But I'm not here to sell so why should I post on LinkedIn?
Steven Harris
Managing Director | HSSE | Risk | Strategy | Brand | Influence | Leadership | Performance | Key Note Speaker | Published Author | University Lecturer (part time) |
Just over three weeks ago I posed a question to the LinkedIn community regarding a hotly debated safety topic. It was a challenge to the belief we should stop using the Zero Harm aspiration because it encourages false reporting and so damages the integrity of a culture.
I fundamentally agree that Zero Harm can cause false reporting. However, I would suggest we treat the disease (the why) and not the symptom (the what). This would mean keeping Zero Harm, but devoting our attention to addressing the root cause(s) of the false reporting.
As expected, the post inspired a healthy debate and all of the opinions that were given held value. Personally, the one I appreciated most was received yesterday from Brodie Smith, one of the leaders of the excellent Dropped Objects Prevention Scheme (aka DROPS).
Over the past seven years that I have known Brodie he has proven himself to be a values-led professional with an impressive emotional intelligence that gives him wisdom far beyond his years. He is certainly a star of the future and I would encourage you to look him up.
With Brodie's permission, I thought I would share the message he sent me:
Afternoon Steve
I often find myself thinking about posts that you put on your LinkedIn a while after you’ve posted them, and I was thinking about the one from a couple of weeks ago about Zero Harm, and that instead of removing it, maybe we should be focusing on a culture that supports it instead.
It made me think about an early episode of Scrubs, where the senior doctor, Dr Cox, announces throughout the day that he is on for a “perfect game” (baseball terminology), where no patient in the ICU dies in a full 24 hour day, a seemingly impossible feat. Long story short, a patient crashes at 23:55 and Dr Cox and a junior doctor, Elliot, cannot resuscitate him. Dr Cox realises the time, is very upset, then asks Elliot to call the time of death. Elliot refuses, saying that the staff need the win and that they are the only ones there, “it’s only 5 minutes”. What then follows is Dr Cox saying that there is nothing wrong with a miraculous “one hitter”, and that the perfect game is an endless pursuit of perfection that shouldn’t be cheapened. There isn’t a prize or accolade for it, it’s just for the kudos really. It then ends with him telling Elliot to get a cup of coffee with the new game starting in four minutes.
领英推荐
Although Dr Cox is largely a very bad example of leadership with the excessive shouting, name calling and the like, there are usually important messages in what he does, and if you pick everything about his character apart, there are good intentions there.
I know it’s probably a bit na?ve, but my “vision” for something like Zero Harm would be along the same lines, where leaders don’t assign it as a target, but as an aspiration, a pursuit of perfection, and lead it as such. Whether or not it’s something that is achievable is something I’m sure will be debated and nit picked for the rest of time, i.e. “what about office staff that trap their fingers in desk drawers?!” and the rest of the nonsense justifications you see for not targeting Zero Harm, but I really don’t see the problem with aspiring to it. The second part of the vision would be to acknowledge and celebrate the one hitter games as being special, and making sure that the aspiration isn’t cheapened by those who are after the easy win.
I guess another, probably skeptical, way of looking at it would be that no one would believe you if you said you achieved Zero Harm everywhere anyway, so why would you lie about the one incident? I think the sheer scrutiny of it in public is what really harms the idea.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you. It’s something I regularly see debated on LinkedIn and really my opinion is that it shouldn’t be a target for the macro environment and shouted about, but rather a quiet, internal aspiration that’s supported by an open and honest culture.
Best regards, Brodie Smith
So why have I shared this? Well, I wanted to show the brilliant job Brodie did in capturing the essence of what I was suggesting far better than I did (or perhaps could). I like the way he uses a light-hearted anecdote to a TV show to land his message, and the humbleness he shows when talking through his critical thinking (a clear indictor of his intelligence).
The biggest reason was to give proof-positive that LinkedIn works to stimulate intelligent debate and further understanding. I wanted to do this, with the help of Brodie's words, to move you to post and interact with your own networks. The potential for individual and collective development on this platform is exponential, but we all have a part to play.
Thank you Brodie.
Risk Management - We mostly do what we do with people we want to do it with.
2 年A few things I like a lot about this Steven. 1. I like you see the merit in sharing of knowledge for the benefit of helping others. It also helps yourself articulate, test and build on your ideas. Being a more effective communicator is something we should all aspire to in my opinon. Writing concisely, clearly and on topics of interest, an important part of that. (I ironically always ramble - when writing, maybe more than when talking just ??). 2. There is power in content creation and connection via social media. There is also certainly no end of BS and negative consequences associated with 'modern fangled comms tech', however constructive use of LinkedIn is just one of the positives. Learning from others, establishing new meaningful relationships, maintaining old ones, opening your life up to a ream of opportunities. I could wax lyrical about all of these areas for some time. But I will reframe... 3. Final point. I've long admired how you convey your personality via your content and how you respectfully engage with others Steven. This article is a good example of that. Well intentioned and I always take something from reading your work. You also develop polite discussion / debate. Culture - 'way we do things around he...'
Marek Koziol
2 年Great post Steven! Thanks for sharing.
A believer in the truism of simplicity, first principles, the conservation of energy and that this and Newtons third law of motion applies to all actions human or machine made.
2 年Steven, thanks for taking time to write the article and incorporating Brodie's mail to you. The reason I'm commenting is nothing other than in support of "Zero Harm" (to all living creatures) as an aspirational goal / vision...why would we not aspire to that for ourselves, those round about us, those we share the planet with... In the grand scheme of things, you could argue that our drive to net zero / decarbonisation etc. all fall in to that "Zero Harm" vision. Brodie suggests that rather than being shouted about it is for quiet internal aspiration, supported by an open and honest culture. I don't necessarily agree with "quiet internal aspiration" today; today, I believe we need to be instilling the "Zero Harm" message within the education system, whether classroom, home, cubs, guides, football, rugby... "Zero Harm" may scare some but perhaps that is because they see the "Zero" (a number?) rather than the vision. Simply, we could perhaps consider it as a message demonstrating Respect? I absolutely agree with Brodie that an open and honest culture is needed. Thanks again Steven and Brodie
Improvement Guru. I help organizations become better & make the world better. Lifelong Learner. Always learning about my expertise, my community, my professional partners, & our world. Let’s make our world better.
2 年Zero is no hero
Program Manager at Energy Safety Canada
2 年My personal opinion is that zero does have a place along a company’s journey, but it is a place and not an end point. In the early days of safety excellence zero proves very useful, provided their are apples to pick from the safety tree. However, as a company matures and makes substantial reductions in incidents the negative consequences start to outweigh the benefits. This is particularly true as it applies to serious incidents and fatalities. In HOP we talk about making “being safe easier” and “being unsafe harder”, this is true to zero where it becomes significantly easier to hide incidents than to prevent them.