Building Culture: Principle 8

A nine-part introduction to the Principles of Culture Principle 8. A healthy respect is maintained for what can go wrong and what must go right

Author: Dr. Lisa Lande

In the introduction and first post of this nine-part series, we reviewed the origins of the eight principles that underpin a strong, safe, and healthy culture. In today's short article, we cover the evolution of Principle 8 and briefly uncover the nuances of each phrase in order to show this principle's power in shaping culture.

The Evolution of Principle 8

In the Safe Conduct of Research (SCoR) manual, principle 8 reads like this: “A healthy respect is maintained for what can go wrong”.  At its core, it asks that each of us avoid complacency at work and recognize that even routine tasks when taken for granted, can lead to upset or injury. Who can dispute the truth in this principle? Who hasn’t experienced its truth first hand when doing something as mundane as walking from our car to the office or into our home, shifting into auto pilot because we’ve done this every day of the week for years now. But on this any-day, we miss the crack or stick on the path that trips us up. It happens. We can become complacent in the face of the ordinary. And it takes extraordinary commitment, focus, and even humility to keep constantly vigilant.  

In 2017, the Safety Academy for Excellence (SAFE) development team took a deeper look at principle 8 and asked ourselves how it could more actively represent our vision of healthy culture for today’s as well as tomorrow’s workforce.  First, given Principle 8’s sole focus on “what can go wrong”, we questioned its consistency with a key goal of the LOSA and SAFE effort: to shift our collective culture from a fear-based and retaliatory one to a trusting, respectfully questioning, and true learning organization. The fundamental power of LOSA and SAFE after-all, is the opportunity it offers to raise awareness and allow participants to practice the facilitative behaviors that create optimal work environments - environments where “mistakes” are recast as learning opportunities, where calculated and thoughtful risk is encouraged, and where one trusts that both support and resources will be extended to avoid problems from happening, or resolve them when they do.

Second, we asked ourselves if something other than identification of “what can go wrong” was necessary to control operational risk and optimize performance. We asked ourselves how the most productive of us enter a situation. Are we only looking for what can go wrong? Or is something else actively at play? 

Not only did the counsel from our internal Human Performance Improvement (HPI) and Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) expert, Jim Marinus, influence us greatly in our thinking at the time, so did  many scholarly articles and books that pointed to an alternate finding. The research confirms that the most exceptional of us actually focus on the “what must go right” of any given undertaking, and more, that we tend to use the image of what must go right as a guiding vision, as a means of identifying and healthily controlling the “what could go wrong”. Similarly, research on situational awareness - the ability to hone in on the most critical tasks when undertaking complex and even less-complex activities - exists when one has a strong, clear mental model of “what must go right”. 

If you think about it for a moment, it makes logical sense that a focus on “what must go right” can serve us well. After-all, how can we most expediently and accurately isolate what can go wrong if we haven’t first identified what must go right? It’s a relative proposition. You see, If in any given situation we walk into there are a multitude of potential challenges that could arise, doesn’t it help us manage our risk portfolio much more effectively if we first know where in our problem space we must focus our attention? Don’t we increase our chances of successful outcome - of seeing our “what must go right” actually materialize - If we can hone in on the risk factors that truly compromise our envisioned success? Well if in doubt, the answer is "yes": We increase the likelihood of identifying true risk (the “what can go wrong”) and increase our likelihood of full success when we extend due diligence to identification of our success factors (our “what must go right”).

It is this knowledge that led us to a revision of principle 8. It is the only revision made actually, to the nearly immutable eight principles. And it is resonantly reassuring to know that we are acting true to the teachings of LOSA and SAFE - create a questioning attitude, learning never stops, trust permeates so employees dare to raise issues - and search, even in our grounding principles, for what can be even better. To care enough about an outcome that we dare to confront the resistance inherent in change, is in itself a sign we are performing in a healthy culture. 

A Speedy Dissection of Principle 8

"A healthy respect/ is maintained/ for what can go wrong/ and what must go right"

Let’s close with a quick look at each nuanced phrase of principle 8 (separated above by a forward slash). The first segment, “A healthy respect...” implies that we bring humility, knowledge, and awareness to our actions. It reflects a conscious recognition that no matter how many times we repeat an activity, it is different today than it was yesterday. It is an acknowledgement that circumstances will change in some way - shape or function, seen or unseen, great or small - and any change whatsoever, just by its nature, adjusts the situation and potentially, the outcome. And hence, this is the phrase of the principle that represents the depth of our character.

What character is to “healthy respect”, commitment is to our second phrase, “…is maintained...”. These two simple words may represent the most challenging aspect of the entire principle. Why? Because to maintain this level of vigilance and to do so consistently, is no easy task. Think of the level of commitment we must demonstrate to any given activity – simple or complex – if we are to ensure conscious, correct, and reliable delivery. We can only maintain such a high degree of vigilance if we are sincerely committed to the success of the work being done and by proxy, our own success.

In our third and fourth phrases respectively (“...for what can go wrong” “…and must go right”), competence comes to the forefront. And not only the competence we usually associate with the word, the competence we show performing the actual technical work itself, but in our interpersonal smarts too. Interpersonal competence, historically and inaccurately labelled “soft skills” has now been risen to the level of grandeur it deserves. Interpersonal skills are now recognized as our “essential skills”. They are those capabilities that actually bolster our technical competence. Interpersonal skills advance our technical application and as a consequence, help us achieve our fullest potential. Therefore, our ability to correctly identify the “what must go right” and “what could go wrong” for any work or activity requires both a solid awareness of the environmental cues around us, an ability to adjust our style and approach to the needs of the situation, and the skills to communicate specifically and clearly (e.g., interpersonal competence) as much as it requires our own and our colleague’s experience and skill at performing the actual work at hand (e.g., technical competence).

It is very tempting to be nit-picky on phrase order within the written principle, and revamp it even further to read "A healthy respect is maintained for what must go right and could go wrong". I will fight the urge to do so. Let it be said however, that identifying the “what must go right” incisively and consciously prior to initiating work, allows us to more accurately and efficiently identify the risks that are of greatest importance to manage. Why? Because clarifying our ideal state first – our “what must go right” elements – places boundaries around our greatest risk space. In essence, we are telling ourselves, “It is in this area (the ‘what must go right' space) where it is most critical that I identify and control risk (or, the ‘what can go wrong’ elements). And by doing so, I raise the likelihood of realizing success because I have effectively managed my risk space, saving time and controlling the truly risky problems that might arise.” Again, identifying “the what must go right” as a first step, essentially places a boundary of focus within the entire field of all available stimuli out there. It allows us to more effectively tune out the irrelevant cues – the "noise" – and truly manage the riskiest aspects of the work.  Think noise-to-signal, and we've got it.

In Close

In review of Principle 8, a few core leadership traits - character, competence (both technical and interpersonal), and commitment - were seen as key pillars in the building of culture. Also highlighted was the importance of identifying what must go right as a precursor at best and a counterbalance at least, to the isolation of what could go wrong. In sum, expansion of Principle 8 to include phrase four, "and must go right", bolsters this final guiding principle on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds.

The Next Article: Principle 7

8. A healthy respect is maintained for what can go wrong and must go right

7. Hazards are identified and evaluated for every task, every time 

6. Learning never stops 

5. A questioning attitude is cultivated 

4. Cutting edge science requires cutting edge safety 

3. Staff raise safety concerns because trust permeates the organization 

2. All staff value the safety legacy they create in their discipline 

1. Everyone is personally responsible for ensuring safe operations