How brave leaders keep people safer in tough economic times

Paper-chain of people holding hands

It’s easy to feel blinkered by financial troubles during this period of economic uncertainty. As downsizing and rationalisation dominate headlines, job security fears can distract your attention at the expense of safety.

“When money’s tight, management focus on survival. Staff numbers are cut and those left behind have to work harder. When you’re more focused on worries like ‘will my job even exist tomorrow?’ than doing your job safely – that’s when accidents happen.”

John Ormond, founder of JOMC, pioneered a new approach to behavioural safety at ICI after a bleak 1980s recession. He successfully championed innovative safety engagement and leadership techniques that challenged conventional attitudes to safety. Put simply in his own words “it’s all about talking to people.”

Despite the media’s sensational portrayal of these turbulent times, history proves that we’ve survived economic depressions before. And triumph over adversity offers you valuable lessons.

John refined his approach over the last 20 years against a background of continual manufacturing decline. Factory closures and downsizing were made even worse by periodic recession. That’s when things got really tough:

“When people feel threatened it destroys morale, relationships and communication – all the things you need to grow strong values and beliefs about safety.”

Uncertainty breeds fear

A dismal economic climate makes for hostile work conditions. It erodes relationships between management and workers, makes leaders anxious and shifts focus firmly to the bottom line.

Safety stops being a priority and it’s wrongly seen as just another cost to cut. That’s when people get hurt, not just physically but mentally, with health put at risk from overwork.

Worse still, people go into denial and refuse to confront difficult situations. It’s a grim outlook that reminds John of a sad experience at a pharmaceutical company who wanted to safely close down their factory:

“I asked management to show clear leadership from the front. But relationships had deteriorated so badly that managers refused to take part for fear of reprisals from the workforce.”

Bravery in the face of adversity

John insists that it’s even more important to keep a high value on safety, even when you make tough decisions with unpleasant consequences like plant closures and job losses:

“You need to get ahead of the game and understand the direct impact an economic downturn has on the safety of your workforce.”

The way to handle these grave situations is to calmly accept reality and engage your workforce in planning.

“In spite of fear, you need to talk frankly and sympathetically to people and say ‘yes, your job isn’t safe, but we still don’t want you to get injured’ … That calls for strong leadership from people at the top who don’t panic.”

Through open conversation, you help people stay focused on what they’re doing. That means better concentration, less risk-taking shortcuts and fewer accidents.

Empathy through engagement

John explains how it works with an example from a plastics manufacturer who needed his help while they wound down their UK operations:

“There was no alternative to factory closure. So we organised team meetings with a director in every one to show commitment and we asked people about their hopes and fears. Above all the workforce just wanted to be able to discuss their individual problems.

We asked them where serious accidents might happen… and together we devised a plan to keep people safe: they set their own zero-accident vision.

People felt engaged through SUSA safety discussions and support was mutual between workmates and management. The underlying message was ‘we’re all human beings, we can help each other.’”

Their shared vision was a success and in the final twelve months of factory life no one was seriously hurt.

By showing concern for individuals you acknowledge how they feel. And listening to people proves that they’re not just unit costs and that you still care. That goes a long way to comfort and reassure people. John likens it to any other type of relationship:

“You have to talk and listen. If you speak every day with someone, chances are your relationship will prosper. But if you shy away when times get rough, it breaks down. Trust goes and they feel like you don’t care.”

People are bound to feel threatened and fearful if everything they’ve worked for and hold dear is at risk, whatever their rank. But through brave leadership and honest engagement we acknowledge our fears of financial insecurity. And together we shift our focus back to more immediate risks and your shared responsibility to keep each other safe.

“Managers who lead like this are rewarded not just with a safe workforce but a successful business. Because engagement is what it says: not just about health and safety but about how we weld our wonderful people into a successful fighting force. Together we have the strength of giants.”

This article was written by Chris Kenworthy

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

5 tips for better behavioural cultural measurement

Whether you should measure workplace behaviour to promote a strong safety culture tends to be a bit of a Marmite question.

Some people tell me that they hate the idea. They believe that measuring behaviour can actually destroy culture as it creates a target-driven focus that distracts from the sense of engagement that you’re trying to achieve.

Some love it. They’re passionate advocates who believe long-term learning and understanding of behaviour through measurement is the only way to sustainably improve your culture.

Then there’s the misguided. People who think the only point of running a behavioural safety programme is to get information on current behaviour. I despair whenever I find this because measurement becomes the goal instead of better quality discussions to improve safety.

Measurement and understanding of behaviour is essential

An unfurled tape measure

It’s the only way to build proactive learning. Stopping accidents through learning before they happen is far more preferable than waiting for someone to be hurt before you begin improvement. So when you’re trying to improve your culture, measurement is a critical part of making your programme work in the long-run. But please do not fall into the trap of making your culture change programme only about this measurement process.

I’ve seen programmes degenerate into something that’s exclusively target-driven. All it delivers is a very demotivated and cynical workforce. Not what you want when you’re trying to drive effective engagement.

How to do it right

If done correctly you can take your measurement process beyond simply tracking behaviour. And make it into something that drives the engagement for safety that you’re looking for.

Here are my top five tips to get your behavioural and cultural measurement right:

  1. Decide what you want to measure and why: this is about achieving a vision of safety excellence so spend time defining what key behaviours you really want people to follow before you implement any system. Make sure they’re clear, easy to understand, promoted and fed back regularly on how well you’re embedding them.
  2. Use a system that involves everyone in the measurement process: I’ve seen many systems that depend on information being sent to one central person who types or scans it in for analysis. This means you miss an opportunity. Modern behavioural tracking social software like Engage encourages individuals to have more effective conversations about safety by empowering them to use it themselves to record information. The social aspect turns one-to-one conversation into a company-wide discussion.
  3. Appoint a cross-representative team to deliver regular and effective feedback: One of the biggest barriers to long-term change is the infamous measurement black-hole. Make sure your team knows how to effectively feedback what’s been learned, however good or bad. This could be spoken informally at team meetings, or presented formally in well-designed communication briefs. Whatever you do though, keep it regular and don’t make the mistake of restricting it to management meetings or leave it as an uninspiring graph on a notice board.
  4. Emphasise quality of discussion about behaviour, as well as quantity: If you focus on numbers and not quality, people become cynical and start making information up. If you only focus on quality of discussion but don’t give people a target, the frequency will be nowhere near what you need for effective change and people will eventually stop doing them. So make sure you get the balance right by giving people a sensible target but work out how to test and improve quality through clever use of your information.
  5. Drive continuous improvement process throughout the system: Help everyone involved in behavioural discussions to understand how to support continuous improvement of the system. Give them formal channels and encourage groups to meet regularly to share improvement ideas. It will keep them engaged in the process and strengthen a high-quality feedback loop. When you get the chance, go and learn from other businesses too – steal with pride!

LinkedIn icon
You can find Mark Ormond on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Behaviour, Culture, Learning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Your comments will tame the monster

David Cameron’s recent controversial reference to the health and safety monster has provoked huge debate. It’s been a topic of much discussion at IOSH and IIRSM local safety groups as well as online where I’ve seen many fascinating responses from SHE practitioners.

Very emotive stuff

The Prime Minister’s reference to the “health and safety monster” got peoples backs up and many health and safety practitioners feel that they’re being wrongly blamed for poor management decisions. The types of decisions that make for headline stories of health and safety being used as an excuse to stop activities i.e. Cameron’s “albatross around the neck of British businesses.”

A businessman wearing a monster mask

This government’s crusade to deregulate British industry may be necessary to get its wheels turning again, but the government should look to itself first as the cause of the current problem. Confused regulation and legislative framework is the product of mismanagement by successive governments, not the actions of the health and safety industry. It’s honest SHE practitioners who are trying to help businesses make sense of it all!

The real story behind the headlines

Professional bodies such as IOSH and IIRSM have in fact welcomed the reports from Lord Young and Professor Lofstedt as an opportunity to overhaul this legislative mess. And in the many meetings of theirs that I’ve attended, there’s been a level of engagement that any company would be very happy to see.

Many committee members sacrifice their free time to sit on panels and attend meetings and should be congratulated for taking on this type of reflective exercise so well. I fear that many other professions wouldn’t be as open to such scrutiny and dramatic change without an uproar. And up until David Cameron’s use of the term ‘monster’ I’d only experienced positive and proactive discussion about the way health and safety regulation could be updated and improved.

Keep it up!

So as a specialist member of the IIRSM and a supporter of health and safety forums I say keep up these open, professional discussions and engagement. Because they ensure that the outcome remains a safe working environment for all. The knowledge and experience you bring to these discussions is key in influencing the final outcome, and it’ll be lost without your engagement.

Well done and thank you to everyone who takes the time to read and comment on the various reports and articles that have been published. No matter how small your contribution, it increases knowledge and influences the discussion in the right direction.

LinkedIn icon
You can find Lizz Fields-Pattinson on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Speaking out: the upward challenge

Pawn chess pieces stood around a toppled king chess piece

I’ve just returned from a fascinating business trip to India. Following in the footsteps of a colleague, I was there to give feedback on a culture assessment of a large manufacturing facility and share my recommendations.

One significant finding in the assessment was that people found it difficult to challenge upwards. This is certainly a wider cultural aspect of Indian life that will prove hard to address in the coming years of culture change for the business.

This observation got me thinking about the wider difficulty of challenging or questioning someone in a position of authority. It’s related to how easy it is to refuse to do something on the grounds of safety.

Refusal in itself is a strong form of challenge to authority. Though in this case I generally find that people are more comfortable – perhaps because it’s less personal and there’ll often be support from a safety professional or trade union rep. But when it comes to pointing out the unsafe behaviour of an individual manager, the person raising the issue will naturally be more wary.

Why is this the case in an organisation where everyone wants the same result i.e. nobody, whoever they are, getting hurt?

Of course there may be a sense of embarrassment, perceived fear of reprisal or at least an uncertain response. This will be stronger in an organisation with a very distinct hierarchy and no history of open communication. People at junior levels are likely to feel a lack of influence too. But these obstacles can be overcome.

Here’s how:

  • Empower everyone to take real personal responsibility for their own safety and others around them
  • Keep responsibility for overcoming this situation at the senior level
  • Break down barriers and social norms – there shouldn’t be any hierarchy when it comes to keeping each other safe
  • Managers and supervisors must recognise and understand how they are perceived as role models by their employees and team members
  • Managers and supervisors must understand how they come across and recognise the huge inhibition that someone has to overcome when they speak up
  • Go out of your way to thank someone for their observation, if this behaviour is to be encouraged then it must be recognised and reinforced when it occurs

The last item needs the senior person to feel genuinely grateful that someone has been looking out for them. That doesn’t mean hiding their potential embarrassment or even annoyance (at themselves perhaps) by making some cutting, sarcastic remark.

Staff will find it much easier to speak up if they have a flexible yet structured approach to follow and if they’ve got some basic engagement skills. Everyone in an organisation must be given permission to speak up, raise issues and make genuine observations. Remember that permission is communicated by what we do much more than by what we say.

Only when the culture allows this can managers expect their staff to be watching out for them for the right reasons.

LinkedIn icon
You can find Nick Wharton on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Behaviour, Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Driven to distraction

Lizz’s recent post about our own safe and unsafe behaviour here at JOMC prompted me to put pen to paper and consider the nature of distraction. The job we do inevitably involves a lot of travel, so distractions while driving is the main point of debate but the same principles apply to any task.

Distracted is a much abused immediate cause for unsafe behaviour. The danger is that ‘I was distracted’ becomes the default position when the actual reason for the unsafe behaviour is ‘I can’t see the risk so I don’t wear my eye protection’ or ‘In fact I habitually don’t wear my eye protection’. But of course we must not lose sight of the fact that people sometimes genuinely do forget to adopt the safe behaviour and need a friendly reminder.

One outcome of this effect is that the list of immediate cause options in the JOMC Engage database has to be expanded to accommodate the question ‘distracted by what?’ in an attempt to get at the real cause.

What causes distraction?

Plainly there are the immediate distractions, the things that you know you shouldn’t be doing. Behind the wheel this includes twiddling with the CD player, reading a map or eating a Yorkie for instance. But putting these more immediate physical distractions aside, the more interesting ones are those that occupy the mind and interfere with focus on the task in hand. The list of causes fitting this category is almost endless and can take us into some fairly personal areas.

Pencil ticking boxes on a clipboardAn individual who worked for me two decades ago had shown a marked deterioration in his attendance and also in his safety performance. The reason? He was being chased by the Child Support Agency for money and he’d completely lost his focus on work in general and specifically the tasks that he was engaged with.

We’re all aware of the big three distractions: bereavement, divorce and the house-move but how do you accommodate these in your safety management system? You could have a tick box on the permit to work and ask the person if they’re experiencing any of these things before they start a task. I don’t think so.

How to uncover causes of distraction

There are two more realistic ways in which these major distractions might be revealed. If the culture allows it, the affected individual may approach his line manager and explain his situation which would allow action to accommodate the problem. It’s also not incredible that a process of 1:1 workplace discussion might reveal that someone is struggling with a major issue.

It’s not our place to pry into people’s private lives but a conversation delivered in the right tone might just reveal the real cause of unsafe behaviour rather than ‘I was distracted’. If the real cause is a personal issue this requires extremely sensitive handling and involves the SUSA coach persuading the individual to seek support or raise the issue with their management but in either case the coach should offer to assist.

To summarise

  • If you ask someone why they’ve chosen an unsafe course of action and they respond with either “I was distracted” or “I forgot” you simply have to establish why this might have happened
  • Some sources of distraction are straightforward while others may be extremely personal. Often the latter won’t be revealed but if they are, then very sensitive handling is called for

LinkedIn icon
You can find Steve Beswick on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Behaviour | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How praise and involvement help you along your safety journey

Wouldn’t it be great if you could buy something that instantly prevents all accidents at work? Everyone would be safe and they could get on with their jobs.

Reality is that no safety programme can truly promise that. Because strong safety culture doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time to change attitudes and convince people that safety isn’t just another irksome target to meet.

“‘Soft, fluffy and pathetic’ – that’s what I’ve heard people call modern methods for improving safety … the same people who hide behind their clipboards.”

Red button in the 'off' position

Derek Boulton is EHS Manager at Invensys Rail whose workforce builds railway control and communication systems in hazardous track-side environments. And they’ve just achieved an impressive two million hours without a lost time injury.

Derek firmly believes that safety is a journey. One that doesn’t and shouldn’t ever end.

“The thing about praise is it reinforces safe behaviour… indirectly too, for people who see their workmates being praised. It’s an agent for change. Research proves it and we’ve seen it ourselves.”

When appropriate, a conversation that commends an individual’s safe behaviour has longer-lasting positive effects than chastising someone for an unsafe act. Because it affirms desirable behaviour then encourages more of it in the future:

“Real commitment comes from a conversation about the individual… their behaviour, the circumstances they’re in and the consequences that their individual actions might have on people they know.”

It’s professional and sympathetic conversations that gain real commitment to change. Because instead of an individual feeling told off, they feel involved and valued.

But if you’re the well-trained SUSA observer leading that conversation, there’s always a risk you might feel tied up in the process and come across like you’re reading straight from the rule book.

“It takes time to get it right”

“We use mentors, build people’s confidence first and encourage double-acts. It’s not the easiest thing to do, some people are naturals, others take a long time to get better – and that’s OK too.”

Just like your organisation’s journey of continual self-improvement, better safety engagement develops over time too. Strong safety culture can’t simply be bought off a shelf. It’s a perpetual progression that should evolve and adapt to ever-changing circumstances.

That’s a concept demonstrated by Invensys’ unending commitment to their Stop and Talk programme. It acknowledges a journey of continual improvement in safety culture with the longevity needed to support it.

Derek is pragmatic about Stop and Talk’s ambitions too:

“Behavioural safety has to go hand in hand with the physical environment being totally safe… but as you know that’s impossible.”

So if it’s not feasible for an environment and everyone in it to be completely safe, what should your goal realistically be?

“We want people to keep an eye out for their mates; that’s our ‘panacea’. Safety leaders can’t always be around to watch over them, but their mates can.”

Like praise, friends watching out for each other helps your safety message spread amongst workers on the front-line. It’s based on powerful mutual trust and sets a strong social norm for shared responsibility of safety.

“The principle is: more exposure to Stop and Talk means fewer people getting hurt.”

Good training and well-equipped staff might feel like your safety destination because it does reduce the immediate risks. But when people feel involved and deeply committed to your programme, they’ll join you for the journey and bring longer-lasting culture change for better safety.

This article was written by Chris Kenworthy

Posted in Behaviour, Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why traditional ‘behavioural safety’ is wrong

Here’s a surprising declaration: I’m not a fan of the term ‘behavioural safety’ (and it’s derivative – ‘behaviour based safety’). I’d stop short of hate because I’m a passionate believer in this area of safety and where it can get you. But I take issue with the phrase itself and what people sometimes think it actually means.

The problem with it is that ‘Behavioural safety’ has become a bit of a brand name for a certain type of safety process. It reminds me of people asking for a ‘Hoover’, when what they really mean is something to clean the floor with, or asking for an ‘iPod’, when they mean something portable to listen to music on. Whilst it’s clearly beneficial for those who sell on the strength of brand names, it doesn’t necessarily mean people really get what they need.

The reason that people are interested in behavioural safety specifically is that they’ve got to the point where they’ve spent time working on the regulatory stuff, safety systems and processes but they’re still having accidents in their organisation which is an immense source of frustration. Root cause analysis has led them to recognise that only by shifting behaviour from unsafe to safe are they going to stop hurting people. That’s why behavioural safety is the next obvious step.

Short-term and short-sighted

The traditional definition of behavioural safety is a system of behaviour identification, observation and follow-up. Which is OK, but only up to a certain point. Those of you experienced in delivering behavioural safety programmes, will recognise that you can’t deliver a real shift towards positive safe behaviour through behaviour identification, observation and follow up alone.

Colourful speech bubbles

I’ve seen some real problems in organisations exclusively focused on this behavioural observation approach. The main issue is that this approach tends to focus on jobs done at the production end of things, and the unsafe behaviour of the individuals doing those jobs. If you’re not careful, individuals feel like they’re being judged and blamed when they behave unsafely.

Recognition of some of the other factors behind unsafe workforce behaviour like management behaviour and the prevailing safety culture – are often sadly lacking. Even when the traditional approach does work in the short-term, without proper support and involvement of everyone it disintegrates quickly and leaves people with the impression of a short-lived initiative that actually takes the safety record backwards. And where there’s been union controversy around behavioural safety, I believe that poorly implemented observation systems have been the root cause.

Culture, conversations and engagement

To really change behaviour from unsafe to safe it’s about getting people properly engaged in the right safety culture (attitudes, values and beliefs of everyone in the organisation), not about just observing what they do and feeding that back to them. You must understand your organisation’s culture before you make people focus on safe behaviour. Because it’s culture that really defines what behaviours people undertake and what you need to engage with people about.

Next you create a proper culture of safety engagement through safety leadership at all levels, helping leaders (formal or otherwise) deal with the small stuff every day through effective conversations and learning. Conversations give you the ability to measure, understand and learn from behaviours in the organisation through discussion, as well as observation where appropriate. I’ve seen it many times: the more effective conversations that are held, the safer the behaviour and the better the injury record.

This isn’t the whole picture of course. There’s a lot of other things you can do to help drive for effective safety leadership and engagement, but hopefully you get the point.

I often hear people talk about the observation process that ‘defines’ behavioural safety, but for me it really does miss the whole point. Every organisation is made up of people with unique attitudes, values and beliefs. Only by truly engaging with them and creating the proper leadership to support that process will you really get the long-term safer behaviour that you need.

LinkedIn icon
You can find Mark Ormond on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Behaviour, Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Cognitive dissonance: your powerful motivator

“Do you want to get hurt while you are at work?”
“No, of course not!”

I’ve asked thousands of people this very question at hundreds of workshops and always get this same response. It’s why achieving a safe workplace is so easy; we all want the same outcome!

Of course it isn’t that simple. People might not want to have an accident, but they do want all the other perceived benefits that taking a short-cut or working unsafely can deliver: saving time, being more comfortable, fitting in with everyone else or getting recognition from the boss for having the best output results.

Most of these benefits are going to deliver more quickly and are fairly certain whereas the downside – having that accident, probably won’t happen anyway. The well debated accident triangle illustrates nicely that most of the time when we work unsafely we get away with it.

Frayed rope

Yet how do people reconcile their unsafe behaviour with the original desire to stay safe? These two conflicting thoughts give rise to an uncomfortable tension within their minds. This is known as cognitive dissonance and can be a very powerful motivator.

The degree of dissonance varies but will increase as the difference between the two thoughts gets greater; for example, as the risk from unsafe behaviour increases. Because people aren’t comfortable with the tension between these conflicting thoughts it’s natural for them to try and reduce the dissonance. They do this in a number of ways:

  • They change their behaviour (work safely)
  • They justify (unsafe) behaviour by changing their thoughts about our safety – “actually, I don’t care if I get hurt” – unlikely, but may occur in some extreme situations
  • They justify their behaviour by adding in new thoughts or beliefs – “it’s not really dangerous”, “I’m only doing it this once”, “everyone else does it this way”. Problem solved and dissonance overcome.

It’s remarkable what lengths people will go to in order to delude themselves that everything in the garden is rosy, when quite clearly it isn’t. Just think about all the arguments that people come up with about killing themselves slowly by smoking; or all the justifications for putting themselves, their families and those around them at outrageous levels of risk when driving dangerously.

When you tell someone how stupid they are to behave that way, another dissonance is set up. But this time, because it’s about their self-image it’s even more powerful. Hence the need to argue back and defend their position, or at least greatly resent the person who’s created the dissonance by pointing out the foolishness of their behaviour.

This is why you need to think carefully about how you handle unsafe behaviour and why change is much more likely to occur if the recognition of a need to change comes from within the person themselves.

If you increase personal recognition that people really could get hurt by picturing the accident occurring then you’re much more likely to achieve a change in behaviour.

LinkedIn icon
You can find Nick Wharton on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Behaviour, Psychology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Are you using near misses effectively?

This month I must thank one of my esteemed colleagues at JOMC for taking the time to fill out a near miss report and share it with the team. As usual, it was circulated by email and I had a quick read to see what happened.

Road with markings

Driving’s a very real danger for us here at JOMC. Between us we cover many hundreds of miles visiting clients around the country. So we have a clear policy on driving safely and give a lot of thought to journey planning. It wasn’t surprising to see that in the near miss report my colleague had planned to take a couple of breaks on his journey South. It was a familiar journey, one my colleague knew well. Feeling a little tired, they’d taken an unscheduled stop earlier on and this threw out his schedule of other planned stops so he decided to miss one and carry on.

After a short while he became more tired than he realised and found himself drifting between lanes. Thank goodness no other cars were around at the time or you’d be reading a much sadder tale. What it did for me was act as a real reminder of just how easy it is for tiredness to creep up on us. So on my next long journey I made a conscious decision to stop after two hours regardless of whether or not I felt tired, when I probably would have pushed on. All because my colleague had shared information from that near miss report.

This to me is the real essence of near miss reporting. Yes, the data gathered is great for showing up patterns and trends, but all too often this becomes the main focus, with the real information not being circulated to those who could really use it.

We all need reminders of just how easy it is to have an accident to keep us aware and making the right decisions.

LinkedIn icon
You can find Lizz Fields-Pattinson on LinkedIn or read more about our engagement, safety and culture change services.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Why lasting safety culture change comes from within

Let’s face it: no one looks forward to tackling unsafe behaviour with their workmates. It’s a daunting task. Particularly if you’re the person in charge of it; as Julie Pollard, behavioural safety lead trainer at Fox’s Biscuits, reveals:

“I’ve always thought of myself as outgoing and not scared of anything. But when you’re put in front of colleagues… people you work with everyday, it’s different. You wonder what they think. Your adrenaline’s going… you don’t want to mess up.”

Since 2009, Julie and six other behavioural safety trainers at Fox’s Biscuits have coached over 1200 of their workmates at two sites and brought a 69% reduction in the number of accidents.

Julie also works alongside the people she’s training, some she’s known for over 25 years. And that’s enough to throw anyone’s confidence:

“You’re nervous that they’re thinking ‘What gives you the right to tell us about safety?’”

Gain confidence

So how do you muster courage to train your workmates in the first place? Julie believes it lies in what motivates you:

“I’ll speak up if I think something’s not right, instead of just nudging someone next to you on the arm like we used to do on the production line. One day I just realised: do you know what? I like health and safety because it feels like you’re making a difference.”

Julie thinks it’s a positive attitude to safety that you should share with your workmates by training them.

“People speaking up gives you a good feeling. Like you’re making people’s lives better and safer. Instead of chalking up accidents, you’re hurting less people.”

Figure stood up in front of an audience

“What gives you the right to tell us about safety?”

Credibility is your first challenge to overcome if you want to change unsafe behaviour. And the solution lies in your approach, as Julie explains:

“You’ve got to resist the temptation to lecture people. Ask questions to get their answers instead. So it’s ‘you tell us’ not ‘us telling you’.”

When people feel involved they’ll support your cause. It’s the principle behind JOMC’s Lead Trainer course that equipped Julie with her behavioural change skills.

“You’ve got to help people realise that the answers are already in them, and give them a voice.”

So now you’ve got your workmates’ attention. And you keep it with the age-old art of story-telling:

“We share stories about people they know. It makes safety feel more relevant because it shows accidents can and have happened right here on site.”

Why it’s worth being a trainer

The first training session Julie led earned her a gold star from the assessor. And her increased confidence progressed her career at Northern Foods.

But it was congratulations from her colleagues that were the biggest reward:

“People were actually asking ‘when can we come on the course too?’”

That’s not a typical reaction to health and safety training. It’s a sign of success.

Familiarity might make you feel uncomfortable when you’re stood up in front of your workmates, but it actually works to your advantage.

That’s because your audience hears the health and safety message from ‘one of them’. Someone they believe, who really cares that none of them should get hurt.

It makes health and safety training more compelling and culture change more successful. Because like having the confidence to speak up, lasting change comes from within.

This article was written by Chris Kenworthy

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment