Was HR complicit in the 15 deaths on March 23, 2005?

On March 23, 2005, there was a tragic explosion at a Texas City refinery. 15 people lost their lives that day. Many others were injured.

The Independent Safety Review Panel, otherwise known as the Baker Report, had many findings. While there are multiple recommendations in the report, as a safety professional, two recommendations continue to trouble me because they are relevant for all industries, not just the oil and gas sector.

The first has to do with supervisory competence. The second addresses senior leadership selection.

Both have implications on occupational safety and rely upon individuals having the courage to do what’s right, have voice, and challenge business leaders to understand and manage operational risks. 

COMPETENCY EVALUATION

The front line supervisor role is critical. Employees look to the supervisor for guidance on everything including technical advice, prioritization and feedback. The organization looks to the front line supervisor as the way work gets done.

Unfortunately, far too few organizations adequately evaluate the competence of the front line supervisor in a disciplined and documented way. This had deadly consequences:

“The Panel found nothing to indicate that any of the refineries had a requirement that a new first level leader be tested on, or be familiar with, the equipment in the unit or that he or she have any minimum job tenure before promotion to that position.”

In my travels as a consultant, It is unusual to see real progress on developing supervisory technical competencies coupled with evaluation and feedback. Furthermore, this represents a huge opportunity for Safety and HR to join forces and co-develop this type of an approach.

FASTER THAN THE DISASTER

Within the organization, leaders were promoted quickly across the organization. “High potential” leaders were parachuted into roles and moved to the next assignment in short periods of time - often less than 18 months. This left little time to develop a thorough understanding of the operations and the associated risks. In the corridors, people would describe leaders as “moving faster than the disaster” that they left behind

The culture of the organization accepted ‘whirl-wind’ leadership. Senior leaders would step in and out of roles at a rapid pace. It was unacceptable to challenge the process. The Baker Panel noted:

“The Panel believes that the high turnover at the plant manager position has contributed to the process safety culture weaknesses at those refineries.”

 The rapid turnover, and broad acceptance that this was the way things got done, tells me that far too many individuals were complacent with the systems. It tells me that courage was lacking to ask the right questions. Saying “no” to the approach to senior leadership development was against the culture.

The top of the house condoned the placement of leaders into critical operational roles without relevant experience. Exasperating the problem was the lack of patience to allow the senior leaders the time to develop required competencies.

It was also clear that the organization valued building commercial skills over operational competence.

SO WHAT?

13 years later, has HR and safety moved the needle on these topics in high risk industries? This question applies to many firms that operate in high risk industries.

HR and safety have a joint responsibility to address the topics raised in the Baker Panel Report. Unfortunately, only a few organizations have made progress. Together, HR and safety need to take a stand on the promotion of first line supervisors and the movement of senior executives for development purposes.

Safety and HR must recognize its ‘duty of care’ to manage these programs, set requirements and measure performance. 

Without this level of attention, HR and safety will continue to be seen as rubber stamps to senior leader’s agendas and fail in our role as the moral compass of the organization.

HR and safety should be working together to evaluate the promotion/development programs, identify the risks and ensure the right people with the right skills are in the right place at the right time. Even in a culture where practices are ingrained, it’s incumbent upon individuals to have a voice, to recognize risk and take action.

The two organizations should work together to evaluate hiring and promotion practices. They need to jointly recognize the importance of competence, skills and tenure in roles. 

HR and safety professionals have to have a voice in the business. They must have courage and tenacity.

We must work together to reduce the risk of having another Texas City. We must find our voice and make sure we adequately manage the risks that our people practices represent.

In memory of Glenn Bolton, Dan Hogan, Larry Linsenbardt, Ryan Rodrigues, Morris King, Eugene White, Jimmy Hunnings, Kimberly Smith, Lorenza Cruz, Susan Taylor, James Rowe, Linda Rowe, Arthur Ramos, Larry Thomas, and Rafael Herrera.