Safety: Are You Good or Just Lucky?

RISK FACTOR #2: WORK INCOMPETENCE
Worker incompetence does not refer to some nincompoop unable to do even the most rudimentary task without screwing things up. Instead, this is the skill level at which a worker is able to perform their job. A strong correlation exists between level of mastery at which a worker performs the tasks associated with their job and the risk of injuries, meaning these measurements are appropriate and predictive:

• Required training percent complete. Assuming training is necessary to do one’s job, the lack of this training indicates process variability. Tracking the percentage of training provides a glimpse into how much risk a worker faces of being injured because a task is performed improperly. The greater the percentage of completed training, the lower the risk of injury because of a gap in essential skills.
• Percent of licenses and certificate expired. Understanding approximately how many workers are working despite having expired licenses and certificates also indicates process variability.
• Time to complete required training. The longer it takes to complete required training, the longer the exposure to workplace risk associated with a skills gap.
• Worker performance appraisal scores. This particular measure is tricky — it assumes that worker appraisals are fair assessments of the employee’s ability to accurately complete tasks and do the job. Assuming there is a robust worker performance appraisal assessment, the lower-scored individuals should be at greater risk than those performing at higher levels.

RISK FACTOR #3: LEADER INCOMPETENCE
Workers generally perform in ways for which they are rewarded and eschew behaviors for which they are punished. Low-performing leaders often exacerbate safety issues by behaving inappropriately in their interactions with workers. Some measures that directly correlate to leadership competency are:

• 360 Reviews. Reviews where a leader’s team members, boss and peers all contribute are often excellent indicators of how well a leader interacts with their team. The weaker the leader, the higher the risk of process variation and rise in the risk of injuries.
• Leader performance review. Poorly performing leaders generally allow more variation into the work area. The higher the leader performance, the less likely workers will be harmed on their watch. This performance review will most likely include things like the productivity of their team, general performance in cost, quality, efficiency and related things that directly or indirectly impact the risk of injuries.
• Worker morale. This can be effected by a host of things unrelated to the leader, though it is heavily influenced by the performance of the leader. Workers suffering from poor morale generally perform at lower levels that fall outside process control limits. The lower the morale, the higher the risk of variation and, ultimately, injuries.
• Percent of safety reviews completed on time. Leaders must conduct routine and repeated inspections of the workplace to identify hazards. The percent of safety reviews/tours/inspections/observations completed on time is, at least ostensibly, an indicator of the time to which workers are exposed to hazards.
• Percent or performance reviews completed on time. Beyond making employees feel good, this is an assessment of competency. The more reviews completed on time, the more skills and performance gaps are identified in a timely manner.
• Percent attendance at safety meetings. This provides a good insight into the level of priority that the leader places on safety.

RISK FACTOR #5: PROCESS CAPABILITY
Process variability creates risk to the product, to the equipment, and to the workers. The frequency and duration of non-standard or out-of-process work is a good predictive indicator of risk of injury. Good measures of process capability (relative to safety) are:

• Percent of nonstandard work. Statistically speaking, nonstandard work tends to be more dangerous. Injuries associated with nonstandard work tend to be more lethal than its standard counterpart. The amount of nonstandard work indicates a substantial bump in risk associated with any operation.
• Percent of jobs with completed JSAs. A complete and current Job Safety Analysis is crucial for the safe execution of work, yet I personally don’t know of any company with 100 percent of its jobs under JSAs. Many companies do not keeping their JSAs current with their standard operating procedure, even though current JSAs are a good predictor of future risk (the higher the percentage, the lower the risk).
• Percent of jobs with Standard Work Instructions. I personally prefer Standard Work Instructions to JSAs because a good SWI addresses all the safety concerns of a job. But SWIs suffer from the same maintenance problems as JSAs (see above).
• Percent behind in production. I still have nightmares about my days working an assembly line and falling “in the hole,” with screams of “man in the hole” booming above the cacophony of hand tools, presses, and industrial vehicles. Whenever workers struggle to catch up, the risk of injuries rises.
• Percent parts shortages. When there are part shortages (or tools shortages, or materials shortages, or labor shortages) workers are forced to work outside the standard process. This is incredibly dangerous because the standard process is designed with protections against injuries embedded in the tasks. Working outside the process relies on luck for protection.

RISK FACTOR #6: WORKER ENGAGEMENT IN SAFETY
Engaged workers perform safely for no more reward than because working safely is the right thing to do. Worker engagement in safety can be measured by:

• Number of reported near misses. Near misses are lagging indicators, but whether or not a worker chose to report a near miss correlates to the level of worker engagement in the safety process. This measurement is admittedly difficult to obtain accurately. Not knowing the total actual number of near misses means you cannot determine whether the current level of reporting is a high or low percentage. Even so, the number of workers who do report – even more so than the raw numbers of near misses – can provide a good glimpse into the level of importance workers place on safety.
• Number improvement suggestions. Workers interested in improving the organization want to find and eliminate failure modes that ultimately place workers at risk of injury.  The greater the number of suggestions, the lower the risk.
• Participation in continuous improvement workshops. Eliminating variation, risk, and hazards are pillars of continuous improvement. The level of participation in these activities correlate to directly the level of risk.
• Number of worker grievances. Worker grievances shed valuable light into many other risk factors. Generally speaking, the greater the number of grievances, the higher the level of risk of injuries.
• Number of disciplinary actions for safety violations. These indicate two things: the number of unsafe acts being committed and the extent to which these incidents are taken seriously.

These measurements must be carefully designed and managed to avoid unintended consequences. For example, the number of disciplinary actions could easily be reduced by simply not applying appropriate discipline. Or worker performance evaluation could be raised through “score inflation.” The risk of these unintended consequences can be reduced by solid management practices and random sampling audits.

THE IMPERFECTION OF PREDICTIVE MEASURES
To some extent a perfect set of measures will never exist because in probability, the chance of beating the odds always exists. What’s important is to use each of these measures that make sense and use them in conjunction with each other. One correlation does not a pattern make, but when we look at multiple areas of risk and analyze them in a holistic context, we can find a more useful way to measure safety than counting bodies and broken bones.