The 30-Inch View®

Using social networking sites to share ergo knowledge

The world continues to buzz about the power of social networking sites, blogs, online forums and other internet-based groups that promote communities of shared knowledge, ideas and opinions.  Would it surprise you to know that there is a Facebook™ group called "Ergonomists of the World"?  Created a few years ago, this group has more than 300 members and is comprised of Health, Safety, Human Factors and Ergonomics Professionals and Researchers from around the world. 

Also, the ever growing LinkedIn online community has excellent groups of Ergonomics, H&S, and Human Factors Professionals. If you are on LinkedIn, we suggest you check out the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society group.  You may find several Humantechers there as participants and contributors! 

In keeping with the theme of promoting communities of shared knowledge, we encourage everyone to take advantage of these resources - start by checking out these two groups. If you know of any other such groups, please feel free to share them.

Contributed by Kevin Perdeaux

Two More Ways to Become Recession-Proof

Alex Pollack recommended three actions that EHS Managers should take in his blog entitled "Becoming Recession Proof". He provides good guidance for EHS professionals and managers on survival in their current position during the recession. Not only do I agree with Alex, here are two more actions you can take:

• Use the language of business leaders
• Demonstrate your value  

Use the Language of Business Leaders

If you want to be heard and understood, communicate using the language, terms, and measures of your organization's leaders. If they are discussing cycle time reduction, reduction of waste, employee retention, ROI, and/or time to market, then align your programs and messages with these issues. Top leaders in companies care about, but don't really understand things like injury/illness rate, cost of non-compliance, names of regulations, or TLVs. However, astute EHS professionals know that when these technical issues and details can be presented in terms top management can understand, they are effective, understood, and essential. Listen to the topics and terms discussed at management meetings, read and think about the company metrics and initiatives, then align your technical program to support them using the common language. 

Ergonomic improvements reduce waste, improve cycle time, increase employee satisfaction, and oh... they also decreases the chance of injuries. Learn to speak like a business leader, not as a technical expert. This is easier than educating a plant manager on the details and requirements of a technical EHS issue.

Demonstrate Value

Gone are the days when EHS professionals were measured on compliance and injury/illness rate. As EHS programs have evolved, matured, and reduced losses in the workplace, we must demonstrate the value of our presence and contribution to the bottom-line of the organization. Value, in business, is typically measured in money. Specifically, if the results of your EHS program lead to savings or a monetary contribution greater than the cost of the program, you've added value. Return on Investment, or ROI, is business speak for calculating the value ($) of your program. This could be the value of the overall EHS program, the IH sampling program, ergonomic improvements, or emergency prevention and preparedness. Injury/illness rates are a poor reflection of value and savings. Cycle time savings, reduction in errors and scrap, reduction in new project lead time, and employee retention can all be translated into monetary values to demonstrate ROI. The trick is demonstrating the cause and effect of EHS contributions and calculating a realistic return.

When you can demonstrate how, and how much, your EHS contribution has enhanced the bottom line of an organization, then you are demonstrating value, leading to a higher level of respect and recognition throughout the organization.

Are your improvement initiatives all talk and no action?

Carmine Coyote at Slow Leadership recently highlighted  a blog post by Freek Vermeulen, an Associate Professor of Strategic Management at the London Business School, which pointed out that in reference to management strategies of the past 10-15 years (TQM, Six Sigma, Job Enlargement, etc.)...

"there's little or no hard evidence that they add anything to company performance" and "none of these techniques seemed to have produced any positive benefit on corporate results, despite containing what sometimes looked like little more than basic common sense".

To anyone that has worked for or with large organizations in the last decade, this should not be a surprise. The "flavor of the month" fails for one of two reasons:

1. the initiative is slow to show results
2. the initiative is not driven into the culture from the top down

Let me address the slowness factor first. In many situations, these management strategies involve initiation, definition, and completion of projects that may take weeks, months or even years to close. This long lead time, from initiation of the project to the point where tangible improvements are achieved is not cost effective nor does it contribute to a culture of improvement (were you ever sitting in your office and the landscaping crew starting working outside your window? In the beginning its distracting, but eventually it just fades into the background. Compare this to the continual drumbeat of the latest corporate initiative). Front line employees and senior management want the same thing, improvements and improvements now. Simply put, if you did something for weeks or years and you didn't see any results, would your heart be in it?

In terms of creating a culture, we all know what's important to your boss is important to you...the only way these types of initiatives work is when everyone has performance objectives associated with the plan from the top of the organization down to the foot soldiers, and what's more, they all understand their roles. This will not only drive completion of the tasks necessary for the strategy to be successful, but it is also the best way to create a culture in an organization where one currently does not exist.

A quote from Vermuelen's post really flushes out a key issue:

"Finally the piece-de-resistance: The influence of the adoption of popular management techniques on a CEO's compensation package (salary and bonus)...Yep, you guessed it, and the effects were very strong. If a CEO's firm adopted one of the popular management techniques, his compensation went up."

What Vermuelen found was that the mere appearance of one of these popular programs was enough to give the CEO credibility with investors and the Board of Directors that would merit higher pay. No results, just the effort. Is it any wonder why these programs fail?

Lastly, Carmine Coyote noted, "what all fashionable management fads and techniques seem to have in common is that they promise a quick fix based on a simple recipe"

Unfortunately, too often, the recipe looks a lot better than it actually tastes. All powerpoint, no results.

Employee Engagement is Critical for Change

A recent article on change management in Industry Week (Lean Persuasion) and a subsequent post at Be Excellent (Introducing Change into your Organization) discuss Lean Expert Jamie Flinchbaugh's suggestions on how to introduce Lean, or other initiatives, to your organization.

The base supposition that employees are resistant to change may be flawed. Actually, most people are naturally resistant to change when the change is made to them, not by them. A key element for successful change is to include people in the process.

Our experience with changing processes (i.e. Lean), altering the workplace and work practices, or changing attitudes and behaviors, has shown that success is primarily dependent upon employee engagement. When people have been included as part of the process that identifies the need for change and are involved in selecting and implementing the necessary actions, they are supportive and many times passionate about change. In turn, they are the best change agents for others.

Planning, communication and ensuring staff are all important. Employee engagement is critical.

Safety Professionals and Respect - Part 2 - Homer Simpson

A recent post at the OSHA Underground blog relates that Safety Engineers feel that they get little respect, and we agree that the frustration many professionals feel is real and a burden to success, not only in construction, as was indicated, but in all industries.

In our last post on this topic, we suggested that a safety professional's inability to equate safety initiatives with business value led to these efforts not being valued by their colleagues. A focus on ROI is potentially the antidote.

In this post, we'd like to address the second major cause of this frustration. In this case, the problem is not with the safety professional, but with their employers.

Anyone can be labeled a "safety professional", but not everyone can BE a "safety professional". Remember the Simpson's episode when Homer was made the Safety Officer because he caused most of the accidents at the nuclear power plant? Many well meaning employers (guided or not by HR) will title and enable people as the "safety professional" without fully understanding the profession, qualifications, or implications. This is not limited to just safety. I know of one global microchip manufacturer who titled their maintenance technicians "engineers" giving a false sense of security and knowing to those individuals, the rest of the plant, and the outside world.

Most HR executives I've talked with do not know what makes a person a qualified safety professional. Nor are they aware of the valid certifications that help identify qualified professionals. Would you select your personal health care physician because they were called Doctor or would you insist that they were board certified? BCSP, ABIH, and BCPE are a few of the organizations that provide board certification for safety, industrial hygiene, and ergonomic professionals.

Many organizations and businesses offer "certifications" in safety and ergonomics, and they are correct; if you complete their courses, they will provide you with a certificate (i.e. piece of paper) indicating you completed the class. However, "board certified" is another thing. It indicates the bearer has the academic background and work experience, has completed an examination demonstrating their competency, and maintains that level of competency through ongoing professional development and work experience. Looking for certification by a recognized board is a quick and reliable way to screen for qualified candidates for a safety/environmental/ergonomics professional role.

As safety and ergonomic professionals, we need to continue to inform and educate business leaders, hiring managers, and staffing personnel of what a true professional is. This is the only way to get ahead of the Homer Simpson perception that some hold of our profession.

Safety Professionals and Respect - Part 1 - ROI

A recent post at the OSHA Underground blog relates that Safety Engineers feel that they get little respect, and we agree that the frustration many professionals feel is real and a burden to success, not only in construction, as was indicated, but in all industries.

OSHA Underground alluded to two of the major causes; one created by safety people themselves and the other by their employers. In this post, let's discuss the first:

"Efforts are not valued" - Many employers do not value the contribution and results achieved by their safety staff because no value is determined. Safety professionals have a tendency to fall back on the archaic measurement of injury and illness rate, and injury cost as their measure of success. This is a lagging measure of consequences. It is a traditional measure that allows one to focus on cost avoidance. As a result, most safety people demonstrate their value by subjectively projecting cost savings through injury avoidance, not actual measurement of their contribution.

In business and in life, value is measured in one way; MONEY. Safety professionals need to expand their ability and use of objective measures that demonstrate Return on Invesment (ROI). Simply put, what is the monetary return to the bottom line of a business from that investment in the safety program. This means breaking away from traditional safety measures that have been handed down for the past century and finding new ways of measuring contribution. Most importantly, the measures should be familair, common, and of interest to management. For example, the contribution of safety towards decreasing cycle time (production), increased employee retention, and improvements to quality.

When safety professionals begin to measure and demonstrate the value they offer (MONEY) then business leaders will value the efforts of programs and individuals.

Welcome back...time for results

It's the Tuesday after Labor Day, traditionally marking the end of the summer in the US. Kids are heading back to school and for many of us, its time to get back to business. With Q4 right around the corner, its also time to start thinking about results; where will we end up in 2008, and how do we improve in 2009. With this thought in mind, I'd like to share a recent story from our e-newsletter:

BEMIS Uses RAPID ™ Team Events to Reduce Injuries

Established in 1858 and headquartered in Neenah, Wisconsin, Bemis Company, Inc. is a global supplier of flexible packaging and presssure sensitive label materials. Twelve companies operate 56 locations in 10 countries under the Bemis banner with combined net sales over $3.6 billion. Nearly two-thirds of Bemis' packaging is used in the food industry, with the balance used in markets including medical, pharmaceutical, chemical and agribusiness.

The company began a pilot ergonomics initiative in its Paper Packaging Division in 2006, extending the program to include all U.S. operations later in the year. According to Safety Director, Paul Kubicek, "the majority of our injuries are due to strains and sprains, and strengthening our ergonomics programs goes right to the heart of making work and life better for our employees."

Bemis has taken a two-pronged approach with its ergonomics initiative, including training for engineers and ergonomics team members and RAPID (Risk and Performance Improvement Deployment) Team Events for employees. "I'd have to say that although both components have been effective, the immediate results from the RAPID Team Events have made the biggest impact at Bemis," says Kubicek. He notes multiple reasons for this. "RAPID Team Events empower employees to be part of a positive change on the shop floor, and the improvements these events generate are immediate and highly visible. These types of continuous improvement evnets are the catalysts that shape and energize our ergonomics teams toward an ongoing ergoomic risk reduction process."

Ergonomic improvement efforts are an important part of a multi-faceted safety improvement program underway at Bemis. The progress the company has made is evident in its total recordable injury rate (TRIR). In the Paper Packaging Division, TRIR improved by 14% from 2005 to 2006 and by an additional 50% from 2006 to 2007. Improvements continue in 2008. Throughout the company's U.S. operations, total TRIR has improved by 45% from 2005 to 2008 (YTD through June).

The Bemis ergonomics initiative has gone global in 2008, with its South American operations getting involved in May. The company also has plans to merge ergonomic training into its global 5S team training. When asked for his key advice, Kubicek says, "ergonomics is something that everyone can relate to, so involve everyone! An improvement initiative that all employees can grasp and see the benefits of generates its own support."

OSHA's General Duty Clause...

Lynn Bergeson's post, "Workplace Safety is a Shared Responsibility" provides perspective on some of the challenges posed by relying on OSH Act's General Duty Clause as a non-specific catch all.

The OSH Act has triggered many positive accomplishments. Still, after 35 years, much is left undone. More than 15 workers are killed every day on the job in this country and a worker becomes ill or injured on the job every 2.5 seconds.

It's not well publicized that we have more fish and wildlife inspectors than OSHA inspectors, or that the penalties from a chemical release that kills fish is higher than a chemical release that kills a worker. Almost no one understands that OSHA inspections are infrequent and penalties for endangering workers are so insignificant that there is almost no disincentive for employers to break the law.

The overwhelming majority of deaths, injuries, and illnesses could have been prevented had the employers simply provided the safe workplace required and complied with well-recognized OSHA regulations or other safe practices.

Obviously the General Duty Clause is not the key. While lofty in principle, the General Duty Clause (as Lynn Bergeson points out) is seriously deficient in practice. Vague definitions and arguable phrasing like "serious physical harm" combine to assure that a serious violation, while clear on its merits, will have a tough time in court.

For a general duty clause to be effective, it should be straightforward, clear and consise -- you meet it or you don't. Here's an example:

It is the general duty of every employer to ensure that every workplace has a comprehensive safety and management program which is effective in finding and fixing recognized hazards and in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses.

Could your organization meet this requirement?

Perspective and Priority: Wellness vs. Health & Safety

In a post titled "The 8 Top Corporate Wellness Programs", Konstantin Koss comments that "Health Risk Assessment (HRA)"...is used to " determine the safety and health concerns of workers by assessing the appropriateness of the facilities and equipment against the needs of the employees."

In our experience, this statement blurs the facts and may overstate the goal of an HRA. What Mr. Koss describes is an assessment conducted as part of an occupational safety and health program. Typically, this is managed by a safety and health professional and the goal is to control exposures to safety and health risks inherent to the workplace. These professionals have the responsibility to evaluate the level of exposure workers have to certain hazardous or dangerous materials and practices, NOT the employee through an HRA. Workplace exposures could include slips, trips, or falls, exposure to chemicals, electric sources, non-iodizing radiation, and noise, or exposure to poor ergonomic conditions that can result in injury.

An HRA, as we've seen it used, is a tool within the Wellness Programs offered to employees. Typically it involves a questionnaire or survey of an individual's personal health habits. It's purpose is to identify personal exposures and conditions of an individual to establish a baseline of their health/wellness. This can include blood pressure, cholesterol levels, heart rate, body fat index, family health history, and personal health habits (diet, smoking, exercise). From this information, a Health Wellness Coach works with the individual to identify which, if any, identified health risks are important, and to guide the individual to personal changes which control the risks.

It concerns me when personal health/wellness and workplace safety are lumped together as the same issue. Wellness is a personal choice, and is completely controlled by, the employee. Workplace Safety is a business choice employers make, and control, to protect employees and meet regulatory requirements.

There is no denying that companies can benefit from improving the overall wellness of their employees and in fact, it's just a good thing to do (important in today's environment of high corporate social responsibility expectations). Workplace safety on the other hand is an imperative. Healthy or not, workers in an unsafe environment will get hurt and/or sick. If you want healthy employees, and a more tangible ROI, fix the workplace first.

photo credit:Redver

Leading through Accountability

Thanks to David Wright for sharing Robert Pater's article on How Upper Management Can Actively Lead Safety.  It provides a good description of some key things managers and leaders should do to model and lead safe behaviors and influence a corporate safety culture. One common challenge is how to get leaders to do this...

Our experience coaching organizations to improve workplace safety and ergonomic conditions in the workplace has been to combine engineering solutions with cultural change. We've found one element that is essential for success; accountability.

A wise person once stated that "what interests my manager, motivates me." Holding people accountable for safety performance (or the success of any initiative for that matter) is simple:

1. Set clear expectations (responsibilities, goals, roles, targets)
2. provide people the resources, tools, and training to meet their responsibility
3. visibly and actively monitor and track progress made towards the expectations
4. take action when expectations are not met

It's all about planning, managing, and follow-through.

Ironically, this 4-step approach is not foreign to managers and supervisors. They follow some form of these steps to schedule and complete work, build widgets, and manage production and quality. Leaders in safety should apply the same approach (Accountability) to influence, guide and lead people and their organization to success.