Along my professional path I have being exposed to more and more fellow Safety Advisors and its becoming more apparent the great divide between us. In my opinion we can generally be slotted into one of two categories Type A or Type B… I don’t mean to stereotype Safety Advisors but when it comes to discussions / issues / managing safety we seem to take lean towards a particular ‘Type’.
Safety Advisor – Type A: The Type A Advisor is someone who is more focussed on risk and cultural elements of safety, they generally take concerted risks to try to find the right balance. For example they generally create a management system which is less onerous on employees to allow them flexibility to make decisions on safety / risk which in turn feed on a positive safety culture because employees are less weighed down by it. We all know that we take more care of something we own so in general a type A Safety Advisor spends a lot of time trying to encourage employees to own safety and make it more imbedded in the way they carry out their day to day work. Type A will generally have a structured management system, however they are also very conscious that safety needs flexibility and room to move or be altered. In short their management system is more ‘live’ than Type B. Their main focus will be integrating safety into work procedures and limiting the need for death by bureaucracy and stringent policing.
Safety Advisor – Type B: Pretty much the opposite!! The Type B Advisor is more regimented and structured. They like to create a system that introduces a number of steps employees need to comply with to get a job done safely. Generally a Type B’s Safety Management System is stagnant to a point, in that they do not allow room for movement or change which takes the ownership of safety off employees. Type B is also interested in Safety Culture (as all Safety Advisors should be) however their approach is somewhat different to Type A making culture more of an organised event as opposed to feeding it organically, if that makes sense!!
If I am not making my point clear and you are more of an examples person (I know I am) well here it is. Let’s take Stop Work Authority (SWA), Type A would have this system a paperless one focussing more on how employees should perform a SWA making it a more casual approach. How should you approach someone, who to deal with it, how to accept intervention / SWA etc? Type B on the other hand would also communicate SWA but it would be a ‘system’ with more structure. Generally they would have the ‘form’ (one of ??? many) which needs to be filled out, submitted to a supervisor, reviewed, signed off and permission granted before work would resume etc.
Let me ask you this, if you were an employee and you needed to intervene in an unsafe condition which system would encourage you to utilise SWA? If we turned the tables and asked, if you were the employER who is overall responsible for Safety, which system would you go for??? And so the divide begins…. Type A the employee pleaser and Type B the employer pleaser… Are we loosing balance?
I would be interested to know if any other Safety Professionals share my views. Do you find that Safety Advisors are on paths which are slowly diverging? Personally I am more of a Type A Safety Advisor on a quest to find that balance of what is practical and also what feeds a positive safety culture and it’s a very fine balance!!
Note: The content of this blog is my view only. Of course not every safety advisor can be categorised into two types so my writing is general. I am also trying to cater for all industries so again dependent on the industry type this may push you into a certain way of managing safety. I guess what I am trying to say is this blog is general.
As usual looking forward to your discussions and how you see the role of a safety advisor… Orla
Hi Orla,
I think you nailed it. I bet everyone reading this post thinks or would like to think they are a Type A but unfortunately legislation and the big ugly monsters of safety systems now in place at say mining or construction companies unfortunately tend to nurture Type B Safety Advisers. I think your point about one type being an employee pleaser and the other an employer pleaser is excellent!
Dave
Good thoughts. I tend to agree with Dave. Working in mining it tends to breed type b safety advisors. I would like to hope I am a type a but the reality is that I swing between both . Keep em coming!
Hi Orla,
Loved the blog – and agree with Dave. In my opinion, it would be nice to avoid the unnecessary structure and paperwork, however in the end, the employer would want a full explanation and the safety regulators which makes all this paperwork necessary.
What I am curious about is the compromise between the described “type A” and “type B” approach (if any) and details of personal experiences with SWA’s.
Cheers
Reynaldo
Mr Wakefield CPMSIA RSP(Aust.) via linked in:
Hmmmm, a little bit like a good democracy isn’t it? The real key is to be flexible enough to switch between the A and the B! LEt me rattle on…
We need – at times – to have severely restrictive “must do’s” – no time for a committee meeting, nor eye-to-eye, ear-to-ear chat, but a fair dinkum hierarchy of command to get clear of a crisis. (EG. a chief fire warden taking absolute control during an evacuation.) Some folk with some ancient history under their belt will recall early ‘democracies’, had in place rules for the appointment of a dictator/tyrant etc. who had supreme authority during a ciritcal time and no-one could answer back. (There were rules in place for the eventual laying aside of the powers once things had settled-down, etc.)
Even coming forward to the ‘high romantic era of piracy’ (1650-1724), pirate vessels often had the ‘employment rules’ which included the right of the captain (oftern elected) to wield absolute power during a chase- a capture – and a run (ie during the chasing of prey, the capture of the prey, and then the run from the site – the captain must be obeyed under threat of death). Once everythng had settled-down, pretty much back to one-man/one-vote on the ship’s operations.
My answer here is elongated simply because the human factor is rearing its head through so many of these linked-in streams. Yes, humans need to be treated like humans and move freeely in word and deed in the workplace, commensurate to their skills,etc. but occasionally the human foibles arise. Such as the new employee who feels afraid to push an informal Stop Work, but will feel a little more comfortale in having a formal set of guidances to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, etc.
I do agree the Type A would be great, but human beings being what they are, it will be awhile before the Type A system could be trusted. (BTW, I am an anarchist by political choice, and realise it is probably not going to be a workable solution in my lifetime, but I can dream… and in the meantime often advise the need for strong leadership from the top!) I argue the vast majority of damaging occurrences or potentially damaging occurrences are HUMAN error/oversight from SOMEWHERE during the inputs/processes/outputs of the workplace – whether at the top (a failing by an engineer in correct preparation of a Type B checklist) or at the bottom (a Type A operation where someone at the bottom is distracted while they are in a critical part of a process) .
I have mentioned the book, ‘The Checklist Manifesto’ by Atul Gawande before in these streams, and I reckon this could demostrate a little of both A and B types for you…
One thing that is very human, Enjoy the next breath, for neither A nor B will work without it… LoL!
I agree their must be ownership of an HSE program at work by employees, simply that the employee is first one interfacing with a work hazard and must make that judgement call “to work safely or take a chance to help the boss out”. It is often said that the grave is full of good intentional employees and so I am of the opinion that Type A and B personalities must co exist. At work we hope as safety advisors to cover all at risk situations through risk assessments,SWS etc., but it may not be possible and so in the rare times we must rely on the employee to practice safe work. A safe work system and employee participation is critical to accident prevention
Type A and B must coexist to have an effective and well balanced system, allowing for positive managment of HSE in the workplace. To be truly effective one can not operate with out the other.
Comment Posted via linkedin by T. Richarson:
Got to be a bit of both really. When coaching employees and managers type A good but type B required for compliance. Most of the time the main issue is not putting systems in place and not involving the very people the system effect. There has to be a middle ground and comman sense.
Comment posted via linkedin by H.Morgan:
I like your take on this Orla, but I do not believe that we have two distinct types, rather I think, there are many types. If you have done any studies on management styles, there are several that are described, but there are many mixed applications. I think that the best leadership in any, including safety, field of endeavor will take on a mixed approach that is modified according to needs at the moment. Given a set of circumstances one should be able to quickly gage what is needed to get desired results–this does not mean there is never a failed approach, just that the best leaders will try the angle that looks like it will work best, and when it doesn’t, they regroup and try it another way.
In all workplaces we take a gamble when we try to please one group or another. My take is to make safety a joint ownership venture with both employees and the employer. It can’t really work well any other way in my experience.
Comment posted via linkedin by J. McKenzie:
I agree with your approach on this issue Hal, probably because it mirrors my own way of thinking. I also feel that as in a variety of fields, different components of management systems and styles come into play. The field of safety probably more so than most, as we are dealing with a diverse group of individuals, experiances and yes, management styles. Personally, I use whatever works! The ultimate goal is for every individual to take responsibility for their safety and the safety of others. How we manage that totaly depends on the types of individuals we aree advising. If the advisees are Type A then we give them a system which allows them to take ownership and be an integral part of the system. If the advisee is a Type B then we give them a fully developed program that they must comply with and give them the tools to ensure compliance. and if they are Type C then we draw them diagrams, give them tools to play with manage their structures until they reach the ultimate goal. Ensuring safety for themselves and others.
Right! We used an interesting form in the US Navy called ORM Operational Risk Management, that views safety not only as a manager’s responsibility, but also places it in a person’s own hands. I have seen, and employ a more simplified version of that called Personal Risk Management. We as safety professionals must adapt whatever works in a given situation to protect workers, the company we work for, and their assets the best way possible.
Well you are right there in identifying the “types” and as far as I am concern, I am more of type A. But again it depends on the activity. The more the risk, more rigid I am but also ensure involvement of the operatives. Further, I am working in Middle East for last 12 years and there is a vast difference the way safety is looked at in this part of the world. Also the work force is mainly from Asian, African & Arabic countries where most of them were not aware that there is something called safety. My approch is to talk to the operative directly and ensure that he understands what is the requirement and also make sure that supervisor is kept in line and if necessary punished if required. Here, many times it is the supervisor and the management that bypasses safety. Our job here is especially tough as Managers are mostly Europeans and know what is required but just because they can walk away with it, do not give safety the priority it deserves.
The ‘key’ is to, wherever practicable, ensure a suitable and sufficient balance of both A & B.
Everything you do should be in ‘context’ with the work activity making use of likelihood vs severity but adding value.
Is it not dangerous to “type-cast” shouldn’t we be moving away from such things – application should be measured, reasonable, consistent and subject to peer level evaluation and above all it should to the highest level of professional judgment and decision making that is drawn from a) understanding of the particular field b) the latest and most up to date knowledge/lessons learnt c) professional competence and integrity.
While I tend to agree, I don’t see danger in the thought process. We all judge, we all must to get though things. I often find myself thinking about “types”, not that it is the best thing, just that it helps us make decisions regardiong how best to handle a given situation. We just better hope we are reading it correctly. We just can’t let that rule us.
Hi Orla,
I agree with your Type A&B concept – I have used a similar approach in my own dealings with HSE. However I would call the approaches as ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ and by belief is that a successful HSE programme requires us as HSE professionals to be both types depending on the need. My belief is that at the coal-face we need to be type A’s to effect change in workplace behaviours, however at the higher levels of HSE safety a type ‘B’ approach is required… the challenge is how we manage the interface of the two differing approaches.
For example…
A new piece of plant is to be installed, a type ‘B’ approach is required when determining the HSE implications (hard) however the type ‘A’ HSE approach is required when determining how the particular piece of plant is to be operated (Soft) as this encourages ownership of the process.
You pose a very interesting point which comes back to the question. How safe is safe? In my observations, I have found that type B Safety advisors and business tend to be more reactive and legal compliance driven. For example, having all the procedures, forms and checklists doesn’t make you any safer and in actual fact I have found the opposite. People tend to pay lip service to safety. They complete form or the check list to keep the boss happy. Whereas, type A safety advisors and business trend towards creating a proactive culture of safety and providing people with the tools they require and imbedding safety ownership. These are my observations and thoughts only.
Cheers
Cliff