IOSH and SHE practitioner’s diary day two: Rhaynukaa Soni GradIOSH, Dip RSA, MIIRSM, reports on the conference
Read Rhaynukaa’s day one diary
The Big Debate at the end of IOSH 2014 was the key event in a day full of thought-provoking seminars. The subject: Deregulation — evading responsibility or doing the ‘right’ thing? divided the panel, but for delegates, opinions were more fixed
At the end of the debate, 73 percent of the delegates felt deregulation was not a good thing. However, I have to side with Judith Hackitt and say it’s necessary.
I actually am very disappointed that people don’t think deregulation is a good thing. To me, it suggests that people are compliant because they need to be, not because they believe it’s the right thing. Surely, if we take the key messages from IOSH 2014 and start leading in our industry, it is our role to inspire business and leaders to do the right thing, for the right reasons, not merely for compliance?
The second day of the conference put forward a lot of interesting ideas that made me think about how I operate as a safety professional, with some ideas that I could take back to site. At the end of the day, I found myself wanting more.
Dr Dominic Cooper’s talk gave me a lot of food for thought, despite the fact that I missed the very start of his talk. One question he posed to delegates was: “What does safety heaven look like to you?”
His argument was: without knowing what ‘safety heaven’ looks like, you cannot even remotely hope to achieve your goals. A brave delegate said that for him, it was the concept of ‘my brothers’ keeper’.
I’m sure safety heaven varies for each and every one of us in one way or another. For me, it’s when the whole team — management and workforce — are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, not just for compliance, and without being prompted. That is true safety heaven as far as I’m concerned.
Dr Cooper spoke about the safety profession as facilitators of safety, rather than the people that carry out safety measures, which I found an interesting concept. I have been involved with organisations where the safety team is expected to carry out everything remotely related to safety, and those where the safety advisor is there to advise, not do.
Both have their pitfalls and strengths, though I tend to agree with Dr Cooper. I believe we need to get the entire team involved, with safety embedded into everything we do as standard.
I don’t take much of a regulatory approach when it comes to site visits, but in Dr Cooper’s seminar, I realised that although I want the workforce to be safe, I don’t ask: ‘how can I help you?’ enough.
That’s not to say I’ve never asked that question, but it tends to be when work is quiet or things are going well. It allows for more time to engage and maybe look at particular issues. Dr Cooper’s view is that it is imperative we ask: “how can I help you?” when things are not going so well.
In the next seminar, Scott Grant and Lawrence Waterman spoke about Battersea Power Station. I was involved in the operational side of London 2012 and am now working for a principal contractor on Crossrail. As a result, I fully relate to the media scrutiny and sense of pride around such high profile projects. It was good to get a brief overview of what the project is and I’m sure it will transform the area just as the Olympic Stadium did Stratford.
The thing that really struck a cord with me in this seminar was the idea of ‘legacy’. This is something that was talked about endlessly at London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I associated it with sports and participation. It was amazing and inspiring to hear that the legacy of the games is still alive and being incorporated into the values of Battersea. It proves just how powerful the Olympic and Paralympic Games truly were — leaving a legacy to ensure safe construction and inspire new ideas.
A delegate raised the point that while a lot of what Lawrence talked about could bring real changes to a larger organisation, it would be difficult to do the same in a smaller company, where budgets are severely restricted.
Lawrence, in part, agreed: if you are spending money, you need to be a lot more demanding and ask whether what you are buying will add actual value to the workforce and project.
However, you could ensure that everyone in the workforce received compulsory daily briefings highlighting the hazards, risks and precautions for free. He argued that this could produce a much more engaged workforce. By showing them that you are thinking about the hazards and risks every day, you force the workforce to think about it.
After a short break, Kevin Furniss came on to talk about ‘Leadership first, not safety first.’ While I don’t think it would be prudent to go into work tomorrow and ask management to get rid of our safety management system, as he did with Vodafone, there were definitely some things he talked about that we can all put into practice easily.
The clearest message for me was that if safety is to really succeed, we need to fit the safety agenda in the values of the business and we need to make them easy to achieve and therefore difficult to ignore. This echoed Dr Cooper’s point about asking: “how can I help you?” It’s something that I will be taking away with me trying out as soon as I’m back in the office.
Kevin used an excellent analogy his colleague had shared with him: if you give a child a bag of sugar and tell them to finish it, say by eating to two spoons of sugar a day, would they eat it? It’s highly unlikely; in fact it’s probable the sugar would remain untouched.
However, if you make the sugar into sweets, the same child will almost definitely finish the bag in the time required, if not sooner. The same is true of safety, argued Mr Furniss: you have to disguise it. It is the same product, but it is simply marketed in a different way. It is a tad harder to disguise safety than it is a bag of sugar, but it is a refreshingly simple idea.
The conference may have come to an end, but the ideas, conversations and debates will, I’m sure, continue long into 2014. It has definitely given me a lot of to think about over the coming days and weeks. I will look to research some of the topics discussed as well as trying to find literature to enhance my understanding of some ideas mentioned over the two days.
I’ll leave you with the question Dr Cooper asked us: “What have you done today to make a difference?”
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own
Sadly I have to agree with Vincent. The notion that companies will provide good health, safety and welfare arrangements for their staff out of the goodness of their hearts is pure fantasy.
I do, however, believe some form of de-regulation is necessary. The law has become too onerous and prescriptive. I find it a bit rich that Judith is promoting it. After all, it was the HSE who made all these regulations and ACOPs too onerous and prescriptive. Then, to rub salt into the wound the HSE do not enforce them properly!
Clearly 73% of the delegates realise we live in the real world, and not heaven. People have to make choices, resources are scare, so things get dropped. What does this mean, yes people are compliant becasue that is what is required by regulation. Without the regulation, and with other demands on resources, there would be even less complaince. Deregulation for it’ own sake is not a good thing. Shall we also propose getting rid of food safety standards, the legal requirement to ensure children are placed in appropriate car seats, and the legal requirement to pay taxes? And what –… Read more »