Normal Work - What is Normal?

There has been some great discussions regarding normal work as if it is something we should all be looking at especially when we want to compare tasks of different outcomes. However, I am not convinced yet that there really is any such thing as normal work, especially if it means work conducted without incident. This is a great discussion topic, one that I'm sure many of us will be having for some time.

As industry generally improves, how we approach safety needs to change as well. We accepted for many years that a task completed without obvious incident was acceptable; we took credit for this and only focused on those tasks with failures. And I can say with all honesty, this was quite enough for me to work on; I did not need to look any further to stay busy. But as with many of you, this has changed today and we have an opportunity to be more proactive.

I began taking the approach that what we refer to as an incident is really just an outcome and that all of the incidents are much further back in the organization. I would not get caught up in the terminology here, this is just what I use to keep this clear. Once this position is taken, it becomes easy to find the successes and failures much further back that may or may not have contributed to the outcome, either success or failure. They are still there and with the shift to Safety Differently and Safety-II, this is becoming more and more important. I do hold that Safety Differently and Safety-II are only bridges to whatever becomes the next stage or age of safety.

I speculate that many have reached a time when the traditional approach to learning is no longer satisfactory. I actually gave up this approach many years ago, but unfortunately many are still stuck in the traditional ways. I do speculate that this may be our greatest opportunity in the safety industry for change.

Many have taken the position that once an incident occurs you could or should look at normal work. I actually began this discussion with Erik Hollnagel early this month (February 2020) since there are a myriad of possible negative pathways, plus some positive pathways as well with this approach. My concern with using normal work as a reference would be only if you presume that normal would somehow equate to a task performed well leading to a positive outcome. While it becomes easy (at first assessment) to believe a task has gone well, once it is broken down between setup, inclusive of process, tooling, and people, and then execution, inclusive of continuous adaptations, you can begin to observe all types of low level work-arounds due to numerous possible work instruction issues, all types of both physical and cultural workplace potential issues, plus issues with worker that include lack of knowledge, experience, or even attitude issues. This is by no means a complete list but this does give an example of what can be found with normal work if indeed the definition of normal work is that of tasks without outcome issues. Normal work is full of all types of issues, but that certainly doesn't mean it can't be of value.

If we are attempting to find the positives with normal work, this can be accomplished by observing the work, worker, and workplace (both physical and cultural). Much can be found that can make task outcomes successful or just happen to be working quite well. This can be just as important if you have a remote workforce and need to communicate these practices. We need to take ever opportunity we can increase our probabilities of success.

When reviewing tasks, I never underestimate the power of the human mind to assess and adapt to ever changing conditions to create success. This can and usually does occur even when there are numerous issues to overcome. Does this mean that we should focus our attention on creating experts or do we systematically find and eliminate organizational management and cultural systems that are failed, weak, or non-existent? Is there a particular mixture that we should be striving for? Can we trust the experts when we know that there is a higher lever of violation with their work?

One of my favorite books by Jim Reason was "The Human Contribution." The mind is quite powerful and effective especially once a person has reached a competency level of knowledge (that being equal to effective action) as compared to the other levels of familiarity and understanding. At this expert level this person usually will have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances quite easily with no development of crisis. I use the example of a expert-level surgeon who can handle any crisis or that of a well trained pilot who has the capacity to take an immediate assessment of an emergency and make very powerful effective, even lifesaving decisions without distress. Their training cannot possibly cover every situation but I am always amazed at this capacity to make "best" decisions, even with trade-offs. I've personally spent 45 plus years sailing with many of those years working as a full time sailboat captain. While I certainly would not compare my training to that of a surgeon or pilot, I've developed a resilient capacity to ensure the safety of others and the vessel. The potential outcomes do drive the level and importance of the protective actions.

Normal work is just a term that may have numerous different meanings depending on the social system or the context. As with any term there should be some accepted narratives and distinctions, especially within this social group of safety. With many beginning to use this term maybe there should be a consensus on its description, meaning, relevance, value, and purpose before it becomes another safety catch phrase. I have do doubt that some who are using this, especially in Australia, are possibly was ahead on its application and value, but that doesn't mean that there still isn't room for advancing this concept.

Please send comments directly to my email - [email protected]