Four Burros in the Back of a Pick Up Truck

According to researcher, Benjamin Skinner in an interview with, Terrence McNally host of Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles and WBA I99.5FM, New York there are more slaves today then every before in human history.  Skinner spent four years undercover in the world of illegal slavery researching his book: A Crime So Monstrous: Face to Face with Modern-Day Slavery.

Modern day slavery is more than a social ill, it’s an epidemic that should scare safety professionals. Experts estimate that before the global recession that there were 27 million people. Author, Kevin Bales’s, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy defines slaves as “those forced to work, held through fraud, under threat of violence, for no pay beyond subsistence.”

It may seem like a leap to equate issues in safety with human trafficking, but I am not being melodramatic.  Workers in highly industrialized countries have long felt the pressure from employers who threaten to move jobs overseas if the workers do not comply with demands for cheaper labor.  Little by little corporations have chipped away at worker safety by creating a climate of fear.

In some cases companies are more overt, they shut down operations in the U.S., Europe, or Australia and move production to countries that either turn a blind eye toward safety and environmental violations or lack even the most basic worker and environmental protections.  In other cases, companies move jobs to overseas suppliers who have criminal safety records.

The post recession world is even uglier.  Politicians increasingly describe safety regulations as “job killing” or some other euphemism for a threat to job security.  Workers are increasingly told that they can either have a job or they can work safely, but they can’t have both. How different is that from slavery? Quite a bit, actually,  I won’t cheapen the atrocity that is slavery by equating it to corporate bullies who continue to chip away at worker and environmental protection by telling us to toughen up. But I will say that it is on the same continuum and part of the overall trend toward diminishing the importance of workplace safety.

Even in the most mature industrial countries the law encourages us to shift blame to the workers or other companies. Government regulations encourage us I have worked with several companies who have had worker fatalities that “didn’t count” because the workers were contractors and therefore, “not our recordable”.  When did human life get so cheap that we as safety professionals started to see the loss of life as somehow less horrific because the worker—a person who we saw day in and day out, swapped stories over coffee, and save for some legal designation, was our coworker in all the ways that count—wasn’t on our payroll?

It’s easy to blame governments, after all they are the ones who made the laws and fail to enforce them, but realistically, how can governments regulate a moving target?  Furthermore governments lack the resources to be fully effective; they simply can’t be everywhere so they tend to respond only complaints and complaints aren’t coming from the worst offenders. Off course, governments have allowed assaults on worker safety to effectively go unanswered. In the rush to compete one municipality sells out the community and workers just to lure business in only to have it leave for a better deal.

It’s even easier to blame corporations; the nameless, faceless evil empires that we all love to hate.  Mitt Romney drew criticisms for his political faux pas of saying that corporations are people too.  A dumb thing to say, granted, but was he that far off? I own shares of a mutual fund that own stock in corporations. I don’t even no what stocks I indirectly own let alone their safety or human rights records, and forget the supply chain they could be butchering people and I would never know. I’m not proud of it, but for all I know I could own stock in a company that uses slave labor. Corporations will argue, rightfully, that they have a responsibility to there shareholders to make as much money as they are able.  Many will argue that they don’t or can’t know the particulars of each of their suppliers in a multi-tiered supply chain.

Safety professionals bear no small amount of accountability for the problem.  The “my hands are tied because…” spiel is getting old. We prorogate ineffectual, complex, and cutesy safety fads, and whine when we aren’t taken seriously.

If you think this is a third world problem, think again. Witness the North Carolina pork processing plant that preyed on immigrants (complaints about working conditions were met with threats of visits from the department of Immigration Naturalization Services (INS).  The plant didn’t get more than regional attention even after it illegally confined a worker in an in-plant jail cell (the company alleged that the woman was suspected of stealing pork). The company was fined. An attempt to organize the plant failed, and things presumably went back to the way they had been.  Slavery? no, but how far from it? And this is not happening in some third-world back alley it’s happening here; we own this.

As long as we continue to allow companies to shop for areas of the world that will allow them to use up workers and throw them away afterwards this issue will not go away; in fact it will grow and eventually it will grow so big that companies won’t need safety professionals. I’ve sounded the alarm before.  Safety professionals need to be on the forefront of this issue—slaves or human chattel—do we really need another Triangle Shirtwaist Fire to pull us back into the game?

Beyond the Blog

2011 began with me starting a major, long-term engagement with one of the world’s largest healthcare systems AND  kicking off  a project where, through Rockford Greene International, I ran the safety department for a small and struggling Tier-One automobile parts supplier. While I mentioned neither in my blogs (Rockford Greene International closely guards its client list to abet the guilty) both greatly shaped the content of my blogs, articles, and deranged emails to sundry politicos.  I also was engaged by a European luxury automobile manufacturing to do some executive coaching and process redesign, also through a Rockford Greene customer.

The bulk of my time,  however, was spent writing.  I had around 15 or 16 peer-reviewed articles published, wrote weekly (and sometimes weakly) posts to both www.philladuke.wordpress.com and www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com all and all I produced somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 words in print last year; much of it right here.

This blog (and the Rockford Greene blog) continues to be shared by the ESHQ Elite managers once a quarter which drew many of you to the site.  For those of you who aren’t members of the LinkedIn group I would recommend you consider joining it; it is a terrific community. By mid summer, the blog had really taken off and now draws a steady audience (so much so that I sweat the Sunday deadline).

I spoke at the Michigan Safety Conference in Lansing, MI, in April and at the National Safety Council in October.  I submitted 2 abstracts for the ASSE show in June (which I covered as a reporter for Facility Safety Management magazine) but had both turned down.  That really irritated me, because two members of the selection committee specifically asked me to submit those.  After that experience and getting both abstracts rejected for this year, I have decided that ASSE doesn’t deserve me as a speaker, and I will not be speaking there again anytime in the foreseeable future. Unless they pay.  Most of other speeches I made to private companies who pay me to address their national or international safety meetings.  I am in the process of filling out speaking abstracts for conferences in Europe and at the National Safety Council, so if you are interested in hearing me speak, watch these pages.

I completed my certification in Just Culture, which amuses me since I have 5 works on the subject already published, but it was something a client required and what am I if not a sport.

In October, ISHN leaked a list of the Power 101, its list of the most powerful and influential people working in Safety today.  They quickly realized their error and pulled the list.  (It has since been republished and yes I am still on it.) I was interviewed by S+H Magazine, but that didn’t see print until 2012 so I don’t know if it is worth mentioning.

This year I am hoping to publish my first book, Selling Safety In Tough Times.  I have a proposal, but haven’t started looking for a publisher.  If anyone out there knows of a good literary agent, send them my way. I also have a submission (a late one—didn’t see the call for papers until the day it was due) for an OSHA journal.

I am hoping to get more speaking engagements and, of course, consulting gigs.  Will work for money.

But anyway, again thank you for your readership, your rancor, your interest and your community.

Phil

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,200 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Let’s take a look at the facts of the first incident. A man decides to change a tire in the dark. As he gets out of the car to assess the situation maybe he notices that he is closer to traffic than he would like, maybe he doesn’t. In either case, he decides against repositioning the care. Not far away, another driver heads to work, she left a bit early and isn’t in a particular hurry so she decides to stay in the right hand lane. While the day is dark, unseasonably warm weather has made driving conditions unusually good—no ice, good visibility, she is paying attention, well as much as one can when one makes the routine daily commute. She’s careful by nature, she makes it a point not to text or talk on the phone while driving. She isn’t going particularly fast, but she is keeping up with traffic, like most drivers she drifts a bit in the lane, but she’s not swerving. Back at our first driver, he’s ticked off, this isn’t the way he wanted to start his day, and the tire isn’t just flat, it’s ruined. He hadn’t planned on the $150 or so expense of replacing a tire, especially with the holiday bills coming in. He didn’t need this and he’s getting more and more ticked off. A car whizzes by and his heart quickens, “that was close” he thinks, and he realizes that he’s in trouble, but the car is up on the jack and there is scarce little time to move the car, besides that would take more time. As the second driver negotiates the heavy traffic she notices too late the man crouched in her lane. A moment later the man lay dead run over by three motorists.

Less than 24 hours later, on a different patch of the same freeway, a small business owner’s car gives out and strands him, he struggles to get it off the road, he puts on the flashers, and mindful of yesterday’s tragedy makes sure the car is well out of traffic and completely on the shoulder. It’s 4:00 a.m.; he picks up his cell phone; “damn, it’s dead”. “Looks like there’s no choice but to walk to the nearest gas station and get help” he thinks. Reluctantly he gets out and starts walking to the closest exit. Meanwhile a postal truck swerves to miss one of Michigan’s ubiquitous potholes and strikes the pedestrian, killing him instantly. Are these so different from workplace fatalities? I don’t think so. In fact, I think there are some important lessons that challenge conventional thinking regarding workplace injuries.

Lesson 1: Many injuries, if not most, are a collection of hazards that only cause injuries when there is a catalyst. I call it Hazard Stack, and explore this idea a bit more in this week’s www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com post.

Think of all the elements, that had to be present for the firefighter to be killed. He had to be too close to the road, traffic had to be heavy, a driver had to fail to notice that he was in harms way, and more. None of these elements alone caused his death, and the elements collectively did not cause his death, until there was some catalyst. Sadly we will likely never know what the catalyst was that caused this accident.

Lesson 2: Reminding People to Act More Safely is Ineffective in Keeping People Safe. The first case shut down traffic for 3 hours or more, in fact, all of northwest metro Detroit was disrupted. This was big news and was at the forefront of drivers’ minds for weeks. Despite this chilling reminder, an almost identical incident happened in less than 24 hours. I would be stunned to learn that either driver in the second incident hadn’t heard about the first incident, and yet this heightened awareness failed to prevent the second incident. Similarly, it is unlikely that warning signs or some sort of reward for not walking on the shoulder of a busy interstate highway would be effective.

Lesson 3: The Human Drive Toward Expediency Trumps The Need to Act Safely. Too often we see workplace fatalities that would have been prevented had the individual spent a little more time or suffered a small bit of inconvenience. But we need to understand that humans are hardwired to take risks—hell, getting out of bed in the morning carries with it at least some risk. But the need for expediency, to accomplish a task as simply, quickly, and easily is far stronger than our drive for self-preservation, at least to a point that is. Too often workplaces are configured so workers are forced to choose between expediency and safety. While employers generally want people to work safely, many times the message—produce efficiently and quickly—over shadows the message to work safe. Sometimes it may seem that employers encourage at risk behavior, but in general, employers do not want employees taking reckless chances. But we do take chances nonetheless. It real terms we don’t care what our employers are telling us to do, we want to get the job done as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

Lesson 4: It’s Easy to Get So Absorbed In The Moment That We Lose Sight of the Big Picture. Consider our cast of characters, the Fireman, the Driver who struck him, the Postal Worker, and the Business Owner. All components of a large and complex system we call traffic. Each one is fairly absorbed in situation at hand, and the specific tasks associated with their activities (changing a tire, walking for help, driving to work, and driving as part of the normal workday.) Because each was so absorbed in each one’s individual task each has lost sight of the global process. Here again, this illustrates the lack of effectiveness of reminding people to work safely. It’s fair to say that none our cast believed that they were acting in a way that would result in a fatality, because if they had such awareness, one would expect them to have taken measures to change the environment. Walk on the grass along side the shoulder, reposition the car before attempting to change a tire, or move from the right lane to the center. We can’t be sure that all four didn’t see the situation as life threatening and decided to recklessly endanger themselves or others, but we can’t default to that thinking either. Safety is about managing both the big picture and the details.

Lesson 5: Accidents Happen More Frequently As The Risk Threshold Is Approached. Safety isn’t about not getting injured. Many people behave unsafely every day and aren’t injured, nor do they cause others to be injured; they’re lucky. Safety is about the probability that someone will be injured. As hazards become more numerous the risk rises until the probability that someone will be injured is all but certain, Because this is probability and not cause and effect, no work environment can ever be pronounced completely and irrefutably safe.

Lesson 6: While Training Is Important, Merely Knowing the Risk is Insufficient For Keeping People Safe. I have a lot of respect for firefighters and I use them as examples of how more people should work safely. For examples I have trained nurses who will complain that they often have to engage in high-risk activities because a patient’s life is at stake. I tell them how glad I am that firefighters don’t act that way. I point out that firefighters don’t rush into burning buildings to safe a person without first donning their protective equipment. It’s not because firefighters care less about saving people than nurses do, it’s because firefighters understand that dead firefighters can’t safe people. I am sure that the unfortunate firefighter who died that fateful day had far more safety training and awareness than the average motorist. This training and awareness did not save his life, however. I’m not arguing against training and awareness, but let’s not bank on these things alone saving lives in the workplace. Accidental fatalities are tragic whether they happen on the highway or in the workplace.

As I think about these most recent tragedies I am reminded of how similar they probably are to the kinds of injuries that happen in the workplace. Let’s learn from these cases and try to ensure that we apply these lessons in the workplace.

I’d very much encourage you to subscribe to this blog and www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com or RockfordGreeneI or Philladuke on Twitter.  Why? Well… I do my best to post each week Sunday at noon for this blog and Sunday at 12:01 a.m. for Rockford Greene.  But it doesn’t always work that way.

Subscribing, or following my Twitter feeds allows you to get immediate notification of my posts so you don’t come to the site expecting new content and finding only disappointment instead.  I don’t send spam or junk emails out to subscribers so you won’t get a lot of superfluous crap.

As always thanks for reading and stay safe.

Phil

fa·nat·ic noun

1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

A couple of weeks ago a post I wrote found its way onto a LinkedIn Group discussion thread. The group in question is devoted to behaviour-based safety zealots who apparently enjoy telling each other how slick they are and how one methodology should be used at the exclusion of all others (or at least as the primary methodology)
This got me thinking about blind devotion to a methodology. And then I read an article that was yet another  criticism of Heinrich’s pyramid of risk. And then I read another article that defended Heinrich and asked if his critics might be too harsh in their comments.

And then it hit me,  the realization that growing  fanaticism, zealotry, and extremism is imperiling worker safety and enough’s enough. Here’s the bad news.  Working as a safety professional is hard.  There is no area of expertise that will make a one a safety superman, no single methodology that has a monopoly on making the world a safer place; there’s no panacea, no magic bullets, just hard work and dedication.

I know this isn’t exactly a epiphany—I’ve been warning people of the rising tide of people who place their ability to make money over the effectiveness of the snake oil that they continue to promote to people who don’t know any better—but it was none-the-less a fairly profound realization.

For those of you who don’t know, Heinrich was an insurance investigator who in 1931 wrote the book, “Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach.” In this book, Heinrich asserted that  88 percent of accidents are caused by “unsafe acts of persons”.  Statistical analysis was in its infancy (at least in and industrial setting) and Heinrich’s risk pyramid: that is there is 330 accidents, 300 will not result in injury, 29 will cause minor injuries, and one will result in a major injury or a fatality.

What I realized was a) Heinrich was full of crap  b) it’s not his fault, and c) while he’s not all right, he’s not all wrong either.  His research methods and results are, after 6 decades or so, increasingly questioned.  But even if he didn’t fake his research (personally I don’t believe he did, at least intentionally) his methods, population, and conclusions were hopelessly broken.  The manufacturing environment in which he conducted his studies bear little to know resemblance to today’s workplace.  In those days, asking supervisors the causes of injuries was not likely to yield many answers that didn’t lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of careless workers.  I don’t disparage these supervisors or Heinrich; they reached the conclusion that any reasonable person of that period would have given their time and experiences.  But let’s consider the time,  in 1931 eugenics was considered legitimate science, Social Darwinism was one of the most popular social science theories.  Henry Ford was spouting White Man’s Burden, and Nazism and Marxism were both rising in popularity.  In short, there was a pervasive environment in which workers were believed to be little more than clever primates who once in awhile  could be expected to have the occasional lethal mishap.

In most parts of the world, we it is no longer acceptable to see workers as chattel. And if Heinrich were to have completed his study in these more enlightened times what percentage of worker injuries would be attributed to “unsafe acts of persons” aside from the zealots and fanatics who start with an answer (90%, 95%, etc.) and then conduct research to prove what they already believe.  Beware the man who conducts research the outcome of which can either preserve or endanger his livelihood.  If your livelihood depends on the world being flat, count on finding facts to support your need.  It’s human nature.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Heinrich had the right of it; let’s pretend that his findings were accurate and correct. All that would mean is that given his population his conclusions were sound.  It wouldn’t however, mean that his findings were universal truths.  It wouldn’t be applicable to all industries, all areas of the world, or people. And yet, people continue to promote one methodology as applicable in most cases, even when they aren’t.

This may sound like yet another attack on BBS;  it isn’t. While there is certainly a time and a place for Behaviour-Based Safety (I am accused of being so virulently anti BBS that I can’t see the value in it, this is a false charge, but one I suffer relatively cheerfully.) it is the height and breadth of  arrogance to assume, without investigation, that worker behaviour is the primary cause of injuries.  But then again, it’s just as arrogant to assume that the process is to blame.

For years I sold a process that I invented as a work for hire. SafetyIMPACT! was a fairly prescriptive methodology that yielded terrific results.  But what made it tough to sell was the “not invented here” push back.  I spent 6 years working on safety improvements in the automotive industry, but the first time I tried to sell SafetyIMPACT outside the auto industry companies responded with “this isn’t the auto industry” and then “this is aerospace” and then “this is healthcare” and then “this is mining” and then…well you get the picture.  I always sort of rolled my eyes and thought these narrow-minded goofs just don’t get it; that they just didn’t understand that they weren’t that special, not that unique.

So I modified my style.  I turned the system I developed into a structure diagnostic tool that in one year would assess the situation, use the methodologies most appropriate to the situation, and build an infrastructure that would work for the organization.  After 15 engagements without a single failure I began to think that I had all the answers, that I had developed the magic bullet.

Last week I realized I was wrong.  I realized I didn’t have all the answers, in fact I didn’t have many answers at all.  I realized that all those people who refused to buy my snake oil were right; I don’t know who they are and I don’t know their specific challenges.  But if that was the case why was I so wildly successful? Because the key to success lies not in knowing what the organization needs, but in knowing that you don’t know what an organization needs and that you will have to research the situation.  You need to invent it here.

Happy Holidays,

Phil

Reblogged from Rockfordgreeneinternational's Blog:

Much has been made of my criticisms of Behavior Based Safety.  For some, my questioning of BBS is essentially a personal affront.  Others accuse me of offering criticisms without providing viable alternatives. For the record, I don’t feel I have to offer any alternatives—and yes, I am publicly saying that if you knowing sell, promote or advocate a systems (safety or otherwise) that you know doesn’t work or that costs more than it will ever recoup, you are a conman, a thief, and yes a snake oil …

So much of a stink has been raised about this, I thought I’d repost and stir the pot

But somewhere in that nebulous stew that is Fierce Vision. Is the idea that we don’t have to listen to the excrement that  people pass as “constructive criticism”.  Last week I posted an article about suffering through criticism, and it may have sounded a bit like self pity. But I have come to realize that a fair amount of people feel entitled to  provide us with unwanted feedback when they really should just shut their gaping maws.  This is important in safety, not because we don’t have important things to say, but because often we provide feedback, less to warn others and more to make ourselves feel better. When we are criticizing—not offering advice, or training, or sharing our insights, but carping on about the stuff that bugs us.  You will know criticism when you see it; it is the piddly crap that drives us crazy about other people’s behavior.  Before we speak to another about his or her behavior, we need to ask our self why we are making the comment. If it is to make ourselves feel better, to unburden our souls as it were, we had ought to shut our pie holes.  Whether it be asking for forgiveness or setting people to right, if it’s about us, we need to remain silent.

Sometimes the criticism is subtle,  we’re not really directly telling someone that they’re broken, instead we  insinuate that you’re broken:  “You should buy a house; renting is for suckers.”  “You should sell real estate: there’s good money in it.”  Did you ever notice how some people can make you feel like crap while sounding so very helpful?  It is irritating and yet we feel guilty for being irritated since they were “only trying to help.”

Offering To Help When It Isn’t Welcome Is Butting In

The instances where people offer us help when we’ve never as much as hinted that we needed assistance is maddening.  Why does it irritate us?  They’re just trying to help out, right?  When someone tells us that “we should…”it is an act of aggression.  Once again or flight and fight goes on alert, our brains flood our bodies with chemicals, and our bodies brace themselves for a fight.  Sometimes we respond with, “you should shut the hell up and mind your own business (fight) or “yeah, you’re right” (flight.)

However well intentioned, the people who provide us with unsolicited criticism cause us stress.  The unspoken message in the “you should…” is that if you continuing doing what you are doing you are broken in some way.  The more passive their aggression the more alert our bodies become and the more stress-related problems we suffer as a result.

Some of you are thinking, “It’s my job to criticize” or “If I see some behavior that is unsafe I am morally obligated to intervene”.  That’s just you granting yourself license to butt in; it’s you giving yourself permission to “should all over” the people you are supposed to be helping.

Criticism tends to eliminate related behaviors that we value.  For example, let’s say you are the first to arrive at the office every day and the task of making the coffee falls to you.  You don’t mind, you do it because you like drinking coffee, it’s not hard to do, and you like helping out the group.  Now, one day, I come up to you and say, “you know, I’m getting sick of having to put away the coffee filters, mopping up the little puddles you leave behind, and sweeping up coffee grounds.  You’d think at your age you’d have learned to clean up after yourself.”  After my reproach of your coffee making, what are the chances that you will be making any coffee (safe for me to drink) anytime soon?  Chances are great that you will either stop making coffee (flight), tell me that I can make the coffee from now on (fight), or continue making coffee but now deliberately leaving a bigger mess (passive aggressive).  In all these cases, our goal to get me to pick up after myself are left un-achieved, and in two thirds of the cases a highly desirable behavior falls along the wayside.  Clearly, a feedback tool that does not trigger the fight/flight response is necessary.

Not all feedback is dysfunctional, in fact, good, advisory feedback is essential for lowering our stress. Instead of getting all self-righteous and criticizing workers you will likely find that advice is a far more effective feedback mechanism.  Where criticism is destructive and focuses on negative aspects, advice is the practice of providing a more balanced description of the behavior.  When providing advice, we begin by discussing positive behaviors before discussing behaviors we would like to see changed.  Our example of the coffee-making mess could have been handled using advice instead of criticism and would likely have a much more positive result.

Instead of complaining about the negative aspects of the coffee I should have started by commenting on the things in your behavior that I valued before moving on to the behaviors I would like to see changed.   “I want you to know that I love it that you make coffee everyday; I am NOT a morning person and I rely on that first cup of coffee.  I also need you’re help.  Often, the kitchen area is a mess, in a large part because of the coffee that you make.  How can I help you to clean up after yourself?”

I can already hear some of you laughing, “yeah right…they’ll just say ‘you clean it if it bothers you’”…maybe; if you lack that person’s trust probably; if you have an ulterior motive; definitely.  If you are insincere in your praise, you create, what a friend of mine indelicately dubbed, the shit-filled twinkie.  The shit-filled twinkie is a comment that at first appears to be a compliment (a delicious-looking snack cake), but inside the compliment is an insult (need I further explain the analogy?)  In the interest of decorum, let’s refer to my friend’s analogy as the SFT.  SFTs are created because the speaker is just going through the motions of commenting on positive elements of the behavior.  SFTs do more harm than good.

Far from being a SFT, this approach mends troubled relationships and helps to build trust.  As you build trust, your stress level, and the stress level of the other person diminishes.  Remember, though building trust takes time.  Initially, the person receiving the feedback is likely to resist this change in you and only through patient, consistent advice will the relationship ultimately be mended.

Another outstanding way to provide feedback is through reinforcement.  Reinforcement is used to increase desired behaviors.  Basically, reinforcement is a sincere, meaningful compliment.  It is a way of thanking people for doing things right, and letting them know they appreciate what they’ve done for us.

Irrespective of the kind of feedback we provide, we need to be specific.  It is unfair to expect people to respond favorably to vague feedback.  “You know that thing that you’re always doing, I hate that.”  What are we expected to do with this kind of feedback?  Unless I know exactly what elements of my behavior you don’t like, there is little I can do to change my behavior.  Instead, we would be better served by saying, “I dislike it when you put your feet on the dinner table and I would like you to please stop that.”

Providing specific feedback means that you must speak from your knowledge-base about things that you have experienced and seen with your own eyes.  How do you respond to a policeman at the door who tells you that some of the neighbors have complained about the stench coming from your garage? (Clearly this is an attack and you are likely to respond either by fighting or fleeing.)  Many of us would ask, “which neighbors?” or “who’s complaining?”  It is difficult for us to assess the value and seriousness of the complaint unless we can “consider the course” or at very least put the complaint into some sort of context.  If we don’t know who the feedback is coming from it’s virtually the same as getting no feedback at all.  We really should restrict our feedback to things we’ve observed, noticed, or experienced and leave hearsay out of our remarks.

So before you charge out to the workplace snooping around for unsafe behaviors, ask yourself “do I have the interpersonal skills to provide solid information? Or will my comments do more harm than good?” Ultimately, you may have to muster the courage to shut the fuck up.

Late Post Again

I suppose I owe something of an apology to those of you who hit the site on Sundays expecting a fresh post.  I’m sorry.  It’s Christmas and I’m a guy who is spread pretty thin.  This week I am continuing my series on stress and how it affects us and our safety.  I will likely interrupt this series next week, as on January 1, 2012 this blog will be blasted out to the world by the ESHQ LinkedIn Group.  I haven’t decided yet.  Your comments one way or the other would be appreciated.  Until then, safe holidays, and Merry Christmas.

—Phil