No related posts.

No related posts.

There are broadly two types of workplace learning.  Cognitive learning which is the acquisition of knowledge and emotional learning which is the application of interpersonal skills.  With cognitive learning we want the learner to be exposed to and store information to use at a later date.  With emotional learning we are trying to persuade the learner to change their thinking and behaviour.  Cognitive learning can be described as product knowledge, learning new software features, learning processes and procedures.  Emotional learning includes leadership, selling, customer service and managing staff.

These two divisions do overlap but they require different techniques so that people can learn.  Regrettably, we have used the same methods associated with cognitive learning to train people in all workplace training.  The results of our emotional learning have been extremely poor and we have largely wasted our money in these areas.

Our methods have guaranteed low retention rates and little evidence of transfer of training into workplace behaviour.  You cannot learn a practical skill like leadership in a classroom.  We keep using methods that don’t work.  Sending people on adventure courses is just as dumb.  We know they don’t work.  Leadership is learned and developed over a long period of time.  It is not a training event.  it is a learning process.

Consider the money spent on sales training with no effect, customer service is just the same.   Unless we know how people learn, we cannot provide effective training.

Send me an email for a special report on learning and how you can improve your results. petermitchell23@gmail.com

No related posts.

To improve the levels of safety, it often becomes necessary to cope with the forces that have a negative effect on safety. These forces may include time pressure, cost cutting, the single-minded pursuit of profits and indifference to hazards. So often, organizations look at the forces that are lined up against them and give up on improving safety or just pay lip service to it. Under these circumstances each organization gets the repeated accidents it deserves. As always, the losers are the members of staff who get injured or killed.

To improve levels of safety, all staff within the organization must be better informed. In other words, they understand and respect the hazards they face and are constantly reminded of the potential dangers in their workplace. This means that they will never forget the dangers around them.. They know the dangers without having to fall victim to them.

An improved level of safety is achieved by creating a safety information system that collects, analyzes and disseminates knowledge from “near hits” and other incidents. Of course, this can only be achieved when there is a reporting culture that promotes the collection of this sort of information. Generally speaking, staff members understand the need for this information in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, it also requires people to report their own mistakes, errors and lapses. Overcoming this barrier requires sound leadership and positive reinforcement for those people who report.

It is possible to institute a system which can include the confidentiality of the people who are reporting the “near hits” and incidents. Within the system it is vital that all aspects of blame are removed. Any blame direct or implied will ensure that reporting will be minimized. Removing the blame barrier can be a challenge.

The single most important component of an improved level of safety within the workplace, is the establishment of a greater degree of trust. Again, this is a substantial barrier for some organizations to overcome.

No related posts.

The first thing to remember about slogans on notice boards or posted up around the workplace, is that they become invisible. They become part of the landscape and do not penetrate the minds of people in the workforce. Even important signs such as “exit,” are not remembered by people who walk past them every day because their minds are engaged in other more important things.

The second thing about a slogan is that it has to be delivered by somebody with credibility. Credibility is measured by the listener. If that person’s credibility is regarded as only average or less, the message will be ignored or will be regarded as totally unimportant. There are plenty of examples of messages delivered by politicians with low credibility failing to arouse and response.

The third thing about a slogan, is firmly in the minds of the people seeing or hearing it. The slogan has to have the ability to pass our T S R test. This is a test that we all apply on a constant basis. It is our That Seems Reasonable test. Any slogan that fails that will also be ignored. If we think a slogan isn’t reasonable we will dismiss it and then ignore subsequent messages from the same person.

We have slogans like “Zero Accidents” and “Zero Harm,” that fail our TSR test because we know they are unrealistic. We know that you cannot totally exclude accidents and harm from the workplace because they are function of risk and risk is an integral part of human life. Slogans like this give rise to cynicism in the workplace and have a negative effect on a lot of other important messages that may be about safety or quality. They also destroy the credibility of the promoters of these messages which, in turn, can lead to a breakdown in workplace communications.

If your organization is trying to find a slogan to emphasize safety, offer this alternative point of view. Instead of a slogan, lead by example and be the behavior you want in other people. This is much more believable than a slogan.

No related posts.

It is totally imposed and prescribed for the “good” of the masses. The fact is you cannot create a culture. It happens. From a leadership perspective, you can only encourage and gently persuade, you cannot impose the integral parts of the culture. Real culture is bone deep, instant culture is varnish.

If you encourage people to be honest, then honesty will be built into your culture. If you reinforce trust, then trust will be built in. Culture is behavior not slogans, mission statements on the wall or blind hope. Culture matures and develops with time, you can’t rush it.

What is interesting is how the two cultures exist in the one business. The real “organic” culture and the false “varnish” culture. The clearly the false culture cannot compete with the real culture in spite of the efforts of senior management. Occasionally, they clash and the superficiality of the false culture is exposed. It may be enforced but largely ignored. Ultimately the real culture reigns supreme.

No related posts.

The phrases commonly heard are, “I have been doing it this way for 15 years and never hurt myself.” “This is a dangerous industry, I’ve seen many accidents in this place in the past.” “Accidents go with the territory. If you work in this industry you will hurt yourself.” “You are still a newbie until you hurt yourself.” “You can’t prevent accidents in this industry, they just happen.” “You can’t prevent accidents in the workplace, that’s why they are called accidents.”

All this entrenched thinking will have to be changed before the culture changes. This sort of thinking is part of the current culture. Obviously, you can’t go head-to-head with this sort of thinking, you need a more subtle, alternative approach which will gradually overcome the very pessimistic approach and replace it with optimism. Getting people to question their deeply entrenched views and beliefs takes time. After all, it took quite a long time for them to reach these conclusions and beliefs. They will not be changed in a few weeks and certainly not as the result of a two day course on safety.

The secret of changing the culture in the workplace is to consider very carefully the people who wield influence. They may or may not be in a position of authority. Convince them. The problem you are faced with is that if you want someone to change their belief, it has to be replaced with something else that they can believe in. There is little point in telling people that their beliefs are part of the reason why so many accidents happen. In fact, telling people anything, especially how to do the job safely, is likely to create resentment. Especially, if they have been carrying out the job for a number of years.

The new belief system must be credible. There must be compelling reasons to adopt it. There must be some benefit from the new way of thinking that will positively affect people in the workplace. By far the best method of introducing this belief system, is to lead people to discover it. If you fail to do this, and prescribe what people should think, you will fail in your attempts to change the safety culture in the workplace. There are thousands of examples where change has been prescribed and failed miserably. It requires a much more thoughtful approach and the avoidance of creating resentment within the organization.

No related posts.

A safety culture is built up over a long period of time within an organization. It seems to absorb all the negative things that are thought or mentioned about safety. Memories are long and incorrect. Often incidents are misinterpreted and added to the folk lore.

There are some questions you can ask that may reveal information you are seeking. An example is this, “If you were recommending a friend to come and work here, how would you describe how our safety works.” If you ask a cross-section of people the same question and note the answers, you may end up with a snapshot of your safety culture.

Another question could be, “If you had a magic wand, what three things would you change about our safety here to improve it?” Again, note the answers and review those comments which are repeated by several people.

The problem arises when you investigate a subject like this and you don’t like the answers. What if you discovered a perception that there was a culture of blame? What do you do then? How can you modify the prevailing safety culture so that it is more aligned with what you want?

The difficulties start to emerge when you realize that you can’t prescribe it, you can’t force it, you can’t impose or regulate it. You are powerless to urge, press or push for it. A safety culture is organic and develops within the workplace environment. It will grow in the “right” circumstances.

The circumstances include positive reinforcement, gentle encouragement, leading by example and respect for the individual. Respect for the individual includes creating a positive environment where staff members can decide the boundaries of safe and unsafe behavior. It’s about allowing them the ability to decide consequences for noncompliance of their safety regime. It includes encouraging staff to draw up the procedures and protocols for safe working.

As you can see, providing this sort of environment is way outside the comfort zone of most people in the workplace, especially those at supervisory and management level. These are the people that need to have a completely open mind to contribute to such a complete change in business philosophy. Without this cooperation at every single level within the organization, the safety culture will gradually deteriorate.

No related posts.

This particular company has a large number of trucks and there was an incident that resulted in a driver cutting his head. It seems that he banged his head on part of the truck sustaining a minor injury. Being a good employee, he reported the incident and an investigation took place and a report compiled.

So far, so good. After this it went wrong. A senior health and safety manager who was reading the report decided that the best preventative measure was for the truck drivers to wear hard hats. This decision was sent by e-mail from the manager’s office down the chain of command. The instruction was passed down to all truck drivers via managers, supervisors and health and safety officers.

The reaction from the truck drivers was one of derision. It was clear to them that the person who made the decision have never driven a truck. The cab doors in their trucks did not allow sufficient room to get in and out wearing a hard hat without it falling off.

This single act of thoughtlessness, undermined the health and safety process for the business. The drivers lost trust in the organization because they regarded the change as profoundly stupid. All the messengers of this instruction lost a considerable amount of credibility in the minds of the drivers because not one of them questioned the Senior Manager.

This was the unintended consequence of an instruction generated by a person in an office without the necessary contact with reality. How often does this happen?

Any change or safety rule must pass the That Seems Reasonable test of the people who are expected to follow it. If it fails their That Seems Reasonable (TSR) test, they are unlikely to abide by it. However, it gets worse. All subsequent changes and rules were subjected to intense scrutiny and the first reaction was one of non-compliance, “because of what happened last time with the hard hats”

What is even more damaging, is the effect of reporting incidents. Because of the reaction to the report and accident, the workforce rapidly worked out that there was a negative consequence to reporting these incidents. Effectively, they became conditioned not to report but to put on a dressing and carry on working or go home claiming illness.

Poor management in this case

1. Lost the credibility and trust of the organization
2. Lost the credibility of the Senior Health and Safety manager.
3. Lost the credibility of the people who had to pass on bad decision.
4. Created distrust of subsequent changes in safety rules.
5. Strongly discouraged drivers for reporting incidents.

Unless we can educate our managers at all levels to consider the consequences of their decision making process, we are unlikely to advance very far.

No related posts.

If your answer included those or similar words, I would like you to consider the next question. “ If these people have the greatest stake in their own health and safety, what role should they play in the design of safe working practices?”

Okay, let’s leave that alone for the moment.

Here are three questions and you don’t need to answer them-just think about them.

1. “Who knows most about their job?”
2. “Who knows most about working safely in their job?”
3. “Who is motivated to contribute to safe working practices in their job?”

No related posts.