Culture versus Conscience, the Danger of Compromising Integrity

Anyone who has worked as a safety professional for any length of time has seen what can happen to culture when exceptions to the operating rules occur. The effects are not always immediate but are nevertheless substantial.

The example of this I am reminded of is from one of my all-time favorite companies to work for, a power and gas utility company that I did decades of work for as a contractor.? When a utility emergency happens, all hands are on deck and policy and procedure can suffer proportionately to the gravity of the emergency. Does this mean that the same dangers do not exist that are usually there on any other day? Certainly not. The difference exists between the circumstances and the magnitude of the event. In the case of my favorite utility company, when a gas emergency occurred, inspection, quality, and safety personnel and protocols stopped a certain distance from the event scene. There was no insidious reasoning behind this other than a less than rational approach to controlling the event, and the people in control knew every aspect of their jobs well…including safety rules.

During one particularly extensive low pressure gas leak where gas had not ignited, utility company personnel approached the event scene not wearing the fire-retardant clothing necessary by regulation. You can guess what happened next. Be mindful though, as anyone in the natural gas distribution industry can attest, low pressure gas leaks can be far more dangerous than high pressure leaks.

Once the gas ignited, a utility company employee was so badly burned that he died as a result of his burns.

This sent a culture shock wave through the entire utility company. Why were these folks not wearing the appropriate protective gear? Why didn’t a supervisor act at the scene and prevent them from being in the leak area without that PPE?

The reason for the culture shock wave was not that someone had been killed. The reason for the culture shock was the fact that this type of behavior during emergencies had always been tolerated. The “professionals” that were here to take care of the problem scenario had been invaded by a fatal flaw in their understanding of mortality and safety.

Senior leadership of the company knew well about this fatal flaw, as they too had come through the ranks and been those very same people. The difference now was that someone had died, and the only reason that it happened was a failure to perform the same safety protocols that dictate how they worked every other day of the year.

A consultant was found outside the company and engaged to look at the culture and what should or could be done to change their culture to break this trend during not just emergencies, but during any potential for non-compliance. Their chosen consulting firm was headed by a board-certified psychologist who developed a change model for their rehabilitative plan.

Every decision maker in the company at the management level went through a three-day course that included psychological evaluation, problem solving exercises related to their industry, and a series of planning sessions to “recreate” their culture. It was easier to scrap something they knew was broken and rebuild a culture with the best positives of their company that have existed since before the advent of automobiles, then identify the problem areas and remove them, followed by inserting a model for dealing with emergencies that hinged on safety of personnel.

Someone very recently told me that in order for meaningful change to occur in a culture, someone has to pay with their life. I refuse to believe this to be true, and if I did, I would not speak these words. If this is true, the follow – up question is simple. Who? Who will die for the change to happen? Show me that person or persons so that we know ahead of time and can prepare for the fall-out afterward. Whose life is worthy of forfeiting in this scenario?

Now to the conscience portion (as if we were not already there). As a safety professional, can you stand by and watch others performing such unsafe acts that a fatality is probable? Can you walk away and look the other way? What damage is done to your professional conscience by doing so?

The same questions apply to operational leaders who seem to be able to look the other way, then when the work is done celebrate the brave folks along with their leadership who just violated life safety regulations to complete a project on time.

Ideals are not what is at stake. Integrity is at stake. This is incredibly simple to understand, but absolutely impossible to swallow – if we look the other way, we lose all integrity when it comes to managing safety at any level. Integrity is doing the right thing in the absence of a set of regulatory eyes watching how things are being done. For those of you reading this that hate that statement, ask yourself if you hate it because it is true, or you hate it because you feel that integrity and safety do not exist during an emergency, or something else you feel is important from a deadline or cost standpoint.

For the safety professional, looking the other way just landed you in the “box checker” category. After this happens it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to lecture on culture building and the psychology of safety because the boundaries of your own influence and integrity have been tangibly reached by a budget or other priority that overrides human safety as a value. Good luck in that defining moment – I sincerely hope you find peace!