly universally, we should not be the source of any of the solutions in that space. We should be an enabler, a facilitator of it, not the source of it. There are exceptions, but in general.

Yeah, but you’re also killing the knowledge that the sharing. If you start prejudging and you’re coming in with a pre. A preview of what occurred. 

Yes. So if I be as controversial as I can in this space and, you know, for a long time in safety we’ve talked about, what you walk past is, you know, what you accept or encourage in this mode, the interesting space is being a curious mode, you cannot do that, you cannot intervene or something. So, this is where I think this is really challenging and difficult. If you’re trying to move into the space of understanding work is done and being truly curious and you’re experiencing something that is clearly problematic. Right.

Sure.

You can recognize the nature and hazard of it. And we’ve worked with leaders, taking them into this space of even working with them to step back from their immediate desire to intervene and correct the problem. We really come from a point that is once you do that, you’re going to cut off the air supply. So, you will not see anything else that is going to happen that might be problematic. Because when you’re in the space of your truly curious and you’re engaging with work that’s done and people share, they’re often sharing it with you because of their frustrations or because of a whole range of other space things that are happening in their space that they can’t get correct, can’t do what they need to be doing.

Sure.

So, by seeing something and acting in that space, there might be something far more interesting or problematic that once you take that intervention, you’re not going to see those transactions happening forward. Now, I’m not suggesting that there’s no intervention or action to happen when you see these sorts of transactions, but it’s a much more subtle approach that you need to take. And rather than doing it in the moment, it needs to be done elsewhere.

This episode of the Safety Guru podcast is brought to you by Propulo Consulting, the leading safety and safety culture advisory firm. Whether you are looking to assess your safety culture, develop strategies to level up your safety performance, introduce human performance capability, re-energize your BBS program, enhance supervisory safety capabilities, or introduce unique safety leadership training and talent solutions, Propulo has you covered. Visit [email protected].

And there could be as well ways. I’ve seen leaders that don’t come from the craft, that didn’t get promoted from whatever expertise of the shop floor is because they don’t necessarily know what’s right or right wrong, what’s wrong. They come in from a position of curiosity. Tell me about why we’re doing it this way. What are some of the risks in front of you? So, right with that inquiry, you’re not jumping into conclusion and to attack, you’re jumping into tell me and understand. And then you may realize, okay, we never actually thought through the risks of this job or something else as opposed to judging.

Yeah, Correct. And it’s an interesting point you make because naivety can be an asset. Right. And we often even say that with new engineers coming in, their naivety can enable them to ask the questions that need to be asked. And that’s a difficult thing because where you’ve got leaders that have come out of working in those environments and worked their way through and have emerged into those leadership space, they had trouble stepping back from the knowledge of the time when they were working these spaces. And I think that’s part of. As a group, they need additional support to try and transition out of the knowledge space into the curious leadership space, can step back their experience. Now, that doesn’t mean that experience doesn’t have some currency. It’s in a different space to that transaction.

Yeah. One of the things I know that we discussed when we first connected was that in many cases, if there’s a process that’s more difficult, it increases the likelihood to introduce shortcuts. And I know I had somebody on the. On the podcast earlier that talked about how convenience kills. Ultimately, very similar concept that if it’s complicated, we will find a convenient path out. Tell me a little bit about this element of complexity that gets introduced and how do we unpack it? Because part of the system, we talked about the complexity, part of it is we created the complexity as well at times in the system.

This is an area we’re very interested in. We are doing a lot of work around this space and in the notions of if we go into that space of, you know, critical risks and critical hazards that sort of face and think about the control strategies. Now, I think fundamentally, we had quite a flawed approach to critical risk and critical controls because we’ve burdened it with subject matter expertise. And in essence, what happens is, if we’re working, you can pick any critical risk and control that you like, but in essence, particularly in the world of bow ties or whatever, what happens is you’ll get all these subject matter experts into a room, they will design a whole set of controls, often as industry. In recent studies, when we’ve looked at this, nearly 80% of them are administrative. Only in that.

Which is unfortunately the case.

Yeah. Yes. And the people in that room are not people who do the work. They’re not immersed in all the complexity. So, I’ll just park that aside. So, in the work that sort of come out of resilience engineering and some of Hufnagel’s ideas and some of the work that we’ve been doing, is we’re really interested in work that’s done in the space around critical hazards and firstly in the notion of capacity. So that notion is about what do we give people to do the job? You know, it might be the tools, equipment, the work methods, the training, the support, all those things. But then there’s the other domain of demand, is what is the nature of demand that they must work within? So, this is the KPIs, the delivery timeframes, all the unreasonable pressures that people must function. So, what’s interesting in the control space, and this is how do you design the controls and how do you test them as to what people do? So, the approach that we’ve been doing is taking the work out to where work is done and taking the people who do the work through those controls to feed us back to us is how do those controls align to the task that they’re doing or the job that they’re delivering isn’t making their work easier or harder.

It can be as simple as a very poorly designed piece of personal protective equipment. That’s interesting, but there’s lots of space in there. So, in that domain, we’ve taken feedback from that, and what we’ve seen emerge out of that is where the controls are poorly designed and don’t fit well with the work, and they make the work considerably harder. It’s a significant and predictive workaround.

Makes sense.

Different way to do it. So, this is the nature of when we’re trying to understand why people, you know, take a different approach. You know, do something. You, if you’re not understanding that demand piece in there is about what they must achieve within that, what are we giving them to do that and how well is it designed? They might have a much better idea about how to do this, but we don’t harness that. So, when we test controls and we test effectiveness, we’ve got this notion that whatever was done in the room is a good design and it’s effective. If we go to a work site and we go and do an order of people doing it, that has no connection to what happens out in the field. And it’s. So, part of this is, you know, you need to. We need to really think about the unintended consequences. If we design something, put something in place from a safety perspective, what are the effects of that? What does it do from an, you know, it might mean that the business has to have additional resources that they haven’t budgeted.

Sure.

They might have to engage different contractors. There’s a whole range of impacts in that space.

Right.

So, I think in that workaround space, the reason, you know, everyone talks about, you know, people doing workarounds, it’s because we don’t stand enough in the shoes of the people who do the work to understand all the different demands that they’re trying to balance.

It reminds me of completely adjacent space in the quality movement. Some of the changes that came out, I think it’s back in the 80s and 90s GE was had this cool equation which is the quality of the change you’re trying to implement times the acceptance of that change goes the effectiveness of the change. Right. So, you could have the best quality change 10 out of 10. But if the acceptance, because it doesn’t make Sense is a 1 out of 10, your effectiveness is 10. And essentially their message is you’re better to have maybe a lower quality, quote unquote solution that was designed and engineered by the craft employees that resonate with them, that made sense in their contacts and therefore had a higher buy in. In which case the effectiveness of the change, even with five times five is still better than a ten times one.

Yeah, we, I suppose from our perspective, we use a lot now the tools around human centered design and user experience models, which are nearly absent in safety, you know, and you sort of wonder why. But that goes into the space that you’re talking about is that it’s important to test these things with user experience models and is it credible? Is it usable? Does it make sense to the person who’s is it findable? For example, all these things are things that we don’t do in safety. We prescribe and write another 80-page procedure to do something which has no relevance to the nature of how the work is done right.

Now. It gets to a question, we touched on this briefly, but when you’re trying to get to this inquiry mode, having frontline engagement, one of the pushbacks I’ve heard many times is I might end up with different solutions in different locations because this group, this is what they think will work versus a centralized office. One person says, okay, this is a policy worldwide, but maybe it doesn’t work the same way in different locations, or they have different work methods, or the equipment is different. How do we reconcile this desire for consistency with when you’re getting more grassroots engagement, you’re going to have multiple, potentially multiple different solutions.

Yes. So first, if you go into resilience engineering, you know, and the philosophy is there, it really demands of us to embrace variability which is counter to A lot of the safety stuff that says we’re going to make one size fits all this is just. And what we know in that space is I suppose a couple of. But the approach that we’ve worked with for a long time is the notion of freedom within a framework. So, there are certain, you know, and in doing that it’s understanding the nature of the work that you’re doing. And, the levels of freedom can change depending on the nature of hazard or risk that you’re working with. But you’re ultimately recognizing that you want people to make decisions about the choices. So, we’ve done some work in this space with a very large mining company where we looked at critical controls and the specialized controls and tested them in one mine site, which might be in Australia, and we tested the same controls in another site in South America. And what we found in the Australian context that control works very well and in the South American it worked very poorly.

And that’s because when we’re talking about controls, the piece that we are poor at is understanding human dependency about what are your human and organizational dependencies that work depends on and control. So, it was very clear in this example where the South American had very different structure around the support for how this control function and the environment they were working with from the Australian environment. The one size didn’t fit, fit all. But another control worked much better in that environment.

Sure.

And so that’s within that thinking. I think this is important that it’s very hard to get. There are certain things you can get to, certain, you know, universal things. If we talk about things like, you know, fall from hydroelectrical, there are some things that you can get that are at a high level, but stepping below that into the operational design. What we need is a much better list of here’s a range of options that we’ve got. This works well in this context, and you choose right. So, this is the informed decision making. So the benefits that we can have is by letting work is done and having that expertise and having some subject matter expertise which harnesses the knowledge, thinking about how do we bring that to the front line and letting them make the choice and saying in this circumstance this suits us well, we’re going to adapt and use this approach to manage the hazard and risks that we’re working with and empower them to do so. And if that works, it doesn’t work. Use that as an intelligence collecting where you feedback and evolve your learnings. So, I think there’s nothing wrong with having systems and standardization, but Rick Just really understanding where they have currency and application and not doing it.

And I’ve seen this so many times, seen it in the aviation industry a lot, where they come in and make one rule right across the organization and in a different aircraft environment, it’s had significantly increased the level of hazard because they haven’t interpreted something else that’s happening in space that they’re not aware of in the generalized rule.

I like how you position this in terms of freedom within a framework, because it’s not anarchy, it’s the structure to it. But you can have localized decision making in many of these pieces. Again, it reminds me, I’m going back to the Quality days and some of the research I was doing a while back around Toyota as an example. One thing that people didn’t get is Toyota could have. They were building the same vehicle anywhere in the world, but it could have one method in one plant that was slightly different. And people would say, okay, this is the right method. But then two weeks later that could change because they found a better way to deliver the same thing. So, there’s this element of constantly learning from my operations, constantly driving, continuous improvement. And so, the solution from last week may not be the solution for now, if there’s controls to it, because it’s not. You want. You don’t want to get different Corollas in different parts of the world, different quality.

I really. And equally I’ve, you know, studied a lot the Toyota quality method, you know, and there’s a lot to learn, safety in that space. And often we sort of these things pass and, you know, we forget to look back into these methods and do that. So, I think. And that method, you know, the Toyota method, and ultimately that whole approach to quality management was founded in some good principles, is trying to make decisions where work is done all the time.

Exactly.

Collective intelligence. That was its purpose. And encouraging. That’s the key in safety. We’ve done the opposite. You know, I’ve been involved in situations where there was a problem with a hazard control and a procedure that was identified and taken five years to work through to get the change made in that process. Because sometimes I think it becomes harder to change the notion of how work is done within a safety context than to alter verses in the Bible. It’s probably easier to do that. Thanks.

Yes. Love it. Kelvin, tell me a little bit about the Art of Work. One, I love the name of your organization. Tell me a little bit about what you do within the Art of Work.

Yeah, so we’re really Interested in work as such. So, I think when we came at this from, we started, you know, very much a lot of our work comes from it through a safety lens of one form or another. And the first thing that we do with organizations is really immerse in two things, is we’re really interested in the work that’s done and how it’s done. And we talk a lot about how we enable people in that process.

Sure.

We do a lot, as I sort of indicated before, of talking less about safety when we get brought in and thinking about the nature of work. And it’s interesting because we do a lot of work in learning teams, that sort of work. We do a lot in terms of redesigning systems to be much more human centered in that space. We think a lot about how we get the right information to the right person. So, we talk about systems within this space, particularly safety management systems, of how that becomes something that comes to you rather than you to the system in that space. So. So you shouldn’t even need to know where something relates to. If you go to a particular area which has a particular set of hazards, you shouldn’t even need to know where to go and find information about that system. It should just come to you when you’re there, through geofencing or whatever, all those sorts of things. So, we’re really interested in work and by immersing in work, a lot of safety things emerge. And it’s quite interesting. You start to see things about. It might be the teams and the capabilities; it might be the way a shift and people are organized and communicated.

It might be a way that we design measurement in that space. And we’re quite often finding that the safety measures have been very unhealthy. An operational measure is much more useful in this space. One organization we’re working with our, they had some issues around the amount of back injury that they’re getting, for example, and so they had very conventional measures around lost time and all those things. And that wasn’t helping them as such. Of course, what they did have was a measure. They’re a large retail warehousing business and they had a measure that the operations use around the overstocking of the warehouses and that was a key measure for them. And so, what was found is where the warehouses were overstocked, it correlated with the that they had and that’s because everything was stored over and above on the racks and, you know, there’s a whole range of issues in it. So again, this is an example of thinking about work rather than safety and then just work with the stores to identify, let’s not have another safety measure, let’s tap into something that actually gives us, they’re already interested in and it gives us intelligence to help us in how do we work in and assist that work to be done in a more productive and safe manner.

So, in the art of work, I think we’re really interested in bringing this idea of improving work as being how we focus on this and safety is an emergent property and that’s very much coming from a people centered approach. I think about all the different industries we work in; we’ve got expertise in none of them, but the expertise is already there within the organizations that we work with. And what we try and do is bring that expertise to be harnessed and utilized to solve the problem.

It’s a concept of curious inquiry you just talked about.

Yeah, yeah. So that’s the art of work is we’re very interested in work, we’re very interested in how we empower and engage people and we’re very. And in that, you know, the work that we do around the organization, shifting the leadership’s view in that space to be more open and hopefully we get them to be a little bit more adventurous and curious as a result.

Sure. Excellent. Well Kelvin, thank you so much for joining me today. If somebody wants to get in touch with you or the Art of Work, what’s the best way to do that? What’s the website?

The website is Art of work is one-word solutions and if you Google Art of work.

Excellent. Well, thank you so much for joining me, Kelvin.

Thank you.

Cheers.

Thank you for listening to The Safety Guru on C-suite Radio. Leave a legacy. Distinguish yourself from the past. Grow your success. Capture the hearts and minds of your teams. Elevate your safety. Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their safety leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance. Begin your journey at execsafetycoach.com. Come back in two weeks for the next episode with your host, Eric Michrowski. This podcast is powered by Propulo Consulting.

ABOUT THE GUEST

Kelvin Genn is a founder of Safety Differently and a key designer and creator of the Due Diligence Index.  Kelvin is a strategic systems practitioner with extensive experience in Human Factors and organizational re-engineering. He developed his systems thinking approach working in the Royal Australian Air Force. 

He is the Managing Director of Art of Work, which has led the implementation of Safety Differently worldwide. 

He led systems and risk management programs across Asia Pacific and Europe with Compass Group Plc, the world’s largest support service company with more than 750,000 employees. 

At (SKM) Sinclair Knight Merz, he was the Global General Manager for Safety and Wellness, delivering safety for major project construction in mining, energy, and infrastructure across the globe.

As a Board Member for NSW Health, Kelvin has worked as the NSW Health Director for Clinical Quality and Patient Safety. He has also worked with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care to develop the national accreditation system for all Health Care providers across Australia.

Kelvin is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Health and Safety.

For more information: www.artofwork.solutions

RELATED EPISODE

STAY CONNECTED

The Safety Guru with Eric Michrowski

More Episodes: https://thesafetyculture.guru/

C-Suite Radio: https://c-suitenetwork.com/the-safety-guru/

Powered By Propulo Consulting: https://propulo.com/

Eric Michrowski: https://ericmichrowski.com

EXECUTIVE SAFETY COACHING

Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their Safety Leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance.

Safety Leadership coaching has been limited, expensive, and exclusive for too long.

As part of Propulo Consulting’s subscription-based executive membership, our coaching partnership is tailored for top business executives that are motivated to improve safety leadership and commitment.
Unlock your full potential with the only Executive Safety Coaching for Ops & HSE leaders available on the market.
Explore your journey with Executive Safety Coaching at https://www.execsafetycoach.com.
Executive Safety Coaching_Propulo

The Power of a Safety Agreement to Boost Safety Culture with Ken Roberts

Dr Nippin Anand_The Power of Organizational Learning

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

Don’t miss this engaging and enlightening conversation with Ken Roberts, who brings over forty years of rich experience in mining, heavy industry, and construction. Ken shares invaluable insights on how frontline workers can buy into safety by building trust within teams and understanding the profound consequences of their actions. He emphasizes the importance of creating a safety commitment agreement for frontline workers to truly embrace safety in their daily lives. Ken also introduces the concept of ‘Convenience Kills.’ He discusses its stages and explains how organizations can effectively engage frontline workers in a powerful safety agreement to enhance their safety culture.

READ THE EPISODE

Real leaders leave a legacy. They capture the hearts and minds of their teams. Their origin story puts the safety and well-being of their people first. Great companies ubiquitously have safe, yet productive operations. For those companies, safety is an investment, not a cost for the C-suite. It’s a real topic of daily focus. This is the Safety Guru with your host, Eric Michrowski, a globally recognized ops and safety guru, public speaker and author. Are you ready to leave a safety legacy? Your legacy success story begins now.

Hi, and welcome to the Safety Guru. Today, I’m very excited to have with me Ken Roberts. We’re going to have a fun and exciting conversation. I can predict it based on prior conversations that we’ve had. Ken has a program that talks about convenience skills, a book on it as well. We’re going to dive into it. He’s also talked about something really cool that he calls the agreements culture. Ken, welcome to the show. Really excited to have you with me. Let’s get started with your story in mining and how you got started moons ago.

Wow. Such a great story, too, Eric. So please, hang on to your seat. So, my story started many, many years ago. 1981, I was 16 years old, and I went to visit my friend who lived in a place called Southern Cross, which is a mining town. Western Australia is a mining state. We have the biggest mining company in the world, BHP, pretty well owns us. I ventured to Southern Cross. I visited my friend, and we’re a bit sneaky, you see. I’m 16 years old. He’s 17. We drove to the pub, you see. We’re going to go into this hotel. We looked all of 12, and we walked into the front bar, and we’re sitting there having our first ever beer and looking at each other. The next a minute, this big old miner comes over. Cole, his name was. He had a big bushy beard and mud all over his boots. He comes in, he wraps his arms around us. He goes, hey, boys, you’re looking for some work. I was on school I’m in school holidays, and I thought, Yeah, I’m looking for work. Yeah, that’s us. My little high pitch voice. He’s all right, I’ll pick you up in the morning.

Me and Jeremy were standing at the front of his house, and along comes this old Yuit, this old mining Yuit with the numbers on the side and coal in the driving up. He says, Get in, boys. We jumped in and he threw us a can of Coke. He goes, this is Coke. This is the best cure for a hangover. He took a big swig. That was our first ever safety.

Oh, my goodness. So, we drove onto the mine site, and there I am.

 I’m a 16-year-old in sand shoes and a tank top. And when I’m shoveling, you see, just all day, there’s a hole in a conveyor belt. Rather them to stop and fix this thing, they thought they’d hire me for the day. And I just shoveled all day in this sand, this big pile. I look at the end of the day and the miners come up and they said, Wow, good job. You want to come back tomorrow? And I did that for a week, and they said, would you like a full-time job. So, I rang up Mama, says, Mama, I’m not coming back to school. That’s it. And that was my first ever venture. I was earning more money than she was, and she’s a schoolteacher. Went to university, and here I am earning more money than her at 16. And that was There was no such thing as safety back then. It was more about survival. How do you nimbly get around all of the gear without hurting yourself? So that was my introduction.

I think one of the things that struck me is you said, then safety started coming along, but nobody enjoyed safety. Tell me more.

 Well, we used to have a lot of fun, you see. You could get to the gold room by jumping in the front of the loader bucket, or you could jump into the back of the Yuit. I was driving the Yuit at that stage. I was 6 now. I didn’t even have a license for the road. I remember once I was reversing the vehicle and just being a little bit young, I suppose, and I nearly reversed this thing over the side of the pit. I jumped out and I looked down and there it is, hundreds of feet down there. We didn’t have any wind rose. There was no real signage or anything, and they had to get a loader to pull me out. But it was fun. We really enjoyed it. I used to love going to work, 16, 17. Went underground when I was 17. I remember the first day on the site, I was working around the brace up the top and the shift boss, old Doc Snell, you see, he comes up with his glasses and he says, Kenny, we need you to go down the hole tonight. And I’m thinking, you bet.

 Yeah, absolutely. Go into the changer and grab yourself a pair of overalls. So here I am with these big overalls. I don’t know who they were, and floppy rubber boots. I jumped into the skip, and then he looks at me, he goes, Rob, you’re not 18, are you? And I thought, Oh, that’s it. He’s going to pull me out of the hole. But as I stepped out, he pushed me back in and he goes, no, you can go down tonight, but listen, if you hurt yourself, I’ll bloody kill you. That was my second safety message.

Oh, my goodness.

But I loved it. When we went to work, it was fun. It wasn’t very safe, Eric, but it was a lot of fun. And so, over the years, I’ve noticed that as I progressed and I started getting roles as leaders, supervisors moving up in management roles and safety came in, it was so much more control. The idea of fun, I felt, was being replaced by control.

You then had an aha moment later on in life that really took you from living in a min environment, living around safety, to really having a spark and new ideas when it came to safety. Tell me a little bit about that time.

Well, that was too. So, I’m in and out of mining and construction as well. I got an apprenticeship as a carpenter and then went back on mine sites building. And when I was about 38, I was going through my midlife crisis, as we may Maybe most men do. And I joined a group called the Mankind Project. I did this special weekend, which is called the New Warrior Training Adventure. And it was about having a look at myself and how I was showing up and what were the things that I was doing, and the consequences of my actions were creating a dynamic where my relationship was failing. I had children to two different women at that stage in my life, and I wasn’t going anywhere. I didn’t have much purpose. And I started to see, and they showed me some principles: accountability, personal responsibility, what are the consequences of your actions? These are things I’ve never heard, especially not in the mining game. But I took it like a fish to water, and I really started to look at how I wasn’t taking ownership for my actions. And so, as I became more proficient in facilitation, and I started to get some qualifications in the field.

I really love the idea that I could actually literally change myself through changing the way I felt, the way I thought, the way I behaved, what were the consequences of my actions in my personal life. And as I started getting roles as a construction manager, and I moved into safety eventually, there was the same philosophies could be applied in the workplace. I had work teams that were not achieving any real passion in their work, basically. They were not finding any meaning in what they were doing. I started to apply these personal development techniques, and I found that I was encouraging them to find a little bit more satisfaction in what they do, that they could go home at the end of the day, that their job meant for something, and that they were able to get a sense that their attitude was able to create a workplace which was a lot of fun because we had all these controls, you see. Go out, do your JSA, take time, take charge, take five, all of the different names that we have for things now. But Where’s the fun? Where’s the enjoyment? And that was the epiphany that it was leaving.

There wasn’t any sense of joy in what we were doing anymore. So, I made it an effort to try and bring that back, and I felt it was starting to be recognized as a person who was able to connect more with the work crew. 

And I think one of the pieces that you shared with me before that I really liked is the element of the power and agreements. And We had some really cool stories around how you got people to follow rules that was not the traditional way. Tell me more about that because there’s some really cool elements in that part, and it’s connected to that aha moment you just walked through.

It was definitely in personal development. In the Mankind Project, we do this thing called accountability. Most men end up in situations in their life, and I was one of them, where I didn’t follow through with my word. I would say that I was going to take the kids out for the weekend, but if a good footie match came on, that went by the wayside. Or I promised the wife that I would be taking her somewhere or doing something with her, or even just simple commitments around home. I was never taught. My father didn’t show me these things, and especially not in the early days in the mining. The idea that you can make an agreement, follow through on that agreement, or own up to something when you didn’t keep it. So, we would sit in meetings, and if I arrived at a meeting five past seven, I would be asked by the facilitator, So Ken, what was the agreement? To Are you here at seven? Did you keep that agreement? No, I didn’t. So, what did you make more important? What did you do instead? Where did you think that not keeping that agreement was going to work out for you?

And then the big question, what’s the impact? What was the impact of you not keeping that agreement? Well, of course, I kept the meeting back. Now I’m standing here looking like a fool. I’m bringing shame upon myself because it’s ultimately, what is the impact on me? And so, these questions, they were really foreign to me. So, I used to start doing pre-start meetings. So, team, what time did we agree to be here? Seven, Ken. Cool. So, did everyone keep that agreement? And then a slowly a hand goes up. And I arrived here. And so, I would run that process. And then I started to apply it to things like, say, working at heights. You got a working at heights team. And you’d be, as a supervisor, about to send them out in the field. And so, it’s like, have you got your PPE? Check. Have you got your risk assessments in place? Great. Do you have your training? Have you got your permits in place? And then I would say to them, good. So, before you go into the out into the field, I want to ask you this question. What will be the consequences if I walk out into the field and you’re not wearing your PPE?

And when I first started this, of course, it’s a smile. Oh, we’ll put them back on. I go, Well, no. What if we applied something that really made you think about what the impact might be if we don’t keep this agreement? And eventually, we’d get to a negotiation. We would negotiate terms where they would say back me, all right, if you come out in the field, Ken, we’re not wearing our PPE, we will have to do retraining. We’ll go back and get our working at heights, because obviously… So, the whole goal is to get them to create what the consequence will be up front if they can’t meet the agreement. Now, I can tell you, Eric, over the years, it’s just amazing how we develop this conscience. You say, oh, this is a real agreement. And There’s consequences in place. Now, I really need to keep this. Now, it’s happening like we just did it the other day in the refinery here at Olympic Dab. For years, people have been taking their phones into the tank house. One time, the supervisor said, well, let’s make an agreement here. What if? Because there’s safety issues. If you drop a phone into one of the tanks, there’s an acid reaction.

And also, so texting your girlfriend while the overhead crane’s rushing around is not really conducive to your own self.

That’s a good idea. 

Good idea. So, we just made a… Just called it out. So, what are we going to do about the phones? And one of the guys standing there said, well, you know what? We’ve been banging on about this for 20 years. If you take your phone into the tank house and somebody sees you, it’s a written warning. Now, I was a little bit thought, wow, that’s pretty harsh. You’re going for the joke here. But everybody agreed. They said, yeah, you’re right. Why do we keep going on about this? So, we got a little note, a texter, got it out onto the whiteboard and we said, so it’s with the team, the negotiator’s no phones in the tank house, consequences, written warning. Now, that was months and months ago. We have not had this issue yet. We’ve seen it yet. But people start to develop the idea that this is an actual, really clear engagement with each other, and it builds trust, Eric. We have now built a level of trustworthiness. I myself am trustworthy. I can keep agreements, and I also trust you because you can keep agreements. Its just personal development introduced into the workplace.

I think the magic of this is you’re co-creating Most organizations, they go straight to the consequence, but it’s not co-created with the employees, and so they don’t feel a commitment to it, and then they fight it, union grievance, et cetera. But here you’re getting them to say, okay, what are we going to do? What’s the consequence? Getting them to create that buy-in, that commitment. And 20 years couldn’t get it right, and now you can get it right. Simple change. 

It is a simple change. Well, we used to make up the consequences, you see. Some leaders, and I included, we didn’t have really clear expectations. They’re ambiguous. They’re gray. Do you have rolled up sleeves? No. Our letter of offer said you’d wear your PPE in a certain way. Rolled up sleeves is not really to do that for reasons where it can get caught in machinery and things like that. But people still did it. When we started making agreements, Okay, PPE. Let’s make an agreement here. And who agrees that we’ll keep our sleeves rolled down and wear our PPE as designed? And when everybody says, Yeah, okay, but this negotiation, some people will say, well, look, I’ve got to go into this part of the area where it’s really hot and I need to somehow get some personal comfort. So as a leader, I might be able to negotiate. All right, well, let’s put a risk assessment in place. What will you do with the sleeves? Well, I can wrap some tape around them. So, we’re actually talking about things now that we never used to talk about. They would be expected or implied around things because we’ve opened up the idea of negotiation.

 The work crew now have a say in the decision making. I think that empowerment has given them some ownership in their work tasks that they never had before.

 It’s backed by research. If you look at the psychology of influence, it highlights the very same concepts you’re talking about in terms of get people to put skin in the game, and they’re more likely to follow through.

 Well, and I think we should be extending this more than safety. What are some other aspects of a culture that are really important? Trust, not being talked down to. We I encourage people to speak up all the time. But sometimes when they do, we’ll say, well, let’s not talk about that now. Some leaders find that they lose control when people speak up. We’re trying to teach the leaders now that if you’re in a pre-start meeting and you’ve particularly asked, all right, team, any agreements to discuss? And someone will pipe up and say, Yeah, I’ve got one to discuss, and they might get a little hot under the collar. Well, they’re invested. They’re engaged. Why would we try to block that down? I encourage him to come out, vent his feelings, a bit of silence, and say, okay, so what’s been the impact for you, man? Tell us. Underneath the emotions in any workplace, there’s always an impact on somebody, and we really go there. But that impact is psychological, could be physical. More often than not, it’s about a person’s belief about themselves. And quite often, safety doesn’t allow that belief to come out.

 Everyone has to act the same way. I remember inductions in the early days. No common sense in the workplace. This idea that you don’t think for yourself, just follow our procedures and you’ll be safe. I’m bringing it back, you see. I want to bring common sense back. There’s going to be a renaissance in common sense.

 The worst I ever heard was, I’m only paying you from the neck down.

 Yes. I used to hate that one. And you think about an induction room, right? You’re sitting there in a classroom. There’s a row of desks. You’re sitting there, you got a pen and paper. And what do you do? You do a test. I can think of better ways to do inductions.

 So, if people commit and they come up with their rules, have there been cases where people break those commitments? And then what happens?

 Well, we’re human beings, aren’t we? Yeah, of course. The process is two-pronged. So, you have to be able to set an agreement. That’s fine. How do you reset one? How do you allow human fallibility? I said it, Eric. You see, human fallibility in the workplaces is a foreign word. You can’t make a mistake. And especially in mining- We all make mistakes.

 When have we not make a mistake?

 How do we create a workplace where mistakes are part of the deal, and we are able to create a space where… Because I’ve been in the I’ve been in pre-start meetings where I’ve been in the work crew and someone’s had an incident and in comes a lead and say, Right, you broke the bloody lost time injury frequency rate. Now we’re bugged. I don’t want to see any incidents today. I got to… And this idea that we don’t. Yeah, it doesn’t. And so, the agreements model allows somebody to stand up and own something, but we take the energy off the person. And the way I’ve been able to do that is with the work teams and the leaders, we create what I call culture goals. What are the things that you’d really like to see in the workplace? Now, I’m a little sneaky. What I do is I meet with the work crews, and I say, What’s so stuffed about this place? What don’t you like? What is it about coming to work that’s restricting you from, I believe, finding some meaning in your work, finding that you are appreciated for and valued for what you do, and that there’s some sense of fulfill at the end of the day.

 When we flip those, then it’s usually about we create a workplace where you can speak up, where there’s 50/50 respect, where our voice is heard, we have a say in the decision making. And these are really common themes across most workplaces where we do this process. Now, if I put that culture goal and I write it up and it’s sitting there in the pre-start room, now what mistakes or even misdemeanors are based against is not about me and my character, but about how are we not fulfilling our culture goals, which we created as a team. Now what we can say is, so did you keep that agreement? Yes, or no? Well, what was the impact on our culture goals? When you take the energy off of the individual and it stop blaming them for their behavior, there’s another one, you see, this idea of behavior in the workplace. Don’t get me started on that one. See, behavior is something that’s instinct. It’s something that’s evolved through generations. But conduct, we have control over. So, I prefer to call it conduct-based safety, to be honest. But when you’ve got the culture goals up there, now we can say, all right, so do you believe in the culture goals?

 Anything we have to tweak? Is there something about it that you haven’t bought into? And most times I say, no, I’m just being human. But here’s the deal. What was the agreement? I didn’t keep it. No. What I made more important was this, and I see the impact it has had on you. I want to get back into, say, integrity or back into agreement with the team. And I’d like to reset that. Would everyone like to support me? Now that’s clunky. They don’t actually talk like that. So, I’m paraphrasing. But the energy is, if we want to be able to, you can see my picture of the hill at the back here. The idea is that we’re all trying to get into a sense of teamwork. And teamwork is allowing people to make mistakes, allowing people to find their trust again by remaking agreements. So, it’s not about punishing anybody. It’s not about picking faults with somebody’s personality or their behavior. What is the agreement to the culture goals? And would you like to maintain that? Yes, we welcome you back into the fray.

 This episode of the Safety Guru podcast is brought to you by Propulo Consulting, the leading safety and safety culture advisory firm. Whether you are looking to assess your safety culture, develop strategies to level up your safety performance, introduce human performance capabilities, re-energize your BBS program, enhance supervisory safety capabilities, or introduce unique safety leadership training and talent solutions, Propulo has you covered. Visit us at propulo.com.

 I want to pivot to convenience skills. But before we go there, you met somebody who’s been on this podcast before, and not because of this podcast, but you had an amazing encounter and a great aha there as well. Tell me a little bit about that.

 You’ve met him, Theo Venter.

 Yeah, Theo.

 That was an amazing experience for me. I was working with a company that was having some problems with their safety on a BHP site, and I’ve got a lot of experience with BHP, 25 years, in fact, as a consultant through basically every mine site that they operate in Australia, from BMA to Iron Or right across Nickel West and now Olympic Dam. I remember they said, oh, we’re going to bring this speaker in to help you, Ken, with the culture. I’m going, Yeah, that sounds great. I sat at the back of the room, got my laptop on my knee. You see, I’m arrogant. Theo started talking, and then slowly my laptop comes down. He really grabbed me with his story. He was up in a work basket, and he took his gloves off to access a 10-millimeter nut. But at that time, you see, I had investigated hundreds and hundreds of incidents, and I kept seeing this pattern in every single case, bar none. There was this idea that right at the moment of impact, a work crew were trying to get the job done. It’s like our biology. See, it closes everything out. We just focus on, here’s a task.

I’m really challenged. I need to get this job done. What do I got to do? Get this job done. And so, the idea, am I going to go back to the workshop and get a ladder, or am I going to stand on that drum? Am I going to crimp this hose and just quickly change the tap off at this nozzle over, or am I going to go back to the tap and turn the tap off? And here he was, living proof that this idea I was thinking of, convenience. The idea that convenience is the root cause of all workplace incidents and accidents had been shown here right before my eyes with this guy called Theo. So, I went up to Theo afterwards. I said, Theo, we really need to talk. And he’s thinking like, yeah, I get this all the time. I go, no, no, we really need to talk. And he says, well, he’s looking at his watch. Sorry, but I’ve got to be out of here. I’m going to see to this remote mind site in the middle of nowhere. I need to get going. And I said, oh, yeah, me too.

Where are you going? He says, Rocks be Downs. And I said, I live there. And he looked at me and I said, well, this is serendipity, isn’t it? So, he went on one flight. I was on another. We arrived there two days later at the Rocks by Tavern. I said, Theo, I know why you took your hands out of your gloves. And he goes, Yeah, looking sideways like, where is he taking this? I said it was convenience, wasn’t it? You could have gone back to the yard and got a tool, or you could have turned the power off, you could have I’ll go with the basket and check the risk assessment. But right in that moment, what was the most convenient choice for you? And he said, Yeah, it was. And his eyes lit up. And we were silent for a while. And I said, We’re onto something here. Why don’t we join up and write a book? And so we wrote Convenience Kills together, and the rest is history. It’s starting to really make an impact. It was mainly because of a chapter in a previous effort I had called Convenience Kills. People were talking to me just about that a lot.

They’re saying, Ken, this thing about convenience, you’d so right. I remember my phone going off in my car, and I was just about to reach over to answer it while I’m driving. I thought, Oh, yeah, convenience. Convenience kills. So, we had to take note. And the impact it’s having now, we remind work teams before they go out in the field, hey, be careful. Convenience will lure you today. It’s in your biology. That’s why we have the wheel. That’s why we have refrigerators.

Theo’s story, for those that haven’t listened to that episode, is basically he was doing electric work, and you always do it with big rubber gloves when it’s energized. And literally, there was a bolt that he couldn’t just get quite right and took one of the gloves off just for a second. But that particular part should have been safe. And if I recall, it just slipped a little bit, and then he made energized contact, 22,000 volts going through his body. In the other part that was interesting is, I think it was a week or a couple of weeks prior, he had seen somebody else for the first time break the cardinal rule of doing work without rubber gloves. So, he had also gotten a signal that maybe that cardinal rule is not as cardinal as I think it is.

Well, I’ve done a lot of asking. I would catch people immediately after an incident, and I build trust and rapport with them. And I usually say, look, I’m not here to ask you about this, not about investigation. What I’m really interested in is what was going through your mind immediately prior to the impact. And time after time after time, again, they would say, I just needed to get the job done. So, I’ve discovered that in the heat of the moment, all of a sudden, our brains, our biology, are absolutely determined to get this job done. We call it Swiss cheese model, and we’ve got all sorts of behavioural-based ideas about why a person takes a shortcut. But I found it is because there is no other thought in our mind in that moment. In Theo’s story also, you expand that. He covers so many different layers. Agreements. He had an agreement with his wife that he would look after himself, had an agreement with his father before he came to South Africa, that he would make a fist of it and not stuff this up, as he said. So, the agreements model was reflected a lot in Theo’s story as well.

 And trust. He was there, he was going to… He’s sitting there and he’s got a black mark around his arm. And he asked, what’s that for? And we’re going to have to amputate. And they’ve come at him with five signatures. You see, they’re all signed except the fifth one. It was his signature thereafter. And he’s going, no way. But before he goes under anesthesia, he pleads with the plastic surgeon, please, Dr. Ann Newey, who he now has a great relationship with. He had to trust it as he fell under anesthesia that he would do his best to save his arm. He wakes up in the morning, here, shake on it, Theo. Trust, I think, is the glue that holds any workplace together. I’m worried that safety has become more important than trust. My feeling is if we can build a workplace where we keep our agreements, where we’re able to show trustworthiness, and we have camaraderie at a deeper level, deeper connection, the safety would naturally take care of itself.

You talk about convenience skills. You’ve got a culture hill that comes with it. What’s the impact of introducing this concept that convenience can kill? How does it help a team member?

What I’ve been able to do is I went back to the science. I felt that if you have a look at the basis of agreements, it’s on the consequences. What are the consequences of any action, especially of not being able to keep a commitment? And so, the model that I’ve been following for a long time was called OARBED, O-A-R over a line, B-E-D. And I think Robert Kiyosaki and the well-known proponents of personal development used this, the O stands for ownership, A for accountability, and R for responsibility. And with the line, to stay above the line, you would have heard that concept, means that you don’t go to blame, excuses, and denial, bed. And so, I’ve been using that for a while, but it just wasn’t… There was no traction. I’m trying to introduce it to work crews. And basically, people say, what, you think that I’m not accountable? So, they switch off. I heard somewhere, I think it was on YouTube, a guy was on a video, and he said, Why all bed doesn’t work is because if you’re above the line, you’re good, and if you’re below the line, you’re bad. I thought, that is so true.

Here I am promoting the idea that we don’t accuse a person’s behavior, take the shame off that so that they can take ownership. No one’s going to own anything if they have punishment for doing so. So what I did was it came to me, a guy here on site, Kenny Manumea, was a manager who first employed convenience skills. He was the first one to see it with work with his work groups. And he introduced me to tribal leadership and the idea that there are five cultural stages. And I got that idea and I thought, so it goes from stage one, which is life sucks. Stage Two is this suck, or I suck. And then it goes through stage three, four, five until you get to a life’s great culture. But I turned it around to using Australian cool localism. And that’s stage one at the bottom of the hill is it sucks. It’s a person who says, you know what, just pay me the money. I’m only here because I have a mortgage and I’m not really bought into this. They probably have low self-esteem. The idea of agreements and keeping commitments wouldn’t be high.

And basically, from the Orbed model, blaming other people, having excuses, and denying. The thing about this model, though, is at stage one, if your HR department has done their job, we don’t really bring those people into the organization. But occasionally, even I go there, this place sucks, but we can jump out of it pretty quickly. The next stage on the hill, I call nothing changes. Now, this is a clique of people who quite often will engage in conversations talking about how this place never changes. What are they bringing in that for? Not another one. Gee, we tried that last time, and it didn’t work and not going to work this time. Now, they take up quite a chunk of energy in a workplace. The problem for a leader is the moment you engage at that level; you’ve lost the mantle as a leader. At the top of the hill is a person standing there, hands in the air. I’m great. I made it. I took the ownership. I was accountable. I call it agreements. And I changed responsibility to respect because I felt that respect was probably ownership, accountability, responsibility mean the same thing. 

So, I changed A to agreements and R to respect. The problem with the person standing at the top of the hill is, there’s still a lone wolf. It’s like, I’m here. I made it. I’m good, but you’re not. Because I’ve got things. I want to go places. I’ve got progression. But it’s a necessary stage, you see. But at the top of the hill, at least you can become a leader and you can say, hey, my attitude, my mental approach to being in this workplace was able to create a level of stability and leadership for you to follow. But if you’re a leader and you go back down the hill and engage with people that nothing changes, you might be there, look, I’m going to introduce something, but it’s not going to work this time, and you join into those conversations. You have basically diminished your role as a leader. So, we say this, if you’re a leader, you can’t ask anyone follow you if you’re not at least at the top of the hill. So, I remember when I said this into a supervisor’s workshop I was running, and I remember one guy, Ryan, he’s sitting there, his hands between his knees.

I go, Ryan, what’s the matter? And he says, I just led a priest start meeting from the bottom of the hill. And I went, yes, you’ve got it. And so, they all made an agreement with themselves. Why don’t we just, if we’re not at the top of the hill and we can’t get ourselves up there, let’s ask someone else to run the meeting for us. So, this concept that our own personal attitude and our own demeanor can affect the rest of the work team is so important. It’s about taking ownership of my own attitude, but especially as a leader. And then, of course, the moment I reach down the hill and drag a few nothing changes up, I’ve jettisoned myself into were great. The idea that as a collaborative organization, the teamwork, it always feels more empowering than doing something on our own. We’ve got the model up on all the pre-start meetings now, and it’s really simple. Hey, team, where do you think we are on the hill? And now you have a visual, immediate, real-time, finger on the pulse. Oh, this is where the culture is right now. And a lot of people will say, Gee, we’re right down the bottom there. 

Now they’ve got an opportunity. How do you correct it? It’s simple. The signpost says ownership, agreements, and respect. Obviously, if we were blaming others and we’re not taking ownership for the consequences of our actions, obviously, it’s going to throw us down the bottom of the hill. But now you have a visual representation. I don’t think that’s ever been done before.

What I love is it’s in colloquially speak, it resonates with the frontline team members. It’s not an academic model. It’s really to drive that conversation you’re talking about with the team members in terms of where we are and how do we need to show up differently, reframe the current state to address this.

Yeah, and I’m trying to take the stigma off it. It’s no longer above or below the line. I don’t know if I can say this, but I can say it like this. If you’re on the left-hand side and you’re at the bottom, you’re pushing it uphill. If I’m in a pre-start and I’m saying, who needs support? I don’t know what it’s like where you Eric, but in Australia, that’s a little bit… It’s not real. That’s not how we talk. But if you say, who’s pushing it uphill? Yeah, that would be me. Great. Who needs a hand? Yeah, it’s very Australian. But if we talk in the language that’s not condescending. I think safety can be condescending. I think not because we want it to be, but we have so many rules and we have so many expectations, and they’re necessary, totally necessary. I’ve been in safety for over 20 years. I absolutely buy into it. But how do we do it in a way that is natural and as part of our culture? Brings me to the next point, which is- Go ahead. Who believes in it? Safety. You see, 40 years in the game, one of the things that I just can’t get my head around is, I’ve asked people this all the time, do you enjoy safety?

Do you believe in your safety system? I have never met one person yet in my 40 years of mining and construction and heavy industrial, put up their hand and say, yes, I believe in it, or yes, I enjoy it, probably because of my culture. But why I feel it now, my voice has changed because it really affects me. How is it that we’re not buying into the one thing that’s absolutely there to save our lives, that’s there to keep us out of harm’s way? And so, I’ve dedicated my life. My passion and my purpose are to bring back that joy I had when I was a young man but do it safely. How can I create the empowerment that I had that I was making my own decisions, but now with the insights that I have as an older person, an experienced person, how can I still have that joy with the idea that safety is absolutely necessary to keep me out of harm’s way? I think if we find that answer, we will all be billionaires, but it’s so important that this changes. I can’t wait until I have a team of people who say, we love safety.

We love our safety, man. It’s cool. You should see what we’re doing with our safety. And they might be terming it like psychological safety, which I believe is more important than anything. If I can be psychologically safe, I will be empowered to keep myself physically safe. I think that’s a really important It’s an important point. 

I love the topics you introduced. I think the power of the agreement is something that we often miss. And I think this element of going straight to consequence blame or punishment, as opposed to saying, how do I lay the foundation so that we don’t end up there? I think that’s a very powerful, simple thing that anybody can implement. It doesn’t take a lot, just how you frame things as you start. Then the other one is really in terms of this element of convenience and how do you relate it to Kraft employees in terms of simple constructs, simple ideas in a way that they speak, but also highlighting when you’re stuck Back in that moment, Theo, I remember, I just needed to get the bolt on. But he could have gone down, he could have done in many different ways, but it’s just that moment, tunnel vision of I need to get this done that can get you in arms’ way.

Well, I call it the backstop. If you are in what I call the heat of the moment. Now, things are great when you’re in the pre-start or in the crib room and you’re writing your risk assessment. Yes, if this happens, we will do that. Yes, we have this control in place. But in the heat of the moment, when everything changes, what’s going to kick in? And I believe that that is a deeply invested engagement with your work environment before you go out and do the task. When my mind is totally focused on taking that nut off, when is it that my biology will then ask me the question, is this in line with my principles. So, we rarely have our principles worked out in advance. That’s why I go with the culture goals. We create a workplace that empowers communication, camaraderie, respect, and the idea that we can all speak up in the workplace without recrimination. Now, if that was my mantra, I think I’ve got a better chance of being able to process what I’m about to do that could be dangerous through that prism. See, here’s the thing about Theo, and I think this is really important, and this is why the Culture Hill works.

Theo is up in the basket. Nico has a go. He can’t do it. But see, Theo is the go-to guy. So, you always go, Theo, you have a go, mate. They swap over. Now, Theo is there. Nico is in the basket right behind him talking to the safety observer down the bottom, right? Now, if I’m a lone wolf, and I’m even… This is the dangerous part about being at the top of the hill. I’m good. I’m going to say, I’ve got to get this nut off at all costs. It’s up to me. I’m the go-to guy. I can do this. What if this had happened. What if the prism was, I’m in a team, we’re great together, we collaborate, we can solve these problems as a team. All Theo had to do is elbow Nico in the ribs. Nico, you think I should take my gloves off. You think about that moment right there. So, you’re either going to be the lone wolf or you’re going to be in the wolf pack. Now, that can only be determined by the culture of your workplace. If you create a wolf pack mentality where collaboration is key and where you can work together and solve problems together, and that you are empowered to have a say in the decision-making process.

So, People won’t feel that. They won’t be empowered to speak up, and they won’t be empowered to use collaboration and teamwork unless they feel like they have a sense that they were part of the decision-making process. And That’s where the agreements come in. Team, any agreements to discuss? That sentence there is my purpose. If I can get every single pre-start in the planet, just kick off their pre-start meeting with team, any agreements to discuss? You think about that. Now everyone’s invited to talk about their culture. Yes, I’d like to raise something about respect. Or yes, I’d like to raise something about the housekeeping. Or yes, I’d like to raise something about that I don’t really understand the task I’m about to do. To be empowered to have a say is about what is the basic agreement that you have a voice, you can speak without the fear of recrimination, that your part of a team, and what you say matters to us. If you can build that and get that culture happening, and we’re starting to see the green shoots of that now, where everyone has an equal say just in that moment, that first 20 minutes at the start of the day, now we can start to create a place where safety is elevated because of the collaboration.

No more lone wolves. Sure. Most incidents are caused because of the lone wolf syndrome. I’m on my own. I can do this. I’ve got to get this done, as opposed to, what would the team think if I did this? I don’t know of any other method that can appeal to the subconscious and conscious minds in that way, because it appeals to us that we have a say.

Ken, thank you so much. This has been a really fun conversation. Somebody wants to get in touch with you. You’ve got your website, conveniencekills.net. Any closing thoughts? I love your storytelling today.

The closing thought is If we can create more enjoyment in the workplace, we will get more engagement. If we can create more engagement, we’re going to be able to have people who buy into our systems and buy in. See, the reason why they’re not bought in is because they haven’t been able to raise the parts that they’re not bought into so that they can be resolved.

Excellent. Thank you so much for joining me today, Ken.

You’re welcome, Eric. Thank you, listeners. Looking forward to the next time.

Excellent.

Thank you for listening to The Safety Guru on C-suite Radio. Leave a legacy. Distinguish yourself from the past. Grow your success. Capture the hearts and minds of your teams. Elevate your safety. Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their safety leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance. Begin your journey at execsafetycoach.com. Come back in two weeks for the next episode with your host, Eric Michrowski. This podcast is powered by Propulo Consulting.  

ABOUT THE GUEST

With over forty years of rich experience in mining, heavy industry, and construction, Ken Roberts is a pioneer in transforming workplace cultures. He is the creator of the ground-breaking ‘Convenience Kills’ program, designed to move cultures from being convenience-driven to being consequence-driven, through his innovative “Agreements Culture” formula, which promotes voluntary accountability and ownership. His extensive global experience in enhancing safety cultures directly tackles key workplace challenges like low morale and conflict, fostering a sense of camaraderie and empowerment within teams. Ken’s dedicated efforts significantly boost safety, productivity, and leadership effectiveness, leading to profound improvements in organisational dynamics and outcomes.

For more information: https://transfoorm.com/

EPISODE NOTES

Transfoorm™ Culture Hill

The Culture Hill illustrates the progressive stages of cultural development within an organisation, with each stage representing a significant shift in attitudes, behaviours, and shared values. It is inspired by the ‘Tribal Leadership’ model from Logan, King and Fischer-Wright. Here’s an explanation of each stage depicted in the image:

Culture Hill by Ken Roberts

LH Signpost – Blame, Excuses, Denial: This phase is located at the base of the hill and characterised by a culture that deflects responsibility. Instead of taking ownership, there’s a tendency to blame others, make excuses for failures, or outright deny responsibility. It’s a reactive stage that hinders growth and learning, where individuals avoid accountability.

  • “It sucks”: These individuals embody the LH signpost showing little to no enthusiasm for investing the effort needed to overcome the cultural obstacles before them. They resonate with the inefficiency of their current circumstances. A notable absence of dedication to transformation is present, with the dominant mood being one of discontent and a resigned belief that the existing conditions are permanent. Either HR didn’t do their job or that signpost needs to turn into an exit door.
  • “Nothing changes”: Further up the hill there’s dissatisfaction that company inaction is responsible for their inaction. “Nothing changes” is marked by frustration, as there’s awareness of the need for change, but either the pathway to change is too hard, been tried before but failed, not expressed in terms of the work crew’s values, or there’s an absence of momentum or support to make it happen. Arms folded they form cliques to reinforce their paradigm and make them right.
  • “I’m good”: Reaching the peak of the hill signifies a moment of self-realisation and positive affirmation. When asked how they are, the response is always “I’m good.” It’s here that individuals start to recognise their own ability to effect change, marking a turning point in personal accountability and a shift towards a more proactive and positive attitude. If there’s any downfall it’s the difficulty to shed personal achievement and accolades aside for the benefit of a collaborative effort. 
  • We’re great”: Coasting downhill now, the other side of the hill represents collective achievements. “We’re great” signals a culture of collaboration, mutual support, and collective accomplishment because it feels better to share the experience with others. It represents a proactive, positive culture, where the focus is on shared success and ongoing improvement. The moment someone turns to help others up the hill from the “I’m good” stage, their effort is met with a sense of purpose and meaning.

RH Signpost – Ownership, Agreements, Respect: At the other side of the hill, these elements reflect a mature culture where individuals and teams have taken the journey through the various stages and emerged with a strong sense of ownership over their roles and actions. There’s a commitment to living up to the agreements made, and a deep respect for one another that permeates the culture, contributing to an environment where individuals are valued and accountability is a shared responsibility.

The terms “Convenience” and “Consequence” at the top and bottom of the image respectively, illustrate the choice between the easy path of short-term convenience, which leads back to the base of the hill, and the path of understanding and embracing the consequences of one’s actions, which leads to the summit and beyond into a culture of collective excellence.

In essence, The Culture Hill is a metaphorical journey from a negative, reactive state to a positive, proactive culture that thrives on ownership, accountability, and respect.

RELATED EPISODE

STAY CONNECTED

The Safety Guru with Eric Michrowski

More Episodes: https://thesafetyculture.guru/

C-Suite Radio: https://c-suitenetwork.com/the-safety-guru/

Powered By Propulo Consulting: https://propulo.com/

Eric Michrowski: https://ericmichrowski.com

EXECUTIVE SAFETY COACHING

Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their Safety Leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance.

Safety Leadership coaching has been limited, expensive, and exclusive for too long.

As part of Propulo Consulting’s subscription-based executive membership, our coaching partnership is tailored for top business executives that are motivated to improve safety leadership and commitment.
Unlock your full potential with the only Executive Safety Coaching for Ops & HSE leaders available on the market.
Explore your journey with Executive Safety Coaching at https://www.execsafetycoach.com.
Executive Safety Coaching_Propulo

Building a Solid Foundation: Navigating Production Pressure and Prioritizing Safety for New Frontline Workers with Tom Corfield

Building a Solid Foundation: Navigating Production Pressure and Prioritizing Safety for New Frontline Workers

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

We’re excited to have Tom Corfield join the podcast this week to share his inspiring and heartfelt story of lessons he’s learned in overcoming adversity and prioritizing safety. At the age of 17, Tom was working as an apprentice in construction when he was involved in a workplace incident that left him blind. In this deeply moving episode, he shares the impact the incident had on his loved ones and his mental health. Tom’s message is sure to motivate you to build a safety foundation based on effectively navigating production pressure, leading with vulnerability, and prioritizing safety for frontline workers who are new within an organization. Tune in!

READ THIS EPISODE

Real leaders leave a legacy. They capture the hearts and minds of their teams. Their origin story puts the safety and well-being of their people first. Great companies ubiquitously have safe yet productive operations. For those companies, safety is an investment, not a cost for the C-Suite. It’s a real topic of daily focus. This is The Safety Guru with your host, Eric Michrowski. A globally recognized ops and safety guru, public speaker, and author. Are you ready to leave a safety legacy? Your legacy success story begins now.

Hi, and welcome to The Safety guru. Today I’m very excited to have with me Tom Corfield. Tom is a motivational speaker. He’s here to talk about an incident that happened 15 years ago and some of the effects that it had and some of the roles that leaders have, and particularly he was new into his role at the time. Tom, welcome to the show. Very excited to have you with me.

Hi, Eric. Thank you. Thanks for the offer. It’s been a pleasure. Hope you’re well. Really want to get my story out there and tell you guys all about it.  

Definitely. Why don’t we start there? What happened? You were new in your role, you had recently started. Tell me about what happened. 

I’ve always been interested in brick laying and being a construction worker. I got myself into an apprenticeship in the UK, a bricklaying apprenticeship with a big construction company. I was doing really well in my building. I was getting my level, my sitting guilt. I was progressing and doing really well with the brick laying. But then that was in the college part, and we then got put out onto. I went out onto this site, got on the site and just started. 17-year-old Tom just coming out of school. And it’s a big change. So, from being in school days and then, wow, you’re on this big site with machinery and noises and drills and everything going on around you. That day I got to the site. I always remember the day that happened. It was a wet day and tyrannical rain. It was like walked out and put my boots out and walked out onto the job and it was covered in mud already. But at that day, I was helping some laborers, helping the laborers load out for the brick layers below. And obviously as a starter coming up from the bottom, that’s the first major job you get done given is to help the libraries load out the bricks, the compo, things like that.

So, I was up on a scaffold, and I was carrying blocks. And like I said, I was only 17 years old. I was carrying concrete blocks and I could only carry one. And at this point, I was on the scaffold and the supervisor was working for, I’d seen him, and he shouted up to me, Tom, if you can’t carry two blocks, don’t carry none at all. So, I thought, oh, that’s my supervisor saying that I better stop what I’m doing. So, I asked the lab as I was working with, what do you want me to get him? Because he wants me to carry two blocks and I can’t carry the weight of two blocks if you understand. So, I started filling up the bucket and the compo, which is the wet cement in the big tub and picking it up onto my shoulder in a bucket. And I’m walking along a scaffold and having to come down to a staircase below where there were two group lads waiting for me to pass them their compost. Like I said, it was torrential rain. The rain was getting worse, and we’ve been told by the supervisor that day we would get the job done and we’d be able to have the Friday off.

The Friday was apparently it was a wet day as well, so I said, get the job done today and everyone will have an early day frauded. So, you can imagine the pace has picked up. So, I’m back and forth with these buckets of wet cement. And at the one point, I took it off my shoulder and as I took it off my shoulder, it slipped out my hands. But I’ve automatically gone forward with it. It’s all in one motion. Sure. And the buckets hit flat down on the floor and the splash back has gone straight up into my eyes, my nose, my mouth, everywhere. My whole face was just covered in wet cement. I don’t know if a lot of people know, but the cement is a lime base. So, they add lime to it, which helps it more workable. So, at the point, I’ve been told about lime burns and things like that at college. And all of a sudden, I just screamed out. And the two libraries I was working with, they came, they picked me up and said, come on, we’ve got to get straight to the toilets to wash your face out.

And people didn’t understand the amount of cement that got into my face and into my eyes. I had to wash my eyes out in the sink, and it was that bad. Took me to the side office to use the little oil wash solutions that most companies have in the first aid box. They unfortunately ran out and didn’t have enough to clean my eyes out with. So, my supervisor then picked me up. He took me then to the nearest hospital. We got lost on the way to the hospital. Eventually, got to the hospital for them to tell me that I am probably never going to be able to see again and this was all due to the lime penetrating the eyeballs. And it was just burning the eyes. So, I got to the local eye hospital in Birmingham, and I was then told at 17 years old, you’re probably never going to be able to see again. And the guy what it led up to was having my eyes scraped. They were putting cotton wool buds, long cotton wool sticks and scraping the eyes and trying to get the cement out of my eyes. And this had happened around midday, and they were still scraping cement out of the back of my eyes. Like it’s nine o’clock in the night. Oh, my goodness. My parents, they got the phone call to say that I’d been in an accident at work. My mom’s last day at work for around two years where she was then my career. I was not knowing if I was ever going to see again. And yeah, that’s where my life drastically changed and went to the worst. Depression, suicide, a lot of things changed then because I was a 17-year-old lad who had the freedom to do anything he wanted. He just wanted to be a builder and have his own construction company later on in life to then one day, never knowing if I’m ever going to be able to see again. So, yeah, it messed with my head. I can’t really say words that can explain it, but just lying in a hospital bed, not being able to see a thing and just listening for the noises around you, it was heartbreaking. No kidding. And it was heartbreaking for family and friends to see me in that way.

So, if we go into that day, you’re new in the role, you’re 17 years old, unfortunately, hear that story too often. Somebody who’s new comes on a site, wants to do a good job. Supervisor is sending a message of – “Let’s get it done”, and specifically putting pressure on you, what are some of the things that organizations can do with a new employee that comes in? Because you want it to do well. My guess is you were going above and beyond trying to show I’m doing my best.

You want to show that you’re keen and you want that job. You know what I mean? You want to show people and that supervisor or that manager that you want to work hard for them. And that’s what I was doing. I was trying my hardest to get to keep up with the other l avers because when you’ve got about 10, 15 brick layers in front and who are constantly lying, you’ve got to keep constantly throwing bricks there, blocks there, cement, compost, mix. It’s a stressful time. And coming from a young lad to then straight ship straight onto the building sites like that. And you’ve got supervisors screaming down your head. And it’s a big pressure. It’s a lot of pressure for these young lads. And I’ve met a lot of young apprentices over the years now working on site. And they’re in much change, but people need to realize you’ve got to give these young lads a chance. They might not know everything that’s going on the job and people are expecting them to know a lot. And you can’t just expect someone to come out of school and know what everything they need to do, and I think that’s where a lot of supervisors do push people. And when it’s your supervisor, you’ll think that’s what you should be doing. And that’s how they want everything to be done. And unfortunately for me, that day I was stressed, and I was rushed and.

I was soaking wet, working in wet conditions and it all hit in one. And things I do now, I make sure I take a step back before I get given a task. Step back, take a step back and check your surroundings and things like that. Just look away and look at what you got to do instead of jumping straight into it and then eventually could lead to an accident.

What are the things that a supervisor could do to set the right frame? Because I’m assuming you come to the site, there’s some form of site induction orientation about the risk, the hazards. What are some of the things that leaders and organizations can do to influence driving the right choice? Obviously, the supervisor and how he showed up wasn’t helpful because he was talking about try to shorten the day, you don’t have to work tomorrow, things of that nature. That creates a pressure across everybody to try to move faster. And yes, productivity is important, but that’s where short cuts can happen, and we make mistakes.

This is it. Things like where they told everyone on site that they probably wouldn’t have to come to work tomorrow because of rain. That probably should have been done at the end of the day. So, people didn’t rush to get the job done and think, I’m getting a day off tomorrow thing. It could have been the super bowl. I could have left that till get the job done and then tell the lads they wouldn’t have to come in tomorrow. It would have been a lot better for people to hear that. But just in general, just really just to have more induction and start. When people come onto the sites, it’s probably a best thing to show people examples of accidents that have happened. For example, mine, over the years of me working, I did used to do induction for the lads on site, and I always told them about my accident and give them a bit of knowledge about what happened to me, just so when they go out onto site and they have to have a job which is task specific, wearing glasses. And then I’ve told them more about my accident. It might make them think, oh, that lad told me about his accident.

I better just put some glasses on before I do this job in case something flicks up and hits me in the face. And this is more like what a lot of supervisors should be doing to their employees, just telling them things that could happen and that has happened, not to scare them, just to make them realized and make the awareness. And that’s what I’m trying now is just to make people aware of how easy an accident like what happened to me happened. Because one day you could be going to work, the next day you might not be coming home. And that’s the sickening thing about it. And a lot of people have got families which depend on them, especially us. We are like the main source of family income.

So, a lot of supervisors, to me, these days, they need to just think about the jobs they’re saying they need people to do because at the end of the day, you could task, you could set someone a task or a job and you might know it’s not safe, but you’ve still sent that employee out to do this job. And then something could happen to them, an accident or even worse, death. And that supervisor’s then got to live with that for the rest of his life. I probably said supervisor who was looking after me, knew about what happened, and I’ll stick with him for the rest of his days because I don’t suppose he knows what’s happening to me now. 15 years later.

This episode of The Safety Guru podcast is brought to you by Propulo Consulting, the leading safety and safety culture advisory firm. Whether you are looking to assess your safety culture, develop strategies to level up your safety performance, introduce human performance capabilities, re-energize your BBS program, enhance supervisory safety capabilities, or introduce unique safety leadership training and talent solutions, Propulo has you covered. Visit us at propulo.com.

Is there as well some elements here in terms of preparedness? So, you mentioned safety glasses. Should you have been wearing safety glasses? Is this something that should have been thought through before that the site should have prepared you for? Should there have been enough solution for an incident like this so that on site they had enough?

This is the thing that obviously, yet they didn’t have enough wash solutions on site, which it was a separate salt to the company I was an apprentice with. So, I was like a subcontractor to this main contractor.

So, the glass is policy that wasn’t really heard of back 2006, 2007. It was more or less if you were wearing glasses, it was down to your own. It was off your own back. It wasn’t pushed to your bottom line, like the companies or the health and safety. It was more like a task specific, wear them glasses if you were wearing it, if you’re doing cutting steel or cutting bricks or things like that or chopping bricks. So, it was up to you if you wanted to wear them. But then my accident happened. The company I was working for, they had the health and safety obviously got involved. And a lot of companies over the years since have made it mandatory for all their employees to wear glasses on site. I know the company I was working with, as soon as you walked onto that job, you had to wear full PPE, glasses, hardhats, boots, gloves. And that was from when you started to work to when you come off the job. So obviously, before nothing was heard of until Tom here as this accident, dropped this bucket of cement and it splashes in his eyes. And that’s what I mean I wasn’t given glasses to people. Didn’t realize how bad it was. A lot of people still to this day don’t understand how a bucket of cement can cause someone to go blind until they see a picture.

But this is the thing. Safety specs and safety glasses on site are obviously I’d always wear them myself. I’m site now, I’m constantly got my safety specs on because tiny bit of dust could get into my one eye and I’m blind again. And like I say to people on my motivational talks, I drive around on dumpier trucks and things like that. And if something goes in my eye without a pair of specs on, I could potentially hit someone, and the worst could happen. So, I have to be wearing more safety glasses all the while.

That’s what I’m trying to make people realize is that wearing these glasses, yeah, people might feel like they look a bit odd wearing these big glasses on your face. But if they’re going to protect these eyes, and this is the main thing that people need to realize, you have an accident like I had with my eyes. And you’re self-employed, working on a grant or working on a grant or you’re working on a site and your self-employed lads and you have an accident and you’re off for work for a year and no money’s been made, who’s going to be making that money? And it’s just a breakdown of things that you’ve got to make people realize is if you lose your job, you could lose your home and you could lose your family, you could lose your life. And the horrible steps that he could go down. And looking for me, I didn’t have to go down that way because my family, I had a strong family bond and they kept me in the right position. It did mentally mess with me in my head. And it happened. But now I’m trying to make a negative into a major positive.

Tell me a little bit about that. In terms of the knock-on effects, you touched on the impact personally in terms of how there was a physical pain, the physical impact. Tell me a little bit about what was the knock-on effect on family loved ones and then where you are now.

At the accident, like I said, I was a 17-year-old, still lived at home. My parents both lived at home. My brother lived at home. He was just going to university. Like I said, my mom, from that day forward, my mom was my career at 17 years old, being 17 years old and having your mom care for you and look after you. Just two weeks before the accident, passed my driving test and that’s one of the main things I wanted to do as a kid had my own car. Then you got your own freedom. I had my own freedom for two weeks. I was in work; I was driving my car to work. Then one day, not knowing if I’m ever going to see again, my mom being my career. He put pressure on the family, he did. I’m not going to lie, he eats. Mum and dad, they had arguments and things. My mom was taking me to the hospital every Monday. That was more or less a full day sitting around hospitals. And that happened for about a couple of years. She had to do a lot of things. I more or less was bedbound, or I was laying a settee.

So, she was more, made my food, made my drinks, things like that. Like put my drops in. I had to have drops. I was having all drops in every hour of the day, day and night. So, I was having that many different all drops, so she had to make her own spreadsheets so she could then make sure she was putting the right drop in the right eye. So, it was like a day. It was like a full-time job just looking after me for two years. And it was hard. My dad, he was the one who had to then keep the money coming in. Like I said, my brother was about to go to university. He obviously did. He needed money to pay for his university and things like that. So, he did put pressure on. I can’t not fault my family for everything they’ve done. If it wasn’t for them, I probably wouldn’t be speaking to you now. The state of mind I was in after the accident, I was ready to give up. And luckily, like I said, having that, then parents look after me and be behind me, it’s made me into that better person today. And now I have nowadays, like I said, I’m trying to do these motivational talks to make people realize and make things aware of how easy these accidents can happen. I lost the confidence. That was another big thing for me. Confidence was a big loss. I couldn’t talk to people. I couldn’t have face to face conversations. I couldn’t speak to women. I was paranoid about people looking at me in a different way. So, I didn’t put myself out there to meet girls and things like that and then a few years ago, five years ago, I met my beautiful fiancée who now is making me a stronger person and making me to the biggest person now to get up and speak to hundreds of people and make people aware. I can’t fault her for anything. She’s done so much for me in the last few years. That’s how the change in my life has happened. It’s like going from being down in the dumps and not knowing what’s going to happen to me in life to now being up there about to get married, have a baby on the way, have a beautiful girl, my fiancée, and a lovely house, and doing these motivational talks to hopefully prevent other people going down that path, and just making awareness and realization of what could happen.

I think it’s a great ending to a horrible incident in terms of where you’re at. I think there’s some important pieces here just in terms of, as I shared, somebody new to the job is much more likely to get influenced by production pressure, things of that nature. There’s a lot to be done when you bring in your employee. I’ve seen some leaders that do a phenomenal job recognizing that and showing up, making sure that somebody doesn’t feel they need to need to rush, that making sure that they reinforce that what matters is their safety. And if it takes a little bit longer to do it, that’s okay. Just really making sure that somebody who’s an apprentice, who’s learning, is taking the time and is not negatively impacted by production pressures. There’s a lot of elements that can be done in terms of creating a setting that’s welcoming and also identifies the risk and the hazards to prevent early on. And I think that’s an important story or message from his story.

It’s true. Young employee should be supervised from the date that someone step on that site to the time they finish. They shouldn’t be left alone because like I said, anything could happen. And this is what people need to realize. These supervisors need to understand that when they send people out on sort, then they need to know that even the person they’re sending out on sort is their monster straight because a lot of us have problems at home and we don’t know what to tell people about it. I could have a problem at home, I go to work and that problem’s in my head and it’s taking my whole concentration off the tasks I should be doing at work. Like I said to these supervisors, even before you send someone out, just check them all out in the morning, just have a chat with them. Did you get up too much last night? Did you have a good weekend? Just find out a bit about the lads you’re working with. It helps people out mentally. It really does. I love having the conversation with people at work. Now it’s great. I love going to work and especially working on site.

It’s a different… It’s a good crack. Everyone gets on with each other and we all have a laugh. But you’ve got to make sure because all men, most men work on site and a lot of men do need to talk up and speak up a bit and speak about the problems because if I didn’t speak about my problems and I bottled it up inside, it could lead to other things. And that’s what a lot of us men do. And that’s what I like to cover in my talks, a lot more about men speaking and opening up to other blokes. And don’t be worried about what other people think about. But I could probably say people would say things about me doing the things I do now because it’s what I used to do. But you’ve got to make a change in life. It’s not all about sitting in the background. You’ve got to get yourself out and make people understand you a bit more. That’s one thing, like I say, us blokes don’t like to do because we feel like with a strong bond, we’re that main person in the family and things like that.

You don’t want to show people your weaknesses, but it’s all wrong to show people your weaknesses. Don’t be scared about showing other men or other people that you’re weak because we’re not all weak, we’re strong. This is what we all need to start doing these days is just opening up a bit more to other people. Not too much. Like I said, in the morning, you’ve got your lads coming in the office and just have a chat with them and just check that they’re all right before you send them. See how they’re doing.

Just before you send them out on a job, or you could be going up a big building, or it could be high or down the ground. But just check they’re all right before they go out onto the job. In case something isn’t all right, and they then do have an accident, which you could have prevented as a job supervisor.

Simple things, but incredibly important things.

Exactly.

In terms of creating the rapport when you get somebody on site. And I think also recognizing that a new employee and apprentice is trying to do their best and they interpret from their leaders what good looks like and are more likely to rush or do something, cut a corner if they think that that’s what’s desired of their leader. That’s it.

That’s it. This is why I’m trying to do this now because… Well, like I said, I was a young lad at one point and that’s what happened. And if I can stop other young lads losing the salt or losing anything, you know what I mean? I know I’m doing a good job and that’s what it’s all about is making sure they’re aware of everything that’s going on in the workplace.

Sure. Tom, really appreciate you sharing your story and congratulations on your new addition to your family coming and the upcoming wedding. Wishing you all the best. If somebody wants to get in touch with you, Tom, and is interested in hearing your story or having you share your story, how can they do that?

I’m on LinkedIn under Tom Corfield, Motivational Talker, and Facebook, Instagram, everything. But yeah, LinkedIn is the main source of where you can find me or anything. That’s where I put a lot of my talks, a lot of my speeches I’ve done over the years. Everything gets uploaded onto LinkedIn. So, if anyone is interested or would like to hear my speech and my story about the accident and my life and awareness and health and safety, mental health, yeah, Tom Corfield. That’s where you can find me. But I appreciate the invitation, Eric, and I hope I can make a difference.

Absolutely. Well, thank you for sharing your story and for joining the show today.

Thank you, Eric. Cheers. Thank you.

For listening to the Safety Guru on C-Suite Radio. Leave a legacy, distinguish yourself from the pack, grow your success. Capture the hearts and minds of your teams. Elevate your safety. Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their safety leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance. Begin your journey at execsafetycoach. com. Come back in two weeks for the next episode with your host, Eric Michrowski. This podcast is powered by Propulo Consulting.

ABOUT THE GUEST

Tom Corfield suffered a workplace accident 15 years ago where he lost sight in his left eye. He was just 17 when cement splashed back in his face, covering his eyes leaving him blind. Tom raises the key message that such a small incident had a huge impact on himself, his family, and his colleagues. It strengthens the message that managing health and safety, no matter how trivial it may seem, is so important.

For more information: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-corfield-803039180 or [email protected]

STAY CONNECTED

The Safety Guru with Eric Michrowski

More Episodes: https://thesafetyculture.guru/

C-Suite Radio: https://c-suitenetwork.com/the-safety-guru/

Powered By Propulo Consulting: https://propulo.com/

Eric Michrowski: https://ericmichrowski.com

RELATED EPISODE

EXECUTIVE SAFETY COACHING

Like every successful athlete, top leaders continuously invest in their Safety Leadership with an expert coach to boost safety performance.

Safety Leadership coaching has been limited, expensive, and exclusive for too long.

As part of Propulo Consulting’s subscription-based executive membership, our coaching partnership is tailored for top business executives that are motivated to improve safety leadership and commitment.
Unlock your full potential with the only Executive Safety Coaching for Ops & HSE leaders available on the market.
Explore your journey with Executive Safety Coaching at https://www.execsafetycoach.com.
Executive Safety Coaching_Propulo