Recently we were watching a TED Talk from Dr. Martin
Seligman, one of the founders of positive psychology. He told a humorous story
of when he was the head of the American Psychological Association. He was asked
to describe the state of psychology in one word, to which he replied, “good.”
Next his interviewers asked him to describe the state of psychology in two
words, to which he replied, “not good.” Finally, when asked to describe the
state of psychology in three words he replied, “not good enough.” He then went
on to describe the “good” of psychology, what it has accomplished, but pointed
out where psychology is “not good enough,” i.e. needing to improve. (To hear
the whole story and his subsequent talk go here).
When we were watching this story we couldn’t help but think
of the safety profession. If asked about the “good” of the safety profession I
think we could point to many accomplishments. The rates of injuries, illnesses,
and fatal injuries at work have dropped drastically. Our profession is more
recognized than ever, due in large part because of the efforts of the ASSE,
BCSP, and other similar organizations. We all have had at least some part in
these accomplishments.
However, when we look at our profession and look not only at
how far we’ve come but also at how far we could be we have to conclude that the
safety profession is currently not good enough.
This isn’t to say that we can’t get there, but rather to say that, as a
profession, we need to do more to further our causes. Here specifically are
some areas we think the safety profession is not good enough:
Not Exclusive Enough – Right now there exists no significant
industry standard in terms of education, experience, or training for the safety
profession. It’s amazing to me how many safety professionals start their safety
careers in safety with literally no direct experience or education in safety at
all. For example, many safety officers in construction companies were former
craftsmen who were injured, couldn’t do their craft anymore, but still could
work. So they were made safety officers for the company. We don’t think these
people are bad or unintelligent. We just think there needs to be some sort of
standard to which one must adhere to enter and stay in our profession. Society
tends to expect similar (certificates, licenses, etc.) from other professions,
such as hairstylists and plumbers, why not safety professionals?
We do know and readily admit that if we implemented such a
standard it would inevitably be imperfect, leading to some qualified
individuals not making the cut and some unqualified individuals being called
“safety professionals.” Still, the number of unqualified professionals would
decrease in any reasonably designed system (or, at least, the average
qualification would increase). We would also rather have a system where
qualified folks have to work a little harder to prove themselves than have
unqualified folks have to do nothing to prove themselves. Additionally, those
professions that have clear boundaries as to qualifications tend to have more
respect and people tend to pay more for their services as a result.
Too Reliant on Regulation – If you want an example of this
one, just ask a safety professional at what point we need to start thinking
about protecting workers from falls. Most will respond with some number such as
4 feet or 6 feet. Then ask them what biomechanical calculations they performed
to determine that the risk of serious injury from falling from that height was
unacceptable and look at the blank stare you get in response. Most people
choose fall protection not based on what is safe,
but based on what is compliant. The truth is that there is a significant risk
of falling from 0 feet and dying. Obviously your risk is higher at 6 feet, but
what about 5 feet? And what about the personal factors, such as health, weight,
and age. Don’t those come into play?
Of course they should, but the fact is that they don’t. The
problem is that as safety professionals we are spread too thin. We are supposed
to understand biomechanics, injury tolerances, psychology, sociology, law and
regulation, engineering, physics, and chemistry all at a level that will ensure
that bad things don’t happen. No one person can be that good, so we (many times
unconsciously) look for opportunities to mentally outsource our thinking. OSHA
(or whatever agency we’re talking about) allows us to do that. I don’t have to
do the math if OSHA has done that for me. The problem, of course, is when OSHA
is wrong and the regulation is not protective.
This is one of those “easier said…” things but as a
profession our gut reactions to things should not be to get to compliance and
stop there. This, of course, doesn’t mean we necessarily arbitrarily go beyond
compliance either. Rather, we take the emphasis off of compliance and put it on
risk – are the risks acceptable and as low as reasonably practicable at the
level of compliance? If not then we go beyond compliance. If yes, then we stop
there. A focus on risk though is what our decisions should be based on, not
compliance alone.
Not Evidence-Based Enough – What if your doctor decided to
try this new treatment on you that he heard about at a conference and it
sounded like a good idea, but he didn’t know of any evidence that it worked –
would you be happy if he took that risk on you? Of course not! In the safety
profession we are often making decisions that could literally mean the
difference between injury or safety, life or death for someone, not to mention
the potential economic effects of accidents. When was the last time you looked
in the research literature to see if the intervention you want to implement in
your organization to see if there was any evidence that it was even effective?
A large part of the problem is that most safety
professionals aren’t aware of the journals available dedicated to research in
safety and health issues (such as Safety Science, Journal of Safety Research,
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Journal of Safety, Health, and
Environmental Research, and Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene,
not to mention many others). Sure these journals are sometimes hard to read and
understand, but part of the reason for that is because the authors don’t have
to write articles for the average practitioner because the average safety
practitioner doesn’t read the articles. So the academics write information for
other academics, learning interesting things about safety, and the safety
practitioners are none the wiser.
No comments:
Post a Comment