Zero Accident Culture
Killing People With Kindness
“If I just would have said something, this wouldn’t have happened.”
John Wayhart
Years ago, I met with a very dynamic waste and recycling client to review their insurance and risk management program. During the visit, I had the opportunity to meet with various supervisors and employees in the plant. One of the main questions I proposed to the group was “what have we done this past year that we are proud of and where can we improve?”
I’ll never forget the response one employee gave that I don’t think anyone in the room was expecting. He said with clear conviction that “we do a very good job here in killing people with kindness.” His comment forever changed my notion of how to “professionally confront” people within the workplace. Are we being too polite and not challenging workers to perform better and safer? Do we not say anything when we see someone lifting wrong or not consistently checking a blind spot when driving a truck for fear of offending them?
The Numbers Say It All
With a death rate of 25.2 per 100,0001, the waste and recycling industry has been consistently rated in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. In an industry more prone to injury or death, there really is no such thing as kindness when it comes to protecting ourselves and fellow coworkers. That is not condoning supervisors or fellow employees to be condescending when critiquing one another; rather, it means looking at the numbers and understanding that a Zero Accident Culture means holding one another accountable and seeking out best practices in regards to on-the-job safety.
Communication Breakdown: Supervisors
The traditional responsibility of communication is typically a top-down structure from “the boss to the labor”. Companies should continue to search for more effective ways to get the corporate safety message across in order to reduce potential claims and time off from work, as well as a better bottom line. Additionally, open and confidential communication should always be welcomed by the management team in case a situation arises where a fellow coworker does not feel comfortable addressing a safety issue that could potentially affect one or more individuals at the company. The supervisor has the ultimate role of being the eyes and ears of his team and confronting any situations that jeopardize the safety of others.
To clarify this point, I went back and thought about situations I’ve encountered where supervisors did “kill people with kindness”. Here is one example that resulted in a large workers’ compensation claim and altered the life of a coworker:
A waste-to-energy company had a wide shear press that needed two men on the job. One side had a remote control button that required the operator to be away from the point of operation; therefore, you had to wrongfully rely on the operator to communicate verbally or hand signal when the remote control device was to be engaged. The supervisor knew this wasn’t correct and in fact a strict violation of standard safety practices and willful violation of OSHA. They should have had a two-hand safety control device that both members would press to activate the machine. But the supervisor simply allowed this to go on until the other remote mechanism was delivered and installed. Within two days, a second shift employee lost his hand when the single remote control device was activated by his co-worker.
The moral of this story is that the supervisor should have never knowingly allowed for an unsafe practice to continue whether it affects production or not. Upon noticing the violation, he should have communicated the problem with the workers and a consequent plan of action, such as turning the power off. Instead, a tragic error occurred that resulted in a costly claim, as well as severed the hand of a worker whose life changed forever.
Communication Breakdown: Coworkers
On the same note, “employee to employee” communication is often an overlooked category, as so many peers fear being a rat or tattletale and try to avoid a possible conflict. Professional confrontation is an art form that once we are allowed to be comfortable in this action, we are no longer “ratting” on someone; instead, we are caring for them and their family. Overall, constructive criticism through an educational and professional tone will be more beneficial in the long run. To further clarify the point of coworkers “killing people with kindness”, here is one industry example that could have resulted in even larger, company-altering claims:
A driver at a waste hauler who was well liked by everyone, the “life of the party” and a long-term employee, had a borderline drinking problem that impaired his ability to be an alert driver. He had several small wrecks and bumps of equipment in the past, but one day, he fell asleep at the wheel and ran into a building and parked cars alongside the street. Luckily, no one was injured, yet there was significant property damage. When it happened, the first comment from many of his coworkers was, “I knew that was going to happen” … “just a matter of time”. The driver was written up for a DUI, as well as dangerous and reckless driving of a commercial vehicle. No one had ever talked to him about his well known, historical habits and how it affected his job.
This person lost his driving job and ability to hold a CDL license. Another person incurred property and auto damage. The company incurred costly claims. The worst part of all is what could have happened: someone could have been killed. But none of the coworkers who knew of his drinking habit said a word to the supervisor or took a proactive stance to help prevent this inevitable crash.
Grading Scale
Have you ever thought about measuring the effectiveness of evaluations in order to prevent “killing people with kindness”? As a supervisor, observe and grade the following safety hazards to hold your team accountable and ensure that yourself nor other workers are killing each other with kindness:
An employee not wearing his/her assigned and expected personal protective equipment?
An employee lifting something that does not request a buddy or mechanical lift?
An employee working with an unguarded or poorly maintained piece of equipment?
A driver driving too fast for conditions or speeding through a construction or school zone?
A driver texting, using a mobile phone or other distractions while driving?
A driver not performing a pre-trip inspection and using an inferior waste hauler?
An employee who was over served (alcohol/drugs) the night before and is lethargic or not alert at work?
Incident or Accident
After grading employees, review any recent claims and injuries. Diagnose whether this could have been prevented from reiterating a rule or providing guidance. Furthermore, question the validity of the word “accident” and whether that truly applies to the claim or injury. The word “accident” is generally a misnomer, as oftentimes we know what’s wrong and simply look the other way or could have prevented it to begin with. The use of “accident” removes or absolves responsibility and an injury should be labeled as an “incident.” To avoid future incidents that will directly affect a coworker and others either in or outside the company, make certain your employees are not “killing with kindness”.
John Wayhart is a Senior Vice President at Assurance Agency (Schaumburg, IL). With more than 29 years in the insurance and risk management industry, his expertise lies in providing solutions for a wide range of businesses including the waste and recycling industries. In the 1989, John trademarked Zero Accident Culture® and continues to teach, coach and mentor this process to help drive down the cost of risk to improve operational effectiveness and financial results. John can be reached at (847) 463-7161 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Note
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.