Select Page

Just Culture in Action: Building Fairness, Trust, and a Learning Culture with Dr Tony Power

Just Culture in Action: Building Fairness, Trust, and a Learning Culture with Dr Tony Power

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

Start our new season with a powerful episode featuring Dr Tony Power, a leading expert in justice and safety management. In this insightful conversation, Dr Power explains what Just Culture truly means and emphasizes its critical role in improving safety management and driving organizational learning. Through real-world examples, he shares why a meaningful Just Culture must be grounded in values, purpose, and consistent behaviors, not simply treated as a checklist. Dr Power underscores the importance of engaging in open dialogue with all stakeholders and provides practical strategies for implementing Just Culture effectively across organizations. He also offers guidance on how leaders can navigate the legal and regulatory complexities that are often challenging to address. Tune in as Dr Power explores how to build fairness, trust, and a learning culture within your organization, offering actionable insights for bringing Just Culture into action in a meaningful and sustainable way. Don’t miss this enlightening episode of The Safety Guru!

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 Dr Tony Power. He’s founder and Principal Consultant at Just Culture Consulting. He’s a leading expert in the world around just culture and the implementations with quite the diverse background, which we’re going to get into very soon, from legal to aviation to teaching a lot about and safety culture. Tony, welcome to the show. Very excited to have you with me.

Thanks, Eric, for inviting me. I’ve been really looking forward to this.

Absolutely. Let’s get started with your diverse background and what got you so passionate about safety.

Yeah, it’s been a bit of a journey. I suppose growing up, I had a couple of passions. Initially, one was law. I grew up watching some legal dramas, and the other was aviation, was flying. I ended up starting my career as lawyer. One of the big drivers for me was that sense of justice and fairness. I always hated it when I saw people being treated in an unfair way. That was a big driver for me. Then when I got into law, I was working as a young solicitor for a city law firm here in Australia. I saw the way that safety was often dealt with by the law and sometimes the way that frontline people were effectively made responsible for system failures That really tended to trouble me, but I didn’t really have a good handle on exactly why. Then a few years later, while I was still relatively young, before I got a mortgage and all those sorts of things, I said, oh, I’ll make the career change to my other passion, which is aviation. And as I went back to study and got my pilot’s license and did an aviation degree, and that’s where I came across safety management and in particular, just culture.

And that really spoke to me, this idea that, well, if you treat people in a just and fair way, that is not just a good thing in and of itself, which it certainly is, but also that it brings a whole lot of safety benefits as well. So that then led me to really diving into that and ultimately pursuing a PhD, teaching at university on safety culture, just culture, safety management, and then ultimately then from that to founding Just Culture Consulting and really focusing in on that just culture implementation and helping organizations to be a more just and fair place to work, which I think is something that everyone deserves to have, whether you’re a receptionist or a mechanic or a supervisor or a CEO.

It has to feel fair. Let’s start with this element of just culture because a lot of people talk about it. Can you share maybe a little bit about what is it and maybe some elements of what it’s not? Because it’s sometimes in some circles has an incorrect connotation, I would say.

Yeah, absolutely. I think safety culture really came out of a response to two other alternative cultures, one being the blame or the punitive culture and this idea that, well, when things go wrong, it’s a result of bad choices by bad people. If we get rid of the bad people or we punish them, then our systems will be safer because people will be deterred from making errors or the ones who are prone to be error prone. But the problem that we found with that was that that meant that people, if they made a mistake or error or something, they wouldn’t say anything because they’d be worried about getting punished. So, the safety information sources dried up and It’s been long recognized. It’s not a great way to run an organization, both the general environment that it creates and also the negative safety impacts. Then there’s a response that there was this shift to a no-blame culture and this idea that, well, as long as you report you’ll be immune from blame or from punishment. This idea that any use of blame or even possibly accountability when things go wrong is detrimental to safety. Sure. That certainly is a good movement away from a blame culture.

But it can lead to this idea that accidents are always the result of interactions in complex systems and that there’s no individual agency. You can come to see accidents as acts of God if you like, rather than preventable occurrences. There’s been some research in the US with construction about these attitudes being driven by purely no-blame cultures.

Environment, yeah.

Yeah. A just culture is attempted to find a middle ground between those two, where we encourage safety reporting through a non-punitive response to human error. We understand that people generally intend to go to work, intending to do a good job, but humans are fallible, and they will make errors from time to time, even when they’re trying their best. It’d be unjust to punish them for those. But we retain standards of accountability, that line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Things like, for example, deliberate harm or grossly reckless conduct, which is uncommon but still needs to be dealt. It needs to be addressed. An organization that, for example, doesn’t properly address things like deliberate harm is one where the other the other work is not going to feel safe or not feel that safety is being taken seriously. It’s really about anchoring accountability into the science of how humans work in systems, not blaming people for errors and mistakes that have been induced by the system, but still retaining that space for individual accountability assessment of quality of people’s choices they make within the constraints of that system. Yeah.

I think the notion you talk about in terms of accountability as well is an important one because I’ve often heard, obviously, no blame people saying there’s an absence of accountability. But there’s some people also question whether there is accountability in a just culture environment. Can you touch a little bit about what accountability should look like, and maybe even redefining what that word is? Because sometimes when you ask people what accountability is, they automatically assume accountability as I beat you into submission to do what I told you to do or accountability as I terminated you. That’s really not the definition of accountability.

Yeah, 100%. I think there’s that conception that just culture has an absence of accountability. I think that often that arises because we might have a very narrow definition of what accountability is. That, as you say, is that we’re going to hold someone accountable, and so that means we punish them if something goes wrong. But I think accountability in just culture, I think just culture broadens accountability a lot more widely, both on the individual level, but also it extends accountability to the organization. The individuals in the system are accountable for the quality of the decisions and choices and the actions that they take, but the organization is accountable for the systems of work that it creates and operates. It extends that accountability. When we’re talking about accountability itself, often we can default that accountability equals blame. I think that’s not necessarily the case. When we’re talking about blame, I think there’s two elements that we can distinguish between blame and accountability. The first is with blame, there’s a sense of causation. Well, the bad thing happened because was you did X. Sure. Then the second is a sense of moral condemnation that, well, you shouldn’t have done X, or you should have done Y.

Part of the problem with that is it tends for us, one, it can be unjust because we’re not considering the wider context, but we’re also limiting learning. We’ve already decided what the cause is, and that leads us towards a penalty. Then that then leads to errors mistakes being hidden, as we’ve touched on before. But I think accountability is a concept that can and should be much wider than that. Firstly, we can distinguish between backwards accountability and forwards accountability. Backwards accountability, we’re talking about looking backwards in time and how can we treat people fairly based on the quality of their actions and decisions. There it’s really around, again, as I mentioned before, anchoring that in the science of human factors, how people work in systems, understanding that full context, asking, why did this make sense at the time? It may well be that a person can make a mistake without it necessarily being a moral failing in the sense of blame. Or that they are the sole cause of something that has gone wrong. And so, in just culture, accountability becomes more about ownership and responsibility. Responsibility, not in a causative sense, but in a sense of duty and obligation.

So, it might be an obligation to explain and justify actions. It also, in a just culture, balances that backwards accountability with forward accountability. And so that There’s this idea of, well, who’s got the duty to make things right regardless of who or what or might have been at fault or cause of the something going wrong. A person can be accountable and take responsibility for things that go wrong without meaning that they’ve morally failed in some way. To bring that back to the individual and the organization, the organization can hold itself accountable for by understanding what has gone wrong and committing to improve their systems in the future to make it less likely that something like that is going to happen in the future. That’s them taking accountability in a forward sense. Then for the individual, that accountability might take the form of giving their account of explaining what happened and the circumstances in the context. They’re taking that obligation of that explanation and what they are potentially going to do in the future to do things differently in the future to improve performance, whatever that might be. I don’t think just culture is that get-out-of-jail free card.

I think it takes accountability very seriously, but it makes sure that it’s done in a fair way by anchoring it in human performance, human factors, and it’s holding organizations accountable. So, there’s mutual accountability for the systems of work they design and create and looking at that full context in which people work.

But isn’t the element of accountability even broader. So, beyond what you characterize as, I’m holding you accountable, which is, I think, the colloquial expression to potentially even accountability could even be retraining in a particular set of circumstances. So maybe in a certain set of circumstance, I’m more likely to fail. Maybe I need to go retraining, or maybe we have a system challenge where the training hasn’t necessarily hit the mark on a particular skill set or a particular scenario.

Yeah, 100%. That’s a really good point. Probably should have made a bit clearer because that’s 100% right, that often we equate accountability with sanction or punishment. Accountability does not have to include those things, and probably more often than not should not include those things. There are certain circumstances were potentially, yes. But as a general rule, particularly if you’re looking at something that’s occurred and you’re seeing those system influences. For example, it’s a training issue. Well, there’s two levels of accountability there. One is that the person involved might need some retraining, as you mentioned. But then so that’s accountability for the individual. But then for the organization, were there any issues with the training system that led to that? What accountability are we going to take to make improvements to our training or our selection process or whatever it might be to reduce the chance of getting into whatever that situation was? Admittedly, it can sometimes be difficult for organizations, even when they’re trying not to be punitive in their responses, when it comes to things like retraining or coaching and things like that, to avoid punitive effects. Because someone’s, let’s say, a pilot has been taken off the line because they’re doing some more simulated what they’re retraining, that might mean that they are not receiving the normal financial allowances, working away from home allowances, meal allowances, things that they might normally be receiving.

I think it’s really important for organizations to when they are looking at responding to events and they’re trying to be non-punitive, which I think they should be, is to really look wider than just are we formally punishing them? But look at the wider effects and try to mitigate any inadvertent punitive impacts. Because sometimes things can feel punitive even if they’re not. And that’s about, Jim’s got to go away and do training, and that can cause embarrassment amongst his peers and things like that. And so, trying to create a culture where, for I suppose things like training are normalized and something that everybody does from time to time to reduce that social stigma is a really important thing about, again, trying to reduce those unintended punitive effects. Sure.

As people are exploring just culture, there’s a few models out there, one that’s more commonly referred to, the Jim Susan’s model. Can you share maybe a little bit about what are some of the models and what’s worked, maybe what hasn’t worked?

As you say, a lot of people will be familiar with that classic version of just culture developed by James Reeson and David Marx. It’s sometimes called a retributive just culture, which is one of those things where it’s technically a correct term, but it’s a bit misleading in that it’s not supposed to be about retribution. The idea is that through just responses to human error, you’ll generate a report in culture. You’re trying to treat people in a just and fair way and not blame the individual for errors that have been induced by the system of work. But it’s very much focused on what happened, how did this person deviate from the norm, and then what’s a just way to respond. It has some strengths to it in that many people have seen that James Culture Capability diagram. You can get some consistency through those standard templates, and that’s that strong emphasis on fairness. But it does have some weaknesses. There’s less emphasis on the other stakeholders involved. It’s very much focused on the frontline person. Unless you are very active about running that just culture model, not just with the frontline person, but with others such as supervisors or managers, they tend to get missed.

The other thing, part of that framework is it tends to go to the individual factors first. Was it deliberate? Was the person affected by an illicit substance or something like that? You exhaust all the individual factors first before you get to the system factors. Sometimes what that means is you never actually get to those system factors. What that can often lead to is in the just culture being a vehicle for individual focus on individual accountability, individual punishment. And so, you get this sense of, I got just cultured, or we need to just culture this person. So, there’s been instances of that poor implementation, poor reputation as a result. Sure. As a result of So as a result of some of these weaknesses of that classic model, there’s been a movement in more recent times for a restorative just culture, and that’s something that’s been developed primarily by Sydney Decker. And that draws from restorative justice concepts It’s developed in the 1970s and even earlier, but it’s really focused on restoring trust and relationships after an incident of harm or injustice. And so, it has some different guiding questions. It’s asking, who is hurt? What do they need?

Whose obligation is it to address each need? It’s really strong on redefining the accountability from rather than an account that you settle, that backwards-looking to a story that you tell, forwards-looking. So, accountability comes from giving your account of what happened. And one of the big strengths of this model is that it includes a much wider range of stakeholders. Because let’s say you have a situation where a worker has made an error and, say, a customer has been injured by it. So, asking who is hurt. Well, immediately you’ve got the customer who’s been, say, physically injured. You You’ve got the worker who’s made the error. They have been hurt. They might be feeling shame, worry about losing their job, feeling regret. So, they’ve been hurt. The organization has been hurt because they may have suffered reputational damage. Sure. By its nature, it draws in more multiple stakeholders involved. Then ask, what do they need and whose obligation is it to address each need? The person who’s been injured, well, maybe they need to understand what happened. They might need support. What from the organization, medical bills and things like that. The person who the worker who perhaps made the mistake, well, they might need reassurance from the organization about perhaps their job security and things like that.

The organization has needs, and it’s to understand what happened so that it can put in place measures to prevent reoccurrence, looking at those systematic changes that it can make. Each of those needs has been obligations from various parties. It draws in a much wider range of narratives and has that real emphasis on restoring trust and relationships. You have a much less chance of a punitive response coming out of that because you’re looking at what do we need to do moving forward to address the needs that everybody has. It certainly, I think, is a great improvement on the classic model. It does have some weaknesses. The first is that it’s a restorative model, so it assumes that there’s been some harm or damage. It doesn’t really leave much room for, for example, recognizing exceptional performance or that normal work. It’s focused on restoring things when things get broken. The other thing is that it can sometimes still require judgment of competing narratives. Someone says that an action was it was deliberate. Someone says it was accidental. Well, those narratives might be irreconcilable, and there might be circumstances when if you are… What is going to be restore things is going to require some judgment on of what actually happened, at least as far as you can get.

It can sometimes struggle with those extremes of behaviors which are rare but do happen, such as deliberate harm. Well, we’re going to restore you by exiting you from the organization. There can be a There could be a bit of a tension there between what you’re saying about restoration, but what ultimately you might need to do to protect the organization and protect the public, which are rare circumstances, but still sometimes happen. The other thing is the implementation can sometimes be complex and resource intensive. You need people who are well-versed in restorative practices to be able to… You need a lot of organizational capacity to do that. The final model I’ll just mention just quickly is a revised or hybrid model. This has been developed by people like Paul Stretton and Mazin Nazarouk and people like that. It’s really trying to take the best elements from both the classic and the restorative approaches and balance learning and restoration and fair accountability and bring in some of those aspects of safety, too, around learning across the full spectrum of human performance, of bringing in that local rationality of why things made sense to people at the time. Some of guiding questions around what happened, why people’s actions make sense to them at the time, what can the organization learn from what happened?

They tend to retain the individual focus from the classic models. Again, you’d have to run multiple times to capture all the stakeholders. But it starts with the contextual factors, the why did it make sense at the time. You exhaust all those system and contextual factors, and you only really get to the individual account accountability factors if it’s necessary, if you get there. So again, you’re less likely to get to a punitive place, and you’re more likely to generate understanding and organizational learning. Again, it’s got some weaknesses. Again, the implementation can be complex. It can depend a lot on how well you learn as an organization. And achieving that right balance between learning and restoration and accountability is a challenging one.

It can be quite challenging.

This episode of the Safety Guru This 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.

We’ll get to how you could get started. But first, I think you have a background in law. The legal environment can get in the way. Regulatory environment can also get in the way of just culture. When the FA introduced early elements around near misreporting, as an example, there was still risk of punishment for almost a decade that came from different jurisdictions. That impeded, obviously, learning when you think you could end up in jail. That’s usually not. It doesn’t feel safe. This is a long, long time ago, of course. What are some of the things that could compromise from a regulatory standpoint? Maybe how can an organization deal with it? Because there’s a lot of regulated industries.

The surrounding regulatory framework will potentially have a big impact on what you can do as an organization when it comes to just culture. It sounds there’ll be legal requirements around mandatory reporting of certain incidents. Then once the organization reports that to whatever that is, to a regulator, well, then they don’t have control over what the regulator may or may not do with that information. There’s also the concern about legal liability. In particular, for example, criminal liability for work health and safety breaches. That is both for workers themselves, for managers, and for the organization as an entity. The consequences of criminal prosecution in those instances, they’re serious. It’s something that organizations do have to take seriously. But what that can mean is if you have a serious incident is that the lawyers come in, they say, Right, we need be very careful around what information we gather, what information we disclose, because anything that we do is potentially going to land on the prosecutor’s desk, and we’re going to be potentially making their case for them. But of course, that runs completely counter to what we would normally want to do with a just culture, which is to understand what happened and to learn and distribute that learning.

So, it can often be a difficult compromise between what we want to do as an organization and some of these other considerations. Insurers as well can sometimes place barriers into things like reporting schemes because they’re, again, worried about legal liability. I think there are some things that… That’s the reality that organizations have to face. I think one of the most important things, therefore, for organizations to do is not to make promises to their workers that they can’t keep and being up front with their staff about how things will go under certain circumstances. To say, look, if we have a serious incident, legal liability for the organization and for you as individual workers may be a factor that we have to consider, and that means that we might have to do things differently. But rather than it being a surprise, people go, hang on, what happened to the just culture process? That it’s something that’s been talked about up front. But certainly, even within that, we can still, I think, apply our principles that as an organization, we are not going to punish people for making mistakes when they’ve come to work to try and do their best and things have gone wrong.

So even if we can’t, but we might have to be upfront that we’re not going to be doing that, but that we can’t necessarily stand in the way of regulators and others taking action. The other thing is to engage in dialog as an organization with the lawyers and insurers and to talk about that long term gain as a short-term gain. We might protect ourselves in the short term from liability but are we setting ourselves up for difficulty in the long term because we’re not properly addressing safety issues, because we’re not learning as an organization. Learning, correct. Sometimes there can be an excessive amount of caution or fear around this stuff. Yes, it’s something to be taken seriously, but that doesn’t mean that we have to go with a blanket rule of just, Right, we’re going to batten down the hatches and stop everything. It might be that in a certain circumstance, well, a prosecutor has everything that they need already, so we’re not actually exposing ourselves to any greater risk by being open. Sure. Of course, think about the other considerations as well around that there are benefits towards that forward’s accountability of being open and transparent and showing as an organization that you are committed to systematic improvement and to learning and treating people fairly.

That can be helpful in the legal sphere. It shows courts that you take safety seriously, but also in the court of public opinion and what your customers feel about you and your reputation as a good corporate citizen. The public tends to not look too kindly on organizations that do batten down the hatches and deny, deny, deny. So, I think looking at weighing up the various considerations, not just going from a point of view of, well, the best legal option is X, therefore we must do it. Having that discussion and looking for that nuance. And there are more technical things being on your jurisdiction around commissioning incident reports through the lawyers to get legal professional privilege and things like that. They’re not ideal, but it might be the only option that you’ve got in that circumstance. There are ways you can address those situations. But ultimately, what I would say is that organizations It’d be really good if they advocate for more legal reform in the aviation space. When we have an ETSB in the US or ATSB investigations in Australia in aviation, we have this We have this whole framework around incident reports, which are not about assigning liability, but are about learning.

I think advocating for giving organizations more ability to be open and transparent in order to facilitate that learning, but with some protections in place. This stuff is not used for legal liability. It’s something that I think is well worth advancing.

I think in the context where the bigger concern is the regulatory body, there’s a lot that can be done as an industry to get the regulatory body there, potentially find ways to improve. Definitely, you talked about the ETSB, the TSBR and TSB all have had very similar practices in terms of learning. You’re starting to see permutations in other sectors that are also regulated. The one that’s a bit more challenging is when it’s outside litigation because they don’t necessarily care about the long term. They’re seeking remediation for an event.

Yeah, that’s right. But I think that’s going to be one of those considerations to weigh up as well. There’s been experience, for example, in health care, where hospitals have been open and transparent with patients when things have gone wrong. The chance of that patient or their family initiating litigation reduces significantly It doesn’t eliminate that risk, but it makes it much less likely. And so similarly, I think that’s something that we can take to other industries and there may be more opportunities to have a just culture, to be more open and transparent, and that in itself might head off legal risk rather than a blame or batten down the hatches type approach, which may actually guarantee a lawsuit.

Litigation, correct. Yes. A lot depends on jurisdictions and how much is at stake and all sorts of different elements. But absolutely, the healthcare is a very good example. Even how the doctor responds to an event in terms of acknowledging responsibility or acknowledging what could have been different has been demonstrated to greatly diminish risk of litigation.

Yeah. That’s where that restorative process can really work really well because you bring in more stakeholders, including, for example, in the healthcare space, a patient or their family into that process. That can be incredibly powerful and healing for everyone involved.

That’s what we’re involved. Lastly, we touched a little bit on models. We talked about legal framework. If somebody’s interested in starting to contemplate, how do I move forward around just culture? How does one get started? The models can be a lot to even wrap your head around.

Yeah, I think the first thing to recognize is that just culture is not just putting words onto a policy document. It’s a journey, I would say, of building mutual trust through consistent behavior. I would strongly suggest that a just culture implementation is not dictated by a flowchart or checklist. You just whack that in. But it’s about the values and purposes of a just culture approach as being the guiding star to implementation. Sure. Embedding those values of justice, of fairness, of transparency. That’s going to look different for different organizations. Really, one of the first steps, I would say, is to form a steering group that’s going to lead that planning and implementation and to get that senior management commitment, that senior management, senior leadership that they commit, that they believe in the concept of a just culture and the benefits it will bring to the organization and the people in it. They’ll extend some trust that staff will speak up and that they’ll allocate the time and the resources to implement a just culture. It really does start at the top and that commitment and then that consistent behavior and then that will then flow across and down the organization.

The other thing I would say is it’s really important to involve all stakeholders into that design process so that it’s not just a safety thing, because that can be one of the pitfalls sometimes is a safety is doing the just culture thing over here, and HR or legal operations are doing something completely different somewhere else. And that’s much more likely to be successful in obtaining the safety benefits of just culture, but also the wider organizational benefits of a just culture in terms of increased employee engagement, reduced employee turnover, better performing systems of work because it’s something that is embedded across the entire organization rather than just in the safety department. Sure.

Makes sense.

Then finally, I’ll also just say that you want to understand where you’re currently at. Do a bit of a gap analysis, understand what your current culture is like. Because, for example, there might be existing hurts that are there or historical hertz that you might need to address so that you can then reestablish trust to then move forward. Sure. But really, it’s start at the top and work down.

And work down. But also, like your point about going beyond safety, because if HR is taking a very aggressive path to terminations in other contexts, it can bleed over. Your comment around even historical, you call it historical hurts, is very real. In some cases, there are urban legends that maybe nobody in the organization experience, but they heard as they onboard in terms of what can happen and how somebody treated somebody else. All of that is embedded in the DNA of the organization.

Because an organization that’s beginning a just culture implementation, it’s not starting from zero. It has a whole history and a context. They say that it might have those urban legends, those ghosts that are still haunting. It’s like, oh, you heard what happened to Fred? When he reported something and look what they did to him.

Seven years before I was born. That’s right. Yeah. And so, Tony, if somebody wants to get in touch with you to explore how they could go about implementing Just Culture, what’s the best way for them to do that?

Yeah, there’s a couple of ways. I’m always very much happy to have a chat around Just Culture issues. It’s the thing that I’m passionate about, as you can probably tell. So, one way is through my website, https://www.justculture.com.au/. You can make an appointment on there or email me. Question happy to answer those. I’m also fairly active on LinkedIn. So, if you look up Tony Power, Just Culture on LinkedIn, I’ll come up and I post it on there. Feel free to message me on there as well.

Excellent. Well, thank you so much for joining me today. Really appreciate the conversation around just culture and really what does accountability look like in this context and approaches models that worked and the connection between the legal frameworks that are around and even the regulatory side and how we can help overcome. Ultimately, the main goal of this is to learn before something significant happens.

Yeah, exactly. That’s 100 %. It’s really about trying to get that safety data and be proactive. Yeah, rather. But yeah, thank you very much for having me on. It’s been an absolute pleasure. I’ve really enjoyed this discussion.

Excellent. Thank you so much.

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 Tony Power is the Founder & Principal Consultant of Just Culture Consulting, a specialist consulting practice helping organisations embed just culture to build fairer, safer, and more innovative workplaces.

Dr Power is a leading specialist in justice and safety management, with over 17 years of experience spanning the aviation, legal, and higher education sectors. He holds a PhD from Swinburne University, where he developed risk management frameworks for regulating safety-critical industries in changing environments.

Dr Power has taught and developed courses on just culture, law, and safety risk management at major Australian universities and has led research projects investigating the safety culture of Australian pilots and the informal networks that disseminate safety lessons through that community.

He has held roles monitoring safety performance for aviation operators and Jetstar Airways, and has a Commercial Pilot’s Licence.

In legal practice, Dr Power has advised clients on workplace safety, insurance, and criminal liability. His expertise in organisational learning, regulatory compliance, and safety management has positioned him as a leading advocate for Just Culture—an approach that fosters fair, accountable, and learning-focused workplace environments.

For more information: www.justculture.com.au

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tony-power-just-culture-specialist/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@justcultureconsulting

 

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 Debrief Culture: Human Factors Leadership for Accountability and Learning with Brandon Williams

The Debrief Culture: Human Factors Leadership for Accountability and Learning with Brandon Williams

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

We welcome back Brandon Williams, former fighter pilot and seasoned expert in human factors and safety leadership, for another profound episode of The Safety Guru that you won’t want to miss! In this intriguing conversation, we explore The Debrief Culture, a powerful approach rooted in the debriefing method and mindset of elite fighter pilots that transforms organizational performance and builds a culture of continuous improvement. Drawing on his experience in high-stakes aviation environments, Brandon shares insights on creating a structured debrief culture that can be applied across industries to drive consistent accountability, clear communication, continuous learning, and sustainable growth. Tune in for a contemplative discussion on human factors leadership for accountability and learning, as Brandon unpacks actionable, practical strategies to help leaders build an effective debrief culture that fosters a high-growth mindset, combats complacency, and drives learning from both wins and missteps. Join us!

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 Brandon Williams, who’s back for a second episode. He’s a former U.S. air Force fighter pilot with over two decades of experience leading teams in complex high-risk environments. He’s now a captain with a major airline and is a safety and human factors expert. Brandon, really happy to have you back with me. Our first episode, I think got a lot of interest, so would love to continue the conversation today.

Awesome. Well, Eric, again, thanks for having me back on the podcast. Like you said a few years ago now, but it was, it was a great talk. I remember we had a lot of good discussion there. And as always, I love talking about, you know, anything safety, human factors related because as I’m sure we’ll get into it and as you know, critically important and high reliability in these churches. But really anything you do; human factors is always at play. And so, for leaders, understanding that is so important. So again, thank you for having me on.

Absolutely. So, so maybe let’s start there. I want to make sure we spend a lot of time today on Debrief Culture. But before, let’s do a bit of a recap in terms of what is human factors. I know we talked about it in our first episode, but let’s start there. 

Yeah. Well, anyone in the safety world, most people probably know about human factors, right? Typically, it’s associated with an engineering concept. You know, the idea of engineering technology for the human to interact with it. So, you know, these laptops were on the chairs we’re sitting in the desk, we’re sitting in the cars we drive, the airplanes I fly, you know, everything had all those pieces of technology, had some human factors designed into it, how the humans going to interact with that. And so, it takes into account all of our human factors and human errors that we’re prone to. You know, for example, from the flying world, you know, a red light goes off or master warning caution. Why is that bright and yellow right in front of my face? Because that’s going to get my attention right away. Right. Same thing in your car. Right. I mean, why don’t we have, you know, the, the, the modern cars now with the sensors on the front and the back, which will alert you to you’re about to hit something, and a lot of them now will even start braking for you if it says you’re going to hit this type thing.

So that’s how far we’ve come in human factors, you know, engineering, design and technology. Well, what I’ve taken from that, you know, a few years ago when I came up with this idea of human factors leadership was, hey, look, we talk about human factors all the time in, you know, how we design things, how we design procedures. But I said we don’t really always consider it. When we think about our teams. Sure. I don’t think. Or how we had signed our teams, or how leaders have to understand human factors of their people. And when we talk safety, obviously that’s a huge idea. I mean, human factors really have become, you know, what aviation safety is all about. You know, understanding that when someone shows up to work, a professional, no one shows up saying, hey, I’m going to make a mistake today. I’m going to make a bad decision that’s going to result in a bad outcome. I mean, nobody shows up. I don’t show up to my job, you know, as a major airline pilot, saying, hey, I’m going to miss a switch or I’m going to do this. No, but it’s because of those human factors, right, that drives us there, that, you know, our limitations as humans.

But hey, that’s okay because that’s what makes us human. At the end of the day, you know, my talks always like to say, you know, raise your hand if you’ve never made a mistake.

And I do the same. One person is their hand once.

There’ll be a few people that don’t. And I like to, and I always like to kind of point say, congratulations, this is amazing. You’ve never made a mistake. That’s phenomenal. But, but it’s so true. But that’s what makes us human. Right? And I think there’s. This is another conversation, but I think, you know, that human factor, I think that’s actually going to become more important in this world we’re in now as AI starts to become way more involved in what we do. That human touch, if you will, I think it’s going to be even more valuable in so many other industries. But that’s another conversation. But the human factors, like you said and like we’re talking about, is really why we as humans make decisions in certain environments. Right. And so, from a safety standpoint, just a pure technical safety standpoint, that’s critical in understanding how we design our procedures, our process, as, you know, our safety gaps, you know, in the system. For example, me as a, again, major airline pilot, I think there are four areas where I check my flap settings required to before we even take off. Why? Because that’s such a critical feature.

And in the, you know, many, many years we’ve had airplanes with flaps, we’ve had pilots take off within proper flap settings, unfortunately, some that have resulted in accidents. And so that’s a critical feature which we have many checks and balances, I call it, in the system that requires us to. To check that in in many different areas. So just an example how you design a process. Right. But as leaders, it’s also critical to understand, you know, these things like fatigue, mental and physical complacency, you know, normalization of deviance, which I know people in safety understand what that is. But, you know, we. This idea that we cut corners a little bit. A little bit. A little bit, A little bit. And then what happens, you know, this cutting the corner becomes the norm, and now there’s a set procedure that’s been knocked out, not because we, you know, we’re not. We want to willfully disregard rules, but because we thought we were doing something good to make something better. But in actuality, we’re deviating from a standard procedure, right. In our brain, it says, hey, I’m doing something more efficient. But the problem is we’re missing gaps or checks and balances supposed to help us, you know, do something.

So human factors really go back to, again, Eric, understanding why we as humans make decisions in certain environments, but also as leaders designing our teams and processes to help our people, you know, mitigate those human errors and those human factors. So, we do ultimately drive better performance. Because at the end of the day, you know, better performance, whether its safety is what, you know, no mishaps, you know, no injuries, no damaged equipment, machinery. But also, for any team, performance is critical. Right. So, at the end of the day, it’s all about driving better performance.

And to get to that better performance, one of the pieces you’ve written lots of articles, lots of blogs on, is the debrief concept. That’s really, really key in. In aviation fighter pilots. And I want to get to a debrief culture. But before we go there, maybe if you could share a little bit about what a debrief is.

Right, absolutely. And. And I’m glad you brought that up because you’re right, there’s a few different parts of what I talk about when you talk about this, human factors, leadership. But the debrief, I think is probably, in my opinion, the most powerful piece of this. And it’s kind of what I finish on when I do my keynotes, because it’s a really great idea to finish on. And debrief is all about the debrief. At the end of the day, all it’s, its whole entire purpose is to, like I said earlier, is to drive better performance for the team, period. Dot. I mean, that’s, that’s what it’s all about now, how you get there and what’s involved in that debrief. There is a structure that we have and there’s a way you do that, but at the end of the day, you know, that’s what it’s all about. And so, you know, when we talk about safety, when we talk about, you know, whatever industry you’re in, what are we trying to do? You know, if you’re trying to make better safety metrics, you’re trying to design better, safer processes, you’ve got to find a way that really pulls out those gaps in the system.

Right. You’ve got to find a way that is going to bring this to light.

Sure.

Now, any good safety system, any good reliable safety program has what a very open, you know, reporting system or should some way that, that, you know, your frontline leaders, frontline people can report, hey, here’s an issue I see. Here’s a gap in the system I see. Right. You’ve got to have that. So that’s one piece of it which can be incorporated into debriefs. But the other piece of that is debriefing after tasks, projects, you know, whatever, whatever you’re doing. So immediately after that we can talk about some, some things maybe that didn’t go right or some things that did go right. That’s a key piece of debrief. We debrief after everything, even, especially after things go right, because we discover near misses. We want to get best practices out of that. Right. But the whole point of that debrief is to set an environment where we can get open and honest. That’s the key piece there. Open and honest, a tone of accountability, I call it open and honest inputs from that so that we can ultimately drive better performance, get lessons learned out of that and drive that back. Now, I know a lot of people are saying, well, we do this, we have after actions or we have Debriefs or we, you know, we have, you know, team huddles or we do this after, you know, this or that and that.

And I think it’s great that people are, are leaning towards that way. You know, I see that a lot in healthcare. I work with a lot of hospitals, and I’ll ask them, hey, do you debrief after this? Like, well, you know, after code blues or maybe after major procedure surgery or after this, we’ll talk and I’ll ask them, okay, well, how do you do that? You know, and, and a lot of times, well, we get the team together and I’m like, who runs the debrief? Like, typically it’s the, you know, the attending physician or the surgeon or, you know, you know, whatever, or the lead nurse or, you know, whatever, whoever was in that, that task. And I’m like, okay, would you get honest feedback? You know, does it go well? Typically, you know, whoever’s leading it would just say, hey, here’s what happened, and anybody got anything? And you know, maybe sometimes someone will say something and, okay, great, you know, let’s, let’s go about our day and, you know, maybe they’ll learn something out of that and then we’ll move on. So, which the good. The part of that, I mean, it’s great they do that and there is learning that happens in those.

And that’s important. But I think the key piece and what makes the debrief, the fighter pilot debriefs, which is where I got this idea from, so different than anything else you’ve ever heard that’s similar to this is how you set that tone of accountability. Okay. How you set that tone where we bring down those barriers to communication and everyone, all the way down to the most junior member on that team feels like they can speak up. And it’s this mindset that we’re not trying to. It’s not a. Don’t think of it as an individual evaluation. Right? What I always say, we’re trying to get away from that blame and train feel that we, I think we’ve, we’re so accustomed to, in, in the professional world, to a learning and growing mindset, right? It’s not about evaluation. It’s not about individual performance. This is purely about what happened, why it happened, and how we’re going to make things better for the team next time. Not just our team, but anyone in our organization. Maybe there’s things we need to change. Maybe there’s things we need to take back to leadership, some processes and some learning that’s going to happen out of that.

But that’s the key, you know, the key difference, I think, in anything else that, you know, you’ve seen when you, when you talk about what happened and why it happened. But it’s. You’ve got to have that, like I said, open, honest tone of accountability type, type environment.

And so how. How do you go about introducing this in your culture? Right, because this is through and through aviation.

Right.

Probably at least Since World War I, from what I’ve, I’ve heard in, in terms of the history, it’s ingrained. But how do you start building that into a culture? You talked about healthcare as an example.

Right, right. And that’s a great question, too, because that’s one of the biggest, you know, questions I get from teams that I work with. And they say, well, you know, this is great, Brandon, but I mean, how do you, how do you get people to be open and honest, you know, talk about their missteps or missteps of their peers or even leaders sometimes in these. And I said, that’s a great, great question. And like you said, your kind of just alluded to one. And actually, just so you know, the fighter pilot debris kind of goes back to the Vietnam era, is where we trace this back to when, when we realized fighter pilots were realizing that, hey, if you make it through 10 missions, these young fighter pilots coming over, they made it through 10 missions, their chance of survival exponentially went up. Why? Because after 10 missions, you. That’s experience you’re gaining, right? And so, they said, how can we accelerate that learning? How could we get every ounce of learning out of combat and training missions? So, we kind of simulate this first 10 missions. And so first it was, hey, we’re going to make our training as realistic as we can, which we learned from that.

And then things like Red Flag out Nilis, that all came about. But the other key piece was the debrief. You know, how do we accelerate learning? And we’re going to debrief; we’re going to reconstruct what happened and we’re going to find the root causes. And that’s why we as fighter pilots hold it so near and dear, because we said the real learning always happens in the debrief. I mean, yes, you got to have experience, but when we learn what happened and why it happened, that happens in the debrief. So that’s the first piece is you’ve got to do it. It’s got to be part of. That’s why I call it a debrief. Culture, it’s got to be part of how you do things. Because as we know as humans, the more we do something, what happens? The better we get at it, the better we. More we get used to it, right? I mean, you know, again, going back to the Air Force as a fighter pilot from day one of pilot training, you know, brand new, never many times, a lot of us, hardly any aviation experience whatsoever. We go out, we fly that first man.

What do we do when we first come back? We debrief. And then from there on out, every single sortie you do as an Air Force pilot, you will debrief. So literally thousands of debriefs I’ve done just as a, you know, fighter pilot in my time. So that’s the first thing, is making it how you do business, right? And it doesn’t even have to be this thing where we go and shut the door and sit down and, you know, talk for an hour or 30 minutes. I do this a lot with. Sometimes I work with sales teams, and I do this all the time. I say, hey, look, you can debrief after a sales call. Just sit down. If you had another team member you and. Or maybe you went and had a sales pitch, sit down, you know, take. Go to a cup of coffee, sit down, 15, 20 minutes, just talk about it. You know, what happened? Why did this happen? What could we do different next time? You know, so it’s. It’s this idea of ingraining it and how you do business, you know, ingraining it in a tool for your. For your teams to use.

So that’s the first thing is making it part of your culture, like you said. And then the second thing, you know, the second major part of this is, is like most things, I mean, shockingly, guess where it starts is, is with leadership, right? With. With team leaders, with organizational leaders. Because you as a leader have to do what. You have to show your own transparency and accountability. And if you are involved in a debrief, you’ve got to be one of the first people to speak up and talk about your missteps and talk about things, you know, you’ve done or you could have done better for the team. You know, the. The Blue Angels debrief that I’ve. I’ve talked about. There’s one. The reason I show. It’s about a minute and a half clip that I show my keynotes a lot of times, and I know I’ve given you access to that, so you can go watch that. But I think the key part of that is before they even start talking about their execution and, you know, watching the tape and trying to. What they could have done better and what they need to improve on.

They go around the room, they call it a safety. And each one of them, each member on that team fesses up to some things they, you know, didn’t do well that day or they could have done better. Like they were off air speed, their power control wasn’t good. They did this, they did all the way up to the team leader. The boss says that, you know, what they could have done better. And what’s the whole purpose of that, Eric, is purely just to bring down those barriers to communication. Right. I mean, we’re talking the Blue Angels, right? So, like, best of the best type A individuals, right, that. That, you know, essentially the best at what they do. And so. But I think it’s so powerful. The one key thing I pass on to my clients and people I work with is, hey, especially leaders, again, going back to this, what you have to have in organization is leaders that are transparent, leaders that hold themselves accountable, and leaders that bring down that, you know, those barriers, communication by, again, things I could have done better for you as a team. And I know you’ve probably been part of teams where you’ve seen this and how powerful that is when you have a leader that can do that.

And then also how extremely demoralizing it is when you. That. That can’t do that or even worse, you know, will kind of point out the errors of their team members, you know, without, you know, talking about their own. Their own missteps. So that. That’s the Q2 key pieces, though, is making it part of your culture, how you do it, you know, so people get used to it. But also having that tone of accountability within your organization, starting at the top.

And it does require very high growth mindset. Right. Because people have to recognize that, yeah, I’ve done this a million times, but I can do this better.

Right.

In aviation, there’s really this mindset of it’s an unforgiving environment. Once I’m up in the air, if something goes wrong, I need to know as much as I can.

Right.

That mindset of growth, and that can always get better isn’t always present in every organization. So how do you overcome that?

Yeah, that growth mindset, I think that goes back to, you know, again, realizing what you do. Right. And. And kind of like you said, you know, we always say, like you said, I love you. You talked about aviation’s unforgiving. You know, it’s the Famous quote is. I’m not even sure who said it, but we talk about all the time is aviation itself is not inherently dangerous, but it’s incredibly unforgiving, you know, incredibly unforgiving. What does that mean? Just like you said, you know, if you ever get into that complacent mindset of, I know it all, I’ve seen it all, you know, aviation has a way of throwing things at you that you never in a million years would have trained for, it would have thought for. I mean, there’s. You go back and look at so many incidents, so many. I don’t know if you remember back in the. Was it late 80s, the Sioux City DC10 with engine failure and how they had to. Or, sorry, the flight controls where it burned through the hydraulics, and they basically controlled the airplane with the power. Now, unfortunately, there was some loss of life, but they saved a lot of people, too.

And there’s so many things that came out of that, you know, crew coordination, how they did that working, you know, just so many things. But the point of that is, like they said when they. When that first happened, and the captain, he’s talking to, you know, back to his operations center, and they’ve got the engineers on the line and like, well, that can’t happen. And he’s like, well, I’m telling you, this is what’s happened. It severed our lines. We have no idea. They’re like, well, that can’t happen. It’s not designed that way. You’re like, well, this happened. So, it just. Aviation has a, you know, an incredibly sick sense of humor, of humbling you. And even the thousands and thousands of hours you have throwing things at you, whether it’s decision making, you know, aircraft issues, you name it, of throwing something at you. So, I think to you. To you. Back to your question is this idea of, you know, always say, you know, the number one enemy of all this stuff of. Of situation awareness, as we call it, of getting better is always complacency. And I think it’s. It’s. It’s a natural human instinct to be complacent.

I mean, that’s where we want to be. We. We. Our human mindset goes back to, you know, comfort, right? Once we get everything solid, we have food, we have water, we have shelter. Okay, now I can relax a little bit, right? It’s what you want to do. So, I think what I always tell people is this constant. I use this term, healthy paranoia sometimes, because it’s this idea that I got, again, I got from aviation, you Know what could go wrong? What have I not thought about? I mean, you’re not always paranoid, but you are in the back of your mind, little mind, that little thing of, what have we not done? What if? What have we not thought about? Hey, if I’m flying along here, if this engine does fail, where’s my closest piece of concrete I’d set this airplane down at, right? And so, I think that’s what it goes back to, is leaders having that heightened sense of situational awareness and also passing on to our people of, hey, what have we not thought about? Are we getting complacent? Because that’s a key part, again, of human factors, is again, we want to be comfortable, we want to be complacent.

Unfortunately, it’s where our mindset goes. But it’s this idea of never falling into that trap of getting completely complacent because as we know, that’s where mistakes are going to happen, right? That’s where this human error is going to seep in. That’s when something’s going to happen. So, I think it’s always going back to understanding. We haven’t. We don’t know everything. We haven’t seen everything. You know, like, just like your example earlier of, hey, I’ve done this thousand times. We’ve never had anything bad happen. Why would it happen now? And that’s when something’s going to happen, which I know you’ve probably seen this your world, but that’s one of the main reasons people would argue against, you know, safety programs. Like, we’ve done this for so long and nothing bad has ever happened. Which, as we know, that’s never a. It only takes one bad incident to, you know, unfortunately hurt someone or, you know, lose money or lose your business. So, I think it’s this idea of combating that complacency and thinking, you know, what have we not thought about and what do we need to learn? Where do we need to grow?

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. 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 [email protected].

It’s interesting you bring up Sioux City, because recently I came across, I was looking at the Japan Airline mass decompression on 747. That happened a couple years before and apparently one of the pilots, I believe they were deadheading on the flight, or they might have been a passenger had been studying. Exactly. And run multiple scenarios on the 747 where they had lost the rotors, go stabilizers and so forth. He right away came to give some advice because he had run 50, 60 simulations of how I would handle the same scenario of mass decompression, loss of hydraulics.

Yeah.

And that plane I think was flying for 32 minutes with very limited control, with no hydraulics.

That’s interesting. Yeah. There was a pilot who came up and helped and assisted with the power. He was like you said, I think he was just as. Or I know he was just a passenger, but yeah, you’re correct. I didn’t know that about that. That’s awesome. Unbelievable. 

But that, that’s, it’s incredible because it shows you’re expecting something to go wrong. Nobody’s expecting that. You have total loss of your hydraulics.

Right, right. And a key part of my, you know, outside of the debrief, but that’s why I incorporate in my planning model kind of that last piece. I always say the what ifs, you know, what are the what ifs? And now you could sit, you know, you could sit here all day and talk about what ifs. Right. I mean, what if, what if zombies come back and you know, But I, I say, you know, just take a few minutes. It’s a way for the team to re cage after you’ve been so involved in this planning process and say, okay, let’s step back, let’s think about what, you know, what have we not thought about? What could be the one thing that throws this, you know, a curveball. One of the most common things is what if our, what if someone on our team puts in their two weeks’ notice tomorrow, you know, or something like that, or what? You know, just things like that that you don’t think about. You’re like, that’s a good idea, let’s talk about that. But that’s my key piece is always, you know, take a minute and just think about, let’s think about some major what ifs here which helps us become.

What helps us become more proactive versus reactive to those changes.

Interesting. One of the things, because some people work alone you talk about is also you can do a self-debrief. Tell me a little bit about what that would look like.

Absolutely. Well, you know, debriefing implies that the team should be involved and a lot of times you do need someone else to, you know, point out some Errors or missteps for the team. But let’s be honest, a lot of times we know, whether we want to admit it or not, we know our own, you know, mistakes we did or maybe a way we could have done something better. I mean, think about it, you know, as humans say, you have a negative interaction with a, with a co-worker or, you know, another person, and later on you’re thinking about that, it may even be that night, and you’re like, you know what? Probably could have handled that a little differently. I probably should have done this and said this, and it probably wouldn’t have blown up. Or I probably should have said it like this. Or maybe they got what they wanted, and you were in a bit of a minor negotiation. You’re like, you know, what if I would have done this, then probably would have ended a little better. So, we all do that right after the fact. Why? Because it’s again, this goes back to human factors.

That survival mechanism in our, in our brain always wants us to win. So, it’s always trying to find ways we could have done something better. And so I turn that into, I say, look, you know, even after, you know, minor interact, things like what I just talked about, interaction with co-workers, a task you’ve done on your own, you know, you can do this with your, you know, things around the house, projects you’ve done and just self-debrief, you know, be honest with yourself, hey, here’s what happened. Here’s you know, why it happened and really dig deep, you know, whether it’s the five whys technique of asking why five times and trying to get to that. We call that really deep level, prop, root cause, causal factor, as I always say, and really find down to that root. So, we can do that and then take that back and say, you know, next time, here’s how I could do that. You know, next time, here’s some things I can take back. And again, this can be done, you know, in your personal life, in your professional life. There are so many different areas. And I do this all the time.

I mean, after a keynote, you know, with it, with a client, I always love to say, if they had any video of it, I always say, can I get a copy of that? And what I do is I sit down, I’ll watch it, kind of go through it one time first just to kind of see big picture. Okay, here’s how it went. And then I’ll go through it and stop and say, okay, take notes. Okay. You know, my hand motion was, was poor. Here I Need to stress this word more. My voice inflection or I was talking too fast at this point or change this to this. This sounds. Probably sounds better. Relook at how you tell this story or just. And every time I do that, I find little bits and pieces on how I can make it better. And so even though if a keynote goes well and the great client loves it, there’s always ways, you know, I can improve and, you know, drive my better performance. And that’s one way I do it. So, I think, you know, debris with a team is always the best or someone else that you can deeper foot.

But I think solve degree boosts are incredibly valuable for people.

And I think really like what you’re talking about. It’s, it’s really about learning not just from failure, but from success to say, how can we get to continuous improvement? I think your tagline is learn, adapt, improve around the debrief checklist.

Totally.

But it’s very much this mindset, we can always get better.

Absolutely. And I think that’s. That goes back to everything. Right. You know, I mean, I always say in my thousands and thousands and thousands of flying, I would have never had the perfect flight. So, I don’t think I probably ever will. But we, we strive to get there. Right. It’s like the Vince Lombardi quote I love kind of defines us. It’s like perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence. Right. So, you’re always trying to, to, you know, find that perfect flight. Always trying. You probably won’t get there, but in that pursuit, we’re making ourselves better. And that goes in any industry. Anything you do, I think is 100% right. That mindset of growth and performance improvement and as safety professionals especially, why I love working with these teams is because, I mean, let’s face it, in safety, you’re always trying to improve, right? We’re always trying to drive better. You know whether it’s metrics you’re concerned with or you’re just trying to find, you know, drive better safety outcomes, better ways to do things, better processes that incorporate safety, but without, you know, harming the business and things like that.

So, I think that’s, you know, just as that inherently that’s what you’re always doing in that role.

So, one of the quotes you, you talk about in your speeches on debrief is this concept of artificial harmony versus respectful truth. Tell me a little bit about the difference between both.

Well, yeah, so I talked earlier about that, that tone of accountability as I called it. So, remember, you know, where do we, as humans typically live? We want to avoid conflict for the most part, right? And so where are we typically at in that artificial harmony? You know, think about it. You know, when you, you know, I just talked about this with my, my kids the other day. We were talking about different cultures, and I’m like, you know how we say, hey, how are you doing? You pass someone on the street or, hey, how’s it going? I’m like, do you really honestly care, like, if you don’t know, especially, like, now? Sometimes we do. Maybe you call a family member or friend and they’ve been sick, hey, how you doing? Like, and you can tell with the body language and voice, but when we say, hey, how you doing? I’m like, I talk to my kids. I’m like, do you really honestly think we care, like, how they’re doing? I mean, it’s reading almost like it’s like saying, hi, we’re being nice and respectful and kind, but it’s a greeting. I said, you know, in other cultures, I was saying for a journey, for example, I said, when someone asks you how you’re doing, they’re honestly wanting to know, like, how are you doing?

Like, as other cultures, they really, they don’t just use it as a, as a, you know, as a greeting. So, so going back to that, that’s kind of that, you know, artificial harmony, right? Think about a cocktail party, you know, where you ask people and I talk, I tell my kid, you know, how to win friends and influence people, right? Type thing of. What do you always do? Ask. You ask them how they’re doing; you ask people about them. You know, you’re trying to build that rapport, right? So, it’s, where do we try to be? We try to avoid that conflict. So that’s that respectful or sorry, that’s that artificial harmony. Some or manufactured harmony we try to make a lot of times, right, just getting along, just trying to avoid conflict, you know, nothing critical here. Let’s just move on. Well, in a debrief, that’s not a great idea. And why? Because then you’re not going to get what I call the truth data out, right? Because if someone thinks that they saw an error or misstep, they don’t want to speak up because they don’t want to. I don’t want to accuse you of anything.

I don’t want to look like that. Especially a new person in an organization, right? What do they do? They just keep that in and say, well, it’s not Going to be a big deal. I’m just not going to say that, well, we’re never going to improve that way.

Correct.

We’re never going to get better. Right. If this stuff is not put out there. And so, you have to have what I call that respectful truth, which is that tone of accountability, which again, it’s not, it’s not investigation. We’re not trying to assign blame again, we’re getting away from the blame and train right, to learn and grow. But it’s about how we could have done better as a team. And so how do you establish that respectful truth? That’s why the first step in my model, I say set the environment and keep. Part of that is setting the tone. And it’s your job as the team leader of that debrief to set that tone. And just like the Blue Angels video I talked about, the first thing you have to do as the team leader is said, hey, here’s some things I could have done better today for the team. And you’ve got to do that part because if you don’t, everyone else is going to, you know, just keep all this stuff inside. Because after you do that, then you go around there and say, what, Eric? What. What could you. What do you have for me?

What could I have done better? And you try to give them to give you some, some inputs and feedback. Now what has that done that’s take down some of that barrier. Right now, people say, okay, we’re in a, you know, open, honest environment here. The team leader can speak up. Then I can definitely speak up and talk about my own shortcomings or maybe some things we saw that the team did other way, good way to do that is as you’re talking about your missteps, not saying, hey, Eric, you didn’t do this, versus saying, hey, we as a team, we missed this. And I think Eric would have done this if we would have done this for him or we would have provided this for him. So, you know, it also goes back to how you, you angle things with that respectful truth. But that’s the key part of that, is that artificial harmony is great, like I said, for cocktail parties, for happy hour, for, you know, just hanging out and small talk. But not great for debriefs, not great when we’re trying to improve. Right? Because that’s where you, that’s the whole purpose of improving, is finding where we had some shortcomings and where we can do better.

I’m really hearing about this is a consistent thing. We’re doing it Good or bad. We’re constantly trying to hold ourselves accountable. Not each other like you talked about blaming each other but holding each other accountable to the best level, understand system dimensions. What are the things that are occurring that maybe we aren’t aware having as a leader, the humility to. Humility, vulnerability to explore that I’m not perfect so that you have that respectful truth occurring across the board. But it’s really about embedding deep learning day in and day out from good and from bad.

Absolutely. Yeah, it is, it’s, it’s, that’s why I call it a debrief culture, right? Is because it’s this cycle of constant improvement. You know, no matter what, you know, process improvement model you adhere to, or people look at, almost all of them have some sort of at the end of it, you know, how do we improve, how do we improve? How do we go back and make this better? And that’s where the debrief serves to do that. And like I said, it really is a debrief culture and I call it a culture because of all things you just said. It takes leaders at the top that, that are vulnerable, takes leaders that are transparent that hold themselves accountable. You know, one of the things I talk about in my talks, this idea of mutual support, which is another key layer of this debrief culture and a building block of it. And mutual support is really deep level peer accountability, right? I mean it’s the kind of accountability that, that peers, we hold ourselves accountable and not of this, you know, this accountability thing. When I hear it, I always think of, I think we may have talked, talked about this on our first podcast, but you know, when I hear accountability, it’s always a negative connotation.

Like I always think of my, my, my assistant vice principal when I, in elementary school, you know, like the enforcer of the, when you got in trouble, you know, who you were going to go see. And so, but accountability I think gets that conn a lot of times, like it’s a bad word, like do this or else or you’re going to get fired or job action or whatever. And, and, and when I talk about it, I say I, I call it mutual support because that’s really what it is, right? Is, is peer level accountability is mutual support. And it’s not that I’m backing you up, Eric, because if I don’t, you know, something bad’s going to happen to me or job action, but it’s because I want you to look good when you’re leading a project. I want you to look good. I want the team to look good. You know why? Because I know you, I know you got a family, or I know what’s going on with you. And its that human connection going back to human factors again, right? And so that’s another thing you have to have with an organization I think to be a high performing team and ultimately to set up this debrief culture is that mutual support, you know, deep level camaraderie within a team with an organization making everybody human. 

And in this idea that we’re there to drive the team better. And that goes back to how leaders lead their teams, how they incentivize their teams, all kind of things, things again. But that’s a key part of that is that mutual support mindset. And like you said, I mean at the end of the day it’s how you do business, right? It’s leaders admitting their own shortcomings and showing where they could have done better. So then that, that filters down kind of, kind of through the teams and just on that, you know, I, because I hear this a lot of times like well Brandon, you know, I work in a team organization where not a lot of, you know, no name, no rank culture within my team or my leader really doesn’t. He’s not going to adhere to this. He’s not a, you know, big accountability person. So, what do I do? And I said Well influence where you can, right? I mean, because everyone is a leader in some sense. Everyone. And so, influence where, whether it’s just self-debriefs, whether it’s you and, and two or three other co-workers you can debrief on a project you’re doing, I mean influence where you can, right? 

And then that will slowly build hopefully from out to other people like that. And if there’s leaders you have that just aren’t going to embrace it, I mean there’s nothing you can do about that. But if you show, if you can do it within your own world, in your own little bubble, then you will see improvement.

And so last quick closing thought you talked about the debrief. There’s some organizations talk about after action reviews from the US Army. You also talk about the SEAL framework. Are there really differences between the different pieces? Are there things that we need to get that we can approach different ways or is really something unique about the debrief checklist?

Yeah, like you said, the deeper checklist, the model I came up with, I used a SEAL acronym, scald and that, that is a, that is a tick of the hat to I’ve worked with some other special operators before, so Navy SEALs and they use very similar type culture of what they do. High performing military teams, obviously, same reason, firepower, right? Because literally it can mean loss of life. They don’t improve in those type of environment. So, I do, I did come up with that acronym to kind of help. The S is for set the environment. Right. Just really quick, which is what we’ve talked about, you know, setting that tone of accountability. Why is that? First, because if you don’t do that, then you can forget about, you know, getting the rest of the brief working. The truth data, all the things we’ve talked about. Next is execution. So, what are you really looking at there? What was your objective? Right? Was it a clearly defined objective, first, and how did we do to measure up to that? You know, what were our results? And then from that, what is going to be what I call our debrief focus points.

Because, you know, when you look at a result, you could probably look at several things you want to talk about, but in the interest of time, you want to kind of narrow that down to maybe the two or three top areas we want to focus on. This is for major big projects, right, that you want to look at. And why don’t we have that, that even that step of execution? Because just like in the, if you watch the Blue Angels video, they’ll go through and watch the tape and just like I told you earlier in my keynote, I’ll go through and watch the tape. That’s the actual truth data, right? And that’s important because we all want to be on the same page of what actually happened before we start analyzing. Because I’m sure we’ve been in, you know, similar meetings where we’re talking about what happened and there’s a lot of assumptions and people are like, that’s not really what happened. So, we all got to be on the same page first before we start analyzing. Then we go into the analysis, which is the, the meat of that debrief, which is the a, which is really looking at, hey, what happened?

You know, what were some contributing human factors. Contributing factors, I call it, you know, whether it’s, you know, task saturation, overload, fatigue, lack of communication, we look at all those things. But what we’re really trying to get down to is that root cause or what I call that probable cause or that causal factor, sorry, which is say you, you know, something happened, and you really dig down. Yeah, but why did that happen? Why did that happen? So, you know, I use Example, the special, you know, special challenger, right? And so, I’ll ask people, why did that accident happen? They’re like, well, the O rings, you know, okay, that’s the active thing that you’re right. But let’s go back to why. And you keep asking why. I keep. And what it comes down to, you know, and this is what the investigation found too, is NASA didn’t have a solid go, no go process. I mean, at the end of the day, that was a root cause, plenty other contributing factors, right? And we talk about, you know, how they made those decisions, the influences they had, money, shuttle program. But the end of the day, they didn’t have a solid go, no go process that they used.

So, you want to dig down, like I said earlier, the five why is a great technique, but you’re just trying to get to that deep level why things happen finally. L is the lessons learned, which is after we know those root causes now, what are we going to change? You know, what are we going to get better? What are we going to implement within the organization processes, behaviors, patterns, you know, things we need to take back to leadership potentially? What are things we’re going to, we’re going to change, basically. And if you note in that checklist, one key piece I have there is you’ve got to assign, again, accountability to who’s going to oversee that change, right? And that’s a key piece of that. So, I gave you that overview. But to your question, yeah, I always tell people this all the time, look, you don’t have to take everything back, you know that I, that I tell you that I use and redo everything, but if you can just pull a few things out of here, if they can just pull out that, setting that tone of accountability piece out, you know, how you do that, I mean, that’s, that’s critical.

Or just how you analyze mishaps and really getting down to that deep level root cause or analyzing projects or tasks, I mean, if they can just take a few parts of it, that, that’s what I always say. That’s the key part of this. But having an understanding that at the backdrop of this is again going back to human factors, right, that go into that debrief, knowing that, hey, look, we know none of us made these mistakes or errors on purpose. None of us showed up here saying we’re going to do this, so let’s really get down to the deep level root cause. You know, what were the human factors at play? Maybe we didn’t have great communication. You know, like I said earlier, maybe we were mentally and physically fatigued. Maybe we’re running that revving the engine too high here. You know, there’s things that are going to come out of that that you’re going to, you’re going to really need to take step back and think about. So, I think that’s that all those pieces combined, it’s a great framework. But if you can just take a few pieces out of that, I think you’ll definitely see improvement both in how you run debriefs and then how you run your organization as well.

So, Brendan, thank you very much for coming back on the show. You’re a very engaging speaker. You talked last time about some of the elements of human factors. This time you went deeper on the debrief culture. I think it’s a hugely important piece. You also do keynotes, you do workshops. Somebody’s interested in, in tapping into some of your thinking around human factors, continuous learning debriefs. How can they get in touch with you?

Absolutely. Thanks for bringing that up, Eric. And again, thank you for having me on the show. It’s just a great time. I love talking this stuff, as you can tell, hopefully. But yeah, brandonwilliamsspeaker.com is my website. Go in there and you can reach out to me through there and find all kind of information as well. LinkedIn Brandon Williams, Speaker Just search that up and you should be able to find me. I’m also on Instagram, Facebook, leadership speaker pilot on those, if you search those and then [email protected] is my, is my email as well. So, feel free to reach out. And like I said, I love to give people, you know, the guides, free stuff all the time, things like that, because I think they’ll see how credibly valuable, useful it is when they do get it. So, thank you for bringing that up though.

Perfect.

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

Brandon Williams is a highly sought-after speaker, airline pilot, and human factors professor with over two decades of experience leading teams in some of the world’s most dynamic, complex, and high-risk environments. A former U.S. Air Force Fighter Pilot, Lieutenant Colonel, and Safety Officer, Brandon brings a unique blend of military precision, safety expertise, and real-world leadership to organizations striving for excellence in high-reliability industries.

As a recognized expert in Human Factors and organizational safety, Brandon equips leaders with the strategies and tools to build High-Reliability Organizations (HROs) and High-Performance Teams across sectors including transportation, healthcare, energy, construction, and manufacturing. His powerful keynotes and training sessions are grounded in military aviation principles and safety science, offering actionable insights into system-level thinking, human error mitigation, and decision-making under pressure.

Brandon’s approach is both practical and transformative—he helps organizations understand the critical role of safety culture, Just Culture, and situational awareness in preventing incidents and enhancing team performance. Through compelling storytelling and proven methodologies, he empowers leaders to navigate uncertainty, manage complexity, and create resilient teams that thrive in high-stakes environments.

With his deep expertise and engaging presentation style, Brandon Williams is the go-to expert for organizations looking to elevate their safety leadership and operational excellence.

For more information: brandonwilliamsspeaker.com

Email: [email protected]

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-williams-speaker/

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