Hardwired Inhibitions: Hidden Forces that Keep Us Silent in the Face of Disaster

Employees’ willingness and ability to stop unsafe operations is one of the most critical parts of any safety management system, and here’s why: Safety managers cannot be everywhere at once.  They cannot write rules for every possible situation.  They cannot engineer the environment to remove every possible risk, and when the big events occur, it is usually because of a complex and unexpected interaction of many different elements in the work environment.  In many cases, employees working at the front line are not only the first line of defense, they are quite possibly the most important line of defense against these emergent hazards. Our 2010 study of safety interventions found that employees intervene in only about 39% of the unsafe operations that they recognize while at work.  In other words, employees’ silence is a critical gap in safety management systems, and it is a gap that needs to be honestly explored and resolved.

An initial effort to resolve this problem - Stop Work Authority - has been beneficial, but it is insufficient.  In fact, 97% of the people who participated in the 2010 study said that their company has given them the authority to stop unsafe operations.  Stop Work Authority’s value is in assuring employees that they will not be formally punished for insubordination or slowing productivity.  While fear of formal retaliation inhibits intervention, there are other, perhaps more significant forces that keep people silent.

Some might assume that the real issue is that employees lack sufficient motivation to speak up.  This belief is unfortunately common among leadership, represented in a common refrain - “We communicated that it is their responsibility to intervene in unsafe operations; but they still don’t do it.  They just don’t take it seriously.”  Contrary to this common belief, we have spoken one-on-one with thousands of frontline employees and nearly all of them, regardless of industry, culture, age or other demographic category, genuinely believe that they have the fundamental, moral responsibility to watch out for and help to protect their coworkers.  Employees’ silence is not simply a matter of poor motivation.

At the heart this issue is the “context effect.”  What employees think about, remember and care about at any given moment is heavily influenced by the specific context in which they find themselves.  People literally see the world differently from one moment to the next as a result of the social, physical, mental and emotional factors that are most salient at the time.  The key question becomes, “What factors in employees’ production contexts play the most significant role in inhibiting intervention?”  While there are many, and they vary from one company to the next, I would like to introduce four common factors in employees’ production contexts:

THE UNIT BIAS

Think about a time when you were focused on something and realized that you should stop to deal with a different, more significant problem, but decided to stick with the original task anyway?  That is the unit bias.  It is a distortion in the way we view reality.  In the moment, we perceive that completing the task at hand is more important than it really is, and so we end up putting off things that, outside of the moment, we would recognize as far more important.  Now imagine that an employee is focused on a task and sees a coworker doing something unsafe.  “I’ll get to it in a minute,” he thinks to himself.

BYSTANDER EFFECT

This is a a well documented phenomenon, whereby we are much less likely to intervene or help others when we are in a group.  In fact, the more people there are, the less likely we are to be the ones who speak up.

DEFERENCE TO AUTHORITY

When we are around people with more authority than us, we are much less likely to be the ones who take initiative to deal with a safety issue.  We refrain from doing what we believe we should, because we subtly perceive such action to be the responsibility of the “leader.”  It is a deeply-embedded and often non-conscious aversion to insubordination: When a non-routine decision needs to be made, it is to be made by the person with the highest position power.

PRODUCTION PRESSURE 

When we are under pressure to produce something in a limited amount of time, it does more than make us feel rushed.  It literally changes the way we perceive our own surroundings.  Things that might otherwise be perceived as risks that need to be stopped are either not noticed at all or are perceived as insignificant compared to the importance of getting things done. In addition to these four, there are other forces in employees’ production contexts that inhibit them when they should speak up.  If we're are going to get people to speak up more often, we need to move beyond “Stop Work Authority” and get over the assumption that motivating them will be enough.  We need to help employees understand what is inhibiting them in the moment, and then give them the skills to overcome these inhibitors so that they can do what they already believe is right - speak up to keep people safe.

4 Feedback Pitfalls Every Manager Should Avoid

Giving feedback to employees is critical for improvement to occur, but effective feedback involves avoiding these four pitfalls.

1. Avoiding feedback all together or waiting too long to give it

Research has demonstrated that feedback that follows immediately after the action will have the biggest impact on the behavior. Immediate negative feedback will weaken unwanted behavior and immediate positive feedback will strengthen behavior. But don't let not being able to give immediate feedback keep you from giving it at all. Later is still better than not-at-all!

2. Over-or under-boarding

Have you ever seen a manager call someone up in front of a group for some success and go on-and-on about the success, totally embarrassing the recipient of the praise? That is what we call "over-boarding" and it should be avoided because the praise actually becomes punishing and has an effect opposite of that which is desired. On the other hand, failing to provide enough feedback for significant success can lead to reduced motivation in the future. For example, you just saved the company $2 million and the boss, in private says, "Hey, thanks." Make it appropriate to the level of success.

3. Blaming the employee for a failure

Blame rarely fixes anything; it usually only de-motivates. Focus on finding the real reason for a failure and fix that. Blame may be quick and satisfying, but it is not effective.

4. Punishing in public

No one likes being "made an example of" or humiliated in front of their peers. Such humiliation leads to "getting even" and employees can be very creative when getting even ... like work slow-downs, fake injuries, bad-mouthing the boss behind his back, or talking bad about the company to potential customers. Negative feedback should always be given in private. There are instances when a witness will be present, but the witness should not be a coworker of the person receiving feedback.

Consequence Predictability and Results

Have you ever worked for someone whose reactions were unpredictable? One day they were giving positive feedback for success and the next day they were dressing you down for the same results? How did/would that make you feel? What impact would that have on your desire to achieve good results? For most of us the lack of predictability would create a reduction in motivation to succeed and show initiative. Research has shown that lack of predictability of consequences increases stress and that increased stress, beyond a certain point, reduces the ability of individuals to perform. When we know what to expect, we are less stressed and more likely to put out the effort required for success. Although we might not appreciate a “knit-picking” boss, we can live with it (for a while), if we know that it is his/her style and it is predictable. We all prefer working for someone who provides consistent positive feedback for success and consistent input (redirection) on how to be more successful when we fail.

It is always better to hold people accountable for their results in a predictable and consistent manner. As always, we recommend fair evaluation of results followed by consistent/predictable positive feedback for success and consistent/predictable redirection of actions that have led to failure.

By the way, parents, this goes for your children, too. They need to know that they can expect appropriate, consistent and predictable consequences when they succeed and when they fail.

Don't Throw Them Under the Bus

This month’s “Best Boss” characteristics are being a problem solver and a team builder.  Best Bosses  often exemplify these characteristics in tandem, at a moment when lesser bosses solve problems at the expense of the team.  That moment is when poor performance has resulted in a problem and it just seems easier to throw the “guilty” under the bus.  Instead, effectively redirecting poor performance can single-handedly change the fortunes of an employee, team, or even the organization as a whole.  The best bosses use these redirection moments to not only take performance from bad to good, but build team morale. Let’s use a specific example to make sense of the skills that shape these characteristics.  Thomas is an engineer working with a team of other engineers on a project with the company’s most important client.  Thomas is tasked with providing specs for the design of a key portion of the project to the team, upper management, and the client.  During the presentation, the client becomes very upset when a fundamental error is discovered in the supply chain logistics.  The client leaves the meeting and tells the team lead, Sarah, that she has one week to fix the problem before they begin looking for a new engineering firm.  Sarah is taken back by the threat of losing the client and now has some very tough decisions to make.

The first thing she does is assemble the team and give them the latest details on the timeline and the mistakes made.  Sarah’s next step clearly identifies her as a “Best Boss.”  She says, “Look, at some point, we’ve all made a mistake that could impact the success of our team.  I don’t blame any individual for the supply chain issue, but I now ask that we all lean on one another to fix the problem, and in the end, we will flourish as a team.”

At this critical moment it would be very easy, and costly, for her to blame Thomas for the mistake.  After all, he is in charge of the supply chain.  To some bosses, he must be held accountable which in many cases means punishment.  Fortunately, Sarah does not jump to place blame, but instead rallies the troops to come together and fix it as a team.  From that moment on, the team will have increased morale and a sincere sense of being a part of a true team.

The next thing she does is facilitate a rigorous problem solving session where they:

1. Identify the Problem
2. Explore the Problem
3. Set Objectives
4. Create an Action Plan
5. Measure and Correct

In the end, the team finds the cause of the error and fixes it to such an extent that the client thanks them for their attention to detail.  They remain their top client to this very day.  Thomas is now a team lead on a different team and claims that, without Sarah, he would never have reached such a level in the company.  He still calls her weekly for tips on managing his new team.

Your Culture Gap is Showing

The Gap between your Formal and Informal Cultures is as simple as 'Follow the Leader' Companies often express frustration that their operations fail to live up to the standards set forth for itself.  These companies are essentially describing gaps between their formal (company standard) and informal (what actually happens) cultures.  While many factors contribute to this gap, such as communication, size, number of locations and hiring practices, maybe the single most prevalent force in driving informal culture is the behavior of front line managers and supervisors.

One important characteristics of a “Best Boss” is leading by example.  On the surface, this seems like a straightforward and common characteristic of many bosses, but let’s look deeper.  How does the significance of this characteristic extend beyond just the personal esteem in which we hold the boss to the point that it actually impacts the success of the entire organization?

A workplace is an extremely complex and dynamic organism and the workers themselves will only act in ways that make sense to them in the moment.  If the actions of supervisors suggest that certain behaviors are acceptable, even if they fly in the face of company policy, the employees will be prompted to act in the same manner as their leader.  Even worse, if the boss is allowed to pick and choose which rules to follow, he or she is giving unspoken permission for others to do the same.

Let’s look at a specific example.  There is a manufacturing company that has very high safety standards, including the proper use of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).  The plant manager is well known to show up on the manufacturing floor wearing his Nike training shoes and a hat of his favorite football team.  While he may try to justify not wearing PPE in his own mind, what he fails to recognize is the precedent he is setting for the workforce.  After all, if the boss can wear his tennis shoes on the plant floor, why can’t the others?  Not only is he not modeling the proper standard, he has now set the precedent that the standards themselves are simply suggestions and not to be taken seriously.

Some of you may be asking yourself, “but what if I make a simple mistake and now I’m leading the entire team down the wrong road?”  There is actually no better time to demonstrate the characteristic of leading by example than when you make a mistake.  Simply stating your mistake and the steps that you are going to take to rectify the situation shows that you do in fact care about the standards of the company, and most importantly, that you are willing to hold yourself accountable to the standards.  The resulting impact on informal culture is that the formal culture will be seen as worthy of being embraced and that everyone is able - especially leaders - and prepared to redirect and be redirected for performance that doesn't match the desired culture.

We won’t go into detail in this post about what leaders do to redirect bad performance, in themselves or others, but you can click here to read an archived newsletter on that topic.

A Taste of Your Own Medicine

Leading by example means accepting redirection as willingly as you provide it.

It is difficult for most of us to accept criticism from anyone, but especially from our children or our employees.  After all, we are supposed to have all the answers and know how to do everything the correct way, right?  Wrong!   Everyone makes mistakes, even bosses and parents, and we really don’t know everything.  Willingness to accept feedback from others is important in how we lead.  If you want your children and your employees to accept your feedback when they fail, you have to be willing to accept theirs when you fail.  So how do you do it?  We suggest that there are four key things to keep in mind to successfully receive redirection from others.

1. Remember that they are taking a risk.  In the parent-child and employer-employee relationships you have the power and they don’t.  You can make their lives difficult and in some cases even dissolve the relationship (we don’t recommend this with your children).  Therefore it is vital that you understand that they are assuming all of the risk when giving you this type of feedback.
2. Assume that they have your best interest in mind.  It is very easy to become defensive when receiving less than positive feedback.  The primary reason that we become defensive is because we assume that the other person is trying to hurt us in some way.  We generate a “guess” about their motive and that guess is usually negative.  If you start with a guess that they have your best interest in mind, then you will be less likely to become defensive and more likely to have a successful conversation.  If they are trying to hurt you, then you have an opportunity to discover why and determine what you can do to rectify that.
3. Listen with respect.  Respectful listening really means allowing the other person to express their views and thoughts without you becoming defensive.  Ask clarifying questions when you don’t understand something, but don’t justify your actions/results before the other person has finished because this will most likely be seen as defensive.  It is also important to show good body language through your posture, eye contact and facial expression.  How you look and what you say will set the tone for the conversation and will either lead to success or failure.
4. Show gratitude for their feedback.  Remember that it is difficult for someone with less power than you have to step up and give you feedback.  It is very important that you let them know that you recognize this and that you appreciate their willingness to help you become the best leader that you can possibly be.

If you want to lead by example, you will need to be willing to accept negative feedback as easily as you are willing to give it.

Deal with Employee Failure -- the SAFE Way

Have you ever worked for someone who seems to notice every small error you make (and points it out), but almost never says anything when you are successful?  We call this leadership style “The Persecutor” and we see it a lot in both industry and parenting.  We have learned by talking with Persecutors that they are trying to motivate people to improve by holding them accountable for their results, but the exact opposite actually occurs because of the way they do it. Employees become demotivated because there is no balance between positive and negative feedback, and because they feel disrespected in the process.  People need both correction (what we call “Redirection") for failure and positive feedback for success.  So how can you avoid persecution and create the results that you need?  We suggest that you use the following redirection guidelines when correcting performance.

• Remain calm.  Emotions such as frustration and anger only make us less effective in thinking and communicating.  Most of the time those emotions are the result of a “guess” about why the person failed.  Avoid guesses and you will have much more control over your emotions.

• Conduct the session in private.  One of your primary objectives is to reduce defensiveness so that you can get the employee to help you examine the reason(s) behind the failure and develop a “fix” for the future.  Calling someone out in public almost always leads to defensiveness, so make every effort to find a private location for this discussion.

• Eliminate interruptions and distractions.  Gaining the full attention of the employee is critical for an effective conversation.  Make sure that you control as many distractions as possible and you will get much better attention from your employee.

• Point out positive aspects of performance first, followed by identification of the inadequate performance.  Typically the employee will have had some success that you want to continue in the future.  Positive feedback helps to strengthen those behaviors, so take this opportunity to create repeated success with positive feedback.  Then point out the specific result, action, lack of action, etc. that you have identified as failure.  Avoid ambiguous terms such as bad attitude, unmotivated, etc.

• Follow the SAFE* approach to giving feedback.
  • Step Up:  When you see failure, say something, but say it with respect.  If you don’t step up, then the things that have led to this failure will continue to create failure in the future and if you say it the wrong way (disrespectfully) you will create defensiveness and less desire for improvement going forward.
  • Ask:  Learn the real reason for the failure.  Was it motivation, ability, pressure, lack of support, etc?  Evaluate the total context that led to the failure before you come up with a plan for improvement.
  • Find a Fix:  Find a fix for the real reason for the failure.  Work with the employee to determine a way to create success in the future.  Don’t create the plan yourself, but rather create it in concert with the employee when possible.  This brings more ownership and more motivation for improvement.
  • Ensure the Fix:  Keep an eye on improvement and give feedback accordingly.  If the “fix” works and you observe success, then give positive feedback to strengthen performance.  If you observe failure, then work your way through the SAFE approach again until you find the real reason for failure and the right fix going forward.

*SAFE Skills are a component of The RAD Group’s PerformanceCOMPASS^TM training.

Can you work incident free without the use of punishment?

I was speaking recently to a group of mid-level safety professionals about redirecting unwanted behaviors and making change within individual and systemic safety systems.  I had one participant who was particularly passionate about his views on changing the behaviors of workers.  According to him, one cannot be expected to change behavior or work incident free without at least threatening the use of punitive actions.  In his own words, “you cannot expect them to work safely if you can’t punish them for not working safely.”  He was also quite vocal in his assertion that it is of little use to determine which contextual factors are driving an unsafe behavior.  Again quoting him, “why do I need to know why they did it unsafely?  If they can’t get it done, find somebody that can.”  

What an Idiot!

I meet managers like this from time-to-time and I’m immediately driven to wonder what it must be like to work for such a person.  How could a person like this have risen in the ranks of his corporate structure?  How could such an idiot...oh,wait.  Am I not making the same mistakes that I now, silently scold him for?  You see, when people do things that we see as evil, stupid, or just plain wrong, there are two incredibly common and powerful principles at play.  The first principle is called the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) and, if allowed to take over one’s thought process, it will make a tyrant out of the most pleasant of us.  The FAE says that when we see people do things that we believe to be undesirable, we attribute it to them as being flawed in some way or to them having bad intentions.  They are stupid, evil, heartless, or just plain incompetent.  If we assume these traits to be the driving factor of an unsafe act and we have organizational power, we will likely move to punish this bad actor for their evil doings.  After all, somebody so (insert evil adjective here) deserves to be punished.  The truth is that most people are good and decent people who just want to do a good job.

Context Matters

This leads us to our second important principle, Local Rationality.  Local Rationality says that when good and decent people do things that are unsafe or break policies or rules, they usually do it without any ill-intent.  In fact, because of their own personal context, they do it because it makes sense to them to do it that way; hence the term “local rationality”.  As a matter of fact, had you or I been in their situation, given the exact same context, chances are we would have done the same thing.  It isn’t motive that normally needs to be changed, it’s context.

With this knowledge, let’s look back at the two questions from our Safety Manager.

1. “How can I be expected to change behavior or work incident free, without threatening to to punish the wrong-doers?” and
2. “Why do I need to know why they did it unsafely?  If they can’t get it done, find somebody that can.”

Once we understand that, in general, people don’t knowingly and blatantly do unsafe things or break rules, rather that they do it because of a possibly flawed work system, e.g. improper equipment, pressure from others, lack of training, etc., then we have the ability to calmly have a conversation to determine why they did what they did.  In other words, we determine the context that drove the person to rush, cut corners, use improper tools, etc.  Once we know why they did it, we then have a chance of creating lasting change by changing the contextual factors that led to the unsafe act.

Your key take-aways: 

1. When you see what you think is a pile of stupidity, be curious as to where it came from.  Otherwise, you may find yourself stepping in it yourself.
2. Maybe it wasn’t stupidity at all.  Maybe it was just the by-product of the context in which they work.  Find a fix together and you may both come out smelling like roses.

Is Dissent in the Workplace Good for Results?

We are inclined to conform to what we believe the people around us expect and value.  This has been demonstrated by decades of research into social conformity dating back to the Solomon Asch Line studies in the early 1950’s.  The crux of this research is that when in small groups, we tend to acquiesce (conform) to the view of the group even if it is not our natural view to begin with.  Think about how this would impact team decision making.  When the majority have one view, even when we have a different view, we are less likely to express that view because dissenters are labeled trouble-makers and most of us don’t want to be trouble-makers. Dissent does, however, serve some very important functions.

1.  Dissent boosts group creativity

While conformity results in fewer variations, creativity thrives on a variety of ideas.

2.  Dissent can prevent failures

We conform to what we *believe* others expect and value, but sometimes people are doing things simply because they aren't aware of the possible negative consequences.

For example, in the safety arena, dissent (which we call ‘Intervention’) helps to prevent undesired consequences by stopping an unsafe behavior.  Imagine that you see two co-workers put a tool into service that you see is compromised.  Speaking up could mean the difference between operations as normal and a catastrophic event.  Unfortunately, the group norm is to “keep quiet”, so you conform and don’t speak up and the tool goes into service.

The key to capitalizing on dissent is to do it right.  If you go about it with a critical tone, unflappable confidence that you are right, or punitive intent, not only will it probably do more harm than good, but you are sure to end up with that ‘trouble-maker’ label.

Consequences of Not Speaking Up

What we learned upon completing a large-scale (3,000+ employees) study of safety interventions is that employees directly intervene in only about two of five unsafe actions and conditions that they observe in the workplace.  The obvious concern is that a significant number of unsafe operations that could be stopped are not, which increases the likelihood of incidents and injuries; but this statistic is troubling for a less obvious reason - its cultural implication.

The influence of culture on safe and unsafe employee behavior is of such concern that regulatory bodies, like OSHA in the U.S. and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the U.K., have strongly encouraged organizations to foster “positive safety cultures” as part their overall safety management programs.

Employees are inclined to behave in a way that they perceive to be congruent (consistent) with the social values and expectations, or “norms,” that constitute their organization’s culture.  These behavioral norms are largely established through social interaction and communication, and in particular through the ways that managers and supervisors instruct, reward and allocate their attention around employees.  When supervisors and opinion leaders in organizations infrequently or inconsistently address unsafe behavior, it leads employees to believe that formal safety standards are not highly valued and employees are not genuinely expected to adhere to them.  In short, the low frequency of safety interventions in the workplace contributes to a culture in which employees are not positively influenced to work safely.

These two implications – (1) that a significant number of unsafe operations are not being stopped, and (2) that safety culture is diminished – compound to create a problematic state of affairs.  Employees are more likely to act unsafely in organizations with diminished safety cultures, yet their unsafe behavior is less likely to be stopped in those organizations.

(Look for the full-length article in the May/June 2011 edition of EHS Today.)