Employee Engagement and Commitment: The Super Bowl

of Safety

At Safety 2014 in Orlando, I asked an audience, “How many of you would like to reach
zero injuries at your company?” Every hand went up.

“Actually, folks, your real goal is NOT zero injuries,” I said. The audience stared at me in
disbelief, most of them wondering if I was out of my mind. But I’m not crazy.

Then I said, “In fact, I would ask every one of you to return home to your workplace and
destroy every sign, poster and T-shirt stating that zero injuries is your goal.”

You see, I believe that zero injuries is not the final destination in the journey to safety.
Here’s why.

First off, zero injuries was the goal on the Titanic and the Macondo Deepwater Horizon
oil drilling platform. While the goal of zero injuries was noble, it didn’t work very well
for BP and the owners of the Titanic, did it?

I believe your real target is something far higher: zero at-risk behaviors from your
workers and management team in an interdependent culture. I realize that aiming for a
target of zero at-risk behaviors is aiming for perfection; in effect, you’re trying to win the
Super Bowl of safety.

Let’s be honest. Do you think your team will ever reach perfection in safety? The answer
is no. But only when your team pursues perfection can you achieve excellence (which is
zero injuries).
Many people have been taught that zero injuries is the end of their safety journey. But in
fact, zero injuries is only the beginning of the journey. It’s a journey that will never end,
as you and your leadership team relentlessly pursue perfection, which I define as zero
at-risk behaviors.

Building a Team

Now, if you’re like most folks, you’re probably wondering how you build a team that
pursues perfection and approaches zero at-risk behaviors. How do you inspire your
team to win the Super Bowl of safety? Even harder, how do you get people doing the
right thing for safety, in the moment of choice when you’re not there watching?

The answer is that you need employee engagement at its highest form: commitment.

Not long ago, I received an email from Ann, a new HSE manager. She wrote: “It’s really
weird when I walk through the manufacturing plant. You can see people scurrying to put
their safety glasses and PPE on as they see us approach, only to remove it once we are
safely out of range. I feel like a safety cop.”

I bet you live this every day of your life as a safety professional. In fact, it plays out
exactly the same way, millions of times a day, as people modify their behavior when the
boss, the safety manager or the local police officer come into view.

As Dr. W. Edwards Deming would have said, Ann’s plant had a “perfect design” to
produce the results it got: injury hiding and a safety-cop culture. Plant personnel made
every mistake possible in their misguided attempts at behavior change.
 Three Types of Workers

When it comes to workers, every company has just three kinds: non-compliant,
compliant and committed:

 Non-compliant – “I will not follow your safety and quality rules, because I am convinced the
only way to get high production is to take risks and shortcuts.”

 Compliant – “I will follow your safety and quality procedures, as long as someone (a manager,
a supervisor or a peer observer) is watching me. But when that person leaves, I’ll take more risks
and shortcuts.”

 Committed – “I will follow the safety and quality procedures in the moment of choice, when
nobody is watching. This is who I am.”

Where do you want your culture to be?

The answer is obvious. We want every employee to be committed to safety, not merely
compliant.

Realistically, with turnover, downsizing and the stressful demands of doing more with
less, we always are going to have employees who are not committed to safety. The
message they’ve gotten from the leadership team is that production is more important
than safety.

The million-dollar question is this: How do you get your non-compliant and compliant
employees to be committed to safety, in that moment of choice when nobody is
watching?

Change Comes from the Leaders

The way to transform workers’ attitudes toward safety might be to rethink your
management style and system.
The management system of choice for 99 percent of companies today is the same one
that Ann’s plant uses, and I’ll bet it’s the one your company uses. I call it “leave
alone/zap!” I’ve used it, you’ve used it and so has everyone else in a leadership position.
It’s easy to fall into this trap.

Here’s how it happens: Have you ever walked past a group of employees doing
everything safely and said nothing to them, and then immediately said something to the
first employee doing something wrong? If you answered yes, then you’ve engaged in
leave alone/zap.

Does leave alone/zap change behavior? You bet it does. And that’s why it’s the favorite
weapon of choice for most folks.

Think about it today as you drive home, when you might be driving about 10 mph over
the speed limit, along with me and everyone else in the pack of cars. At this point, we all
are non-compliant, until we see the police officer pointing his radar gun at us.

What do you (and everyone else) do to avoid being “zapped” with a speeding ticket? You
hit the brakes. You (and the entire pack of cars) have just graduated to being compliant
with the rules that the police want you to follow, at least for a while.

How long does this shift in behavior last? About 30 seconds, and then you breathe a sigh
of relief as the police officer disappears from your rearview mirror. Whew! He almost
got you!

Now, what’s your next behavior? For most of us, we hit the gas pedal and speed back up,
and once again, we become non-compliant.

From this short example, it is clear that punishment, negative reinforcement and “leave
alone/zap” management systems fail to produce commitment, and they fail to change
worker behavior in the moment of choice, when nobody is watching.
The key is to get employees committed to safety, to do the right thing in that moment of
choice. Is the key increasing the number of safety cops and having more frequent
zaps? Many managers think so, but they are misguided. More punishment and negative
reinforcement will get you more compliance, but it won’t get you commitment.

No coach can punish a team into winning the Super Bowl. To truly get commitment
requires something that’s rarely delivered by today’s managers and leaders: workforce
engagement and positive reinforcement.

Bill Sims Jr. is the president of the Irmo, S.C.-based Bill Sims Co. and author of “Green
Beans and Ice Cream: The Definitive Recipe for Employee Engagement, Motivation
and Recognition.”

Power Lines and Cranes Are a

Very Dangerous Mix
A construction firm in Kirkland, Wash., has been cited for putting workers at risk by
operating a crane too close to high-voltage power lines.

Compass General Construction, of Kirkland, Wash., is facing a large fine for workplace
safety violations from the state’s Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) for operating a
crane too close to high-voltage power lines without taking proper safety precautions.
Workers are hurt and killed every year when cranes come in contact with power lines
and it’s a significant workplace safety issue, with very specific requirements that must be
followed.
L&I cited Compass General Construction for two willful violations, the most serious, and
one general violation. The company faces fines totaling $96,000.

The violations were discovered last May, just a few days after an L&I safety inspector
visited the job site and went over the crane operation safety requirements with the site
superintendent. At that time, there was a crane on site, but it was not near power lines.

A few days later, L&I received a referral from Seattle City Light that the crane was
operating near the power line without the required safety precautions. L&I returned to
the site and verified that the crane was operating near the power lines without a warning
line, such as highly visible flagging or caution tape to keep the crane a safe distance
away, or a dedicated spotter to alert the operator if he got too close.

As a result, Compass was cited for one willful violation for not appointing a lift director
to oversee the crane lifts and rigging crew. The company was cited for a second willful
violation for not ensuring that power-line safety requirements were met, including
having an elevated warning line a safe distance from the power lines, along with a
dedicated spotter. Each violation carries a penalty of $48,000.

Both violations are considered “willful,” because the L&I compliance officer went over
the specific requirements with the site superintendent just three days earlier

Cranes and Power Lines a Known Hazard

Last September, two workers were severely injured and nearly killed while working near
the same West Seattle power line when a high-voltage jolt of electricity traveled down a
crane’s hoist line to the men below.

The dangers of cranes and overhead power lines are well known. There were nine deaths
in Washington from crane contacts with power lines from 1999 to 2012, including a
double fatality in 2010. L&I issued an alert in 2012, warning companies of the deadly
hazard after receiving reports of six power line contacts by cranes in just six months.

Compass Placed on Severe Violator List

Along with the two willful violations for the recent incident, Compass General
Construction was cited for one general violation for not documenting that the rigging
supervisor had passed the required tests showing he was qualified.

As a result of the willful violations, Compass has been placed on the severe violator list
and will be subject to follow-up inspections to determine if the conditions still exist. The
company has appealed the violations.

Penalty money paid in connection with a citation is placed in the workers’ compensation
supplemental pension fund, helping workers and families of those who have died on the
job.

Power Lines and Cranes Are a

Very Dangerous Mix
A construction firm in Kirkland, Wash., has been cited for putting workers at risk by
operating a crane too close to high-voltage power lines.

Compass General Construction, of Kirkland, Wash., is facing a large fine for workplace
safety violations from the state’s Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) for operating a
crane too close to high-voltage power lines without taking proper safety precautions.
Workers are hurt and killed every year when cranes come in contact with power lines
and it’s a significant workplace safety issue, with very specific requirements that must be
followed.
L&I cited Compass General Construction for two willful violations, the most serious, and
one general violation. The company faces fines totaling $96,000.

The violations were discovered last May, just a few days after an L&I safety inspector
visited the job site and went over the crane operation safety requirements with the site
superintendent. At that time, there was a crane on site, but it was not near power lines.

A few days later, L&I received a referral from Seattle City Light that the crane was
operating near the power line without the required safety precautions. L&I returned to
the site and verified that the crane was operating near the power lines without a warning
line, such as highly visible flagging or caution tape to keep the crane a safe distance
away, or a dedicated spotter to alert the operator if he got too close.

As a result, Compass was cited for one willful violation for not appointing a lift director
to oversee the crane lifts and rigging crew. The company was cited for a second willful
violation for not ensuring that power-line safety requirements were met, including
having an elevated warning line a safe distance from the power lines, along with a
dedicated spotter. Each violation carries a penalty of $48,000.

Both violations are considered “willful,” because the L&I compliance officer went over
the specific requirements with the site superintendent just three days earlier

Cranes and Power Lines a Known Hazard

Last September, two workers were severely injured and nearly killed while working near
the same West Seattle power line when a high-voltage jolt of electricity traveled down a
crane’s hoist line to the men below.

The dangers of cranes and overhead power lines are well known. There were nine deaths
in Washington from crane contacts with power lines from 1999 to 2012, including a
double fatality in 2010. L&I issued an alert in 2012, warning companies of the deadly
hazard after receiving reports of six power line contacts by cranes in just six months.

Compass Placed on Severe Violator List

Along with the two willful violations for the recent incident, Compass General
Construction was cited for one general violation for not documenting that the rigging
supervisor had passed the required tests showing he was qualified.

As a result of the willful violations, Compass has been placed on the severe violator list
and will be subject to follow-up inspections to determine if the conditions still exist. The
company has appealed the violations.

Penalty money paid in connection with a citation is placed in the workers’ compensation
supplemental pension fund, helping workers and families of those who have died on the
job.

SLC 2017: Overcoming Obstacles to Achieve Safety

Excellence

If you are employed at a smaller operation - with potentially smaller resources such as little or
no EHS staff or less funding for EHS programs - you have unique challenges. Here's how one
company met some of those challenges.

Sandy Smith | Dec 05, 2017

If I say the name “Continental Mills,” you might not immediately recognize the name or
the products, because Continental Mills is a smaller, multi-site organization. You might
recognize some of their products, though: Krusteaz baking mixes, Ghirardelli Double
Chocolate Brownie Mix or Buck Wild snack chips probably ring a bell. The company has
over 800 employees at four locations across the country: Washington, Kansas, Illinois
and Kentucky.

“Smaller operations have unique challenges to achieving safety excellence, mainly in the
amount of EHS professional resources available,” said Bob Toohey, CSP, senior manager
of EHS for Continental Mills. “Yet, the responsibility to create a zero-loss environment
still exists, and OSHA requirements for compliance are no less applicable.”

Toohey partnered with Paul English, area safety manager for CMC Steel Texas, to talk
about “Overcoming Obstacles to Achieve Safety Excellence” at the Safety Leadership
Conference 2017 in Atlanta. Toohey shared his experience in helping smaller, multi-site
organizations effectively manage risk and achieve safety excellence with limited
professional EHS resources.

Toohey said safety takes two, parallel tracks at the company: long-term safety
management and daily safety management.

The first track examines safety incidents and injuries, said Toohey, who noted that
“[incidents] happen when we fail to manage safety programs.” The second track, said
Toohey, focuses on “How do we manage safe daily work?”

In his presentation, Toohey quoted John Heily, owner and CEO of Continental Mills,
who said: “Creating a safe environment is management’s way of saying they care.”

Toohey called his safety philosophy “The Power of Zero and 100:” Creating a zero-harm
work environment while achieving – or perhaps because of achieving – 100 percent
employee involvement and engagement. To maximize limited EHS resources for world-
class results, Toohey made these suggestions:
 Establish EHS roles and responsibilities.

 Include EHS objectives in employee performance management.

 Conduct regular internal EHS systems audits that drive continuous improvement. As part of
that, determine ways to improve EHS skills and foster knowledge development among
employees.

Toohey suggested attendees “get organized” for EHS success. “The days of the safety guy
or gal are gone,” he said. Safety goes much wider than a single person or a single
department. There should be written EHS roles and responsibilities at every level of the
organization, suggested Toohey, from the senior vice president of operations to hourly
support personnel.

In addition, EHS performance should be part of the overall performance management

goals for each employee. That means specific EHS objectives included in employees’
annual goals that are tied into any bonuses, just like production or quality goals.

Because of limited resources, it takes a village to have excellent safety performance,

according to Toohey. He achieves it by engaging members of the safety committee,
safety coordinators at the facilities, safety program leads and teams and EHS program
sponsors, who manage safety challenges like lockout/tagout, confined space, hazcom,
electrical safety, etc., and who are part of site leadership. As part of the aspect of daily
safe work, these program sponsors conduct JHA’s and risk predictions, work area
inspections and behavior audits. “They’re not just counting injuries,” said Toohey. “They
are looking for ways to improve performance.”

The site safety coordinator and the EHS program sponsors report directly to the site
managers, so everyone is kept up-to-date on safety performance.

This attention to detail and responsiveness to safety challenges is paying off at

Continental Mills. In 2007-2008, the company had a total incident rate (TIR) that was
average for its industry and higher than the company wanted. The safety sponsor model
was introduced in 2009, and Toohey noted that started a fairly precipitous drop in the
TIR. In recent years, the company’s TIR rate is less than half of the industry rate and
since 2015, has dipped into what Toohey referred to as “best in class.”

“By involving all leadership and employees in specific EHS responsibilities, the
organization grew towards a zero-harm culture,” said Toohey.

(The second presentation in this session – “Using Critical Thinking Skills

to Be a Better Safety Professional” with Paul English, CSP, area safety
manager at CMC Steel Texas – is available in a special webinar
presentation. Just click on the link in the presentation title to register and
view

SLC 2017 :Who Owns Safety?

To create an effective safety culture, everyone must take personal ownership of safety.

EHS Today Staff | Nov 29, 2017

Do we treat something differently if we own it? According to Terry Mathis, CEO of

ProAct Safety, and keynote speaker at the SLC 2017 Conference currently underway in
Atlanta, the answer is a resounding yes.

Mathias asked the audience if their workers feel a sense of pride in how they maintain
safe working conditions or are they content to leave their section in less than ideal
conditions as the end of the shift?

Digging further he posed the question that when you ask workers who is in charge of
safety do they point to a leader or to they point to themselves?
Ownership of safety needs to reside in each associate and be an integral part of the
culture, Mathis explained. The principles of ownership are possession, stewardship, and
control. Do employees feel they possess the tools and knowledge to be able to implement
a safety strategy? Are they held accountable and can they work in an environment that is
free of micromanagement?

“I don’t think we are teaching associates principles,” said Mathis. “We are teaching them
rules and procedures to follow and this is very limiting.”

What management is missing is a leadership style that empowers associate. “You

manage things, but you lead people,” Mathis says. He used the example of the shepherd
who leads the flocks as opposed to the sheepdog that stays at the back of the flock and
bites the heels of the sheep.

To attain the ideal leadership style, Matis says companies need to move from being

Safety and Performance Excellence: Criticizing BBS

Some critics of behavior-based safety remind me of the designer of the Titanic. They will go
down with the ship before they make any design modifications.

Terry L. Mathis | Dec 13, 2017

The earliest versions of behavioral safety processes still are around today with too few
changes. Some processes that have changed missed a few critical issues in their design.
There remain popular misconceptions and limited views of what behavior-based safety
(BBS) is and is not. Regardless of the current state of BBS, a discussion is needed on
what BBS should and should not be.
It is not a complete safety process. When a site starts BBS, they should not stop what
they already are doing in safety. BBS should be used to fill the gap between traditional
safety and safety excellence. It is not a tool to address process safety and high-
probability risks, although some try to use it that way. The critics who cite examples of
fatalities at BBS sites fail to realize it was traditional safety, not BBS, that failed.

BBS should be used to address the low-probability risks that tend to get missed in rules
and procedures, but continue to cause accidents despite traditional safety’s best efforts.
Attempting to address traditional safety issues with BBS not only is unrealistic, it also
puts observers in potential conflicts of interest. If BBS is a coaching tool designed to
strengthen safety culture, but observers also are charged with enforcing the rules that
might lead to punishment, they may be viewed as safety cops rather than as friendly co-
workers trying to build a safer culture.

It is not right for every site. Like almost any safety initiative, BBS only is useful during
certain periods of progression toward safety excellence. Some sites are not yet ready and
some already have progressed beyond the point at which BBS could help them move to
the next level.

Some sites have accidents resulting largely from rule and procedural violations and
others have accidents mostly caused by conditional or design issues. These sites likely
will not benefit from BBS. A careful assessment should be performed to determine if
remaining accidents can be behaviorally prevented and if site safety culture is ready to
support and benefit from such an initiative.

It should not be a blame-the-worker process. Many confuse behaviorally-preventable

accidents with behaviorally-caused accidents. Safety processes too often have focused on
root cause rather than elegant solutions for prevention. The fact a worker can take a
precaution to prevent an accident automatically does not infer that had the worker not
taken the precaution, he or she would have caused an accident. Defensive driving long
has been accepted as a way for the innocent to protect themselves from the less careful.
This thinking has not transferred to other safety issues with the same level of
acceptance.

It should not ignore conditional or cultural influences on behavior. Early BBS processes
were based on the ABC Analysis model of reinforcement. The model is okay, but
application of it was limited to a worker giving feedback to another worker and
assuming verbal feedback alone was enough to change workplace behaviors.

A number of recent studies and several business books have touted the idea that people
do things for a reason and failing to address the influences on behavior can lead to
failure to change that behavior. Many BBS approaches continue to prescribe a
confrontational style of feedback in which workers challenge those they observe to
change behaviors rather than discovering the influences on their current behaviors.
Correcting this problem proved to be as simple as training observers to ask “why?”
rather than attack their fellow workers. Doing so provided not only a better model for
feedback, one that built stronger relationships and culture, but a source of data to
understand conditional and other issues that influence workplace behaviors.

Software further aides assimilating this data into actionable insight into what is needed
in the workplace to shape desired behavior. No more must we rely on feedback alone to
change behavior, but we can develop – through observation data – a deep
understanding of the influences on behavior such as conditions, design issues, location
of tools and equipment and common practices. Changing influences is the best way to
change behavior; not just for the person observed, but for every future worker who does
that job in that workspace.

There is not just one way to do it. Many of the critics of BBS only have been exposed to
one particular methodology and have not even considered alternatives. Almost all of the
potential problems at a given site can be addressed by using another methodology to
accomplish the same purpose. Every behavioral checklist should be specific to the site,
as even similar sites in the same organization may (and usually do) differ. There is no
one right size steering team or committee, no perfect number of observers or
observations, no one perfect software program to manage observation data and no
perfect number of action plans coming from the data.

Every aspect of the process should be flexible and the entire range of options should be
considered, then narrowed down to a specific plan. Even then, the plan should be
flexible and adjustable as the process progresses and the site undergoes normal or
abnormal changes. The best way to do BBS is not one specific way or another; the best
way is the way that best fits the site. Yet, still many methods try to make the site fit their
specific methodology. Doing so not only compromises effectiveness but significantly
diminishes the site’s ability to make the process sustainable.

Most BBS critics actually are criticizing their own specific methodology and singular
paradigm. All safety is about conditions, behaviors and combinations of these and the
issues that influence them. Ignoring a tool that can help address not only the behavioral
side of safety but also identify conditions influencing them while also forming a stronger
safety culture should not be abandoned because of misconceptions or flaws in one of
many ways to apply it.

Terry Mathis, founder and CEO of ProAct Safety, has served as a consultant and
advisor for top organizations the world over. A respected strategist and thought leader
in the industry, Mathis has authored five books, numerous articles and blogs. EHS
Today named him one of the “50 People Who Most Influenced EHS” four consecutive
times. Mathis can be reached at info@proactsafety.com or 800-395-1347.
 Safety 2017: The 7 Cs of Success

Tom Morris, published author, philosopher and professor, spoke to ASSE

Safety 2017 attendees about what mindsets are needed to achieve
success.

Stefanie Valentic | Jun 20, 2017

A smile never left the face of Tom Morris as he energetically

spoke to the general session audience at Safety 2017 in Denver.

Aptly nicknamed, “World’s Happiest Philosopher,” Morris drew on

personal experiences as well as those of his friends to
demonstrate the 7 Cs of Success. The key elements in the mantra
are needed to meet and exceed any goals in life, he told
attendees.

The 7 Cs involve both inner and external mindsets and skillsets

a person must realize in order to move forward and obtain
success. They include:

1. A clear conception of what we want, a vivid vision, a goal clearly

imagined.

“If we don’t see clearly, we can’t take advantage of things we

can control,” Morris told the audience.

Morris provided the two greatest pieces of advice he discovered

that lead to the necessity of a clear conception. One piece,
 “knowing thyself,” has appeared in biblical context and has been
mentioned by various philosophers throughout history.

In addition, a person must allow what is very good to keep

him/her from achieving the best.

“Have the inner desire to always be ready for what is next,” he

said.

2. A strong confidence that we can attain the goal.

Evidence of the past does not guarantee future success. There

are two types of confidence a person must have. Once a person
decides or has a clear vision of what he/she wants to do or
achieve, they must take the first steps or have the initial
confidence.

“Bring it – don’t look for it, and don’t expect circumstances to

deliver it,” Morris said.

Once the ball is in motion, a person needs to have resilient

confidence and be persistent on their journey no matter what
obstacles they face.

3. A focused concentration on what it takes to reach the goal.

A person should not take on everything at once or in random

order but rather be calculated in his/her actions.

“You must divide then conquer from the start to get to that
goal,” he said.
4. A stubborn consistency in pursuing our vision.

Actions and words must start together, Morris cautioned. He

likened this to an old Chinese philosophy that water is stronger
than rock. As water flow downstream and through rocks, it always
finds a path to move forward. If it gets cold, water becomes
ice, likewise, vapor if it is hot.

“In times of change, we need to be able to adapt, but we should

never change the core of who we are,” he said.

5. An emotional commitment to the importance of what we’re doing.

Morris, a professor at University of Norte Dame, cited his

experience teaching football players at the school, particularly
the 1988 championship team. A record number of students failed
his first exam of the session. Over time, Morris worked with the
players to get excited about learning philosophy. Eventually,
the team began to incorporate lessons learned into their
football strategy.

“You must appeal to emotional commitment and the passion to move

change,” he said.

6. A good character to guide us and keep us on a proper course.

Napoleon Bonaparte was talented and knew how to persuade the

masses. However, he also was a liar, a cheat and untrustworthy,
which led to his demise, Morris said. Not having a good
character will negate any persuasion or salesmanship a person
might have.
 In order to master persuasion and salesmanship, Aristotle noted
three things a person must have : logos (logic), pathos
(passion) and ethos (character).

7. A capacity to enjoy the process along the way.

“The Greeks said to enjoy thyself,” he said. “It makes the whole
process a lot easier.”

SLC 2017 :Who Owns Safety?

To create an effective safety culture, everyone must take personal

ownership of safety.

EHS Today Staff | Nov 29, 2017

Do we treat something differently if we own it? According to

Terry Mathis, CEO of ProAct Safety, and keynote speaker at the
SLC 2017 Conference currently underway in Atlanta, the answer is
a resounding yes.

Mathias asked the audience if their workers feel a sense of

pride in how they maintain safe working conditions or are they
content to leave their section in less than ideal conditions as
the end of the shift?

Digging further he posed the question that when you ask workers
who is in charge of safety do they point to a leader or to they
point to themselves?
Ownership of safety needs to reside in each associate and be an
integral part of the culture, Mathis explained. The principles
of ownership are possession, stewardship, and control. Do
employees feel they possess the tools and knowledge to be able
to implement a safety strategy? Are they held accountable and
can they work in an environment that is free of micromanagement?

“I don’t think we are teaching associates principles,” said

Mathis. “We are teaching them rules and procedures to follow and
this is very limiting.”

What management is missing is a leadership style that empowers

associate. “You manage things, but you lead people,” Mathis
says. He used the example of the shepherd who leads the flocks
as opposed to the sheepdog that stays at the back of the flock
and bites the heels of the sheep.

To attain the ideal leadership style, Matis says companies need

to move from being COPS to COACHES. He defines cops as C
(catching) O (opportunities to) P (punish). Punishment is a
stopping tool, not a tool to improve behavior, Mathia points
out. Punishment signals to associates that you really don’t
trust them.

While the C (create) O (ownership) A (and) C (change) H

(happens.) methods allow managers to work with associates and
asking them to help discover solutions.

A good coaching modeling is comprised of three basic actions –

focus, facilitate and feedback.
Companies are trying to solve too many problems and in fact
don’t move the mountain forward this way, says Mathis. They
instead need to focus on a few safety improvements. But the
focus needs to be based on a clear understanding of where the
problems are. He cited an example of a company focusing on
getting associates steel-toes shoes, but that wasn’t directly
tied to the safety problems they were having.

Facilitating is working with associates and asking the reason

behind certain actions. Often associates find workarounds that
are more complicated and inefficient than addressing the problem
at its root cause.

And feedback should include both negative and positive comments.

Mathias shared the case of an associate who had been with the
company for 27 years and when asked what could be improved
replied she would have liked to heard when she was right. In all
of her years she only heard what she did wrong.

The key to improvement for safety managers is to view their role

as a coach. “Many safety teams do not have a strategy, Mathias
says. "hey throw programs out to the workforce that are
confusing and often conflicting. But a roadmap, o

SLC 2017: Six Leading Indicators to World-Class Safety

[Photo Gallery]

Stefanie Valentic | Nov 30, 2017

START SLIDESHOW ›
Companies with the lowest rates of recordable injuries had six leading
indicators in their safety programs.

Values vary person-to-person, but the vast majority of society

still holds certain characteristics, morals and actions in
common.

One such value all of society shares is the act of putting

clothes on and how a person is dressed. People don't think about
whether or not they should put a shirt on when they wake up in
the morning. They inherently know society values clothing and
don't give it a second thought. This is how safety should be
treated, said Steve Wiltshire, safety director at Associated
Builders and Contractors (ABC).
"Safety needs to be a value, not a priority," he said.

Wiltshire told attendees in the Construction Track at EHS Today's

Safety Leadership Conference in Atlanta about why lagging
indicators are a thing of the past. Safety professionals and
leaders should be focused on leading indicators to reduce their
TRIR and DART rates.

The top-performing companies in ABC, rated using the

organization's Safety Training Evaluation Process (STEP)
benchmarking tool, all shared the same six commonalities in
their safety programs. Click through the slideshow to view them
and learn how much injury rates were used with successful
implementation of those six initiatives.