Human Performance Improvement: Key to sustainable safety excellence

• Published in: Professional safety 2009-06, Vol.54 (6), p.63-72
• Main Authors: Crossman, Richard M., Crossman, Donna Cangelosi, Lovely, Julie E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Change Initiatives
• ISSN: 0099-0027; 2163-6176

SOME IN THE SAFETY INDUSTRY assert that a goal of zero defects, although admirable, is unrealistic because some risks are simply too costly to identify, prevent or eliminate (Behm, Veltri & Kleinsorge, 2004). Constrained by budgets, managers pragmatically target low-hanging fruit-hazards that are most harmful or frequent, may result in costly injuries or are easily controlled. Behm, et al. (2004) maintain "that some riskmust be considered acceptable for an organization's financial stability" (p. 24). In most workplaces, a small measure of human error constitutes "acceptable risk."Although partially mitigated through design, human error is an inherent risk that is considered wholly unavoidable and ultimately inevitable. Unreliability is a fact of life. Oversights occur, information is misdirected, and even the most talented and conscientious employees are occasionally prone to errors in judgment. The risk of human error is amplified in today's highly dynamic work environments. Change is fundamental, rapid and unrelenting. Unexpected circumstances, revised goals, change orders and turnover are just a few of the factors that surreptitiously disrupt safety system equilibrium, resulting in worker inattention, carelessness or negligence. Organizational Context Consider an incident that occurred at XYZ Manufacturing Inc. A banner hung at the main entrance proclaimed that the facilitywas enjoying an extended injury-free period. However, performance was compromised when a worker stair-stepped across a bank of pipes to shut off a valve-instead of using a ladder-and was subsequently hurt. In the follow-up investigation, management faulted the employee for unsafe behavior. Records indicated that the worker had been adequately trained, ladders were conveniently stationed around the plant, the company's safety program was commendable and management at every level was highly committed to protecting workers. What more could have been done to prevent this chance event? Although it appears that this injury is a factor of faulty worker behavior, the actual cause was deeply rooted in the organizational context. Research indicates that many injuries attributable to human error are traceable to at least one gap in the organizational context (Baysari, McIntosh & Wilson, 2008). Therefore, mitigation of contextual gaps underlying human error can significantly reduce the margin of acceptable risk, thus preventing chance events that compromise sustainability. In an article intended