Replying to LO23819 --
I presently work in a potentially dangerous industry (Refining) at a plant
with one of the best safety records in America. I had previously worked
in a refinery with one of the worst. With this perspective, I examined
what the difference was.
My observation was as follows:
At the unsafe refinery, safety was a program to follow
At my present facility, safety is a "value" where the hourly actively were
involved (and lead)
Unsafe ... nonsystematic approach to change management (done to comply)
safe...... very good change management process with rigorous audits and
unsafe.... Had the injured stand up and explain the reason the injury
occurred (done to punish the injured so it does not happen again)
safe.... Understand most injuries are result of the system. Trend
problems and eliminate systemically
unsafe..... No real behavior changes with the workers (it was not macho to
wear safety equipment)
safe...... Incentives to practice safe behaviors with actual changes in
the work culture. HOURLY LEAD PROGRAM
You get the picture.... the systematic approach must include the people
doing the work as the major part of the system.
> Let us hope that this new systematic approach greatly reduces the number
> of industrial deaths in Australia.
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <email@example.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.