A pathetic safety ritual endlessly recycled

Dave Johnson is Associate Publisher and Chief Editor of ISHN, a monthly trade publication targeting key safety, health and industrial hygiene buying influencers at manufacturing facilities of all sizes.  In his July 09 blog (reprinted below), he laments how the C-suite continues to take a reactive rather than proactive approach to safety. Here’s a reposting of my comments.

Let’s help the CEOs change the pathetic ritual

Dave: Your last paragraph says it all. We need to change the ritual. The question is not why or what, but how. One way is to threaten CEOs with huge personal fines or jail time. For instance, in New Zealand a new Health and Safety at Work Act is anticipated to be passed in 2014. The new law will frame duties around a “person conducting a business or undertaking” or “PCBU”. The Bill as currently drafted does not neatly define “PCBU” but the concept would appear to cover employers, principals, directors, even suppliers; that is, people at the top. A tiered penalty regime under the new Act could see a maximum penalty of $3 million for a body corporate and $600,000 and/or 5 years’ imprisonment for an individual. Thrown into jail due to unsafe behaviour by a contractor’s new employee whom you’ve never met would certainly get your attention.

But we know the pattern: Initially CEOs will order more compliance training, inspections, more safety rules. Checkers will be checking checkers. After a few months of no injuries, everyone will relax and as Sidney Dekker cautioned, complacency will set in and the organization will drift to failure. Another way is to provide CEOs with early detection tools with real-time capability. Too often we read comments in an accident report like “I felt something ominous was about to happen” or “I told them but nobody seemed to listen.”

CEOs need to be one of the first, not the last, to hear about a potential hazard identified but not being addressed. We now have the technology to allow an organization to collect stories from the front line and immediately convert them to data points which can be visually displayed. Let’s give CEOs and higher-ups the ability to walk the talk. In addition, we apply a complexity-based approach where traditional RCA investigative methods are limited. Specifically, we need to go “below the water line” when dealing with safety culture issues to understand the why rituals persist. 

Gary Wong
July 16, 2014

G.M.’s CEO is the latest executive to see the light

By Dave Johnson July 9, 2014

Wednesday, June 11, 2014, at the bottom right-hand corner of the section “Business Day” in The New York Times, is a boxed photograph of General Motors’ chief executive Mary T. Barra. The headline: “G.M. Chief Pledges A Commitment to Safety.”

Nothing against Ms. Barra. I’m sure she is sincere and determined in making her pledge. But I just shook my head when I saw this little “sidebar” box and the headline. Once again, we are treated to a CEO committing to safety after disaster strikes, innocent people are killed (so far G.M. has tied 13 deaths and 54 accidents to the defective ignition switch), and a corporation’s reputation is dragged through the media mud. The caption of Ms. Barra’s pic says it all: “…Mary T. Barra told shareholders that the company was making major changes after an investigation of its recall of defective small cars.”

Why do the commitments, the pledges and the changes come down from on high almost invariably after the fact?

You can talk all you want about the need to be proactive about safety, and safety experts have done just that for 20 or 30 or more years. Where has it gotten us, or more precisely, what impact has it had on the corporate world?

Talk all you want
Talk all you want about senior leaders of corporations needing to take an active leadership role in safety. Again, safety experts have lectured and written articles and books about safety leadership for decades. Sorry, but I can’t conjure the picture of most execs reading safety periodical articles and books. I know top organization leaders have stressful jobs with all sorts of pressures and competing demands. But I have a hard time picturing a CEO carving out reading time for a safety book in the evening. Indeed a few exist; former Alcoa CEO Paul O’Neill is the shining example. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule. The National Safety Council’s Campbell Institute of world class safety organizations and CEOs who “get it” are the exceptions, too, I’d assert.

And what is the rule? As a rule, proven again and again ad nauseam, top leaders of large corporations only really get into safety when they’re forced into a reactive mode. For the sake of share price and investor confidence, they speak out to clean up a reputational mess brought about by a widely publicized safety tragedy. Two space shuttles explode. Refineries blow up. Mines cave in. The incident doesn’t have to involve multiple fatalities and damning press coverage. I’ve talked with and listen to more than one plant manager or senior organization leader forced to make that terrible phone call to the family of a worker killed on the job, and who attended the funeral. The same declaration is stressed time and again: “Never again. Never again am I going to be put in the position of going through that emotional trauma. Business school never prepared me for that.”

“In her speech to shareholders, Ms. Barra apologized again to accident victims and their families, and vowed to improve the company’s commitment to safety,” reported The New York Times. “Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers,” she said. “Absolutely nothing.”

Oh really? What about the safety of G.M.’s workers? Oh yes, it’s customers who drive sales and profits, not line workers. This is cold business reality. Who did G.M.’s CEO want to get her safety message across to? She spoke at G.M.’s annual shareholder meeting in Detroit. Shareholders’ confidence needed shoring up. So you have the tough talk, the very infrequent public talk, about safety.

Preaching to the choir
I’ve just returned from the American Society of Safety Engineers annual professional development conference in Orlando. There was a raft of talks on safety leadership, what senior leaders can and should do to get actively involved in safety. There were presentations on the competitive edge safety can give companies. If an operation is run safely, there are fewer absences, better morale, good teamwork, workers watching out for each other, cohesiveness, strong productivity and quality and brand reputations. The classic counter-argument to the business case was also made: safety is an ethical and moral imperative, pure and simple.

But who’s listening to this sound advice and so-called thought leadership? As NIOSH Director Dr. John Howard pointed out in his talk, the ASSE audience, as with any safety conference audience, consists of the true believers who need no convincing. How many MBAs are in the audience?

Too often the moral high ground is swamped by the short-term, quarter-by-quarter financials that CEOs live or die by. Chalk it up to human nature, perhaps. Superior safety performance, as BST’s CEO Colin Duncan said at ASSE, results in nil outcomes. Nothing happens. CEOs are not educated to give thought and energy to outcomes that amount to nothing. So safety is invisible on corner office radar screens until a shock outcome does surface. Then come the regrets, the “if only I had known,” the internal investigation, the blunt, critical findings, the mea culpas, the “never again,” the pledge, the commitment, the vow, the tough talk.

There’s that saying, “Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.” Sadly, and to me infuriatingly, a long history of safety tragedies has not proven to be much of a learning experience for many corporate leaders. “Ah, that won’t happen to us. Our (injury) numbers are far above average.” Still, you won’t have to wait long for the next safety apology to come out of mahogany row. It’s a pathetic ritual endlessly recycled.

 

Accountants live in the Past

A family milestone was recently achieved when my nephew received his CA designation. Great to see when a lot of sweat and effort ultimately leads to a personal and professional goal.

Chris Cairns CA

The blog heading is not meant to be derogatory; it’s just what accountants primarily do. Their job is to record company history in financial terms, according to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles). According to Wikipedia, the rules and procedures for reporting under GAAP are complex and have developed over a long period of time. Currently there are more than 150 “pronouncements” as to how to account for different types of transactions. GAAP is slowly being phased out in favour of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Not all CAs stay in the accounting field. In many cases it’s a foundational step that will lead to a successful business, management, IT career.

IMO, the biggest contribution a CA just starting out can make is busting through the “yellow bubble.”  That means not being trapped by existing paradigms but challenging them. The world needs CAs in leadership roles to enable new perspectives and ways of thinking emerge and flourish. Obviously the disruption must be respectful and tactful to avoid ticking off senior CAs who may not realize they have become professionals trapped in their own expertise. In the following video, Dave Snowden explains the phenomenon.

What are some of these accounting paradigms we should challenge?

One of the oldest and most durable (resistive?) paradigms in an organization is the financial system that runs on a fiscal year. It is so strong that other systems such as HR, Planning, Marketing, and Supply Chain align their activities to fiscal quarters. If the fiscal year ends on 31 March, a phenomenon called “March madness” takes place. Cautious for the preceding 11 months, a manager will madly spend to minimize year-end budget variance or in fear of having next year’s budget allotment reduced. To avoid this annual ritual, managers are directed to curve budgets; that is, guess when they expect expenses to be charged.

Anyone who has managed a project extending over one year has encountered accrual accounting. It’s spending time guesstimating what your expenditures will be on a particular date. Think about the times you wanted to proceed but we’re told you had to defer due to budgetary reasons. Alternatively, you were surprised and told to spend money now as there were surplus funds. However, you couldn’t pull it off due to lead time issues.

Why is the 12-month fiscal year a sacred cow? Consider the annual employee appraisal. Does it make sense to reward or punish employees according to some fiscal time schedule? Agile companies don’t; they formally recognize performance immediately.

In companies that have installed an IT ERP Financial systems, the Control of Information paradigm is significantly reinforced. Many CAs and CIOs struggle with the advent of social media software, products of the Complexity/Sense-Making S-curve. It will be fascinating to observe those who try to control information and those to choose to unleash the power of networks. Professor Robert Plant in his HBR article “IT Has Finally Cracked the C-Suite” wrote about a new leadership title Chief Business Technology Officer (CBTO). It’s a paradigm shift for technology leaders who still refer to themselves in terms of “working with the business” rather than using technology to drive business strategy.  “You can tell the ones who will thrive and survive and the ones who won’t,” he says. “It may be a year, it may be four, but many are not going to make it because they are so focused on old-school stuff that their competitors will focus on differentiating them and beat them eventually.”

How might one improve business agility? Small ideas include removing the accruals burden on the project manager and putting the onus on the accountants to estimate the dollars spent. A bigger shift is to dispense with a fiscal year operation and run the total business on a Gantt chart. Adam Laskinsky in his book Inside Apple revealed that the Apple culture has only one budget held by the CFO. Managers are not encumbered by dollar watching and focus full attention on getting their projects done.

The future belongs to companies, to organizations,  and to governments who recognize the need for strategic agility. And there’s a strong possibility they will be led by smart CAs.