D PAGE 16 LESSONS Why It Is Ok to Fail... Sometimes D PAGE 22 INCIDENT RESPONSE Incident Leads to Questions D PAGE 8 ASSE’S HISTORY ASSE & ANSI Standards D PAGE 14 MANAGE RISK Safety Management 1 The Compass www.asse.org 2013 The Middle Men & Women of Safety E mployees all want to go home safe and in the same condition in which they came to work. Employees also want to get paid and to be treated fairly. Doing a good job, being productive and making contri- butions are secondary to safety, com- pensation and fair treatment. Upper management wants all employees to arrive to work safely and to go home safely. Profits and customer satisfaction are generally Priorities can change at any moment, and employees can begin to lose sight of safety. For a complete Table of Contents, see page 3 also priorities. Other items on man- agement’s radar are production, qual- ity, scheduling and staffing. Even if safety is a top priority for both employees and management, it is not always stressed as the workday progresses. So many things happen during the day, and today’s fast- paced work environment requires multitasking. Priorities can change at any moment, and employees can begin to lose sight of safety. continued on page 4 BY DOUGLAS R. HANDY, CSP A TECHNICAL PUBLICATION OF ASSE’S MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SPECIALTY The Compass The Compass Volume 13 • Number 1 1 The Compass www.asse.org 2011 1 The Compass www.asse.org 2011
Transcript
D
PAGE 16LESSONSWhy It Is Ok to Fail... Sometimes
D
PAGE 22INCIDENT RESPONSEIncident Leads to Questions
D
PAGE 8ASSE’S HISTORYASSE & ANSI Standards
D
PAGE 14MANAGE RISK Safety Management
1The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The Middle Men & Women of Safety
Employees all want to go home safe and in the same condition in which they came to work. Employees also want to get paid and to
be treated fairly. Doing a good job, being productive and making contri-butions are secondary to safety, com-pensation and fair treatment.
Upper management wants all employees to arrive to work safely and to go home safely. Profits and customer satisfaction are generally
Priorities can change at any moment, and
employees can begin to lose
sight of safety.
For a complete Table of Contents,
see page 3
also priorities. Other items on man-agement’s radar are production, qual-ity, scheduling and staffing.
Even if safety is a top priority for both employees and management, it is not always stressed as the workday progresses. So many things happen during the day, and today’s fast-paced work environment requires multitasking. Priorities can change at any moment, and employees can begin to lose sight of safety.
continued on page 4
By Douglas R. HanDy, CsP
A technicAl publicAtion of ASSe’S MAnAgeMent prActice SpeciAlty
The Compass is a publication of ASSE’s Manage ment Practice Specialty, 1800 East Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018, and is dis-tributed free of charge to members of the Management Practice Specialty. The opinions expressed in articles herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of ASSE. Technical accuracy is the responsibility of the author(s). Send address changes to the address above; fax to (847) 768-3434; or send via e-mail to [email protected].
2The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The CompassThe Compass
New data indicate that falls from heights are still a concern within the U.S. workforce and
the fatality rate for falls from heights is even higher globally.
To counteract these statistics, SH&E professionals in the U.S., as well as in Central and South America, Canada and the Middle East, have used the ANSI/ASSE Z359 Fall Protection Code to implement and man-age fall protection/restraint systems. Initially released in 2007, the code is a series of coordinated standards and refer-
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems (ANSI/AIHA/
ASSE Z10-2012) establishes the require-ments for an effective and comprehensive health and safety management system. Health and safety programs can often be a collection of well-intentioned initiatives competing for management attention and necessary resources. Lacking a system to integrate activities, organizations continue to chase a stream of symptoms (injuries and illnesses) resulting from management system deficiencies.
Implementing a management system based on Z10 can change this. The require-ments mobilize organizations for continu-ous improvement in health and safety and ensure that processes and business systems are integrated.
Use of Z10 is expanding in the U.S. and globally. Z10 has also been submit-ted to the International Organization for Standardization as a resource, and for pos-
sible adoption, during the development of a global occupational safety and health management standard.
planning);•initial reviews;•risk assessment at system and opera-
tional levels;•incident investigation and root-cause
failures;•competence assessment;•design review;•management of change;•employee participation;•risk assessment;•contractors and procurement checklists;•audits.Click here for more information on Z10
or click here to purchase it. •
Z359 Fall Protection Code Version 3.0 Now Available
ANSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10-2012 Update
ence documents that establish the requirements for an effective and comprehensive fall protection man-agement system.
Version 3.0 of the code includes these additional standards:
The middle men and women really make safety happen. They are the frontline supervisors and safety professionals. This mid-to-lower-level management in most companies is vital to safety at work.
PAGE 8 aSSe involveMent in anSi StandardS activitieS: a Brief hiStory
ASSE’s standards activities have had a long, rich history dating back nearly 90 years.
ePic fail: it iS ok... SoMetiMeSBy Cameron Clark
Anticipating failure, foreseeing its poten-tial long-term impact and preparing for a full recovery and future prevention are highly recommended.
PaSSion for PeoPle or PerSon?By Bruce A. Brown
ASSE member Bruce Brown recounts an incident that occurred during Safety 2013.
PAGE 16
PAGE 22
Volume 13 • Number 1
connection Key
V W p l AD D
D
D
Video Website PDF Hot Link Ad Link Direct Link
Click on these icons for immediate access or bonus information
PAGE 14 Safety: facilitator or deterrent?
By Marrington McDonald
A good safety management system is an integral component of any organization that wants to manage risks.
PAGE 15 volunteering haS itS reWardS
By Patricia Reed
The Management Practice Specialty seeks volunteers for its new program year.
3The Compass www.asse.org 2013
If everyone really values and pri-oritizes safety, why do so many cor-porations, companies and businesses struggle to attain the goal of injury-free? Even if the work environment is set up properly and all equipment and machines are well maintained and guarded properly, injuries still continue to occur.
The middle men and women real-ly make safety happen. They are the frontline supervisors and safety pro-fessionals. This mid-to-lower-level management in most companies is vital to safety at work.
These hardworking and dedicated professionals receive daily direction from management. They make assessments and adjust-ments as needed, work directly with employees and deliver final work instructions. Sometimes, this position can be overwhelming.
These middle men and women can affect overall safety in any operation or business as well as affect and control the production, quality and scheduling of work. Middle management works directly with those above and below to accomplish most tasks and production.
Middle men and women can face pressures and chal-lenges on a daily or even minute-by-minute basis. These challenges can be further examined through a force field analysis. Force field analyses are often used to show the factors at play, and by identifying these factors, one can increase the forces in one direction or can decrease the forces in another to change or affect results.
In looking at a typical supervisor/safety professional, one can see the overall forces and influences coming down from management as well as the forces coming up from employees. These forces differ from organization to
organization, or from operation to operation within an organization, and they change constantly.
Management forces/influences typically include company policies and procedures, costs and bud-gets, senior and corporate management decisions, production schedules, staffing, and quality and customer satisfaction.
Employee forces/influences driving upward include coming to work, arriving on time, being prepared, being in a hurry, determining priorities, the need for help and training, being treated fairly, doing the right thing, using new processes other than the specified process, employee distractions, personal distractions, personality conflicts and so on.
Supervisors and safety professionals must make quick decisions on how to handle each force and what changes to make to keep from feeling over-powered by management or employees. These forces can be real, perceived or created. Middle management continually changes and moves to make the proper adjustments to balance the upward and downward forces exerted upon them.
The middle men and women are vital to upward and downward communication throughout the organization as they bridge the gap between upper management and frontline employees. It is critical that they receive proper communication from upper management and that they relay this communication,
4The Compass www.asse.org 2013
Cover STory
Figure 1 Safety & Supervisor Force Field Analysis
The Middle Men & Women of Safetycontinued from page 1
along with other vital communications, to employees. Safety must be part of this communication and must be emphasized from upper management downward and implemented from employees upward.
Middle management helps cre-ate safety and other cultures within an operation and organization. In fact, middle men and women tend to determine organizational norms. They support and direct any move-ment of these cultures and norms. Employees see their perspective and actions throughout the day and are influenced by them. The boss
automatically becomes important. If the supervisor and safety professional discuss, emphasize and act on safety, then safety becomes important to employees.
Where can middle men and women find assistance with these responsibilities and tasks?
Resources may include:•obtaining proper training through company trainers
or seeking education and training outside the company;•leaning on fellow safety professionals via association
membership, social media and networking;•improving soft skills through seminars, webinars and
publications;
•joining or establishing committees and groups to help set and reinforce the company’s norms and culture;
•establishing a safety committee;•use of checklists;•revisiting company policies;•revisiting the company’s vision, mission and goals to
help guide decisions;•improving communication by watching communica-
tion videos online.By using these and other resources, middle men and
women can strike a balance in their role and can use their position to their advantage to reinforce safety to upper management and employees.
Senior and upper management will generally set the organization’s strategy. Middle management must execute the strategy. The middle echelon must receive ample and quality training to successfully execute strat-egy. This training should not only take place, but should be validated to ensure adequate understanding and own-ership. Follow-up and reinforcement are a key support component upper management needs to exhibit.
With all levels of management recognizing and sup-porting these middle men and women of safety, quality, production and costs can reach world-class levels. • Douglas R. Handy, CSP, is a technical consultant at Liberty Mutual Group.
6The Compass www.asse.org 2013
Figure 2 Impact of Senior & Upper Management & Employees on Support & Resources
Middle management helps create safety and other cultures
Companies and other organizations use national voluntary consensus standards to establish good industry practices, enhance compliance with OSHA standards, reference as the latest state-of-the-art practices and technology, and
utilize when no regulatory standards address certain top-ics. ASSE currently serves as secretariat for 12 families of ANSI consensus standards.
ASSE’s standards activities have had a long, rich his-tory dating back nearly 90 years. The Society has appointed representatives to other organization standards committees,
such as AIHA, NFPA, ASTM International and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Since today’s SH&E pro-fessionals are expected to have expertise in everything from envi-ronmental regulations to workers’ compensation, serving on a stan-dards committee is an effective way to impact the profession by setting the benchmarks of manag-ing SH&E and risk, maintaining professional certifications, estab-lishing credibility and broadening experience.
As secretariat, ASSE’s com-mittees develop and maintain ANSI standards, ensure that ANSI procedures for standards review are followed and publish the final products. In addition, ASSE has representatives on many other ANSI standards committees, as well as members who serve on other national and international standards committees represent-ing their organizations’ interests. ASSE and its members have pro-vided this service since 1921.
early dayS: SPonSorShiP/SecretariatS
ASSE accepted its first sec-retariat position (then called sponsorship) in December 1921 for the A14 Ladder Standards
project (see A14 History sidebar). At that time, the Society was head-quartered in New York, NY. The project was officially inaugurated 10 days after ASSE accepted the offer. Such quick action was only possible because of the Society’s physical proximity to the then American Engineering Standards Committee. This process is now more deliberative and much more transparent.
The A14 standards project had several cosecretariats, but ASSE remained the administrative secretar-iat until 1973-74 when it trans-ferred that role to the Alliance of American Insurers (then American Mutual Insurance Alliance).
ASSE was awarded a second secretariat in the early 1960s for A92, Elevating Work Platforms. At the time, only one standards project existed that addressed the growing use of boom trucks with multiple work features in the elec-trical transmission industry.
In 1969, A92.2, Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms, was adopted. In 1971, A92.1 (now A14.7), Safety Requirements for Manually Propelled Mobile Work Platforms and Scaffolds, was adopted.
Due to economic pressures and other factors in the early 1970s, ASSE withdrew as the A14 and A92 secre-tariats. However, 12 years later, ASSE returned to stan-dards development.
a1264 StandardS Project
In the 1990s, ASSE became more active in the stan-dards arena. One project it took on was the consolidated A1264 standards committee. This project brought togeth-er two standards: A12, which addressed requirements for railings, toe boards and wall openings, and A64, which focused on specifications for industrial stairs. By acquir-ing these standards, the Society hoped to reposition itself as a key player in standards development. It also set the stage for ASSE to become involved in tribometry (the tri-bometer is a device for measuring coefficient of friction).
STandardS developmenT
ASSE Involvement in ANSI Standards ActivitiesA Brief History
8The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The American Standards Association, a predecessor
to ANSI, gave the designation A14 to the ladder committee in 1923 when the first safety standard for portable wooden ladders was approved. Since then, advancements in technol-ogy have led to ladders being constructed from other mate-rials, such as metal and rein-forced synthetic fibers. Many types and styles of ladders have evolved or been invented, performance tests for ladders have been developed and on-product labeling has emerged. Today’s A14 group consists of several subcommittees that develop standards.Source: American Ladder Institute.
In 1993, a second project, A1264.2, was initiated to address the provisions of slip resistance. A1264.2 was originally approved in 2001 and was revised in 2006. The third revision has been balloted and is currently under review by its subcommittee.
Using a two-column format, A1264.2 sets forth provi-sions in workplaces for protecting persons where they could slip and fall as a result of surface characteristics or conditions (see Two-Column Format sidebar). ASSE also produced “Technical Report: Using Variable Angle Tribometers for Measurement of the Slip Resistance of Walkway Surfaces” (ANSI/ASSE A1264.3-2007).
a14 StandardS Project
In 1990, ASSE became cosecretariat of the A14 Ladder Standards Project as with American Ladder Institute (ALI). ASSE determined that ALI’s resources and philosophy could better serve the standard’s future needs. ALI eventually became the sole secretariat of the A14 ladder standards.
a10 StandardS Project In 2004, ASSE became secretariat for the A10
Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) for Construction and Demolition Operations. This committee was origi-nally founded in the early 1940s and is one of the oldest ANSI-accredited standards committees in the U.S. The committee has almost 50 accredited standards and proj-ects running from contractor management to ergonomics.
Z15 StandardS Project The Z15 (formerly D15) Motor Vehicle Fleet
Operations standard was established on Feb. 27, 2001. While promoted as the Motor Fleet Statistical standard, the project grew to include other standards addressing motor fleet programs, inspections, maintenance, related equipment, and statistical analysis and nomenclature of motor fleet operations. The Z15.1-2012 standard, Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, aims to help businesses reduce roadway crashes and the high costs
associated with them. It provides guidelines for develop-ing a motor vehicle safety program for employers with one vehicle or a fleet of hundreds, be they passenger vehicles or light to medium trucks.
After public review, the revised standard, Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations (ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012), was approved by ANSI on March 28, 2012.
Z87 StandardS Project
In 1988, National Society for the Prevention of Blindness (NSPB) withdrew as secretariat of the Z87 Eye and Face Protection standards project. ANSI urged ASSE to take on this secretariat, which it did in February 1989. In 2003, this secretariat was transferred to the International Safety Equipment Association. However, ASSE has maintained strong interest in eye injury pre-vention by engaging with NSPB’s successor association, Prevent Blindness, and offering public service publications.
Z117 StandardS Project
The confined space standards project lay dormant since 1975 when American Petroleum Institute dropped it as a project. However, as OSHA moved toward a regulation, the project was revitalized under ASSE.
The Z117 standard, originally issued in 1988, was unique in several ways. First, extraordinary measures were taken to have various industries help develop the most state-of-the-art procedures for the standard. Second, OSHA was accepted to sit on the committee as an observ-er to gain insight into the issues that would need to be addressed in any pending regulation development. Perhaps
STANDARDSclick here for ASSE’sfull listing W
•ANSI/ASSE Z359.8-200x: Requirements for Rope Access•ANSI/ASSE Z359.11-200x: Safety Requirements for Full Body Harness for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS)•ANSI/ASSE Z359.15-200x: Safety Requirements for Vertical Lifelines for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS)•ANSI/ASSE Z359.16-200x: Safety Requirements for Fall Arresters for Personal
Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS)•ANSI/ASSE Z359.17-200x: Safety Requirements for Horizontal Lifelines for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS)•ANSI/ASSE Z359.18-200x: Safety Requirements for Anchorage Connectors for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS)
Current Z359 Projects
The 2-column format for standards provides in the
second, right-hand column an explanation or information demonstrating implementa-tion of the standard require-ment in the first, left-hand column. ASSE has used this widely accepted format to provide improved understand-ing and utility for those using its standards. ASSE also pro-motes the use of appendices in standards.
recognizing the committee’s expertise, OSHA’s confined space standard, issued 4 years later, resembles ANSI Z117. The current Z117 standard was released in 2009.
Z244 StandardS Project
In March 1973, the ASC Z244 held its first organiza-tional meeting in New York, NY, to develop a standard on lockout/tagout. NSC was as the initial secretariat and provided a draft document, “Guidelines for a Lockout Program” (November 1971) that the committee used as a reference for deliberations.
By the end of 1975, the standard development work was complete, and public review and balloting were finished. However, various admin-istrative and procedural problems precluded the standard from being released officially.
In March 1982, Z244.1 American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources—Minimum Safety Requirements was approved and pub-lished. In 1987, the standard was reaf-firmed without any changes in content.
In April 1988, OSHA released a proposed rule, 29 CFR 1910.147, The Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout), which used ANSI Z244.1 as a principal reference source that became a final rule in September 1989. Again in 1992, the ANSI standard was reaffirmed without change. ASSE became secretariat of the Z244 Lockout/Tagout Committee in 2003. The standard was revised in 2003 and was reaffirmed without technical change in 2008.
Z359 StandardS Project
In 1985, the Z359 Standard for Fall Protection Equipment project was initiated. In 1998, ASSE became the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for Fall Protection Equipment within ISO. Shortly after Z359.1, Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components, was approved in 1993, initiatives were established for three subcommittees to work on other phases of the project.
Around this time, the Society recognized the valu-able role it could play in standards activity. The Society expanded its standards development staff, who urged that ASSE establish other projects within the overall Z359 project. The original Z359.1 was approved in 1992, reaffirmed in 1999 and revised in 2007.
Eventually, these projects evolved into the ANSI/ASSE Z359 Fall Protection Code, a series of voluntary national consensus standards to protect general industry
workers from fall hazards. A second version of the code was released in 2009. See the “Current Z359 Projects” sidebar for ongoing projects.
Z390 StandardS Project
In 1992, the Z390 Hydrogen Sulfide Training standards project was initiated. First approved on May 26, 1995, the standard has been translated into Spanish for training pur-poses in Mexico and South American countries. It has also been translated into Chinese as part of ASSE’s global ini-
tiative to expand its standards outreach. A reaffirmed version of the standard was released in 2010.
Z490 StandardS Project
The Z490 Best Practices for SH&E Training project began as a result of a proposal to create a third-party accreditation to certify the quality of SH&E training programs. The first step toward developing such quality training was the creation of an ANSI project, which was approved in 1997. After organizing the full committee of 40 members, the first meeting was held on April 1, 1998, and the standard itself was approved on July 2, 2001.
Upon approval, Z490 Committee officers were asked to present to the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health and inform it of the various issues covered by the standard, which would then be available to OSHA to fill a potential standard need. While OSHA has not incorporated Z490.1, an agency in the U.S. Homeland Security Department has done so in its regulations. And as required by ANSI procedures, the first revision was developed, balloted and approved in 2009, thus keeping these effective best practices current.
Z590 StandardS Project
The Z590 Safety Professional Competency Standards Project was established in January 1998. The Society identified a need for an ANSI standards project, along with other related initiatives, to promote the SH&E pro-fession through national consensus standards. While the Z590.1 draft standard, Criteria for Establishing Levels of Competence in Certification in the Safety Profession, has met some resistance, its future looks bright.
For example, Z590.2, Scope and Function of the Professional Safety Position, was approved. For profes-sional consultants involved in litigation, this standard is an excellent reference to the often-asked question, “What does a safety professional do?”
10The Compass www.asse.org 2013
Frank L. BurgJeff CamplinChris GatesJ. Terrence GrisimTimothy HealeyTerry KetchumPatricia ReedPeggy Ross
Standards Development
Committee Members
11The Compass www.asse.org 2013
A third standard in this series, Z590.3, Prevention Through Design: Guidelines for Addressing Occupational Hazards and Risks in Design and Redesign Processes, was approved in 2011.
Z88, Z9 & Z10 StandardS
In 2012, ASSE acquired the Z88 (Respiratory Protection), Z9 (Ventilation Systems) and Z10 (Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems) from the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
u.S. tag on fall Protection: firSt entry into international StandardS arena
The U.S. TAG consists of more than 20 entities with an interest in fall protection, including governmental
agencies, fall arrest systems users, professional societies representing safety professionals, fall arrest equipment manufacturers and employers of those who use the equip-ment. ANSI accredited the U.S. TAG on Fall Protection in October 1999 with ASSE designated as the TAG administrator. The official vote on such standards is cast by ANSI, which is the U.S. voting representative to ISO.
u.S. tag on riSk ManageMent
ASSE also is U.S. TAG to the ISO Technical Management Board Working Group (ISO/TMB/RM) on Risk Management. Voting ISO countries approved the creation during 2003-04. U.S. TAG for Risk Management uses a consensus process to advise ANSI of how the U.S. should vote and comment to ISO (ANSI is
John Alderman, NFPA 101, Industrial, Storage and Special Occupancies (High rises)Shane Ashby, NFPA 99, Healthcare FacilitiesDavid Bondor, NFPA 101, Detention & correctional OccupanciesWayne Brannan, NFPA 99, Healthcare FacilitiesDavid Brayton, A10, construction SafetyThomas F. Bresnahan, NFPA 170, Signs & SymbolsRichard Casey, Z87, Eye & Face ProtectionBob Coffey, NFPA 472, HazMat response PersonnelDave Crowley, Z15, Motor Vehicle Fleet SafetySam Dannaway, NFPA 101, HealthcareSteven DiPilla, NFPA 101, Means of EgressDavid Dodge, Z244, Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources; NFPA 101, Merchant/Business Tom Fleming, Z136, LasersPaul Frantz, Z390, Hydrogen Sulfide Safety Training; Z535, Signs, Symbols & colors Carl Griffith, Z359, Fall Protection EquipmentHarold Grossman, NFPA 30, Flammable & combustible Liquids Technical committee on OperationsNeal Growney, O1, Woodworking EquipmentEd Grund, Z117, confined SpacesJubal Hammernik, Z359, Fall Protection EquipmentRichard Harley, Z88, respiratory ProtectionJack Hirschmann, Z87, Eye & Face Protection
ASSE Members Representing ASSE on ANSI, NFPA & ISO Standards Committees
the voting organization for the U.S.) and develops the ISO 31000 series of risk management standards.
anSi/aSSe/iSo riSk ManageMent StandardS
ASSE helped develop three risk management standards intended to streamline best practices for SH&E professionals work-ing in the risk management and insurance industry. They received final ANSI approval in 2011:
•ANSI/ASSE/ISO Guide 73 (Z690.1-2011) Vocabulary for Risk Management (identical national adoption of ISO Guide 73:2009);
•ANSI/ASSE/ISO 31000 (Z690.2-2011) Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines (identical national adoption of ISO 31000:2009);
•ANSI/ASSE/IEC/ISO 31010 (Z690.3-2011) Risk Assessment Techniques (identical national adoption of ISO/IEC 31010:2009).
the future of aSSe StandardS activity
ASSE’s standards development and advocacy are a key mission. Through its Standards Development Committee (SDC), the Society seeks new areas where standards can con-tribute to and enhance safety and risk manage-ment. These enhancements include the way standards are sold and distributed.
Included in this distribution approach is the increas-ing move toward electronic delivery of standards on new devices that require more sophisticated delivery applica-tions. As the world has become more technology centered, so has the standards industry. A decade ago, standards were not even sold electronically; now more than 70% sold are in electronic format. To better serve its members, the Society, through its SDC, will continue to explore bet-ter electronic delivery platforms for its members.
The SDC, in conjunction with ASSE Government Affairs group, has met with OSHA to urge the agency to adopt more ANSI voluntary standards instead of the tradi-tional standards development process. The goal is to help OSHA enhance its ability to enact necessary standards thanks to ANSI requirements, this would help ensure that these standards are updated on a regular basis. Initial problems encountered with this approach have been the legal restrictions OSHA has on its standards development process and the possibility that such standards would need to be provided to the public for no charge.
ASSE’s mission for the next 100 years will include sig-nificant standards development work as an intrinsic part of the Society’s advancement of the SH&E profession. For a complete list of ASSE standards, click here. •
12The Compass www.asse.org 2013
•ANSI Essential Requirements
•ASSE Position Statement on Consensus Standards
•Official Memorandum of Understanding Between OSHA & ANSI
•Safeguarding: Are ANSI Standards Really Voluntary?
•What Is the Difference Between an OSHA Rule & an ANSI Standard?
Resources
Thomas F. BresnahanFrank L. BurgWayne C. ChristensenChris GatesJ. Terrence GrisimTimothy HealeyC. Gary LopezLarry OldendorfRobert PottsJohn Rabovsky
AcknowledgmentsThanks to the following
individuals for contributingto this article:
Patricia reed, cSP, received the Management Practice Specialty’s (MPS) Safety Professional
of the Year award at Safety 2013. reed is MPS’s Publication coordinator. She has assisted MPS for several years with membership development and special projects, and she has also served as a liai-son with the common interest groups. She works directly with new and existing authors to provide quality content to The Compass, works on col-laborative content with other practice specialties and ensures that all articles align with MPS’s goals. She has also helped improve the accu-racy and completeness of the MPS website. Her continuous contributions to ASSE are cherished. reed has also made profound contributions to the field of safety through her work at National Oilwell Varco. We are honored to acknowledge her as one of our best and brightest.
A good safety management system is an integral component of any organization that wants to manage risks. In fact, most organizations, whether small, large, local or global, have some sort of safety management system in
place. In some instances, the system is not necessarily practiced but at least safety is discussed.
This article explores and provides some analysis on the topic, “Safety: Facilitator or Deterrent?” Having worked for many years in safety and having seen the practice or lack of safety in many organizations, I won-dered whether safety should be a facilitator or a deter-rent, whether safety is seen as a facilitator or deterrent and whether safety is administered in a manner to be a facilitator or a deterrent, especially when business targets are taken into consideration.
Every organization is exposed to risks of various magnitudes, and these risks must be adequately man-aged. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work outlines that occupational safety and health
(OSH) is good for business and is a legal and social obligation. The agency states that OSH:
•helps demonstrate that a business is socially responsible;
•protects and enhances brand image and brand value;
•helps maximize worker pro-ductivity;
•enhances employee commit-ment to the business;
•builds a more competent, healthier workforce;
•reduces business costs and disruption;
•enables enterprises to meet customers’ OSH expecta-tions;
•encourages the workforce to remain longer.Similarly, OHSAS 18001 indicates that safety and
health in the workplace:•is a moral responsibility;•reduces criminal and civil liability;•manages insurance costs;•improves morale.According to International Civil Aviation
Organization Standards and Recommended Practices, safety management is a systematic application of specific technical and managerial skills to identify and control hazards and related risks. By identifying, assessing and eliminating or controlling safety-related hazards and risks, acceptable levels of safety will be achieved.
A safety management system’s key objective is to control risks and to reduce losses to an organization. Hence, an organization needs to adopt an integrated approach and to ensure that safety is a part of all ele-ments in the organization’s business structure.
Several questions must be asked in relation to a safety management system’s objectives:
1) Why would companies not invest in critical safety resources?
2) Why would companies pay lip service to safety and at times circumvent the process, thereby exposing themselves to significant risks?
3) Why would companies compromise safety to meet production targets?
4) Why is the value of safety not inculcated through leadership commitment in some companies?
While it may not be possible to fully answer these questions, they outline a significant gap between benefits and what actually exists in some organizations as far as safety management is concerned.
In some cases, the focus is skewed to safety compli-ance with little thought given to the potential for adverse effects on business objectives, worker disenchantment and elements of impracticality. Most times, this is dem-onstrated by safety professionals who do not understand the specific risks or do not analyze them to determine what level of treatment or control is required to ensure business continuity. This can be viewed as an indictment on safety professionals who must see themselves as both consultants and “resultants” to the organization, provid-ing the necessary technical expertise and guidance in enabling organizations to meet objectives.
As a facilitator, safety must enable organizations to meet profitability objectives, reduce losses, increase pro-ductivity, improve morale, improve corporate image, etc. If the process of safety is designed to slow productivity, reduce morale, induce fear, etc., then safety is a deterrent.
rISK manaGemenT By MaRRington MCDonalD, CsP
Safety: Facilitator or Deterrent?
14The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The European Agency for Safety
and Health at Work outlines that
occupational safety and health (OSH) is
good for business and is a legal and social obligation.
All factors here depend on organizational culture and practices, even outside of objectives. An organization must recognize that risks should be controlled to a toler-able level and should not necessarily be eliminated. The moment an organization starts to think about eliminating risks is the moment it runs the risk of shutting down.
concluSion
A balanced approach is essential for a safety manage-ment system to be effective and successful. An organiza-tion’s leadership must recognize that safety is essential, incorporate safety in the business model and demonstrate this through a values-based approach. Safety practitio-ners must understand the risks and their role as collabo-rators, facilitators and consultants and must be able to guide the process of safety integration to ensure effective risk management and business continuity. •
Marrington McDonald, CSP, is a safety coordinator at Alumina Partners of Jamaica.
The beginning of July marked the start of a new pro-gram year for the Management Practice Specialty (MPS). A new program year brings new volunteers,
new ideas and a fresh perspective to the way MPS does business as governed by the Society. My involvement with ASSE’s Gulf Coast Chapter has decreased as I have become more active on a Society level, volunteering as MPS Publication Coordinator. I am also the Vice Chair of the Blacks in Safety Engineering common inter-est group (CIG) and serve on the Women in Safety Engineering CIG Advisory Committee. I was also recently appointed as a member of ASSE’s Standards Development Committee. I can attest that the more you get involved in ASSE, the more you get out of it.
If you have thought about volunteering with ASSE but did not know where to start or what opportunities were available, look no further. MPS is seeking an executive secretary and an awards and honors chair. If you are interested in volunteering and want more information, please visit www.asse.org/ps/volunteers. Anyone who is a current member of ASSE and MPS can vol-unteer on our Advisory Committee. For those newer to ASSE or to ASSE’s volunteer groups, rest assured that the other volunteers and staff contacts will help ease you into volunteering.
If volunteering is not your thing or you are not sure if you have time to commit yet and you want to contrib-ute through member feedback or an article submission,
please contact me. We would love to hear from you, and we value your input. •Patricia Reed, CSP, is senior global health, safety and environmental man-ager with National Oilwell Varco. She was previously employed with Champion Technologies for 8 years, Nalco Energy Services for 4 years and Westinghouse Environmental Management Co. of Ohio (WEMCO-Fernald). Reed is a profession-al member of ASSE and previously held elected and appointed positions within the Gulf Coast Chapter as the chapter president, vice president of communica-tions, vice president of member services, secretary, hospitality chair and ASP/CSP exam prep review chair. She also previously served on the House of Delegates Credentials Committee. Reed holds a B.S. in Chemistry from Norfolk State University and an M.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Tufts University.
By PatRiCia ReeD, CsP
If you have thought about volunteering with ASSE but did not know where to start or what opportunities were available, look no further.
Volunteering Has Its Rewards
Best of the Best
congratulations to James E. Leemann for his article, “Practical Drift as It relates to Safety.” This article was one
of 17 selected for inclusion in the 2012-13 Best of the Best publication. Click here to view this compilation of top techni-cal material. Visit www.asse.org/ps for more information on the groups represented in this publication.
Experimentation and innovation are essential ingredients in an effective approach to envi-ronmental health and safety. Do not withdraw from this approach out of fear of failure. Fail but learn from it.
Failure is ugly. Regardless of failure’s severity, it is an unbecoming feeling that can linger for moments or for years. Those who are considered perfectionists may experience failure in greater doses and on a continual basis while effortlessly attempting the next task with little regard to the past. Others not so driven to perfection may experience failure less often but with much less propen-sity to recover and reenlist in the journey for success.
SH&E professionals carry the burden of many depart-ments and with that comes much responsibility. With it
also comes a tendency to take others’ failures personally. In many situa-tions, failure may be completely out of our control. What we can control is our predetermined approach to how we will fail and how we will learn from it. Simply dusting off oneself seems like a noble approach to being knocked down in the fight for success; however, considering the specific ele-ments leading to that particular failure can make the difference in avoiding a future repeat. More specifically, steps can be taken to ensure that even seri-ous failure results in success.
McGrath (2011) says, “Be quick about it—fail fast.” By operating in a constant state of certainty and con-trol, we can minimize our losses as opposed to blindly forcing an outcome that will only fail bigger the further it is pushed. McGrath also suggests failing cheaply as opposed to throwing large amounts of money and resources at an initiative that seems promising. Despite positive market research, high barriers to entry for com-petitors, test product success and minimal startup cost, an experiment can be rolled out on a smaller scale.
For some organizations, a failed venture of several hundred thousand dollars is a valuable experiment if it means preventing a multimillion dollar loss because of not doing one’s homework. The Flip Video camera is a case in point. Purchased by Cisco for $590 million, only to be shut down just 2 years later, it proved to be an expensive experiment.
failure in Safety
Safety professionals in every industry face these types of decisions on a daily basis, especially in an uncertain environment where safety is not or has yet to be an inte-gral part of the organizational culture. It is tempting to approach projects, experiments and new safety programs with enthusiasm and to hope that others will embrace our efforts. Sometimes when those programs fail, we are tempted to completely abandon the program and to try an entirely new program or approach, never to again revisit the previous failure.
Failure can be difficult to deal with, and we naturally tend to minimize the experience as a whole. One failure I personally experienced was an attempt to initiate a new employee orientation video in our initial safety orientation process. This was an attempt to warn employees of haz-ards until I was able to arrive on site to personally train new employees in their native language, which sometimes took days or weeks because of their geographic location. This turned out to be a difficult task, as I later learned.
The challenges included motivating partial-English-speaking supervisors to show a 15-minute video to their partial-English-speaking laborers regarding general construction site safety. Another challenge was that the jobsites were in remote areas with no trailers, offices, televisions, laptops or facilities for video viewing. Other challenges included subzero temperatures, 40+ mph winds, deep snow and extremely muddy conditions that limited mobility and caused operational delays. These delays made it even more difficult to make time for safe-ty training because of schedules already being behind and overburdened. The technology involved in supervi-sor training was also a challenge because many supervi-sors were computer illiterate. These obstacles, coupled with a reluctance to take time to creatively accommo-
leSSonS learned By CaMeRon ClaRk
Epic Fail: It Is OK... Sometimes
In many situations, failure may be
completely out of our control. What we can control is
our predetermined approach to how we will fail and how we
will learn from it.
16The Compass www.asse.org 2013
date the presentation of an orientation video, made my attempt to immediately orient employees difficult, if not impossible, until my arrival. Then I was the one facing the cold, wind, snow and mud.
This small but necessary component of my com-prehensive safety program was ineffective and failing. Many safety professionals find themselves in similar circumstances, which can be frustrating in their efforts to train and protect others. My reaction was not to com-pletely abandon this method of initial training, but to refocus and rethink a new approach using what I had learned from this ongoing failure. Many factors exist now that may not exist in the future, which could lead to success in this effort. Different geographic areas, super-visors and executive support to champion experimental programs could make a difference in the future. Timing is everything, and my timing was inappropriate for what I was attempting. However, in the future and under dif-ferent circumstances, this might be a viable option to revisit. It is important to remember that failure at one point in time does not mean that it must be sealed in the history books. A second attempt of a similar failure could result in success due to the environment, small readjustments and refinements, and previous lessons learned. Do not fully commit to a previously failed ini-tiative without first conducting a small experiment.
failure anatoMy
How does failure occur? One way is to operate based on a superiority complex or with the attitude of being “born of hubris” in which one believes s/he is invincible to failure. Optimism is essential in overcoming barriers and obstacles, but too much can leave one vulnerable to myopia and pride. Overoptimism is the tendency to believe that we are less likely than others to experience negative events. Overoptimism can help businesses and individuals flourish and advance against losing odds. It can also lead people to believe it to be unnecessary to plan for the unexpected (Ucbasaran, et al., 2011).
While most of us shoot for the stars in our day-to-day duties, avert mistakes in hopes of maximizing efficiency and avoid failure at all costs, we all, from time to time, experience failure. The manner in which we respond to failure is of greater importance than the will to avoid it. A sense of overoptimism can be our greatest weakness because we begin to deny that failure is even an option, and in many cases, this is a huge misconception. It leads us to believe that we are above failure and that no unfortu-nate events will occur in our personal or professional lives.
Furthermore, overoptimism is preceded by the belief that failure is bad, that it should be hidden, is shameful and should be forgotten. This belief could not be further from the truth of how important failure is and what kind of lasting impact it can have in our continuous efforts to develop ourselves to not avoid failure, but to channel failure in a way that will prevent future catastrophes.
reflection on failure
In light of many current financial and political fail-ures, top leadership consultants suggest taking many unconventional approaches to failure—one that will not make failure a habit but takes traditional failure from just another loss to an intelligent analysis of “what went wrong.” This requires leadership to tolerate a degree of failure, especially in complex systems with interdepart-mental dependency, to draw from the experience. Failing is something that everyone experiences in one shape or form, but the ability to learn from failure separates good failure from bad failure.
Umair Haque describes effective failing in his Harvard Business Review blog, Fail Bigger Cheaper, which focuses on the idea that failing effectively is dif-ficult—something that many “fail to do correctly.” He introduces the idea of “failing to fail, thus, learn.” While the concept of failing to fail may seem counterintuitive, it can make perfect sense in the context that so many organizations or people experience so many large-scale successes that they have forgotten or are completely oblivious to the idea of failing. Failure, even in the most insignificant fashion, seems like an incomprehensible and devastating result. This mindset is exactly what lures organizations into a perceived sense of invincibility where failure, while seemingly unlikely, is not an option. Leaders must adopt a strategy of pursuing success while simultaneously anticipating failure. They must also con-sider unexpected threats, such as economic downturns, disruptive innovation from competitors, the exodus of a key player, a shift in customer preferences or catastroph-ic systemic failure. This will help leaders strategize methods of evasion while maintaining focus on steps to realize success. Otherwise, a blind pursuit of success will eventually not only result in failure, but will result in the failure to effectively respond to failure.
Conversely, another common pitfall of organizations is the idea of failing to analyze successes as if they were fail-ures. Some organizations may go to the extreme in their analysis of failure, all the while neglecting the analysis of their successes. Consider the following ideal: success is the result of hard work, good planning and a winning strat-egy that is aligned with operations. It is that simple, right?
Wrong. Ignorantly viewing successes through overly optimistic glasses can lead to blindness of why a suc-cess actually occurred. Leaders tend to think that success happened as a result of their keen skills or those of their teams. In reality, successes can occur through various means, such as good fortune, luck or the failure of a com-petitor (Gino & Pisano, 2011). Grouping truly earned success and accidental success together causes leadership to become ignorant to the cause of the two similar results acquired through vastly different means.
Success is good no matter how you look at it. Success is also something to which all organizations and indi-viduals aspire. It should be pursued and maintained at almost any cost or sacrifice. However, for success to be
17The Compass www.asse.org 2013
continuous and not a short-term, one-time event, it must be analyzed with appropriate adjustments in strategies to ensure its longevity. “Nothing suc-ceeds for long without considerable effort and constant vigilance” (Kanter, 2011). A culture that promotes the analysis of success will benefit by determining exactly why things went well. Analyzing successes can not
only help replicate that particular strategy, but it can help distinguish success’s root cause. Is it because of a com-petitor’s failure, a stroke of good luck or an outstanding strategy or competency?
Failure, in many cases, comes in the form of acci-dents, incidents, near misses and damage to property. One common theme that safety professionals encounter are minor accidents that are unreported until they can no longer be hidden. Others are simply underreported, and the true severity of the accident is withheld or concealed. Reasons for this may be out of fear of retribution, the need to conceal a personal or physical weakness or an honest attempt to protect the company from costly or seemingly unnecessary medical-related expenses. The result of these incidents represents a breakdown in the system of reporting and treatment. Consequently, minor accidents turn into major expenses because of the failure to report them, which also makes higher indirect costs (e.g. replacement, rework, rehire, loss time). A common fact in the world of safety is that the indirect costs of an injury can far exceed the direct costs because of their prolonged effect, depth and breadth of influence.
Employees fail to work safely in a variety of ways and for many reasons. They fail to follow safety guide-lines, take shortcuts, execute tasks in a hurry, forget to wear PPE, do not ask for assistance when in doubt or act as they have been trained to do. One way to take failures in safety to the extreme and to exacerbate an already unfortunate circumstance is to underreport or not report an accident or incident.
For example, reporting accidents, incidents and near misses can benefit the entire organization in many ways: 1) it provides a means by which other facilities may avoid a future reccurence; 2) it helps everyone under-stand if a procedure is not working; 3) it exposes weak-nesses in the system, equipment or training; 4) it aids in early detection of future costly medical expenses; and 5) it is a feedback medium by which we can gauge the trust and confidence we have with our employees. The simple act of reporting an injury can help effectively minimize an already failed attempt to operate safely. An effective safety-specific goal would be to communicate to employees that failure in the form of not reporting accidents is unacceptable and that the anticipation of failure and learning from failure are as critical, if not more critical, than learning from our successes.
avoiding Safety failure
The safety profession is still a new and misunderstood concept in the typical organizational model. One way that organizations fail in safety is by failing to properly manage their newly hired safety professionals. Have you ever worked for a place where you were the first safety professional? Or where a dedicated safety professional has been absent or severely ineffective for a long time? Or where previous safety people have failed at commu-nicating their needs?
These are common scenarios in which SH&E profes-sionals find themselves at one point or another through-out their careers. When compared to other functions of an organization, safety had little to no identity up until the latter part of the 20th century. Given the field’s infancy, failure is bound to occur during this period where safety professionals must train their organiza-tions to consider “safety” a key to sustainability. Just as companies and industries must train their safety people to interact accordingly, safety professionals must train their organizations to operate under the guidance of their safety professionals so they can become an integral part of the organization.
Safety and health professionals who must constantly guide their organizations toward legal compliance may seem unrealistic, overbearing and demanding, but many organizations do not know how to manage safety professionals. They are unfa-miliar with industry standards and how to interpret them because safety has not been a priority or a dedicated safety professional has never been read-ily available. Some are unsure how to bridge operations with safety and offer little to no guidance on how to do so. Others are oblivious to the ongoing needs for safety training, industry and legal updates, financial require-ments to gain and maintain compliance, the return on investment that safety provides the entire organization and efforts neces-sary to maintain an effective health and safety program. These concepts may seem obvious at all levels of a typical company, however, in some places, safety is still a new and unexplored frontier where SH&E professionals must train and prepare their organiza-tions to avoid safety failure.
18The Compass www.asse.org 2013
One way that organizations fail in
safety is by failing to properly manage
their newly hired safety professionals.
How do SH&E professionals fail? The following is a nonexhaustive but typical list of five common examples of how SH&E professionals fail and what can be done to do recover successfully.
1) Overextending. SH&E professionals must realize that sometimes a safety initiative can take weeks, months or years to take effect. Taking on too much at once can be catastrophic because nothing happens overnight, and the larger the organization, the more time it may need to gain momentum. How much safety exposure the organization has can dictate its timeliness in comply-ing with the safety professional’s recommendations. Organizations are complex with multiple departments, geographic areas and subcultures. Many things are out of our control, and we must act accordingly. By taking on too much at once and overextending, we run the risk of trying to achieve much and accomplishing nothing. Most in upper management would prefer that we find balance in what we attempt and acquire just a few small wins. This is progress. Building on small quick wins can set a standard of success over which we can press forward with medium, large and extra-large wins in the future.
2) Aiming too high and expecting perfection. Hoping that employees will instantly comply with every
regulation resulting in zero accidents or incidents is setting oneself up for failure. Excellence can be
achieved through hard work and sound princi-ples, but “zero anything” will result in “hidden
everything.” Expecting that, in the begin-ning of a new initiative, some accidents
and incidents will occur is a healthy and realistic way to approach
safety, accurately measure the safety program’s effec-
tiveness and coach and mentor those need-
ing improvement. Legal compli-
ance, from all levels of
the orga-nization,
as well as safe work
habits from work-ers, can take time.
Longstanding habits are difficult to change quickly. 3) Abandoning, hiding
or forgetting previous failures. Can you afford to fail and learn
nothing from the experience? Everyone will eventually have programs and goals
that go unmet and underaccomplished. Failed attempts must be remembered and leveraged
appropriately because there is great value in fail-ure. Failure in safety can be a costly experience on
all levels, so think of failure as one of the best learning tools available. Learning from others’ failures is valuable so as to not commit the same failure, but learning from your own failures can be priceless. Analyze and revisit each failure as if its reinsertion may be appropriate or necessary at a later date because what did not work then might work later. Otherwise, failures truly are failures and nothing more if they are simply abandoned and for-gotten.
4) Losing safety champions. Some SH&E profes-sionals, especially when newly hired, find themselves fighting an uphill battle in gathering safety champions. Safety champions are those who are not internal SH&E professionals but are big supporters of your causes. They want to see you succeed and will stand up for safety. Ask people from other departments about previ-ous safety program items and about the previous safety professional. There is nothing wrong with asking others about your predecessor’s performance or personality. A confident and professional approach will draw honest information from people who will help you avoid a simi-lar approach and will adjust your strategy.
However, many safety professionals fall into “safety authority,” which draws a defensive response from oth-ers. By approaching safety initiatives through a coopera-tive and collaborative effort, we can win people over and depend on them for future support. When a safety enemy has been made or resistance is perceived, we can with-draw and let the issue rest. A knee-jerk reaction from a resistor is a valuable sign that can help avert future encounters with other people of similar demeanor.
5) Not positioning safety in the organization with vision. The SH&E professional’s background and reason for studying, applying and practicing safety will dictate how passionately s/he positions safety. Safety must have meaning, not just for the SH&E professional, but for everyone it serves. For upper management, safety must be positioned as a function that serves the entire organi-zation on a financial and competitive level. By applying safety principles to operations and sales, revenue will increase and will shed a positive light on safety by help-ing win the support of top decision-makers. Safety can cooperate with other functions thus creating more value to involved parties. If a dollar figure can be assigned to safety, others will benefit as well, which allows safety to be accepted by others on a more macro level. Using vision to position safety as a key player to all will strengthen its influence.
failure reSPonSe
How does an organization respond to failure? A carefully calculated navigation of a particular failure is necessary and with that a series of critical steps and questions must be considered. First, leadership must set the example that some forms of failure are acceptable to discuss and will not lead to personal or departmental reprimand. People who have failed at anything in the workplace most likely feel remorse, embarrassment,
19The Compass www.asse.org 2013
shame and guilt, and would do anything in their power to reverse whatever damage may have been done. Think of a time that you failed at work by making the most trivial mistake. Forgetting to follow up with someone, underpreparing for a meeting or issuing a message that is misinterpreted or undervalued are examples of failures.
These failures are easily corrected, but leadership’s role in that corrective action can be pivotal in promoting the future correction of their own as well as others’ fail-ures. The forgiving and promotion of failure acceptance and correction require that leaders take an introspective approach. They must look at themselves to set a standard that others can follow, which begins by taking personal responsibility and owning up to their own failures. Leaders who are secure enough to address their organi-zation’s failures as well as their own will be surprised by the confidence they can win from their followers. This confidence won by others can foster an environment rich in interpersonal tolerance, which can help everyone accept failure as a method of future, and potentially per-manent, improvement.
Few employees are happy to follow a leader who operates in denial of his/her own failures or who pun-ishes, ignores or rebukes the failures of others. Long is the list of failures that employees may compile about their leaders and their work habits. However, short is the list of failures that leaders actually own up to and discuss. Leaders can be more effective by realizing that employees who come in confidence to admit or discuss their own failures can help leaders lead. Employees usu-ally have a hard time dealing with their own failures, especially those employees who consistently exhibit excellence. They may be seeking forgiveness, develop-ment and mentoring to help to avoid a repeat and may seek their leader’s empathy by offering ways they have personally learned from failure.
Leaders must act appropriately by taking this rare opportunity to win an employee’s confidence by helping transform failure into long-term success. Not only may one employee be inspired by such an unconventional encounter, but his/her coworkers may also be motivated in the same way to make failure a learning opportunity, not an event to be forgotten.
In conclusion, by realizing the value in failure, we are almost as likely to benefit from it as we are from success granted that we: 1) accept failure, 2) identify the causes and 3) execute an effective analysis of it. Failure can carry with it a not-so-obvious face of success.
NASA has long been a target for lessons in the why, how and what of failure in management, technology and organizational behavior. The Apollo program, famed for its successes of virtually every kind, was plagued with early failures in the form of delays, property damage, technological failure and loss of life—on the launch pad. Look at the events around the Apollo 13 space mission. While this mission was a complete failure in its attempt
to execute a moon landing, it returned three astronauts to earth safely. This particular mission will forever be known in the space community as “the successful failure.” Furthermore, attempting to fail intentionally solely for educational purposes or to prove a point is ill-advised. Anticipating failure, foreseeing its potential long-term impact and preparing for a full recovery and future prevention are highly recommended. Also, perfor-mance under pressure—the ability to maintain compo-sure, learn, adapt and persevere—is what separates the winners from the losers (Kanter, 2011). •
referenceS
Gino, F. & Pisano, G.P. (2011, Apr.). Why leaders do not learn from successes. Harvard Business Review, 68-74.
McGrath, R.G. (2011, Apr.). Failing by design. Harvard Business Review, 77-83
Kanter, R.M. (2011, Apr.). Cultivate a culture of con-fidence. Harvard Business Review, 34.
Ucbasran, D., Westhead, P. & Wright, M. (2011, Apr.). Why serial entrepreneurs do not learn from fail-ure. Harvard Business Review, 26.Cameron Clark works as a safety engineer at EchoStar Broadcasting Corp. in Cheyenne, WY. He has approximately 10 years’ safety/construction experience and holds many industry-recognized certifications as well as a master’s degree in organiza-tional development. Clark also has more than 10 years’ Spanish translation experience in all forms.
20The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The Industrial Hygiene Practice Specialty (IHPS) began in 1998. IHPS seeks to strengthen ASSE
through an extensive IH knowledge base, expand relationships with other IH associations, such as AIHA, and work to advance occupational health and safety in the workplace. IHPS diligently addresses hot topics related to industrial hygiene and is an invaluable resource for technical con-tent related to this discipline.
IHPS is led by a volunteer advisory commit-tee with experience and expertise in this area of safety. IHPS contributes technical content to ASSE and the SH&E profession through its publication, The Monitor, research, virtual events and confer-ence sessions. IHPS is open to all ASSE members.
To join this popular practice specialty, visit www.asse.org/JoinGroups. connect with IHPS at www.asse.org/ps/ih and on LinkedIn.
Safety 2013 struck me as one of the better confer-ences because of the passion for the profession. It was contagious, from attendees to speakers. I do not recall a more passionate presentation by Ed
Foulke as I did during Session 660, and I walked away feeling even more invigorated.
Among all this was one unpleasant event where the actions of a single individual made me ask if the purpose was to serve people or person. I believe he thought he was doing something right, but his misdirection made him stand out.
After the House of Delegates meeting, a fellow del-egate mentioned some volunteers were needed to help with ASSE’s Greet Team. I offered to help and soon received a yellow lanyard with a big yellow button that identified me as a Greet Team member. My first assign-ment was to greet people coming down from the sky-walk or from the exposition after the opening ceremony and near the start of the first session.
I stood at the base of the escalator coming down from the skywalk to direct traffic. As I looked up, I noticed a woman coming down the left steps and carrying a large box. The center steps were not occupied, and only a few people were on the right ascending steps. I was about to
ask the woman if she needed help with the box when a man who had traveled only a few feet down the escalator appeared to lose his footing. It seemed as though his knee gave out and he fell forward, striking his forehead on the step where the impact caused him to twist on his back and slide headfirst down the escalator.
The sound was horrendous; he slid down on his back with his head striking every step, and the impact of his back on each step forced a compression groan as in exhaling. He was quickly catching up to the woman with the box. I rushed to the stop button on the front of the escalator, flipped open the cover and waited about 10 seconds until he was near the comb-way before I shut down the escalator. Stopping it any sooner would have caused the woman to fall forward, and by getting the injured man to the flat bottom, it would be easier for the medics to access and treat him.
As a former emergency medical technician, I began to move toward him, but two people identified themselves as trained and came to help. I made sure at least three people called 9-1-1. A woman ran to meet the medics at the front doors, while another rushed for the onsite medics and security. We were doing crowd control when security arrived—and then he showed up.
He was on the far ascending escalator when the incident happened and had rushed down the center steps to push his way through the crowd to talk directly to the guard. Another guard had shown up and was helping control the crowd. About that time, a woman who was on the phone with 9-1-1 ran to the front doors to direct the medics.
During this time, the man was focused on telling authorities he saw it all, even to the point that he caused the guard to move away from his duties so he could get a statement from the man. Everyone else was helping the injured man or staying out of the way—that is why I say this man stood out.
I was close enough to hear his rendition, and although he probably had the best intentions by coming forward to tell the authorities what had happened, I asked myself
InCIdenT reSponSe By BRuCe a. BRown PH.D, CsP, oHst
Passion for People or Person?
22The Compass www.asse.org 2013
The lone man loudly proclaiming his
importance as an eyewitness stood
out like a sore thumb, almost as if he cared more
for person than for people.
23The Compass www.asse.org 2013
if we saw the same incident. I approached the guard and the man and stated, “Excuse me, I was standing looking up at him and...” The guard cut me off and told me to stand back and clear the area. He continued to listen to the man and to take notes, while another guard asked me to step back further.
I informed the medic that it appeared the injured man did not lose consciousness but seemed to hit the back of his head hard enough that he might have a spinal injury. When I stepped back, the man stood right behind me and explained how he saw the incident and had told the guards they needed to check the escalator, shut it down and conduct a full inspection. When I said that was not necessary and that the escalator did not cause the man to fall, he told me how experienced he was and that if it were up to him, he would conduct an inspection. I chose not to argue. The injured man returned to the conference on Wednesday with a few sutures but was doing well.
As an educator, this is a teaching moment. We always put people first. All of my colleagues have done that for years, and I applaud those who came to help the injured man. It shows me we have not lost that basic value.
I was trained in accident investigation at a police academy where I was the only safety professional in the class. I have investigated many accidents and incidents over the past 40 years as both a primary and as a special assistant, mostly for motorcycle fatalities. I have taught accident investigation to graduate safety students, and one truth I bring out in my classes is this: “Do not trust the police officer who arrives at the scene and tells you s/he has seen this before and proceeds to say what hap-pened without gathering any evidence first.”
From that point on, all evidence will be massaged to support the police officer’s initial findings and even eyewitness statements. Statements should verify and validate facts. Do not discard facts because they do not validate statements.
I cannot disclose the facts of the incident because of privacy acts, but the eyewitness statement was invalid. When the right intent is there, witnesses should come forward. However, their statements should be presented in the context of what was seen and should not be an assumption of what happened, presented as facts. Had the guard taken the man’s observations plus those of the woman carrying the box and mine as I saw the incident happen, then a thorough investigation with cause and contributing factors could be accomplished.
With all of those who came forward to help a man down and who did so without regard to self or to acknowledgement of their actions, the lone man loudly proclaiming his importance as an eyewitness stood out like a sore thumb, almost as if he cared more for person than for people.
I briefed ASSE staff on what happened and explained that the convention center guards’ report of the incident probably was not correct.
The outcome of this incident was good and lends itself as a teaching opportunity. Let me not forget to say ASSE staff and the conference were exceptional and the passion for safety was everywhere. We truly are an orga-nization caring for people. •Bruce A. Brown Ph.D, CSP, OHST, has more than 30 years’ experience in the SH&E field in areas, including construction, research and development, manufacturing, engineering and higher education. As safety and health manager at gkkworks, he is involved in the design and construction of various facilities and is responsible for ensuring that project objectives are met at each one. Brown was on the board of advisors for California Chapters of the National Safety Council, a Los Angeles executive board member and Society delegate for ASSE and team leader for the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) item-writing team that is updating the certification to represent the international market. He maintains multiple certifications and degrees. In 2012, he received BCSP’s CSP Award of Excellence. Brown has spoken domestically and internationally and has published many techni-cal papers. He has taught graduate and undergraduate courses in Safety Management, System Safety, Quantitative Methods in Safety, Accident Investigation Analysis, Risk Communications and Violence in the Workplace.
Virtual ClassroomUpcoming Live Webinars
(11:00 am-12:30 pm Central)
Oct. 9, 2013 — Safety Program Maturity: A Self Diagnostic
Oct. 23-25, 2013 — Influencing the C-Suite: Next- Level Leadership for the Safety Executive
Leonardo Alaniz, Keppel AmFELSStephanie Altis-Gurnari, Chubb Group Insurance Juan Aragonez, Genentech Olufemi Awolusi William Bates, S-Con Nick Belfield, GavilonFrank Bowen, Knowledge Grid John Bowen, Timken Gears & Services Cecelia Brookshire, Johnson ControlsPaula Brown, Ravago Manufacturing AmericasRobert Bulger, NANA Development Corp.Rodney Burch, Expro Americas Uma Chand, E&J Gallo WinerySherry Clark, MC Electronics Greg Creel, GD USA Inc.Steven Davis, Chrysler Group Summer Davis, Nestle ProfessionalMichael Doss, Colonial Metals Melissa Dunham, Newkirk ElectricMike Escobedo Akpan Etim, BCS Protective ServicesRobert Evangelisti, Robert Evangelisti LLCDrake Evans, Key Risk InsuranceJohn Forrester, Leprino FoodsDaniel Gahlman, Diversified Insurance ServicesThomas Gaul, Unified Employer Solutions Tiffany Gholston, ABB Jonathan Gobble, GKN DrivelineDrew Golley, CrewSafeRoss Grayson, Eco Logical NetworkMalek Hamdieh Jason Haritos, John Deere Turf CareA. Harrelson, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Steven Hemingway, SodexoUlises Hernandez, Granite Services International William Higgins, Duke EnergySharon Hill, Rhodia Inc.John Hooker, Dakota Gasification Co.
Douglas Howard, Georgia-PacificHeather Hunter, Augusta Staffing AssociatesMichael Hunter, GEO Specialty ChemicalsDaniel Johnson, Tiller Corp.Jeff Jones, Kraft FoodsMitchell Kemp, Cummins Denise Kennedy, Piedmont Natural GasAmy Klapprott, Air Liquide IndustrialShelly Koeck, J.J. Keller & AssociatesWilliam Kuehl, NGS Salt River ProjectMelissa Lilienthal, Emerson Process Management Rosemount Linda Lombardi, Clarcor Air Filtration ProductsKrisha Marker, MM Safety Inc.Terry Mathis, ProAct Safety John Mavros, Predictive SolutionsEdward Mazurkiewicz, U.S. Steel Corporate Safety PittsburghScott McHenry, AlsideSteven McLaughlin, E.I. DuPontJeanne Nash, SupervaluMichael Nisser, Kern County Dept. of Human ServicesMatthew Omoaholo Sabas Orona Antonio Pacheco, Pacheco Brothers Paul Ed Pack, Dana Holding Corp.Pramod Palat, Cummins Fernell Patterson, MARTAAlexander Pawlowski, Pepsico North American BeveragesRebecca Pederson, Claims Admin ServicesKimberly Petersen, Henkel Corp.John Petersen, EDPR Joshua Petty, D&H United Pump SupplyLeslie Pichery, Kuwait Oil Co.Robert Posa, Allison Transmission Bradley Prais, TECO Westinghouse Motor
James Price, Raytheon Donald Rankin, StatoilChristopher Ratcliffe, Pittsburg Tank & TowerMichael Ray, Shaw Industries Steven Redicker, CumminsJoyce Reiland, Herbalife William Reynolds, Prime TherapeuticsCameron Reynolds, IngredionKenneth Reynolds, Kellogg’sJonathan Robertson, Deluxe Corp.Peg Robinette, Rich Products Pamela Roe, Mundy Cos.Michael Rousch, McFarlane Manufacturing Co.Kregg Salvino, Sabert Corp.Matt Saxe, Boise Inc.Terry Schulte, NuStar Energy Megan Shores-Todaro, WBE Walls & Ceilings Marcus Slaughter, Dawn Foods ProductsMegan Smith, Schnitzer Steel Industries Steven Smith, The Ross GroupRichard Starling, Bag Craft Paper Corp.Kengo Takahashi, Trench Shoring Co.Lance Tinney, Dyno NobelBrandon Viars, KSV GroupAndrea Warner, Chevron Phillips Chemical Co.Grant Watson, NASA Langley Research CenterHenry Weber, Boise Paper HoldingsRoger Weber, Airgas CarbonicJeffery Wilke, Alter TradingZainab Zubair, Chevron Nigeria •
Welcome New Members
24The Compass www.asse.org 2013
Thanks to all Management Practice Specialty (MPS) members and welcome to these new members. MPS now has nearly 2,100 members. If you have any colleagues who might be inter-ested in joining MPS, please direct them to www.asse.org/
