Select Page

How Psychology Influences Human Behavior in Safety with Dr. Jared Dempsey

How Psychology Influences Human Behavior in Safety with Dr. Jared Dempsey

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

In this informative and enlightening episode, Dr. Jared Dempsey, a seasoned industrial psychologist, explores the powerful psychological factors that influence human behavior in safety-critical environments. Dr. Dempsey unpacks why understanding error-producing conditions is essential, takes a deeper look into human performance, and explains how cognitive and social psychology influence safety practices. He also highlights the need to move beyond blame, foster psychological safety, encourage open communication, and strengthen proactive risk management to improve safety performance. Don’t miss these exclusive insights into how psychology influences human behavior in safety and what leaders and organizations can do to create safer workplaces. Tune in!

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’s success story begins now.

Hi, and welcome to the Safety Guru. Today, I’m very excited to have with me Dr. Jared Dempsey. He’s an industrial You’re a psychologist. Worked in the behavior space for the last 30-some-old years. So, Jared, welcome to the show. Very excited to have you with me.

Good to be here. Thank you very much.

Why don’t you get us started with a little bit about how you got your passion for safety?

Well, my passion for safety probably came about in quite an inadvertent way. I never saw myself as wanting to work in safety. It’s where I’ve landed. I think that’s quite common for a lot of safety professionals. I’m not even sure I would call myself a safety professional, though. I’m an industrial psychologist who happens to work in safety, but it’s something I have a passion for. What happened was I had done my undergraduate degree in psychology. I then moved on to do an occupational psychology degree, and towards the end, I was looking for a topic for a thesis, for my master’s thesis. And I was looking at all the usual suspects, culture, leadership, teamwork. And we know that those impacts safely quite significantly, but I wasn’t looking at them in the self-safety realm. I was married to the same person I’ve been married to for the last 30 years. My wife was working as a nurse at the time, as a registered nurse, and she suggested that I looked at a journal that she’d brought home, especially because she thought I would find it interesting she’d brought home from work. I thought, Well, that’s nursing. I don’t see why nursing would attract or fascinate me at all.

If I wanted to look at nursing, I would have been a nurse. I ignored that request. I ignored it once, and then the following week, I ignored it again. Then the third, we got to about the third week, and I thought, Right, I just need to have a look at this, get the monkey off my back, so to speak. Just have a look to really terrible looking back, just pacify the person that I decided to spend my whole entire life with. Well, more for me because the journal article actually changed the course of my life and it really changed the way that I looked at things. To cut long story short, there was a story in the journal, and it was about a surgeon who was cutting into somebody’s brain to remove a tumor. They cut it into the cranium, and then they couldn’t see what they were looking for. They cut over a bit more and a bit more and a bit more. Then eventually, they realized that they were operating on the wrong hemisphere, the wrong side of the head. The reason for that is the X-ray or a scan, whatever visual that they had pinned up was put the wrong way around.

That is bizarre enough because in my mind at that time, medical error really wasn’t something that was widely spoken about. For me, I thought, A, just how could that happen? But B, the most dramatic thing, if you like, is that there was a nurse in the room who suspected that was the case, that the scan, the image was the wrong way around but didn’t feel comfortable enough to speak up. Maybe through youth and naivety, I just really couldn’t understand why if you saw a risk like that, why you wouldn’t actually raise your hand and say, hold on, this doesn’t look right. That set me off on a bit of a career looking, initially, we call it psychological safety now. We refer it to as speaking up. It wasn’t at the time necessarily even occupational safety. It was more patient safety. But then some years later, it was this… I managed to really get into occupational safety, and it was looking at the same type of things as, why don’t people speak? Why don’t they take action? What’s the psychology behind people actually doing what you would, in a perfect world, you would expect them to do?

That was one of the key experiences that took me into safety and really spurred me on and developed my passion is really just trying to understand what is and what should never be.

That’s a good segue into How is it that things go wrong? What are some of the error-producing conditions that cause things to go wrong?

Well, I think that if we look at how things go wrong, then we might be talking more about cognition. But if we’re talking about why things go wrong, then what we understand now, when we start looking at human performance, is that people get things wrong a lot of the time, quite simply because of the situations in which they find themselves. If we’re talking about conditions, is it light? Is it dark? Is there a glare? Do they feel under pressure? Is the quality of the work they need to do? Is it high? Are they under time pressures? Do they need to get something done in a relatively short amount of time? Are the instructions, the written instructions that they have, are fit for purpose? Is the verbal communication during a task? They talk about the dirty dozen. I would say it’s probably about depending on how you slice it and dice it, there’s probably around 10 core factors that when we look back at incidents, we find them time and time again. Obviously, what you want to do is you want to be thinking about these environmental precursors, precursors to incidents before you actually do a job, and you want to be talking about them.

But what we’ve done for a long time is we’ve focused on traditional hazards. You think about things like gravity, chemical, electrical, radiation. We prime people to think in those areas, and then we actually don’t get them to think the human factors and the conditions that actually compromise a cognitive function, which is a fancy way of saying the way that our brain is thinking at a particular time, how we process an information. So, error-producing conditions, they’ve been around for a while. In the UK, we call them performance influencing factors. Basically, they might go by error traps. But we I still find there’s a lot of work to be done bridging that gap of actually get people to understand them, use them, and actually talk about them prior to starting work.

Is it mostly about the knowledge and how you look at… You recognize the conditions that may be impacting you? You talked about production pressure as an example, and you create awareness of it and talk about it to then think about how I mitigate, or is there more that can be done on that front?

It really depends. If it’s a bit like a work instruction or procedure, written instructions, then that can be flagged by a work team, or it should be caught ahead of time. There’s that type of things that structurally you can take care of. But there are other things that actually they’re pretty dynamic, and you really only going to pick them up as part of your dynamic risk assessment. So, we talk about worker readiness. Are you Are you stressed? Are you fatigued? You’re not going to necessarily know that with your team until the actual day of doing a task. But I think you’re absolutely right there. It is about being empowered to identify the less-than-ideal conditions. Because one of the struggles that we have with human factors is human factors in human error. Are almost treated interchangeably synonymously because they’re so closely related. But I can always guarantee if I go on to the BBC news and I see, if there’s been a massive mistake that’s basically a major harm to plant or somebody’s been hurt, as such it has become newsworthy, then you’ll see the words human error. The way that those words human error are left is somebody did something wrong.

Actually, you might reasonably expect that person to have got it right, and it becomes a blame exercise, and organizations are very good at that. It’s all fine and well saying we’ve got these error-producing conditions. But if the organization doesn’t actually take ownership and really encourage for people to say, Hey, we’re fatigued because we did a double shift earlier on the week, or whatever it is, unless they feel empowered and safe to actually point them out, then it’s not really going to make any difference, and they’re not going to point them out. I guess it’s like most things. When we talk about behaviors and safety, you can have programs and you can have things written down, but ultimately, everybody needs to buy in and you’re going organization from the top down to make sure that, yeah, A, you identified, and B, we’re going to support you and do something about that. We’re going to get those conditions changed.

I think the other part, I’d say, is sometimes the organization causes these factors. The shift schedule, as an example, is something the organization typically either accepts or creates that could induce the fatigue, or if there’s a quick turnaround, these are things that the organization can also That same as production pressure on every construction site. There tends to be a countdown clock that tells you how many days until this goes live and you need to finish. That creates pressure, but some of it could also be internalized.

Yeah, I mean, I would suggest that 98% of the system factors and organizational factors, even when it comes down to things like the socio-technical, but the social side of things and whether you’ve got a good culture. Again, that’s down to the organization. If there isn’t a good culture, if people don’t have psychological safety, then the company or the organization itself is errant, and it really isn’t doing all that it should and it needs to do. Sure. You might have people who for their own reason, are negligent, careless. But on the whole, my belief is, and I think if you work in this space and if you are a safety coach or a consultant, then you really should have the belief that most people are good people trying to do a good job.

Nobody chooses to get injured in the morning, goes to work thinking, I’m going to get injured. Unless you’re atrocious at hiring, you should not have a lot of bad actors in your organization either.

Well, that’s it. Sometimes we’ve got a people problem. Yeah, you’ve got a people hiring problem, perhaps. Even we’ve got a leadership problem. But again, the thing about trying to understand human factors is just trying to take it back. I’m saying human factors isn’t about your mess-ups, it’s about what messes you up. Again, let’s go back and let’s look at the conditions. There’s someone, a professor here in Aberdeen called Rhona Flynn, and I don’t want to misquote her. However, I think what Rhona had said was human factors It’s simply defined as what gets in the way of you doing a good job. When we think of it like that, we could demystify it, take away a lot of the mystery, because I can always guarantee You get into a room of people and you say, okay, someone give me a definition of human factors. A lot of times people look at you blank because it’s so amorphous, it’s so big, it’s everything they think in human nature and in the world, when in but really, it’s those things that time and time again catches out and make the job difficult to do.

You talked about human factors. I’d like to touch a little bit on human performance and matching people where they are. I’d love to get a bit of you on that.

Yeah, I think we have to change our expectations that our expectations need to meet people where they are as opposed to people need to meet our expectations. That there’s somewhere in the middle there is understanding as human beings, how we function and what we can realistically do. I guess my point is there’s three main cognitions that time and time again, if situations aren’t ideal. If we are under pressure, if we are fatigued, if we maybe have some stress, if the communication in the job isn’t good, then we end up with situations when our body lets us down, our attention lets us down, or our decision-making lets us down. That’s going to be nine times out of 10. That’s what’s going to happen. There’s going to be an environmental circumstance, there’s going to be a cognitive failure. If we think about our decision making, it’s a lack of understanding, our attention, it’s a lack of noticing something needs to be done, or we forget to do something. When you ask people, we know this almost intuitively, when you ask people, okay, is anybody’s memory perfect? Everybody says no. Is anybody’s attention limitless? Again, everybody says no.

Does everybody make great decisions time after time after time? And everyone says no. So, we know that these are limited, but sometimes in work situations, we say, Well, you’re a professional. You shouldn’t make mistakes. Well, I think you can see.

We’re human.

Yeah, the discombobulation between there. There’s no congruence with those two thoughts. We do talk about Traditionally, we prime people to look at things like radiation, gravity, so on and so forth, slip, trip, slip.

Energy wheel and so forth. Yeah.

But I think it’s really useful to It’s like saying the left hand doesn’t need the right-hand if you don’t actually engage in that as well. But I think it’s really useful to say things like, okay, what is it about this job can be difficult? What’s tricky? What’s going to cause you to struggle? What’s awkward? Because what you actually do then is you open people’s minds, because when you prime someone with pre-existing risks, that’s all that they can see. Cognitively, what you’ve done is you’ve almost got them to engage in some tunneling. You’ve cut off the vision. But when you actually get them to step back and say, okay, what is it that is difficult about this job? What’s it going to cause us to struggle? Then the They start talking about things that they’ve not thought about before that are going to get in the way of the job. It’s at that point where the job starts to get away from them.

Sure.

It’s not necessarily a safety issue, but what we find is when you start to lose control, not only is it a production issue, but it also then becomes a safety issue. If you’re not in control of a job, it’s not a safe job. I am a great fan of just winding it up and asking people, what is it that’s different? What is it that might be a bit dodgy about this? What is it we’re putting up with? If you go back to even the three cognitions of memory, attention and decision-making, let’s go back and ask, okay, what is it we absolutely need to remember that could be easily forgot?

Sure.

Okay, what is it we need to pay attention to that could easily go and notice?

Enjoying attention. Right.

It’s a different way of looking at things that in my experience, it pays dividends. People who are involved in the human performance movement, if you like, that’s the direction of travel. Sure.

Excellent. If we talk about accountability, I think one of the things you talk about as well as the word coaching tends to be overused. I’d love to hear more in terms of this. How do we drive accountability in the right way?

Well, I think accountability, again, we talk about accountability, but it’s usually for the person at the sharp end as opposed to the accountability of the people making the decisions and designing the environment further up. When things do go wrong, I think we need to basically hold up the mirror and They say, okay, well, okay, what situation did we place this person in? Is there something that’s routine? And then judge them with the same yardstick. Now, clearly, if somebody isn’t doing as they need to do as the standards require. But we talk about the substitution check test, and that person went off and then Basically, for the want of a bit of a word, they rebelled, but nobody else would. There’s a case for discipline there. But what we do know, if we just try and use that, the safety stick, we’ll call it, and hold people to account continually because we think that consequence is the only way to manage behaviors, not understanding that actually, if we apply what we could call negative consequences, that we’re going to drive people’s behaviors underground, we’re going to have a lack of transparency. Just one point on terminology.

I’ve heard the word coaching used in various ways. If I’m going to discipline someone, I’m going to give them some coaching. Not the same concept, right? No, absolutely not. The other The thing is, well, safety professionals take it away. You give them a different title. They’re no longer a safety officer or safety manager. We’re going to call you a safety coach. Then all of a sudden, they’re supposed to be coaches with coaching skills. Again, you’ve taken something and we dilute the meaning. Then that’s not to say that we can’t have people who are worker safety officers who can be great safety coaches. We just have to give them the support so they’re able to- And skills. Yes, absolutely. You need to give them the skills, and that needs to be supported by the organization of this is part of their role. Some things are going to be about compliance and about assured us. But equally, there’s going to be other times when the safety coaches are going to call them out, they’re going to help you with communication skills, they’re going to give you a reflection on how you’re showing up as a leader and a supervisor.

That can be tough if you’ve got people who’ve been in more of a traditional role for a long time, not just for them to do, but to change the perceptions of the people that they need to coach. Because as I’m sure you’re aware, when we are coaching, one of the things we’ll say is, Would you like some feedback? Would you like me to give you don’t jump in. If you go in as a coach, that’s your sole role, as I would term a safety leadership coach, then the people that you’re going to work with, they’re more likely to accept you because that’s your core role and that’s how they see you. It adheres to their perspective and their expectations.

Because coaching really should be about how do I develop somebody, how do I create awareness sometimes on certain factors that may be influencing the work, the quality of the work. It should really be just like a coach in a sports team that’s helping you perform at a higher level, not this disciplinary measure.

Yeah, absolutely.

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 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.

Two topics I know we talked about before when we first connected is around cognitive and social psychology and how it impacts safety in the organization. On the cognitive side, in terms of how we process information, I know when we first talked, you talked about three different air types. I’d love to explore a little bit this area.

Yes, so it’s just really going back to memory, attention, attention and decision-making. Because if your memory is compromised, then you may be going to miss out an essential check, you’re going to miss out a part of a job. It may be going to misremember how to do a task. If you misremember how to do it, you’re going to get it wrong. Attention is a case of I don’t notice something. And if you don’t notice something, you might not be able to react. Also, you might think that if you have a valve that needs to be shut, and sometimes then that might still be open because you’ve missed it. You haven’t noticed that you haven’t done it. So sometimes the memory and the attention, they come close together. And decision making, I think what you’ve got a decision making a lot of the time, it’s down to the information you have. It’s almost like garbage in, garbage out. If you’ve not got good information, acting on good information, then you’re mistaken about the situation. And Any solutions you come up with, any actions you take, are not going to be right for the situation.

Sure.

For me, the two massive areas for information are verbal communication before and during a job and the quality of your written information. In addition to that, I also like to talk about biases because we all carry biases. In fact, we say blind spot bias. The biggest bias is believing you don’t have any biases. Again, a lot of my work is in energy. If we look out with energy and we look to aviation, and if you do work in a human factor space, then we revert it, revert aviation as the pioneers of human factors and really getting lots and lots right. But you will, when you do your crew resource management essential training, which they used to call cockpit Resource Management, which is how you operate in the cockpit. But then within time, they realized, actually, it’s about how you… A lot of it’s about how you communicate with the crew members. They changed the terminology to crew resource management. But when you do your mandatory training, you will be taught about biases. For example, you’re going to be taught about what we would call plan continuation bias, which is the impulse, the tendency of once you start a job, you just don’t to stop, even if those conditions become less and less ideal.

I think we’ve all been there. You’ve maybe been out there cutting the hedge, and it starts to get dark, and you just want to get the job done. It’s a very normal thing. Obviously, for pilots, they’re told, if your approach is poor, just circle around, come back again, and then land. Don’t try and land it for the one of a better term, you’re a little bit wobbly. They’ll teach that in aviation. I think just in general, in safety, we could do a better job of teaching people about what I would call the continuation bias. I think optimism bias is probably the biggest one we all face. I met someone a few years ago, and he said something that really stuck with me. He said, when you go onto an asset, when you go into a plant, perhaps the most dangerous thing on that plant is the sentiment, perhaps I should know this, because people don’t actually… If they think that they should know it, they don’t want to look foolish by leaving themselves open and saying anything. If I was to counter that, I would say, probably the most dangerous thing is the sentiment of it will be okay.

When I hear those words, even myself, then to me, that’s a trigger. There’s something saying, actually, you need to step back and reappraise the risk. For me, optimism bias is a huge one. As you said, no one actually thinks they’re going to get up in the morning, go to work and get hurt. As human beings, if we’re healthy, actually, we are optimistic. We do have this almost idealized picture of the That’s why we make New Year’s resolutions that we don’t keep. We join gyms. We go three times, and it takes us two years to actually cancel the gym membership. We get credit cards with Teaser 8 because we think we’ll pay it off in in the months, and then it moves on to the higher rate. Organizations know this. They know that as human beings, we’re very optimistic, which is generally a good thing, but just not so much in the safety space. Sure. Just one more thing on the optimism is we have to teach biases and train them as the most natural things in the world that usually have some healthy purpose, but it can’t. Applied in the wrong setting, it can be detrimental.

For example, plan continuation bias, the drive to keep going That can be a great thing, but it’s just not going to be a great thing if it’s going to get you permanently disabled or you’re involved in a fatality. But if you think about sports, if you think about Pushing yourself, it’s good. It’s what we do as human beings. It’s how we thrive. But I guess language is important for me. I hear people banding around the word complacency, and I’m just never a fan. I think if we’re going to talk about complacency, we need to be very, very clear with people that what we mean is an underestimation of risk. We use it in the strictest sense of the meaning, because if you point fingers at people and say to them, you’re complacent, what are you doing?

That doesn’t go well.

No, it doesn’t go down well. It’s like we said, you’re negligent You’re careless. None of those things are great. If we want to get people brought in, bought into safety, we want to bring them on side, and we want to get them to act Safety is a value, and there to be that trust between supervisors, managers, and workers. Walking around using words like complacent, we’re on a hide into nothing. It’s not going to help our cause at all.

No. We’ve talked about cognitive psychology in terms of how we process information. Love to talk about social psychology. Essentially, how we interact with each other in a group setting, how that also impacts safety.

We’re basically social creatures. We’re tribal creatures, where we have a tendency herd mentality, and that can be good because we can form. If you can get a mass or a body of people doing the right things, then the joiners, people will fall into that. If people aren’t doing the right things, then it can be negative because you don’t have that critical mass where people join in the group or part of the group. Nobody really wants to put their head above the parapet and be the jobs were Earth or the clean guy. But what really interests me about social psychology is if we look at the helping literature, if we look at the literature of why people get involved and why people help each other, then I think that we can learn a lot and why people do or don’t. If we look at the helping literature, again, it’s slightly removed from safety in some terms, but if you think about a culture of care, not a culture of compliance, but a culture of care, that’s really people trying to help each other and looking out for each other. If you go back to what I would consider is in some ways the best and easiest way of looking at the safety culture, which is independence, dependence, and interdependence, is you want to get to a stage where people are interdependent and helping each other.

If we look at the literature and the studies of bystander apathy and conformity and compliance, then we started to realize, really, it drives home the message that we are creatures. We have a herd mentality.

That was a great example in terms of conformity. Love to explore one in terms of more around the herd mentality.

Yeah, I think there’s probably a great example of that. It’s not necessarily an experiment. But Gerry Harvey was an organizational specialist many years ago, and he tells of a story called the Abilene Paradox, whereby he was in Texas. He was visiting his mother and father-in-law, and they were sitting on the porch on what was a hot but pleasant Sunday afternoon when his father-in-law said, I heard there’s a new restaurant opened in the other town. Why don’t we get in the car and go and get a meal? Everybody said, Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. This was in the days before air conditioning was as good as it is now. They went over and They had a meal. The food was barely palatable. The car journey was horrific. It was a 100-mile round trip. They came home and someone said, sitting on the porch, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, Gerry and his wife, and someone said, Yeah, well, that was great, wasn’t it? Then someone said, I didn’t think much of the food, and then everybody just let loose. It actually turned out that no one wanted to go in the first place. You end up in a situation, and it’s just how human beings are.

You end up in a situation where you have the worst possible outcome because no one feels comfortable enough to actually say what they really feel. People think that they’re the only one who feels like this, or they suspect they’re the only one who feels like this. The fancy names for it, like pluralistic ignorance, and there have been many experience done on it. The bigger the group, the more likely, if you only got two or three people, it is more likely that someone’s going to say, I’m not comfortable with this job. I don’t think this is safe. But when you’ve got a group of six or seven, it It’s far less likely someone’s going to speak up. We know about that from all the conformity studies. We really are herd creatures. If we’re going to get to a place where people will speak up and they will share their opinions and they will point out risks. We have to be very pointed and almost religiously saying, okay, what is it we see? Does anybody have any concerns, questions or comments before we get started? What’s our comfort level with this job? That should be before every job.

We can’t take it for granted. I’ve heard many times people say, my people know that they can.

Actually, more often More often than not, it’s the leaders that say to me, it’s their people don’t know because they really do lack that self-awareness. Yeah, that makes sense. Excellent. Thank you for sharing that.

I think I said earlier on, when I started out, I looked at nurses, nurses speaking up behavior. That’s why I actually ended up examining four for my PhD. But there’s a classic study, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it, it’s called the ASTRO-10 Study. In the study, and I remember back, psychology used to be quite… It didn’t have quite the same ethics as it has now. I’m not sure this would get past the Ethics Committee. But what happened is they set up nurses on a ward. You’d have a nurse going on to a ward, and these nurses, individually, they weren’t all together. The nurse would receive a call from a doctor, but the doctor was actually just one of the researchers that was, if you want social experiment, playing a trick, call it what you will. He would say, hi, this is Dr. Jones. I want you to go down to see patient Smith in bed number 9, and I want you to give him 20 milligrams of astra10. Now, I’m telling this, I’m paraphrasing. I want you to give him 20 milligrams of Astra fen. The nurses had all recently been given training on this new drug called Astra fen.

What they didn’t know was a placebo. They were sugar pills. There was nothing. It very clearly said on the pill bottle that the maximum dose was 10 milligrams. It actually might be five milligrams. My memory escapes me. But what happened was that nearly every nurse that was placed in that situation gave the medicine to the patient. And what’s really interesting, though, is thereafter, when you take a control group of nurses and you talk about the experiment and you say, what would you do? Every single nurse said, there’s no way I would have given the patient that drug. We end up doing things because we’re told to and because that’s how we see ourselves in these social situations. When you understand that, you understand the influence of a supervisor or manager saying, get this done. I’ll get this done. I’ll get this done, but be safe, but I need it done in this time and sending mixed messages. It’s like, okay, so what would you really want? What we’re probably going to get is they are going to do what they’ve been told to do, and that safety request becomes an optional, an additional extra.

Right. So covered a lot of ground today from just the social psychology and how we operate in more of a herd mentality, which can be, as you said, good or bad. And the cognitive psychology in terms of some of the biases that we have, particularly with other topics, but even just how we can miss information or how biases can impact our choices. We touched on human performance, but also the air-producing conditions. A lot of ground we’ve covered. If somebody wants to get in touch with you, Jared, what’s the best way to do that?

Just reach out on my website, which is www.cognivate.com.

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

Eric, it’s been a pleasure. Anytime. Thank you very much.

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. Jared Dempsey is an industrial psychologist who believes safety shouldn’t be boring — and it certainly shouldn’t live in spreadsheets and policy binders. Working across energy and construction, he focuses on how work really happens in messy, imperfect, real-world conditions — not sanitised versions imagined far from site.

He pushes back on blaming workers and focuses on the conditions that actually drive performance. Because when you understand psychology, safety stops being dry and compliance-driven and starts making sense — it becomes human, practical, and something people actually connect with.
For more information – Americas: www.excel-erate.org or UK, Europe & Rest of World: www.kognivate.com

 

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

Lessons from Aviation Psychology: The Importance of Competencies and a Broader View of Human Factors with Aleksandra Kapela

Lessons from Aviation Psychology: The Importance of Competencies and a Broader View of Human Factors with Aleksandra Kapela

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE: 

ABOUT THE EPISODE

In this episode of The Safety Guru, we’re joined by certified aviation psychologist Aleksandra Kapela for a deep dive into aviation psychology and human factors, exploring what other safety-critical industries can learn from aviation. Aleksandra shares how modern thinking on human factors has evolved, emphasizing the importance of understanding the environment in which we operate, as well as the capabilities and limitations of the human brain. She breaks down the importance of identifying core competencies and explains why competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) is essential for preparing individuals to perform effectively in unpredictable, safety-critical situations and how these principles can be applied across a wide range of industries. She also explains why a broader, more holistic view of human factors is essential for improving safety performance and building sustainable safety cultures where people feel supported, are encouraged to speak up, and perform at their best. Don’t miss this informative episode packed with valuable lessons from aviation psychology!

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 Aleksandra Kapela with me. She’s an aviation psychologist and human factor specialist. So, Aleksandra, first, as we get started, that’s not a common thing to be an aviation psychologist. So, I’d love to hear a little bit about how you got started, what you do, and the passion you have around this space. Let’s start there.

Sure, absolutely. Thank you very much, first of all, for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here and talk about such important topics. In my stories, usually in aviation, the story goes the same way. People, they fall in love with flying first. They become pilots, cabin crew, and engineers, and only later do they start becoming interested in safety, human factors, or psychology. But for me, for me, that was the other way around. I always knew that I wanted to be a psychologist. Long before aviation entered my life, I was fascinated and fell in love with the human brain. So, behavior, decision making, neurology, and especially human potential. Why do people act the way they do, how they perform under pressure, and how the environment can unlock their potential or, let’s say, limit it? That’s why I started the master’s programs in psychology and human resource management. I knew quite early on that I didn’t want to be a clinical psychologist or psychotherapist. I wanted to work with people and organizations in real, complex environments, helping them understand how and why this behavior might emerge and how systems can support them in that.

Aviation came into my life almost by coincidence. It was supposed to be a summer job at the local flight school to try something new. My friend, he was working there at that time. When I stepped into that environment, I fell in love with the industry as well. I think mostly with people at the beginning. But even more, later, I became fascinated by the safety element and safety culture. Sure. In such a critical, safety-critical domain, when a decision is made, they matter every single day. Actually, I assume that psychology and human factors would be fully embedded. I imagine that at every flight school, not to mention the airline. They would have at least one aviation psychologist supported by a team of human factor specialists. But that was a big surprise that it wasn’t the case. Even though aviation, compared with many other safety-critical industries, is usually thought to be really advanced in terms of safety awareness. I quickly realized that there was still quite a big gap between what we know today in modern psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral psychology, and how stress, attention, decision-making, and the human brain actually work, and how systems are designed and managed in the industry.

That’s when I started to look into how you can become properly qualified in this field of aviation psychology. I discovered that it is a really small, highly specialized discipline. Globally, there are only around 100 officially accredited aviation psychologists with a bit larger group of human factor specialists, of course, as let’s say, the entry requirements are a bit less demanding, you don’t need to be a psychologist. Becoming accredited required a lengthy certification journey, but it allowed me to work exactly at this intersection of psychology, safety, and operations. Today, I work in a few, let’s say, complementary roles. I run my own company, My Wingman, which focuses on supporting airlines and flight schools from the human side of safety. So, competency-based training and assessment, leadership development, instructor support, and well-being initiatives are directly linked to operational performance. At the same time, I also work as an Associate Aviation Psychologist with Symbiotics, a company known for assessment and selection solutions. Along with that, a large part of my work involves speaking and teaching, including delivering speeches, workshops, and training programs for leaders, instructors, and operational teams, mainly in Aviation but also in other safety-critical industries.

I’m also a ground instructor, so I work with students, which I really enjoy. And recently, I’ve been working on a book about Human Factors in Aviation, which is a very big project that is still a bit in the making. So, the book is still with the editor for the final editing. But this is a very exciting project I’ve been working on for the last 2 years.

Interesting. I’d love to start with human factors and really a modern perspective on what is happening in that space, when we’ve talked about it before in terms of capabilities, limitations in your mind, and the environment. Tell me a little more about how this space has evolved.

The modern view of human factors has led us to a bit more uncomfortable truth: the human brain is incredibly capable but also very limited. Sure. As its core, the modern human factor starts with this shift. Instead of asking what’s wrong with the person, why something happened, we ask what was happening inside their mind and how the environment also shaped what was possible in that moment. Because it’s really easy to say what we would do from our couch, but actually, in a specific moment, in a specific situation, with the specific limitations and capabilities of one’s mind, that might be very different. Now we focus on the capabilities and limitations of a brain as such, but also of a person at the moment. We know, for example, that attention can be our biggest help, but also our biggest enemy in stressful moments and in specific environments. We try to blend together the person, those limitations and capabilities, but also the environment, and also the system that the person operates in, which is really important. We have this systemic approach now, so we don’t look at individuals only, but we look at all those elements that made the situation happen in this specific scenario.

Somebody else or in a different environment could behave in a different way or maybe the same way. This is something that we always need to check.

Rear view mirror, once something happens, a more holistic view of what will occur, how can it practically help proactively? To ensure we act on the environment, we act on capabilities and limitations before something occurs.

Basically, if we take this more holistic perspective, then we are able to actually change things for the better for the future. If we would only focus on, let’s say, for example, in aviation, we’ve used to focus on how we can improve the aircraft for this situation not to happen again? Let’s say a certain switch was connected to this situation. How can we update or redesign the switch to help in the next situation? The problem is that the situations are so complicated that we will never be in the same situation again. Even though we replace the switch or we redesign something, which, of course, is also one of the approaches that we should have, and of course, improve that and upgrade as we can. But also, if we only hope that after changing this one switch, the situation will not happen again, or the bad situations will not happen, then this is a bit of false thinking. We need to understand how complex it is. We need to understand that things are happening both inside and outside. If we focus on this holistic approach, it’s also easier to think, even with changing that one switch of thinking, okay, but if somebody else were working with that switch, would that help them if we redesign it?

Or if this person is in this and this environment, in this company, let’s say, even in this culture, would that help them as well in the future? It helps people to rethink and redesign bigger systems. Also, it helps us educate not only system operators but also leaders and authorities, so they understand that a single change can make a big difference. That’s why, as we understand people more now and gain more knowledge about how we function and the environment, we need to use this knowledge. We need to use these findings, of course, slowly but to help improve safety and change the situation for the better in the future. So, not to add more hours, for example, in case of aviation training, but try to focus, okay, what we can change that actually, regardless of the hours, can help in the future in a similar setting, in a similar situation.

Is there anything that can be done, if I’m thinking particularly of the capabilities, but also some of the limitations, proactively from competencies development, or in terms of assessing competencies as well, for those circumstances that may exist?

Absolutely. This is one of the biggest concepts we focus on right now: competencies and some behaviors connected to them. So, they come out of our competencies. This is really important to focus on at the very beginning because, again, as I mentioned, we can add more hours, more training, more education in different industries. But again, if somebody had a low level of certain competencies, they would, regardless of the training, their knowledge, they would not be able to cope with a specific situation. If the situation becomes more stressful and more complicated, they need to adapt to this specific situation that might quickly evolve into a change. In that way, competencies and this whole approach of competency-based training and assessment, or CBTA, now focus on how we can improve human beings at the beginning. Sure. For them to be able to behave in a situation that we cannot predict. In the past, we tried to predict every possible situation, and we failed in that because those environments, even automation, everything becomes more and more advanced and complicated. One thing can change the situation that we couldn’t predict. Instead of doing that, we now shift, and we try to answer a case.

If this person had those competencies on a very high level, then it might actually be easier for them to cope with any situation. We don’t have to focus on those situations so much, but we focus on people who are capable, within their limits and capabilities of their brain, to react to different situations in different settings with different people. That’s why we first focus on those competencies. Those competencies are, there might be also a bit more technical, but we focus even more on those non-technical aspects. We focus on things that we used to talk about already in the case of human factors. But some of those things we know are actually. We are able to improve them if we know how to work on them. For example, decision making, for example, problem solving, communication, and workload management, those aspects, we know that if we have the right tools and also tools to assess them at the very beginning, and then if it improved, then actually they are proven to be those barriers that actually can stop this bad situation from continuing to happen. Now we focus on, okay, if we know the entry level of someone’s, let’s say, communication skills, then I know this level, that’s the first step.

Then I can, with the right tools, try to improve this. In the future, this person, despite stress, despite a very dangerous situation, will still be able to communicate with others, even though the possibilities of their brain would narrow their attention and their memory. Still, they would have the communication on such a high level that they would be able to communicate, even if the situation is very demanding. We know that in those safety-critical environments, proper communication with your teammates, with some people who might be responsible for the next steps, for example, is crucial. So very often this communication would be the first part that would be really affected by the stress, by this very demanding situation. Because this is a natural tendency of our brain. If we have a very stressful situation, we need to limit our attention; we need to limit what we say to others in order to be able to survive. In that way, if we focus on communication skills despite the stress, despite different problems that might occur, then we keep this relatively high level of communication, even though our brain and the situation want us to maybe limit this ability a bit.

That’s why we focus now on those core competencies, as we call them, because we know that also for the success stories that we have. Sure. Of course, in aviation, those success stories are really spectacular, let’s say. But for those stories, we know that those individuals who saved the day had a very high level of those competencies. In that way, we need to focus on this positive safety approach, as we call it safety to approach. We focus on improving the positives instead of trying to limit the negatives.

Sure. In aviation, you use the example of communication. In many cases, you have a job that is, for the most part, fairly routine until something goes horribly wrong. Then, as you mentioned, high intensity. If you think about the Air France incident where autopilots disconnect, all sorts of signals are giving you contradicting information, and you’ve got to process. Communication and stress levels are incredibly high, and you’ve got very short periods of time to address the risk in front of you. In a lot of other businesses, a lot of other industries, sometimes that difference between routine and high stress isn’t as pronounced, but in some cases, it might still be. How could some of these principles translate to other industries to still help? As you mentioned, communication. On a good day, you could be a very good communicator, but in that peak moment of stress where you really need that communication, that’s where you need at next level performance.

The beautiful and also problematic thing about our brain is that it cannot really recognize the settings that we’re in. In that way, it doesn’t matter really if we are 30,000 feet in the air, and anyone would say that that’s a really dangerous situation if something happens. Or it can be at your workplace, at your desk, but something very suddenly increases your stress level. For our brain, that would be the same situation. Very basic instincts and very basic reactions, they start to happen. We have our fight or flight response that is still really, really strong, even though we don’t have to run away from a lion anymore. But still, our nervous system doesn’t understand that. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a situation in the air or it might be a situation, let’s say, in the operating room. Still, this high peak of stress would narrow our possibilities in the same way. Our brain needs to be really focused on the basic things to survive. That’s why those higher functions, let’s say, like keeping the attention on different sources or communicating with others using complicated sentences, are something that first would be just raised.

In that way, for example, in the case of attention, I think it’s really relevant for different safety-critical domains that you need to keep your attention at a high level. You need to be sure that you’re not making any mistakes. In that way, your attention really needs to be at a high, highly functioning level. In that way, it’s really important to train those abilities. No matter what stress hits you, you can still maintain this high level of performance and teamwork, for example, because this is another competency that is pretty core. Being able to work within a team, which is, of course, connected with some other competencies. They all relate to each other. But most of the safety-critical environments need the same competencies. They need a high level of attention and situational awareness. They need communication, teamwork, and the ability to solve problems and make good, timely decisions. Of course, aviation is the industry that is the most, let’s say, spectacular in that way. But if you imagine someone working in any other safety-critical industry, they need the same competencies. But what would be different is the behaviors, so how they perform or how they use those competencies with specific behaviors.

The pilot would need to behave differently, and let’s say the surgeon would need to behave differently, but they would still need to use, let’s say, the same source and competencies. Of course, I focus mainly on aviation, but I also consult on other industries as well. I use my experience from aviation, but actually, I see more and more that it’s really the same thing, the same elements, because our brain is the same. It just needs to be used differently. That’s why we have certain training. Let’s say this technical part and the educational part are what will be different. But how we act in this really highly stressful situation is something that would be the same across different domains and industries. If we just lack those competencies, our performance will be affected. It doesn’t matter what industry it is. We aim to achieve the highest possible performance to increase safety. To do When you do that, your capacity needs to be enough to handle that situation. Of course, there are some other things, like psychological safety, that need to be at the proper level.

Your, let’s say, physical abilities need to be at the proper level. But we see that those abilities of your brain, in terms of competencies, are one of the most important things to be able to perform at a safe level in any situation that you need to perform.

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.

CBTA really helps us understand competencies that are needed, where I am at, and how I am progressing through different interventions, potentially?

Yes. They also answered the question of why those limitations exist. For example, I might repeat the same mistake in my work, and I might have more training, more education. I will be more frustrated. Still, I would not perform well in certain situations. Sometimes, a very simple key for that is just to improve the competency level. If somebody were, let’s say, very good at, say, communication, again, but they would not be very good at decision-making. They might talk with others. It might help them with other competencies as well. But they still would not be able to make timely decisions, and this can sometimes be really critical for safety. That’s why it’s really important to know those levels right from the start. If somebody enters the training or a job environment. We, as people, would be responsible for training that person. But also, this person themselves would want to know what level of those competencies I have. Because very often people cannot realize that they wouldn’t think about it earlier, that they might have problems with certain competencies because they do quite well, they progress, they live in society, etc. But actually, those levels need to be a bit higher for that safety-critical work.

In that way, it is so crucial to know it at the very beginning, and then only you will benefit from that if you retest it. If you check it again, then you know if the person can progress, if you’re doing the right things in case of the training. And also, they start to feel more and more at ease. So, they might not realize that this is their issue, their problem that they have. But after a certain period of time, we see that people with a raised level of those competencies just feel better, they function better, not even in these very stressful moments, but daily. So, in that way, it gives them more space, more capacity to work with any situation that they face. If the CBTA is done well, the safety conversation also changes. We stop asking who made a mistake and what exactly happened in that situation. We also stop blaming individuals, but we start asking whether the system built the competencies needed to deal with what actually happened. To do anything. It worked both directions, we might say, because we know that people are not perfect, systems are not perfect.

But we try to find ways to increase both of those elements together. And by increasing competencies, we see that everything goes up.

And how does this connect with psychometrics? Because of the scenario you just shared, somebody who is good at communication, but may not be great at decision-making in a peak moment of stress. And so that could make you incredibly functional in many roles. In some functions, you can have the liberty of time to make decisions. For a pilot, you don’t typically have unlimited time in terms of that decision-making. How do we start checking around for a specific work environment, and how does that connect back to CBTA?

So, of course, in the case of CBTA, the last letter is A. So, this is the assessment. And this is more connected with how the competencies can improve. So, if we can learn, if we can improve them. In case of competencies themselves, it’s a bit easier work because if, let’s say, your baseline is okay, if you don’t have any disabilities, learning disabilities, or any, let’s say, disorders that would not make it possible to increase those levels, you can work with competencies. You can improve your competencies. If you have the right tools, if you know what to work on, you can improve them. Competencies are something that we use on a daily basis in different environments. This is something people sometimes do not realize they can improve if they work on it. It’s like with our memory. We can improve it if we don’t have any disabilities in that area. Sometimes we joke that it’s like a muscle we can just improve by working on it. In assessments, we don’t focus solely on competencies; we also consider other things, like personality or attitudes, which are a bit more core to people.

They are usually built from the beginning of our life, connected with how our nervous system is built. So, they are a bit more difficult to change. Regarding personality aspects, we can also check this. So, with the right tools, with the right assessments, we can check what traits, what, let’s say, tendencies you might have. This might make you better or worse in some specific environments or jobs. Let’s say there is one personality trait called conscientiousness, which is associated with people who like to be organized and structured. They like things. They like routine. This is something that is pretty core in you. People would be higher or lower on conscientiousness. In the case of pilots, for example, we like to have pilots who are high in case of conscientiousness because they need to work with routine most of the time. They need to pay attention to procedures, follow them, etc. They need to be organized, and everything needs to be neat. In that way, if somebody were higher on that trait, it would be easier for them to feel good in this environment.

If someone has a low level of conscientiousness, it doesn’t mean they cannot become a pilot, but it does mean they would just struggle, and that struggle would make them less able to perform well under stress. It will make them less able to train in case of their competencies as well, because those things just go together. For example, there are certain traits that, let’s say, a good accountant should have. I wouldn’t be a good accountant myself for sure, knowing my personality. If I were still trying to keep this job, I would probably be really frustrated, unhappy, and struggling with my performance. In some jobs, that would just make people unhappy. But in safety-critical industries, it’s really important to have people who are a bit better suited to this specific job. Psychometrics is one of the most, let’s say, misunderstood tools in safety-critical industries, I feel, because for some people, the word itself immediately triggers fear of labeling, discrimination, and being put in a box. But that fear is understandable because psychometrics has sometimes been used poorly, so not to use the right tools, not to use the results in the right way.

But when it’s used correctly, they are not about exclusion; they are about information. If we have this information, then, for example, we can place somebody who still wants, let’s say, they really want to be a doctor, but with those traits, they might struggle, they might be not so good, for example, being a surgeon. It would be better for them to work as some other type of doctor. In that way, and for example, for pilots, it’s maybe not best for you to work in an airline when the routine is there, and work is almost the same every day. Maybe it’s better for you to go to flying, which there is less routine, more changes, and a bit more risk. Some people need to have a bit more going on to feel good. That’s why it’s so important to check it at the beginning, not to spend a lot of money, a lot of time, and invest in something that might just be some concept that you might have in your head but does not really fit your capabilities and limitations. A big part of my work is also to explain that to people, that it’s not like yes or no.

It’s more than we need that information to increase safety, because if people who are not fit for certain jobs perform those jobs, it’s the first step toward unsafe acts in this environment. It’s not a verdict; it’s a map that we use for the future.

I think it also, to your point, if you’re going to be frustrated, unhappy in that work environment, that’s not an environment that’s conducive to your well-being, and also will create more friction in terms of the work in addition to some of the safety elements that you brought up. It can also be a vehicle to get to know yourself in terms of where your best fit might be.

Yes, exactly. If you’re more frustrated, a bit more stressed, then the first thing that happens is that your limitations come to the surface. If you’re angrier, sadder, or more frustrated, then you would simply make more mistakes. Then if you make more mistakes, you will be even more frustrated. Then you start to blame, usually people, they start to blame others rather than themselves, because this is what they wanted and why it doesn’t work. Also, in some of those industries, it is really difficult to stop or to say, I’m struggling. In that way, as you said, it is really connected to well-being because not only do you feel bad and angrier, frustrated, but you will have more problems with your family and friends. But also, it adds to that silence that if something is wrong with them or me, maybe I should just keep on going, but then I see that nothing is changing. So, my level of well-being is dropping dramatically, and I might not have a safe place to question that, to ask those questions. So that’s why it is so important to have this information at the very beginning. Sometimes, also what I’ve seen is for those different industries, especially if somebody young is starting in those industries, then parents, it is very important for them, for their kids to perform well and support their dreams.

But if everybody got this information at the beginning, maybe it’s time to rethink, maybe adjust a bit this path that you want to have, then eventually everyone would be happier, more satisfied, and their well-being would be higher. So, all those things that we do at the very beginning are not to make people’s lives more stressful or more difficult, but to make it less stressful and less difficult later.

Yeah. And on this topic of well-being, what other things can an organization do to create a really safe environment where people prosper from a safety standpoint?

That’s a really interesting topic because well-being is something that we hear quite a lot about now. We are more and more about well-being, well-being. We need to ensure that there is a healthy work environment. But what is most important about well-being is to understand it. Again, to understand how people’s brains work, what well-being actually is, and what levels it has, so you can create well-being programs or actions in your workplace. Very often, there is a well-being website, sometimes that is focused on well-being, but this is just like an end product. If there is no box-sticking exercise, when there is no understanding of what really makes people well in the workplace, then it might actually not change anything, but also make things even worse. What is really important is, first of all, that well-being is closely connected to what we call safety culture, as well as psychological safety in the environment. In that way, we might create a lot of things, yoga classes or any other things that should make people more relaxed. But when the workplace is not supporting this culture, nothing really will change.

The first and most difficult element is organization’s working with the culture of the culture. When people feel good about sharing things, especially things they may have done wrong, if they are not blamed for it but it is accepted, and people focus on improving it, they are thankful you share that. Of course, it might be connected with some more serious action as well. But what is really important is that you don’t feel this fear. You have this state of mind that you can talk about everything, about what was okay, but also what was not okay. In that demanding environment, people learn really quickly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to show. If the safety culture in the workplace is high, then people will start to follow that pretty quickly. If the safety culture is low, people will learn very quickly that you can miss some things, you cannot report some things, and that’s okay. It is really important to understand what safety culture is and how it can be built. That is also, again, connected with the environment on the outside, but also with people from the inside.

What is, I think, most important is to start with education because people are not educated about their own well-being. What does it mean? What does it mean in this specific industry or company, in the training place? People, they need to understand how they might feel. They also don’t have to feel happy every day. But what is, let’s say, in the norm? Also, what they should do very quickly if they feel that something is not right is not wait; everything is open for them to share it. Again, that brings me back to competencies once more, because, again, people with a higher level of competencies deal with some well-being fluctuation better. If you have a higher level of communication and teamwork, then it’s easier for you to share something with others, to communicate it. But without a proper safety culture, you can have great levels of communication, but if you cannot communicate it, then nothing will change. Those are two things: safety culture in an organization. People from the top levels who will set this culture, who will understand that people need to feel good to be safe and to perform well. And then from the bottom, also for people to understand what Wellbeing is.

That is not just a nice word to repeat, but what does it actually mean, and what does it mean in my job? Because for different jobs, it might be connected with a bit different elements. Let’s say in the job of a flight attendant, being a bit lonelier in a sense of not having your family all the time next to you or a lot of people, a lot of crowds to share things with. This is also typical for this job. Again, if you understand that, and do you know what tools you have if something feels different? Also, if you have the right, again, personality and competencies to deal with this specific environment. Everything connects. That’s why this holistic view is really important, no matter if it’s well-being, competencies, or any other assessment, so anything connected with safety. We are only now starting to understand it. It is a bit more difficult now for us because we built those systems that were not built for that, for the holistic view. It’s more built for, again, adding more hours of training or improving one part of something. But now we need to learn, and we start to understand that only changing things from this holistic level can actually improve safety.

So, thank you so much, Aleksandra. We covered a lot of ground today from a modern view of human factors, as you said, that talks about capabilities, limitations, the environment, connects very well to the CBTAs and how do we understand competencies and how we can you give us a little bit more about how you get involved in this element of psychometrics, and is it the right fit? Are there better fits for you? And how that also links back to well-being, which connects back to what we talked about in the environment where we operate. So, thank you very much for joining us today to share some of your insights. Somebody wants to get in touch with you. What’s the best way to do so?

I would say the fastest way would be to contact me on LinkedIn. I’m there with my full name or try to reach me through my wingman site as well. But I’m on LinkedIn every day. I post quite a lot, also about human factors and safety. That would be the best way to contact me.

Excellent. Thank you so much, Aleksandra.

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

Aleksandra Kapela is a certified aviation psychologist, speaker, author, and independent consultant specializing in human factors, safety, and competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) programs. She works with airlines, flight schools, and other safety-critical industries, supporting organizations where performance, decision-making under pressure, and human reliability are critical. Her work focuses on human potential, well-being, operational performance, and modern, evidence-based approaches to human behavior in complex systems. Aleksandra is the founder of MyWingman.eu and the author of an upcoming book on human factors for pilots and aviation professionals.
For more information: https://www.mywingman.eu/

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