Welcome to our safety and risk management website (with over 7 million page views in just 3 years) – there are over 7770 pages (indexed on Google) of free & practical info and tools available to you. We also have some of the worlds most respected Safety Professionals making regular and very popular contributions. So, you are bound to find what you are looking for in here somewhere – take the challenge – try the search box in the right column - why not subscribe to get occasional newsletters and access to some cool, free stuff?:

Sanctimony Doesn’t Suit You: The High Moral Ground and Safety

by Riskex on December 2, 2012 · 14 comments

in Phil LaDuke,Safety Professional


Sanctimony Doesn’t Suit You: The High Moral Ground and Safety

Latest exclusive By Phil La Duke – We publish Phil’s other provocative articles HERE. and I highly recommend his blog: http://philladuke.wordpress.com/.

“maybe if we stopped distancing ourselves from Operations we can actually get things done, and contribute something of substance”

Last week I wrapped up my 2012 speaking engagements with a guest lecture at Tulane University, in New Orleans, LA. The participants were soon to graduate Master’s degree candidates and my message: Going Out of Business: Why Organizations Should Dismantle the Safety Function. I admit, my topic was not what anyone would describe as comforting, especially to those just entering the safety profession. I chose the topic after being asked to be “even for you, over-the-top controversial”. I guess that is the niche I have carved out for myself, so I won’t whine about it, or even pretend that I don’t deliberately provoke people; if people aren’t having something of a visceral response to my message then what I am saying is probably not worth the effort it takes to listen. I am not in the business of telling people what they want to hear.

The audience reacted about like you would expect. Some agreed that there were problems in the safety function, and if they safety professionals can’t find a way to stop bickering and wasting resources and support the goals of Operations instead, there is little hope for the future of the Safety Function. Others, clucked tongues chuffed at the discomfort they felt at being called out. But one or two, reacted in outrage. How dare I suggest that the primary value to safety is not in saving lives, but in saving money. The mood got ugly, and no matter how adamantly I argued that companies are not in the business of saving lives, the louder the argument that safety professionals save lives and my ethics and morality were openly questioned.

Here is the problem with “safety is the right thing to do” rhetoric. When a self-righteous safety professional rides into the C-suite on his high-white horse and tells the executives that supporting safety is a moral imperative, they are actually announcing their own moral superiority. “I am good and you are evil”. You don’t get very far telling people in power that they are stupid, evil, amoral turd. When we tell others that safety is the right thing to do, we imply that a) they don’t know right from wrong unless we tell them, b) they are naturally inclined to do the wrong thing and c) we stand before them as judge and moral superior.

These kinds of tactics don’t work. And when I explained to the student that while executives are generally open to ways to make their organizations more effective, raise profits, and better corporate citizens, no one likes a lecture from a barking rat. Unswayed, the student countered that safety isn’t about money, it’s about saving lives. I told him that if he wanted to save lives he should have been an emergency room doctor. I explained that while safety professionals save countless lives, that’s not what companies pay us for. And if he wanted to give sermons he should have been a minister. It wasn’t the kindest advice, but maybe if we stopped distancing ourselves from Operations we can actually get things done, and contribute something of substance.

The sanctimonious safety professionals are dangerous to our beleaguered livelihood. They make us all look like ridiculous whining fools and fanatics; worrisome old women that aren’t to be taken serious. All it takes is a few fanatics and we will all be tarred with the same brush. The world needn’t take us serious, because there is no arguing with a psychotic fanatic. Fanatics don’t look for solutions, they have right and goodness on their sides so compromise is more than just impossible it’s blasphemous. To disagree with them is to disagree with God, and while they may agree to disagree with us, our seeming disagreement with the divine cannot be tolerated or forgiven. You won’t find middle ground with the fanatic, only reaction.

I don’t think I changed any minds in my speech, but that wasn’t really my intent. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But I do hope that I reach one or two open minds who will at least think about what I have to say.

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Kris Kuzminski January 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I like the article Phil. In my country, where we still bear the past burden of complacency, read and sign stuff, safety papers as ass savers, I feel like I joined another world with your publications and thoughts. Many thanks.

Phil La Duke December 7, 2012 at 5:10 AM

George:

I implemented a safety intervention in Mexico. The plant manager was very pro-safety, and very pro-continuous improvement. He told the safety coordinator that he was going to eliminate the position of safety coordinator and make it Process Improvement manager. The job would not change one iota, but despite this being a significant promotion and not an unsubstantial bump in pay, it never happened. Why? because the safety coordinator was uncomfortable with the idea that “safety” wouldn’t be in his title anymore that eventually the manager scrapped the idea. Sometimes safety professionals are their own worst enemies.

Phil La Duke
http://www.philladuke.wordpress.com
http://www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com

Phil La Duke December 7, 2012 at 5:06 AM

Ian:

“Too many people I work with act as pious, ‘thou shall’ practitioners content in stopping production, service or the widget from being produced that pays their salary with little regard for the bottom line or practicality.” Amen. I think it’s easy to be pious and judgemental when you see yourself as the final arbitor of what is just and unjust in the workplace. It’s certainly easier to denounce a practice or population as “unsafe” and “wrong” than it is to work with the organization to find better ways to do the work. What’s the old adage, “give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, stand on the shore and tell a man he isn’t fishing correctly and he’s likely to stick a fillet knife between your ribs”? Or something like that.

Phil La Duke
http://www.philladuke.wordpress.com
http://www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com

Phil La Duke December 7, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Mike:

There’s always work for those who work themselves out of a job.

Phil La Duke
http://www.philladuke.wordpress.com
http://www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com

Phil La Duke December 7, 2012 at 4:58 AM

Wynard:
I agree that sometimes managers and workers need to attach a moral agenda to safety. When money is tight and the return on investment is sketchy, it can be handy to appeal to a higher power.

Phil La Duke
http://www.philladuke.wordpress.com
http://www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com

George Robotham December 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Visited a safety award winning organisation with no safety personnel. no safety committee, no health and safety reps
They said every employee is a safety officer, every employee is a safety committee member, every employee is a health and safety Rep.
In vested heaps in safety training to get the skills of the workforce up there.

Mike Lawrence December 5, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Phil: You are absolutely correct with your statement “…if things are running great in safety, who needs a safety guy?” I found this to be true when I worked myself out of a job as safety manager with a former employer. Things changed in the organization to the point where safety management was driven to the lowest possible level with everyone taking responsibility for safety and continuous improvement (this took about 7 years of hard work from everyone). At this point, they no longer needed someone to drive safety change and just needed a part-time safety administrator. I learned to be careful what I wish for! Seriously, though, I am happy that they have done so well in integrating safety into every process and thereby made the workplace a better place. And it’s not all bad for me, as leaving this job pushed me in the direction of starting my own consulting business and this former employer is now one of my best clients!

Sarah Knife December 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Excellent points. Let’s challenge ourselves to help our businesses do what they need to – in a safe way. Needs very thoughtful understanding of where the safety benefits lie in the legacy set of requirements and broad philosophical statements.
We have to listen, not lecture – as Al said!
Sarah

Riskex December 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Totally agree mate – I have always reckoned that the best safety people have come from other production roles or cut their teeth at the coal face – they tend to be a tad more in touch with reality and the needs of the business – I cannot respect anyone who seriously believes that safety is “No 1 Priority” – never was, is or will be. Making money is the main goal of business, doing it safely is of course of equal importance. I meet lots of safety people with no real “bedside manner” or respect for the “workers” as they like to call them – they wonder why they struggle??.

Ian Rogers December 3, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Having been labelled a maverick by my learned collegues, a corporate lacky not paying homage to the needs for safety and some other really choice labels it is so refreshing to see someone who has the courage to stand up in a public forum.
I have never forgotten the most important lesson I recieved from a very wise mentor when I started out. Safety is a resource and service for everyone, you are here to assist the people at the coal face protect themselves with the right tools and knowledge and to assist your employer by finding smart, efficent solutions to the hazards that present themselves.
Too many people I work with act as pious, ‘thou shall’ practitioners content in stopping production, service or the widget from being produced that pays their salary with little regard for the bottom line or practicality.
Well done for having the courage to talk about the practical needs for safety but I would use the age old argument about cultural change on our fellow practitioners, they need re-education is all and that requires a differant approach to everyone.

George Robotham December 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I agree that the safety establishment needs a substantial stif up about their basic beliefs.Safety is all about management of organisational change and OHS people need skills in this area

Wynand December 3, 2012 at 4:39 AM

In general I agree with what is being said, especially that safety is about making more money and should be integrated into Operations. One point I don’t quite agree is to why the “Safety is the right thing to do” is still so popular. On the one hand, (I believe) it is used to soothe the conscience of both the manager and the worker who wants to hear they are doing something good. It is a nice, “soft” message that removes the need to motivate the money spent, and make is “someone else’s problem”. The worker who does his part for safety gets a nice, warm feeling, while the one who cannot be bothered with safety hides behind “doing the right thing is not my jopb description”. However, in the end I agree that neither creates a reason to change behaviour and is therefore useless.

Phil La Duke December 3, 2012 at 3:58 AM

Alan:

I have been saying for quite some time that safety professionals have to be change agents. Change is our business, if things are running great in safety then who needs a safety guy? We will never be seen as valuable parts of the team if we stand on the sidelines.

Thanks for reading and your comments.

Phil La Duke
http://www.philladuke.wordpress.com
http://www.rockfordgreeneinternational.wordpress.com

Alan D. Quilley December 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Outrageous as usual Phil! We’d expect nothing less from you!

If your email inbox isn’t filled with requests for your advice and services from the C Suite, line managers, supervisors and workers…you are not seen as a solution. PERIOD!

To become a change agent one first needs to realize that it’s not about YOU…it’s about THEM.
Cheers
Al

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: