Has a "chronic sense of unease" had its day?
Steven Harris
Managing Director | HSSE | Risk | Strategy | Brand | Influence | Leadership | Performance | Key Note Speaker | Published Author | University Lecturer (part time) |
I had the pleasure of spending the majority of last week in a room full of very smart people. During one conversation someone mentioned the importance of fostering a "chronic sense of unease". This phrase is commonly used in high hazard industries (oil & gas, nuclear, etc.) to describe the level of watchfulness and unrelenting care thought necessary to prevent the errors that escalate into disasters. In the world of process safety, lives are believed to depend upon it.
Applying the philosophy is thought to move the collective workforce opinion from "that'll never happen" to "that might happen so be careful". This type of Darwinian management tactic of engagement through the fear of consequence is as old as our species (hence why we are still here). But, my challenge would be, does it continue to align with operational excellence or would another mindset be better?
Yes, workers should always understand and appreciate the hazard & risk burden of their roles and responsibilities (that should not change). But, should their team be defined by a preoccupation with potential failure? Does a culture of persistent suspicion, not healthy challenge, rob the agility to try new and innovative ways? Might it focus minds on where the danger is thought to lie (over reliance on risk assessment), allowing the passage of 'other' weak signals to go unnoticed?
领英推荐
My point being, there are hallmarks of winning teams, such as their players make less errors because they commit to excellence. An All Black makes less mistakes than a club player....fact. If you have All Blacks on your team (which you should in a high hazard industry) ask yourself, what would reduce error likelihood? The answer is not to ensure the possibility of making an error is always on their mind.
In summary, a chronic sense of unease is adopted by every modern day process industry, yet our news feeds are still filled with horrific industrial disasters that kill scores of innocent workers. With that in mind, perhaps it is time for high hazard industries to adopt more sports psychology? This would mean operational teams are not subjected to relentless reminders of the potential negative outcomes of previous failures, but are set up for success with a focus on excellent execution.
“The quality of a person’s life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor” - Vince Lombardi
HSE Compliance and Governance Advisor at TechnipFMC
1 年Scott Roberts MBA CMIOSH
Chartered Human Factors Specialist
1 年Of course having a sense of unease and pessimism and understanding that things can go wrong is important. But does that prevent the normal human trait of switching off? Probably not. I am pretty sure most people understand the risks and bad things that can happen so is there a need to put a complex term on it. It kind of gives an employer an out by saying people got complacent over risk, they weren’t “uneasy” enough. Surely it’s more about top down and making it easier to identify weak signals of risk rather than relying on people to recognise them when battleting normal workplace challenges and drivers for productivity.
Experienced O&G professional potentially open to exploring new opportunities
1 年Well they are STILL playing the ?? video, then asking....."did anyone see the ??" so probably yes ??
VP HSEEQ at Dolphin Drilling
1 年Good discussion Steven Harris, for what it’s worth , I have started to replace the phrase “chronic sense of unease” with “constant vigilance” when I am having discussions on this topic especially when linking it to task execution and the dynamic assessment of risk.