Time for a look at 24-7 safety metrics

Our guest blogger today is Mike White, a senior advisor at FDRsafety and recently retired Global Safety Director for GM.

I recently retired as GM’s Global Safety Director and I find myself reflecting upon the ongoing debate in ASSE and other professional forums regarding safety as a value.  In 1994, GM’s top six operating officers created a policy making safety the “over-riding priority” of the corporation.  They did not make safety the #1 priority because they recognized that operations, quality, productivity, etc. must all come into play. However, if there were ever a conflict about providing a safe workplace, decision-makers would err on the side of safety.

Concurrent with assigning direct responsibility to top operations management, this policy and the top management leadership served the company well.  From the outset, GM outperformed every other automotive company.

My reflection, however, is one of mixed emotions. Several years ago, I recognized that moving safety from an “over-riding priority” to “safety is a value” was something that could move us to the next level.  If I were implementing a safety program today, I would strongly recommend having executive leadership commit to “safety is a value” for the company.  When I met Fred Rine, CEO of FDRsafety, I became intrigued with his organization’s 24-7 approach.

Let me share some of my thoughts on why every organization should move to “safety is a 24-7 value.”  In my opinion, those who believe that a “zero-incident” culture is possible without making safety a value will probably be disappointed.  Only when employees understand WIFFM (what’s in it for me) will they be motivated to “want to” be safe.  That won’t come from mandating safety.  Only a positive change in attitude by everyone in the organization can enable actions and behaviors that result in zero incidents.  With only 4% of accidental deaths occurring on the job in this country, why would we believe that getting that 4% to zero is possible or even matters in the overall scheme of things?

Most of us come to work to provide for our family and loved ones.  Would it make any difference if we were seriously or fatally injured on or off the job?  Either way, the family loses a loved one – and the provider.  Moreover, as managers and safety professionals, do we have an off-on switch that we only care about the health and well-being of our employees when they are at work?   I’m guessing that our incessant quest to lower the OSHA recordable rate without having a metric for safety 24-7 is a large part of the problem.  We all know that “what gets measured – gets managed.”

Off-the-job safety efforts are a step in the right direction but those typically play second fiddle to workplace metrics. Perhaps it is time for the profession to devote more energy towards a more holistic approach to metrics and programs that look at the big picture.