workplace – Page 171 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Vision statements = hypocrisy (mostly)

I have experienced two situations recently which made me question the value of corporate mission statements.

Recently the CEO of an Australian company spoke about how safety was a core value and how committed to safety she was. She is a recognised leader in safety and directly involves herself in safety management and meetings. However, her employees in the audience were shaking their heads because the safety culture she espoused was not as widespread through the company structure as she believed.

The other situation was a staff meeting I attended with a regional CEO and International CEO where they were unaware that employees in regional offices and undertaking shiftwork had not been integrated into the corporation. In fact the shiftworkers had not been informed of the CEO visits until the last minute. The company has “integration” as a corporate value.

Leadership (a most dubiously-applied concept in my mind) and vision statements may “come from the top” but they do not flow by themselves to the four corners of a company. They must be worked on, almost as a full time mission.

Vision statements have been promoted in so many corporations that have fallen over through mismanagement that statements have become a bit of a joke, in most circumstances. Nothing kills motivation quicker than hypocrisy.

(This also occurs in organisations that begin a program of corporate restructure and positioning, and the first item on the agenda is a “sexy new logo.)

It is important to remember that Enron’s motto was “Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence.” If one thinks that Enron is an unfair corporate example, look at one’s own company statement and seriously ask yourself whether all elements of the company are operating to those standards. Perhaps, someone needs to provide corporate morality audits.

Lastly, any vision statement must accept and mention that the principal aim of any company is to make money (a fact I learnt from Peter Sandman). To omit this reality immediately shows that the statement is not grounded and is simply management spin.

Kevin Jones

Two serious incidents in Victoria

In the days leading up to International Worker’s Day, their is a heightened sensitivity about workplace incidents. Today, 20 April 2009, there were two incidents in Victoria that have involved emergency air ambulance flights to Melbourne. One is being undertaken as this blog article is being written.

The Rural Ambulance service has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that a 53-year-old logger has been crushed under a log on Black Range Rd, Narbethong this afternoon. He has a fractured pelvis and rib injuries and is being airlifted to a city hospital. Narbethong was affected by the savage bushfires on 7 February 2009 about which a Royal Commission is investigating

The welding explosion incident reported by the ABC apparently occurred at a depot of the Department of Sustainability & Environment at Alexandra. The incident involved a petrol explosion. The 31-year-old male was airlifted to the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne.

Kevin Jones

“Getting back on the (trauma) horse”

Mental health in the workplace is one of those recent manifestations of psychosocial hazards. It continues to evolve and during this process one is never quite sure where the best and most relevant information can be obtained.

Cnfusion for the safety professional can come from new, slightly off-topic, issues that can skew the public perception and understanding of exactly what it is one is trying to manage.

Is it reasonable to take inspiration (if that is the right term) from studies of Iraq War sufferers of post traumatic stress syndrome in providing clues to handling mental health issues at work?

During tertiary risk management courses the debt owed to the armed forces and their planning processes is acknowledged but soldiers operate in a unique culture of accountability, clearly defined duties and a rigid hierarchical structure. In most circumstances only the broadest of concepts could be translated to the real (non-militarised) workplace. In a similar way studies of Scandinavian workforce management are interesting but are highly unlikley to be transferable outside the cultural geography.

A very recent example of this problem of getting excited about innovation and then wondering about its genuine applicability, can be seen in the TV show, Catalyst, (video available online for a short time) broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 16 April 2009.

The program provides a profile on a computer simulation program that purports to aid the rehabilitation of war veterans by returning them to traumatic events of the war zone. It seems that the theory is the same as “getting back on the horse that threw you”.

In OHS terms, the applicability for firefighters, emergency response personnel etc is obvious but SafetyAtWorkBlog has reservations. The use of video simulations and games by the armed services before, during and after combat is discomforting.

Managers and health care professionals may need to carry some of the responsibility for the cloudiness of mental health and trauma by applying the hyperbole of trauma to relatively benign workplace issues. Many elements of work are being described as traumatic when they are not. They maybe disturbing, disconcerting or even harmful but there is a big difference between being punched in the face by a psych patient and driving over a car of civilians in an armoured vehicle.

In other industry sectors, such hyperbole would be described as spin. It is the responsibility of OHS professionals to cut through the spin and not be distracted by “exciting”, but indirect, innovative solutions. Let’s look for the evidence and operate from what we know works. At least until new evidence appears.

Kevin Jones

The value of brevity in government submissions and business reports

In Australia, at the moment, there are several governmental inquiries that could involve safety management issues. Submissions to inquiries can often be bloated with information that a review panel already knows or can be off topic. Frequently, relevant but not essential information is included in the body of the submission where it could be just as easily included in an appendix.

Past experience in handling Cabinet submissions has indicated that a brief listing of the recommendations or requests is best, as this makes it much easier for the review panels to digest. People tend to forget that their submission is going to be one of, perhaps, hundreds, and that brevity is highly valued in the public service (except perhaps in their own publications and reports?).

This position on brevity is one that should also be applied to client reports concerning workplace safety. Many consultants forget that their clients are already very familiar with their own workplace and don’t need to be shown “how to suck eggs”.

Kevin Jones

Trade unionist talks about nanotechnology risks

In October 2008, SafetyAtWorkBlog spoke with Renata Musolino of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. At that time the trade union movement was finalising its policies and positions on nanotechnology into the campaign that is being rolled out at the moment.

In the SafetyAtWork podcast released in April 2009, Renata talks about how nanotechnologies links with mesothelioma but also some parallels with genetically modified organisms. She discusses the need for more information about the nanomaterials and how one should apply the precautionary principle in this case.

More information about Renata is available at the Victorian Trades Hall Council website

Engagement is Consultation re-badged

Recently an international business established an intranet discussion forum concerning “employee engagement”. By and large, this is another example of business management twaddle.

Essentially, when one engages with another, there is discussion, a conversation and the sharing of ideas in a cooperative, positive manner. In OHS circles this is called “consultation”. By discussing issues, people learn the basics, they refine their understandings and, often, come to a consensus or a resolution.

“Engagement” is another word for what happens on a daily basis in workplaces everywhere. What is bothersome is when a new management term is generated in order to, primarily, sell a new management book, and in a much lower priority, to provide a new perspective.

In the current edition of Australia’s business magazine, BRW, there is a discussion on engagement, (not available online). Through an OHS perspective, interpret the following quotes about “employee engagement scores):

“About 40 per cent of employees were failing at the most basic level, saying they either didn’t know what was expected of them or didn’t have the tools to do it.”

OHS = consultation, job description, induction, supervision.

“Those in a leadership position now are taking advantage and redoubling their efforts around employee engagement.”

OHS = leadership, safety culture

The article makes a useful distinction that an “engaged employee” does not equal a “happy employee”.

The BRW article does not, however, discuss the possible downsides of engagement. There is a risk that benchmarking of engagement may applied inappropriately and, according to the CIPD:

“Research confirms however that there is a significant gap between levels of engagement found among UK employees and those that would produce optimum performance. HR professionals need to recognise that engagement is a strategic issue that cannot simply be left to manage itself.”

Engagement is another tool for management but just how many tools are needed?

In short, a management system needs to talk with employees, listen to employees, and support employees. Wow, how radical. It can be that simple.

Kevin Jones

How Workers’ Memorial Day should be treated

For the first time in many years, I will not be able to attend the local service for the Workers’ Memorial Day on 28 April 2009. I will be attending the Safe Work Australia Awards in Canberra which, coincidentally, is on the same day. I hope that the award ceremony includes a minute’s silence to remember those who have died at work.

Recently the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution in support of Workers’ Memorial Day. It provided several good reasons why trade unionists and, I would say, OHS professionals, should support this day. Below is part of the resolution

Whereas, April 28, 2009 is an international day of commemoration for injured workers and workers killed on the job; and

Whereas, the elimination of all doctors at Ca-OSHA has threatened the health and safety protection of California’s 17 million workers; and

Whereas, the introduction of new technology such as biotech and nanotechnology without proper oversight can and has become a threat to workers and our communities; and

Whereas, the deregulation of workers compensation has harmed injured workers and their families in California and throughout the country; and

Whereas, many of these workers have been forced onto SSI, Disability Insurance and other state and local agencies to cover their healthcare costs which is cost-shifting; and

Whereas, senior workers in many industries have been forced into retirement due to their disabilities on the job and discrimination against them due to their disabilities and age including at the US Post Office and other industries; and

Whereas, all working people and their families whether working or injured are entitled to full healthcare,

Therefore be it resolved the San Francisco Labor Council endorses and supports a Workers Memorial Day event on April 28, 2009 in San Francisco at ILWU Local 34 and encourages it’s affiliates to publicize and participate in this California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day (CCWMD)

It is a lesson for other unions and organisations that such a day does not deal with localised industrial relations disputes and can be a platform for improvement in the quality of life of workers by calling for

increased enforcement and policy resources;
caution over emerging hazards;
reassessment of deregulation;
insurance and healthcare improvements; and
appealing early retirements due to illness and injury.

I urge OHS professionals to seek out your local commemorations and participate. The more people attend, the more government will realise the seriousness of the issue. More importantly, the services remind us why we entered this profession in the first place and, just maybe, how we have made a difference.

Kevin Jones

Category: workplace

Vision statements = hypocrisy (mostly)

Like this:

Two serious incidents in Victoria

Like this:

“Getting back on the (trauma) horse”

Like this:

The value of brevity in government submissions and business reports

Like this:

Trade unionist talks about nanotechnology risks

Like this:

Engagement is Consultation re-badged

Like this:

How Workers’ Memorial Day should be treated

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: