Don’t Call Me “Robot”

Robot.jpgBy Phil La Duke

Sorry for the delay in this post.  I was working feverishly to get my second book, Lone Gunman: Rewriting the Handbook On Workplace Violence Prevention, which went to my publisher last night. Expect coercive pressure to come.  But as I was writing about a cold-blooded killer going through the workplace I got to thinking about all the many approaches to safety and all the models (both well-meaning and half-witted) and I saw in all (or most) of this thinking a fatal flaw: they all tend to see “safety” as a static state. “If people would just do…we could have safety”.

Unfortunately, life gets in the way.  In the US workplace safety accounts for the slimmest of fractions of preventable death—before you cluck that tongue, consider…hold on now stop shaking your head in vehement denial and just consider heart disease, cancer, automobile accidents, any one of which kills more people each year than workplace fatalities. Even the most reckless doctor would never—even after proclaiming you to be in perfect health—tell you that you will never die of heart disease. Why? Because we live in a complicated system and what is true today may not (in fact, I will go so far as to say WILL not) be the same tomorrow. I’ve known too many people who have, after getting a clean bill of health, treat themselves to 6 months of unhealthy living.

So my question is this: Why do so many of us persist in our quest for that mythical lost city safety? Where machinery never wears out, and processes are perfectly designed, and all the people mindlessly follow every safety procedure and protocol like drones.  

Not many people know this, but even robots (which is a pejorative term it means “slave”, you insensitive louts! I know you are thinking that “robots don’t have feelings” and your right, for NOW, but when they do develop sentience and want to be called “enhanced humans” you still will call them robots behind their back. This is what will lead to the machine uprising! Just kidding folks I don’t care what you call robots and as for the machine uprising I will worry about that when Siri (who buy the way I insist call me Mr. La Duke, because it’s an appliance not a friend) can get my doctor on the phone when I say, “Call Dr. Ford” instead of saying, “I’m sorry Mr. La Duke, but I can’t find a ‘Ivan Robertonski in your contacts.” I have left many people wondering because I have left them screaming voicemails of “cancel, cancel, cancel! You (expletive) piece of (expletive).” I’ve done it so often that I think I may have inadvertently shut down sleeper cells.) make mistakes? It’s true.  But hell I’ve wandered off the rails again.

Safety is never a permanent state and all these lagging and leading indicators are so often misinterpreted, or not analyzed at all remind me of the organizational equivalent of a snipe hunt. I would like to see us slow down in safety. Speed kills, or at least that’s what anti-drug public service announcements  told me in the 1960’s. Seriously though, let’s just take a moment to clean out our attics when it comes to safety. So many of us hoard ideas and heap another piece intellectual excrement on the growing pile of thought dung. So many of us do the right things wrong and the wrong things because we’re afraid to tell our CEO who heard about a dumb idea on a plane from some drunk sitting next to him who read a book about it, that the idea is stupid!

If all we do is fill requests without truly informing the organization what it will REALLY cost (not just to hire the consultant, but how much labor, and materials, and administrivia will result) and the opportunity costs than we are nothing more than overpaid errand boys.

We need to get back to basics. Let’s face it we know what is hurting our people (and eventually our robots…no! I will stay focused.) We generally know how it’s happening. We know which jobs are more dangerous. And if we don’t know these things we need to get off our asses and get out to where the work is done.  When someone does something stupid we need to ask them to help us understand WHY they thought that was the best option? We need to understand the people and they need to understand us. So no more jargon, no more half-witted safety BINGOs, no mor`4 sociopathic children’s coloring contest. (Nobody ever died on the job because they hated their kid). We need to just STOP and ask ourselves how everything we do lowers the risk of employee injuries, and if our answer is “I dunno” then we need to stop doing it.

Did you like this post? If so you will probably like my book which can be ordered here I Know My Shoes Are Untied. Mind Your Own Business or on Barnes & Nobel.com. Did you hate this post? Did it offend you deeply? Maybe you should organize a book burning (minimum of 150 books) but be sure you are only burning my book, I don’t want you to go to a used book store and buy a bunch of cheap books and stack mine on top.

The book is a compilation of blog posts, guest blogs, magazine article (from around the world) and new material. Much of it is hard to find unless you know where to look. A second and third book has already been green-lighted by the publisher (expect fewer reprints and more new material).

Remember the holidays are coming up and this book makes the perfect gift for the person for which you feel obligate to get something for but don’t really like.

In all seriousness, I have been blogging for free for over 11 years and I think I have earned a bit of revenue so buy the damned book.

Advertisements

What’s Left To Say When Nobody’s Listening?

person wearing hearing aid

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

By Phil La Duke

Last week I wrote a post about my disdain for “predictive analytics” and a reader disagreed with it and told me I should read Predictive Analytics: The Power to Predict Who Will Click, Buy, Lie, or Die  By Eric Siegel, So I did. The book isn’t about safety per se, but a fair amount of companies are dumping millions into the attempt to predict how people will act in the context of safety.  Don’t get me wrong, Predictive analytics, that is, the clues that tell us how a person is likely to behave in a given situation, has been around for a good long time. Market research is a great example, millions are spent on analyzing buying trends to determine whether people prefer Fruit Loops over Cheerios, or whether showing idiots amazed at the obvious will sell cars.  But can this theory be applied to worker safety, and if it can be so what?

There is a couple of real big problems with predictions and human behavior is that people don’t usually act the way they do because of a predictable and rational reason. They tend to act this way because they are emotional.  Brain researchers have determined that we make our decisions based, not on logic and careful analysis, but on emotion.  I know that some of you are resisting this idea, and frankly so did I at first.  But, the researchers also found is that people tend to make their decisions in the part of the brain that controls emotions, and then justify what they already want to do by seeking out only that information that supports it.

So if you read a book to which you have formed an emotional attachment that book becomes sacrosanct and nothing I can say, write, or do will convince you otherwise.  So if someone says we can change the world using predictive analytics, I say “prove it” oh, but I won’t be spending millions letting you prove it.

Irrespective of the book and books like it, I still say bunk, and here’s why:

  1. Prediction is easier the closer it is to the predicted outcome.  For example, if you see a person fall off a 30 story building you can probably predict his demise with amazing accuracy, but if you  see a man sitting in a diner drinking coffee your prediction that he will die at 12:34 p.m. a month later.  Now the advocates of predictive analytics would argue that given enough information,  how often does he approach the edge of the building, how frequently is he on top of that building, how much expertise does he have, how much stress is he under, how much training has he had, how frustrated is he on the job, how much time has it been since his last bowel movement etc. they would be able to predict  that he would fall and when it would happen, hell they could send flowers to the widow before he hit the ground! What a time saver!

There are companies who successfully use predictive analytics to determine which of their employees are most likely to leave the company. Okay, great. These companies then intervene and prevent the people from leaving, “at a great rate of success”.  But how do they KNOW this is working? I guess one could say that the proof is in the pudding but I am dubious.  First, I’d like to know how many would have left if they hadn’t intervened.  I have worked at jobs I absolutely hated, but found it difficult to actively look for another job because recruiters tend to be lazy gits who only want to interview during the work week, which would cause me to take a day off and likely tip off my current employer. So while one could predict that I would be looking for another job, or would accept an offer, one could NOT predict my emotional state and therefore my ultimate decision.  A 90% success rate is better than a 10% success rate to be sure, but in that 90% success rate is there the element of luck at play? I enjoy shooting craps.  I know that certain bets are just foolhardy, but I make them anyway.  Casinos, know that free drinks, bright lights, sleep deprivation,  and other factors make it more likely that people will bet more foolishly and they put all those factors into play.  They also know that if I am having a good time—win or lose—I will stay at the table longer and statistics predict that I will ultimately start losing.  But there are many times that I will walk away from a table with a big score.  I can assure you it wasn’t because I am a highly skilled gambler, but because I got lucky and won enough to satisfy me. Casinos might be able to predict that I will lose and how much time it will take me to lose, but there is chance that I will win, and their predictions will be wrong.

2. Why do we accept predictive analytics but reject forecasts? Many of us disregard the weather forecasts despite the fact that meteorologists using powerful computers have analyzed thousands of bits of data to create a fairly reliable same- or next-day forecast but when the weather forecast is five days out, it is darn near impossible to predict. We accept that long-range forecasts are little more than guesses, yet we have not compunction against dismissing these forecasts as not-so-educated guests.

3.The problem with prognostication. Whether we call it trend analysis, forecasts, or predictive analysis or whatever, is they base the prediction on a snapshot or a trend and ignore the fact that all the moving parts are going to keep moving and shifting and the more we try to master our ability to predict the future the bigger fools we become.

 

Book Signing In A Detroit Institution

This is not this week’s post.

I just wanted to let people know that I will be co-hosting a book signing of I Know My Shoes Are Untied. Mind Your Own Business! at the historic new location of Henry The Hatters’  the oldest Hat Store in the US, on October the 14th, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Those of you who have read my Entrepreneur contributions might recall the travails of Henry the Hatter from my article He Owns the Oldest Hat Store In America and Knows How Tough Entrepreneurship Really Is Paul Wasserman’s Henry the Hatter has thrived for generations in Detroit. He knows everything there is to know about ups and downs. or Detroit: The 21st Century Boomtown The Motor City has epitomized both America’s past industrial dominance and the despair of economic decline. It now is the epitome of urban resurgence.

At any rate, Paul and Joe are opening up special on a Sunday for me to sign copies of   I Know My Shoes Are Untied. Mind Your Own Business! or select body parts.  I will have a limited number of books on hand for sale, but they go pretty quick so Amazon or Barnes and Noble is still your best bet.  Don’t care about my stupid book? Come and check out the new store (the last was a piece of history, the new store is a work of art, and maybe buy a hat (or four). Anyway, that’s where I’ll be and hopefully, you will be too.

Is Safety A Right Or A Responsibility

By Phil La Duke

Yesterday I reposted a blog article of the same name that I wrote and published in 2011 on my own company’s website.  I re-read it and was amazed at how much my outlook had shifted on this matter.  I’m sure it’s the current climate of entitlement  and people ascerting rights that they don’t have, but here it is for good or for ill…I don’t bad mouth BBS so I don’t expect more than a half-dozen readers  to actually see this post.

Is safety a right? Do I by nature of my own basic humanity possess an individual right to an injury-free workplace, or do I have a responsibility to work safely and avoid injuring myself and others? This seemingly simple question is at the cornerstone of every safety process, debate, and theory. Let’s explore these concepts independently at first. For something to be a right, we must have some guarantee or assurance by a body of some standing that whatever point of contention is in fact bestowed upon us when we meet a given criterion. Some of these rights are bestowed upon us directly and unquestionable—for example the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. Other rights are subject to interpretation, as in the overblown debate over whether an over-paid athlete has the right to kneel during the national anthem before sporting events, which can be viewed as a subset of said athlete’s right to free speech.

Safety Cannot Be a Right

Safety cannot be a right, because nothing is ever completely safe since true safety is the absence of any probability of coming to physical, emotional, mental, metaphysical, or any other sort of harm you can imagine. This seems odd because if human beings have any rights at all it would seem that they should possess the right to make a living without dying, suffering a debilitating injury, or crippling chronic conditions because of the work they do. We have the right, in the form of protection under the law, to freedom from injuries that are caused deliberately by our employers, or through negligence, or depraved indifference, so in some sense, we have the right to expect our employers to exercise reasonable and practicable care to prevent us from being killed or injured. For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to these rights as the right to Safety.

Today, experts estimate that there are 27 million slaves. Experts differ on the definition of exactly what constitutes a slave and with variations in definitions comes larger estimates of the size, but in general, we can agree that there are a LOT of people who are enslaved. Interestingly, this number (and definition) of slaves does not include the working poor who feel that they have no options. Liberty is seen in most developed countries, as a universal right and yet for too many people liberty is taken from them by force, swindled from them by conmen, or simply ignored for those people too poor or who don’t know that what is being done to them is illegal.

The U.S. Chamber of commerce and other business lobbyists have actively engaged in a campaign to significantly curtail the rights of individuals in the U.S. to sue companies for products that are unsafe. But this is just the final battleground worldwide. Laws globally have made it harder for individuals to hold companies responsible for the safety of their products. And it’s not just product safety. Workers’ compensation laws disallow workers from suing their employers for a workplace injury (such cases are governed by worker’s compensation payouts instead of individual lawsuits.) Similar efforts worldwide reflect a growing legal opinion that the primary cause of worker injuries is stupid, clumsy, or reckless workers. As for criminal penalties for injuring another, such consequences are largely nonexistent unless a company actually kills an individual, does so quickly, and does show while showing criminal recklessness and depraved indifference. If you are a company and you kill a worker by slowing poisoning him or her over say 30 years your board or exec team will not see a day of prison time (remember Union Carbide and India?) So while it sure makes sense that safety would be a right the legal opinion seems to view safety as something for sale—break a rule pay a fine, maim a worker and risk a lawsuit with restricted remedies. As long as you are prepared to write a check you can pretty much injury workers with impunity. If safety ever was a right it has long since ceased being one.

Safety Isn’t A Responsibility
If Safety isn’t a right is Safety at very least a responsibility? If safety is a responsibility, who is responsible? Everyone? Workers? Corporations? Is it a moral responsibility or legal one? Is safety a personal responsibility or a collective one? More and more companies are looking to hold workers responsible for the safety of the workplace. In some business environs, safety is a condition of employment. In others, elaborate and expensive behavior modification programs are implemented to manipulate the worker’s behaviors so that they work more safely. Given that injuries are accidental (not assaults) it’s hard to hold an individual responsible for an unforeseen outcome of an unintended action. So who is responsible? An organization bears the responsibility for keeping the workplace safe by implementing 5S workplace organizations, applying safety controls, training workers, designing robust processes, and ensuring that equipment is in good working order. In my mind, the front-line supervisor is and always will be ultimately responsible for the safety of the crew that he or she oversees. This responsibility is beyond debate. Only the front-line supervisor has both the power and the authority to ensure safe work practices of all the workers in his or her area. I can be killed as easily by the human errors, uninformed risk-taking, poor choices, or wanton recklessness of a coworker as easily as my own, and it is the front-line supervisor’s responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Clearly, workers bear some responsibility for their own safety, for example, they must follow the work instructions procedures that should be designed to perform the task most efficiently and efficiently includes in the safest possible manner. Workers need to manage their personal lives and avoid performance inhibitors. Avoiding performance inhibitors—like hangovers, lack of sleep, unmanaged stress, and fatigue—also tends to build resilience (a word so inappropriately bandied about I hesitate to even use it). Building resistance involves maintaining the fitness of body, mind, or soul. It does matter who you are staying physically fit helps you to boost your immune system and to bounce back more quickly from illnesses. Exercising your mind helps you to build what Chris Groscurt (in the fantastic recently released book, Future-Ready Leadership: Strategies for the Fourth Industrial Revolution) calls, “Presence of thinking” according to Groscurt “presence of thinking leads to greater self-awareness. We need presence of thinking to get out of the default (autopilot) mode of thinking.” This mental discipline allows us to bounce back from mental trauma and tragedy more quickly. Finally, we need to exercise our spiritual health—whoever or whatever you worship (hell you can worship me as God-Emperor and most of you cheap bastards still won’t buy my book) or if you worship nothing at all you have to take care of your spiritual or if you prefer, your emotional health. Groscurth dubbed this the “Presence of Feeling”, as he explains it, “Presence of feeling supports self-management and enables presence of action. This type of ‘practical wisdom’ (phronesis) or in-the-moment decision making…”

So while no single individual is responsible for the collective safety, everyone is responsible for some part of safety and should at a minimum hold themselves accountable for their contribution or lack thereof to safety.
Both and Neither
And so it goes that safety is both a right and a responsibility, and neither a right nor a responsibility. Safety is probability, and probability is generally a balancing act. By making safety an abstract (right, responsibility) we obviate the need to think of our safety as a continuous condition, and remain situationally aware or constantly shifting probability that we will not be harmed by the hazards with which we interact. We can either reduce the number of hazards with which we interact, reduce the time with which we interact, or reduce the severity of the consequences when, despite our best efforts, we are injured anyway

Did you like this post? If so you will probably like my book which can be ordered here I Know My Shoes Are Untied. Mind Your Own Business or on Barnes & Nobel.com. Did you hate this post? Did it offend you deeply? Maybe you should organize a book burning (minimum of 150 books) but be sure you are only burning my book, I don’t want you to go to a used book store and buy a bunch of cheap books and stack mine on top.

The book is a compilation of blog posts, guest blogs, magazine article (from around the world) and new material. Much of it is hard to find unless you know where to look. A second and third book has already been green-lighted by the publisher (expect fewer reprints and more new material).

In all seriousness, I have been blogging for free for over 11 years and I think I have earned a bit of revenue so buy the damned book.

Is Safety A Right Or A Responsibility?

Digging into the archives of my original blog.

The Safety Net

Is Safety a Right Or a Responsibility? Is safety a right? Do I as an individual have the right to an injury free workplace, or do I have a responsibility to work safely and avoid injuring myself and others? This seemingly simple question is at the cornerstone of every safety process, debate and theory. Let’s explore these concepts independently at first. Safety is a right .If human beings have any rights at all it would seem that the right to make a living without dying, suffering debilitating injury, or crippling chronic conditions because of the work they do. Today, experts estimate that there are 27 million slaves. Experts differ on the definition of exactly what constitutes a slave and with variations in definitions comes larger estimates of the size, but in general we can agree that there are a LOT of people who are enslaved. Interestingly, this number (and definition)…

View original post 576 more words

Ask Me Anything Has Been Extended

howtopublish

by Phil La Duke

Ask Me Anything is a forum where people can ask experts anything about (ideally about a specified topic). I hosted one on How to Publish Your Non-Fiction Book and it was so popular that they have decided to extend the question period until Friday at noon. So for those who have asked me in snotty emails, “what makes you an expert?” or “what makes you think you’re so smart?” or “why are you such a jerk to safety professionals?” or well…you get the picture.  Here’s your chance.

Ask Me Anything About Getting a Nonfiction Book Published

Answering the Arguments In Favor of BBS

man couple people woman

Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

By Phil La Duke
No matter how sick you are of reading my tirades against Behavior-Based Safety I can safely assure you that I am far more sick of writing them. Yet here I am again hammering out another post on the virus that is BBS.

I know that many of the people who read these articles are purveyors of this nonsense and nothing I say will ever penetrate the bloated businesses made fat by spewing this swill to safety people who don’t know any better. Wait…that sounds patronizing and I don’t mean it to be. Typically, BBS is foisted on companies because either someone in the C-suite heard that BBS is the way to go (without having a whisper of an idea as to what BBS really is or isn’t) or a global conglomerate  has dictated that thou shall have a BBS system in place or thou shall not get our business. In either case, both start with a decision that is wrong-headed and uninformed. So let me just answer some of the arguments put forth in the discussion threads relative to my anti-BBS posts.

BBS IS A TOOL

Yes, BBS is, in fact, a tool. I will grant you that, but so what? The question is not whether or not BBS is a tool but whether or not it is a) an effective tool and b) whether it’s the right tool for the job. A jackhammer is a tool, but that doesn’t make it right for driving screws to build a deck on your patio. BBS is too often seen as a ubiquitous tool that can be used in darn near any situation—the Swiss Army Knife of safety solutions. Yes, it is a tool; a tool that has been demonstrated to create friction among employees, a tool that encourages people to under-report injuries, and a tool that injured workers insulted and blamed. This, therefore, is a tool we can do without.

BBS MUST BE APPROPRIATELY APPLIED—THE EXAMPLES YOU GIVE ARE CLEARLY NOT CORRECTLY APPLIED BBS.

Texas City. The Deepwater Horizon. The Gulf of Mexico Spill. What do these all have in common? Large, mature, and sophisticated companies had BBS systems in place that not only failed but failed on an epic scale. I don’t believe for a second that these companies are to blame (at least not completely, or even primarily) to blame. They had invested significant time, energy, resources in a safety system that failed, and when it failed people died. Top executives had just left one of these sites after visiting it to commend it on its safety record. These weren’t stupid or incompetent people working for villainous corporations that were indifferent to human suffering, rather they were people who had been convinced, probably someone who was made rich selling this snake oil, that BBS was the single best way to keep people from getting injured, and they were wrong.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that It wasn’t the failure of BBS, rather it was the failure of the people and company to correctly and appropriately apply BBS at their sites. Should you entrust the lives and limbs of your workers to a system so fragile that a slight misapplication can cause a major breakdown and kill a dozen or so workers, cost the company tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars, and forever stain the company’s reputation? BBS flies in the face of the Hierarchy of Controls and focuses on the lowest, least effective controls (administrative and PPE). This leads us to the next argument:

BBS WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE SYSTEM, RATHER AN ELEMENT OF A LARGER MORE COMPLEX SAFETY SYSTEM.

Okay, there is a LOT wrong with this contention. First of all, some of the big purveyors of BBS systems charge upwards of a million dollars per site for a three-year engagement, others charge companies to certify their safety personnel in their methodology and then insist that only there training materials and posters be used by the customer, creating a parasitic relationship between vendor and customer. Still others take on only those projects of which their success is virtually guaranteed. So effectively if this argument is to be believed a company has to spend millions to get a half or one third, or LESS of a solution. If I shell out a million bucks I better get a complete system that not only lowers my operating risk but also helps me better manage my overall performance. This argument is like going to a restaurant and ordering a sandwich, being charged $30 and given two slices of bread. When you protest the waiter explains that the bread is only a small part of the sandwich and if you want cold cuts, condiments, or cheese you have to pay extra. Oh, and by the way, you have to pay that $30 every time you have lunch. Who in his or her right mind would buy that sandwich?

Beyond cost, no one who has ever thrown this argument at me has ever been able to answer my question, “okay, if it is only PART of the solution what is the rest?” apparently since they don’t sell it, it’s not their problem. I have a real issue with this since it seems to me to be a deliberate back door in the system designed solely for the purpose of blaming the customer for the failure of a portion of a solution that was sold as a complete solution.

YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BBS

Maybe I don’t get it. I certainly don’t understand so many of the half-baked explanations given to me by the purveyors of bullshit. Maybe it’s because I am haunted by the image of the blood-splattered BBS signage where a worker was squashed like a grape between the sign and an out-of-process steel rail that crushed him to death where he stood. Was BBS the reason he was killed? Probably not, but it damned sure didn’t save his life either. If you look up BBS on Wikipedia (I admit not the best source for credible information) it reads like propaganda, not an encyclopedia article. It reads, (the typos are theirs not mine:

“Behavior-based safety (BBS) is the “application of science of behavior change to real world safety problems”.[1] or “A process that creates a safety partnership between management and employees that continually focuses people’s attentions and actions on theirs, and others, daily safety behavior.”[2] BBS “focuses on what people do, analyzes why they do it, and then applies a research-supported intervention strategy to improve what people do”.[3] At its very core BBS is based on a larger scientific field called organizational behavior management.[citation needed]

In a safety management system based upon the hierarchy of hazard control, BBS may be applied to internalise hazard avoidance strategies or administrative controls (including use of personal protective equipment), but should not be used in preference to the implementation of reasonably practicable safety measures further up the hierarchy.

To be successful a BBS program must include all employees, from the CEO to the front line workers including hourly, salary, union employees, contractors and sub-contractors. To achieve changes in behavior, a change in policy, procedures and/or systems most assuredly will also need some change. Those changes cannot be done without buy-in and support from all involved in making those decisions.

BBS is not based on assumptions, personal feeling, and/or common knowledge. To be successful, the BBS program used must be based on scientific knowledge.”

Let’s take this a chunk at a time:

“application of science of behavior change to real world safety problems”.or “A process that creates a safety partnership between management and employees that continually focuses people’s attentions and actions on theirs, and others, daily safety behavior.”

The first sentence is non-speak. How is BBS the application of THE science of behavior change to real-world safety problems? What is being applied? which behavioral science (psychology? sociology? anthropology? neurology?) is being applied? and the second sentence is equally ambiguous:

“A process that creates a safety partnership between management and employees that continually focuses people’s attentions and actions on theirs, and others, daily safety behavior.”

What form does this safety partnership take? How does it continually focus people’s attention and action on…daily safety behavior? What the hell is safety behavior? If you wrote a standard work instruction that was this ambiguous and someone died you would end up in prison making behavioral observations that can’t be unobserved or described except to a psychiatrist using dolls.

“In a safety management system based upon the hierarchy of hazard control, BBS may be applied to internalise (sic) hazard avoidance strategies or administrative controls (including use of personal protective equipment), but should not be used in preference to the implementation of reasonably practicable safety measures further up the hierarchy.”

So, in other words, don’t use it the way 90% of companies currently do.

“To be successful a BBS program must include all employees, from the CEO to the front line workers including hourly, salary, union employees, contractors and sub-contractors. To achieve changes in behavior, a change in policy, procedures and/or systems most assuredly will also need some change. Those changes cannot be done without buy-in and support from all involved in making those decisions.”

So to be successful, this system that is as delicate as Waterford crystal must have EVERY employee, contractor, and sub-contractor completely committed to it. If you buy this pile of crap may you should be committed.

“BBS is not based on assumptions, personal feeling, and/or common knowledge. To be successful, the BBS program used must be based on scientific knowledge.”

And yet behavioral observations are based almost exclusively on assumptions, personal feelings, and/or common knowledge (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean); these aren’t behavioral scientists making these observations. So to sum up, maybe I don’t get it, but then from the look of it neither do the proponents of BBS.

BBS CAN, OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, TEACH WORKERS TO BE COMFORTABLE CONFRONTING THEIR PEERS ABOUT UNSAFE BEHAVIORS

Several years? You want me to spend SEVERAL YEARS and spend how much money and resources so one worker can say, “Hey Sam, that piece of equipment you’re working on is still energized! Shouldn’t you lock that out?” REALLY? If that is the best argument for BBS all I can say is that may be my best argument against it.

Did you like this post? If so you will probably like my up-coming book which can be ordered here I Know My Shoes Are Untied. Mind Your Own Business or on Barnes & Nobel.com. Did you hate this post? Did it offend you deeply? Maybe you should organize a book burning (minimum of 150 books) but be sure you  are only burning my book, I don’t want you to go to a used book store and buy a bunch of cheap books and stack mine on top.

The book is a compilation of blog posts, guest blogs, magazine article (from around the world) and new material. Much of it is hard to find unless you know where to look. A second and third book has already been green-lighted  by the publisher (expect less reprints and more new material).