Risk Assessment in the

DESIGN PHASE

Improving Employee
Safety Engagement
Chemical Management
Pitching Certification
to the C-Suite

ASSP.ORG NOVEMBER 2019

 Portable gas detectors you can count on

MGC Simple & Simple Plus

the multi gas detectors
that you never have to charge
Our Family of Products

Detect
combustible gases (LEL),
Multi Gas Clip
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), The portable multi gas detector that can run
carbon monoxide (CO) continuously for two months on one charge
and oxygen (O2) due to advanced infrared sensor technology.
Detects combustible gases (LEL), H2S, CO and O2.

Multi Gas Clip Pump

Compact, light-weight, handheld/wearable multi gas
detector with internal pump draws from 75 ft. & runs
for an average of 52 hours on a single charge. Detects
combustible gases (LEL), H2S, CO and O2.

Single Gas Clip

NEW Eliminate downtime with our ultra-reliable
portable gas detector. Detects H2S, CO or O2.
3 year
multigas

Single Gas Clip Plus

Hibernate mode offers extended life option
MGC Simple & MGC Simple Plus when detector is not in use. Detects H2S or CO.

‹Two or three year run time with no charging

or calibration
‹Detect in oxygen deficient or oxygen
enriched environments Compatible Docking Stations
‹LEL sensor is immune to sensor poisoning Portable, durable 4-bay dock stations
‹Fails to safe quickly bump test, calibrate & log data
‹Simple, one button operation for up to four detectors at once with
‹Logs data at one second intervals whenever the push of a button.
gas is detected

MPHT
UFTUT

FWFOUT
Single Gas Clip Dock,
‹100% Quality control tested L&D IN
MB Multi Gas Clip Dock,
E

‹Full two or three year warranty

US
ASS

MGC Pump Clip Dock & MGC Simple Clip Dock

A

"T
TFFO at ASSP SAFETY 

DBMM
PS
WJTJU
PVS
XFCTJUF
GPS
NPSF
JOGPSNBUJPO

Gas Clip Technologies • +1.972.775.7577 • gascliptech.com
GET CERTIFIED 10% OFF

ClickSafety’s SPAN™ offers Board of Certified Safety ANY WORKSHOP!

USE DISCOUNT CODE: ASSP1119*
Professionals (BCSP) Certification Exam Preparation
Workshops, Study Workbooks and E-learning for the
ASP WORKSHOPS
Leading Safety, Health and Environmental Certifications
Kansas City, KS Jan 29-31
Atlanta, GA Feb 4-6
Philadelphia, PA Feb 25-27
ASP • CSP • OHST • CHST • CET • STS • STSC • CHMM • SMS Denver, CO Mar 10-12

CSP WORKSHOPS
Facilitated Workshops provide expert guidance to pass the exam Jacksonville, FL Nov 13-15

the first time! Workshops include CertBoK® online learning system, St Louis, MO Nov 20-22
exam study workbooks and scientific calculator. Kansas City, MO Feb 25-27
Atlanta, GA May 5-7
Exam Study Workbooks include test questions with detailed
explanations.
CHST WORKSHOPS
Mentoring Services offer study plans by subject matter experts St Louis, MO Dec 10-12
dedicated to your success. Kansas City, KS Mar 3-5

The SPAN™ CertBoK® online learning system gives members Philadelphia, PA Mar 24-26
access to certification exam preparation learning resources, including Denver, CO Jun 9-11
reference materials, study sessions, practice exams and exam subject
matter expert mentors. OHST WORKSHOPS
Denver, CO May 12-14

SMS WORKSHOPS
SPAN™ SAFETY WORKSHOPS ARE GUARANTEED!
Philadelphia, PA Mar 17-19
Kansas City, KS Mar 31-2

Complete Workshop Schedule at www.spansafety.com Atlanta, GA May 27-29

417-724-8348 • info@spansafety.com
*Expires 11/30/19. Valid for new purchases only. Additional exclusions may apply. STSC WORKSHOPS
St Louis, MO Dec 13

ADVANCED ASP-CSP
Kansas City, KS Apr 28-30
 CONTENTS
Features Peer-Reviewed

24
Moving Risk Assessment MANAGEMENT
Upstream to the LEADERSHIP
DESIGN PHASE Improving Employee
By Bruce K. Lyon, David L.
Safety Engagement
Walline and Georgi Popov
Studies indicate that gaps found in
design are significant contributors
to workplace serious injuries and
fatalities, which points to the need
for prevention through design con-
cepts. This article provides OSH
professionals a practical approach
to establishing a method for antici-
pating, recognizing, avoiding, elim-
inating and minimizing operational
hazards and risks before they are
introduced into the workplace.
36 43
A Systematic Approach to
SAFETY PERFORMANCE
By John F. Kowalski and John
C. Summers
This article provides a systematic
By Rebecca Mullins, Earl Blair
thinking approach using human and
and E. Scott Dunlap
organizational performance fun-
Research supports the supposition
damentals and analysis techniques
of a strong connection between em-
to improve safety performance.
ployee engagement and safety per-
The techniques described apply to
formance. This article examines the
individuals, leaders and the overall
implications of a recent study mea-
organization. The authors present
suring employee safety engagement.
a six-part model based on the phi-
It also provides practical recom-
losophy that to reduce errors and
mendations on how management
eliminate events of consequence,
can institute leadership approaches
adequate human performance tools
that result in employees being more
and defenses must be in place.
motivated to engage in safety.

CORRECTION
FROM OCTOBER 2019, PAGE 20: The article “E-Scooter Safety” by Abby Ferri was
missing reprint attribution: “This article was originally published by The Ferri Group
(https://theferrigroup.co). Copyright 2019. Reprinted with permission.” Professional Safety
regrets the error.

NOVEMBER 2019
VOL. 64, NO. 11
ABOUT PROFESSIONAL SAFETY
COVER Professional Safety is a blind peer-reviewed journal published monthly by
OSH professionals the American Society of Safety Professionals, the oldest professional safety
have a vital society. Professional Safety keeps the professional OSH specialist informed on
role to play in developments in the research and technology of incident prevention, industry
PTD and design best practices and safety management techniques.
safety reviews, Judgments made or opinions expressed in Professional Safety feature articles,
and the greatest news sections, letters to the editor, meeting reports or related journal content
opportunity to do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor, nor should they be considered
avoid and reduce an expression of official policy by ASSP. They are published for the purpose of
risk is upstream in stimulating independent thought on matters of concern to the OSH profession
the design process. and its practitioners.
Photo Nostal6ie/ Correspondence should be addressed to the editor. Editor reserves the right
iStock/Getty to edit manuscripts and other submissions in order to improve clarity and style,
Images Plus and for length.

2 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

INTRODUCING THE NEW Z10
The ANSI/ASSP Z10.0-2019 is the U.S. Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems Consensus Standard

What’s new?
▪ Emphasis on process and system
improvement
▪ Integrates with other management
systems
▪ Aligns with ISO 45001 for
organizations desiring conformance
to both standards

Benefits
▪ Improve your organization’s
performance
▪ Provide a safe and healthy
environment for your workers
▪ Reduce your risk of occupational
injury, illness and fatalities

Safety is a process, not an outcome to be achieved.

For all the latest news about Z10.0, go to assp.us/standards
 CONTENTS
Departments
6 President’s Message
The changing world of work
7 Reader Forum
Feedback on our August and July
2019 issues
9 ASSP Connection
Emerging Professionals Award
10 Safety Matters
Occupational health and safety
management systems standards
16 Leading Thoughts
Movement training to reduce soft-
tissue, slip/trip/fall and hand injuries
21 Checkpoints
Utilizing wireless equipment to
improve lone worker safety
22 Best Practices
10 things you wish everyone
understood about the OSH profession
56 Best Practices
Establishing a chemical management
system at a university
Professional Safety copyright
©2019 by American Society of
Safety Professionals. All rights
reserved. No copyright is claimed in
any works of the U.S. government
that may be published herein.
For information on reprinting or
reproducing articles published in
Professional Safety, visit www.assp
.org/publications/professional-safety.
PSJ (ISSN 0099 0027) is published
monthly by the American Society of Safety
Professionals, 520 N. Northwest Highway,
Park Ridge, IL 60068-2538 USA; phone (847)
699-2929; professionalsafety@assp.org.
Periodicals postage paid at Park Ridge, IL,
and at additional mailing offices.
4 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
58 Worth Reading EDITORIAL STAFF
Tina Angley, Editor
Reviews of The Relationship Factor in (847) 768-3438;
Safety Leadership and The Complete tangley@assp.org
First Aid Pocket Guide Sarah Astra, Associate Editor
(847) 768-3414;
60 Best Practices sastra@assp.org
How to inspire self-motivation and Griffin White, Assistant Editor
(847) 768-3468;
empowerment gwhite@assp.org
Publication Design Inc.
64 Standards Insider Design Consultants
Alexi Carli speaks about how
to effectively pitch standards EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Frank G. D’Orsi, CSP, ARM, Chair
certification to the C-suite
Frank J. Bruzzese, CSP, CIH, CPCU
67 Checkpoints Salvatore Caccavale, CHMM, CPEA
Addressing legal concerns in a driver David A. Dodge, P.E., CSP
safety policy Cari M. Elofson, CHST
E. Andrew Kapp, Ph.D., CSP, CHMM
68 Product Pulse Steve Minshall, CSP, CIH
The latest safety innovations Justin J. Molocznik, CSP, CHST
70 Continuing Education SOCIETY OFFICERS
Events during November, December Diana M. Stegall, CSP, CFPS,
ARM, SMS, CPCU
and January President
Deborah R. Roy, M.P.H., R.N.,
72 By the Way CSP, COHN-S, CET, FAAOHN
Sleep the day away President-Elect
Bradley Giles, P.E., CSP, STS,
GIOSH
Senior Vice President
Christine M. Sullivan, CSP, ARM
Professional Safety is available Vice President, Finance
free online to ASSP members at
www.assp.org/publications/ Todd William Loushine, Ph.D.,
professional-safety. Articles are P.E., CSP, CIH
also available via microform Vice President,
and/or electronic databases Professional Development
from ProQuest, P.O. Box 1346, Jennifer M. McNelly
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA; Chief Executive Officer
phone +1 (800) 521-0600. For
specific format details, visit www.proquest ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE
.com. Michael Sanders
(847) 232-2038;
POSTMASTER: Send address changes msanders@assp.org
to Change of Address Dept., ASSP, 520 N.
Northwest Highway, Park Ridge, IL 60068-
2538 USA.
 EDUCATION YOU CAN APPLY
IN THE WORKPLACE
Education from ASSP provides hands-on, practical training delivered by experienced safety professionals — giving you
the information, tools and practice necessary to quickly integrate what you learn into your workplace. This can translate
into real results for your business — helping you to advance your career and become a leader in your company.

PROGRAM COURSE CEUs DATES LOCATION

Managed Fall Protection 2.1 November 1 – December 6, 2019 Online Course

Fall Protection Fall Protection Virtual Symposium 0.5 November 19, 2019 Virtual Symposium
Managed Fall Protection 2.1 February 23 - March 29, 2020 Online Course

Corporate Safety Management 2.1 November 4 – 6, 2019 Chicago, IL

Safety Management I 2.1 November 11 – 13, 2019 Chicago, IL
Safety Management Safety Management II 1.4 November 14 – 15. 2019 Chicago, IL
Implementing ISO 45001 2.1 March 1 - March 29, 2020 Online Course

Prevention Through Design 1.4 November 3 – December 1, 2019 Online Course

Risk Assessment
Essential Risk Assessment Tools 1.4 November 10 – December 8, 2019 Online Course
Risk Assessment 2.1 February 23 - March 29, 2020 Online Course

Math Review 0.7 November 4, 2019 New York, NY

ASP Exam Prep 2.1 November 5 – 7, 2019 New York, NY

Math Review 0.7 December 8, 2019 Chicago, IL

Certification ASP Exam Prep 2.1 December 9 – 11, 2019 Chicago, IL
CSP Exam Prep 2.1 December 12 – 14, 2019 Chicago, IL
Preparation
Math Review 0.7 January 12, 2020 Chicago, IL
ASP Exam Prep 2.1 January 13 - 15, 2020 Chicago, IL
CSP Exam Prep 2.1 January 16 - 18, 2020 Chicago, IL

Human Dynamics of Safety Live Virtual

Electives Success & Beyond
0.8 December 3, 5, 10, 17, 2019
Classroom

up to
Event SafetyFOCUS 2020
5.6
February 13 -20 Las Vegas, NV

Learn more at ASSP.org/Education

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
SEEING THE CONNECTIONS
Diana Stegall
Connect With Diana
Join Diana on LinkedIn, follow
her on Twitter or comment on
her message at www.assp.org/
news/presidents-message.
As we provide
data on workplace
injuries, we need to
tell the story
behind the data
and turn the data
into useful informa-
tion on which our
leaders can act.
6 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
In last month’s message, I noted
some key trends related to the changing
world of work. I have since learned more
about these issues and want to further
explore how they will impact us as safety
professionals.
Artificial intelligence (AI) may seem
like something out of science fiction,
but it is not. It is here and growing ex-
ponentially. Initial uses of AI focused
on performing simple repetitive tasks,
but its applications have rapidly pro-
gressed. It is now being used to replicate
a human’s physical abilities or drive a
car. However, these are often narrowly
focused items such as voice-controlled
digital assistants; navigation devices on
our smartphones; or tracking systems
used to identify our interests and serve
us pop-up ads.
Interestingly, once algorithms are
designed to allow AI to complete a cer-
tain task, the AI continues to learn and
perform that task better. What does
this mean to us? We need to ensure that
we continue to learn and adjust to our
changing workplace rather than take
the view that once we have learned to do
something, we know all we need to know
and need not keep learning.
Consider consensus standards as an
example of this concept. Consensus
standards are designed to be updated
on a regular basis because what worked
5 years ago may no longer be applicable
to the current work environment. Even
OSHA recognizes that many of the con-
trols it specified long ago do not account
for better and more efficient controls that
have developed over time, many related
to advanced technologies.
As we all know, to continue to provide
value to our employers and our work-
forces, we must do more than stay on top
of current regulations and standards. It is
likely that algorithms could be developed
based on historical data to create AI that
can develop effective compliance-related
policies and procedures. What does that
mean for us?
Fundamentally, safety is about people.
How do we help employees stay safe and
remain productive at work? Does a focus
on compliance accomplish that objective?
Across the global OSH community,
we are hearing increasingly more about
human capital and how it fits within
the world of sustainability. How can an
organization be sustainable if it does not
include the people needed to operate
the business? Yet, it can be difficult to
see where safety professionals fit in to
the conversation. I believe part of this
disconnect is related to the term human
capital, which often strikes me as a cold
term. So let’s look at it another way.
An organization needs people to pro-
vide services, manufacture goods and pro-
duce whatever product is the output of that
organization. By investing in people (hu-
man capital) through education and train-
ing, and by providing a safe workplace and
an environment in which employees can
be their best and most efficient, the returns
on those investments increase. Companies
experience less absenteeism, higher pro-
ductivity, lower turnover and fewer em-
ployee injuries. When we are part of these
conversations as safety professionals and
find opportunities as a result to collaborate
with human resources and other company
leaders, we demonstrate our value and
move beyond outdated perceptions that we
are “just the safety police.”
As we provide data on workplace inju-
ries, we need to tell the story behind the
data and turn the data into useful infor-
mation on which our leaders can act. We
need to look at other information we can
provide our management team as they de-
cide where to make investments. I urge you
to participate in the discussions happening
in your organization about sustainability
and human capital. I also encourage you to
review the information we have developed
in conjunction with our partners at the
Center for Safety and Health Sustainability
at www.centershs.org.
As you develop a deeper understand-
ing of these topics and learn how they are
being addressed in your workplace, you
will more readily see the connections to
your roles and responsibilities as a safe-
ty professional. That will enable you to
more readily adapt as our world of work
continues to change. PSJ
Diana Stegall, CSP, CFPS, ARM,
SMS, CPCU

Professional Safety encourages readers to write to Reader Forum in response to specific articles, editorials,
letters, columns and news reports published in the journal. The editors reserve the right to select which letters
will appear and to edit letters for brevity and clarity. Start the dialogue today by sending your comments to
the PSJ Reader Forum, professionalsafety@assp.org.
Protecting Pregnant Workers
Readers of PSJ’s August
2019 “Women and Safety” issue
should examine implicit OSH
bias against pregnant workers—a
uniquely U.S. problem. For ex-
ample, try to find the word preg-
nant anywhere in the journal’s
content. The topic is critical be-
cause about 80% of women will
be pregnant at least once during
their working lifetime.
Although other countries such
as the EU, Canada, Czech Re-
public, Russia, South Africa and
others have federal legislation
for employer conducted risk as-
sessments for pregnant workers
(e.g., EU’s 1992 Pregnant Workers
Directive), the U.S. is the only
wealthy nation not to take this
position. Is it fair that pregnant
workers in many other countries
enjoy OSH protections while their
U.S. counterparts go without?
The Pregnant Workers Fair-
ness Act was introduced into
the U.S. Congress in 2012, and
reintroduced into each legislative
session since then, including
now, without passage. Since the
feds won’t budge, state and city
laws picked up the challenge, as
shown in the following list of
pregnant worker accommoda-
tion laws (2012-2019) and the law
enforcement date.
California, 2012
Central Falls, RI, 2014
Colorado, 2016
Connecticut, 2017
Delaware, 2014
District of Columbia, 2014
Illinois, 2014
Kentucky, 2019
Maine, 2019
Maryland, 2013
Massachusetts, 2017
Minnesota, 2014
Nebraska, 2015
Nevada, 2017
New Jersey, 2014
New York, 2015
New York, NY, 2014
North Carolina, 2018*
North Dakota, 2015
READER FORUM
Oregon, 2020
Philadelphia, PA, 2014
Pittsburg, PA, 2013
Providence, RI, 2014
Rhode Island, 2015
South Carolina, 2018
Utah, 2016
Vermont, 2017
Washington, 2017
West Virginia, 2014
[Note: List current as of Sep-
tember 2019. *Public only. Law
titles vary but have a theme of
pregnant worker and reasonable
accommodation. For law summa-
ries, see Employment Protections
for Women Who Are Pregnant or
Nursing, Women’s Bureau, U.S.
Department of Labor.]
Growth in this list is certain.
For example, proposed Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act bills in
Tennessee (SB 758-HB 986) and
Ohio (SB 94) had favorable fiscal extend beyond Kentucky’s geo-
analysis, respectively, in Febru- graphical boundaries.
ary and September 2019 to help The HIA addresses pregnancy
smooth their passage in 2020. hazards such as noise, bending,
The U.S. is attempting a great standing, lifting, shift work,
social/OSH experiment with long hours of work, exposure to
pregnant workers. With limit- chemicals, radiation, stress (i.e.,
ed or no assistance from U.S. psychological job strain) and high
employers (this is a bias) can a temperatures. Adverse effects
pregnant worker conduct her from these risks are also included
own risk assessment and propose in the HIA (e.g., “Women ex-
reasonable hierarchy of controls posed to 80 dB for an 8-hour shift
by herself? The above laws seek were at increased risk of preterm
this objective modeled after the delivery”; “high noise may place
Americans With Disabilities Act their unborn children at risk to
with expansion to include “com- hearing loss”). The wrong answer
mon conditions” and “individual to these risks will perpetuate
limitations” related to pregnancy pregnancy discrimination.
as found, respectively, in Illinois In contrast to high public inter-
and Kentucky laws. est on the topic, literature in the
Kentucky’s 2019 Pregnant OSH profession rarely addresses
Workers Health Impact As- the topic of pregnant workers.
sessment (HIA) developed by When the profession does ad-
Department of Public Health dress the topic, the information is
and Wellness that informs sometimes misleading or wrong
decision-making with regard (see PSJ Reader Forum, Septem-
to Kentucky’s Pregnant Work- ber 2018, p. 8, “On Reproductive
ers Act (effective June 2019) Hazards”). How can the OSH
demonstrates OSH necessity. profession better serve the needs
For employers that do not have a of pregnant workers?
workplace in Kentucky, the HIA Dan Markiewicz, M.S., CSP, CIH
states that its information may
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 7
READER FORUM
On Safety Rewards
The case study in the July 2019 issue of Professional
Safety (pp. 27-31) is a terrific example of old-world
thinking that limits the effectiveness and perceived
value of the safety profession. The authors state that
safety awards “aim to incentivize both positive safety
behaviors (through individual awards) and avoidance
of negative safety behaviors that could lead to inci-
dents (through group awards).” This notion proposes
that a gift card, shopping voucher or other award is
somehow more motivating to an
employee than the avoidance of pain,
injury and death.
By embracing these ideas, claiming
they are backed by psychological or
sociological research, we fail to ask
questions that will lead us to far more
useful information. Safety research-
ers do not factor in an omnibus view
of motivating factors and ask basic
questions such as, “Why would an
employee perform an act that could
result in pain, injury or death in
the first place?” If we examine these
questions, we can scientifically and
professionally start to address the
real root causes of injuries.
Additionally, encouraging safety professionals to
spend their valuable time administrating an award
program reduces the amount of time available for
performing functions that actually reduce risk
levels. Every hour spent tracking behavior observa-
tions, distributing shopping vouchers and counting
days since the last injury is an hour not spent in op-
erational areas working directly with managers and
employees to identify risks and mitigate hazards.
It is time to leave behind the notion that an em-
ployee will work safely to get a trinket. Does anyone
really think there has ever been a situation in which
an employee was about to knowingly risk his/her life
and stopped, not to avoid pain and injury, but to get
a monthly cash gift? As a profession, we devalue our-
selves by acting as cheesy game administers. We must
embrace the far more difficult but effective leadership
role of proactively identifying and reducing risk.
We must also take a hard and honest look at the
perception of safety when employees, other depart-
ments and organizational managers see us handing
out gift cards for safe behavior instead of identifying
hazards and putting in the hard work to reduce
them. Anyone can hand an employee an award, but
it takes someone with special knowledge, skill and
perseverance to change the systems and conditions
of work that lead to potential injuries. What we too
often call unsafe behavior is actually a mispercep-
tion of risk by employees. Had an injured or de-
ceased employee honestly thought the hazard event
would occur, s/he would not have stopped the action
to receive a monthly award; s/he would have ceased
the action to avoid getting hurt.
Scott Gesinger, CSP
8 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
The Authors Respond
We thank the reader for his contribution to the
wider debate on how to improve worker involvement
in the development of safe systems of work. We
actually agree with many of the points made. Our
article was an evaluation of a common safety prac-
tice seen in the construction industry. Our intention
was to provide insights on this practice, rather than
advocate it as an essential safety initiative, and so
optimize its potential where implemented.
As noted by the reader, there are
other key questions to be asked. We
agree that the reasons why people
take risks are important ones and
exposing them should be at the
core of the safety profession. In our
wider study, safety rewards was one
of the themes that emerged, and
we have explored other themes in
our work extensively. We would
note that reporting and safety
bureaucracy (Oswald, Sherratt &
Smith, 2018); production pressures
and payment methods (Oswald,
Sherratt & Smith, 2019a); safety
communication (Oswald, Wade &
Sherratt, et al., 2019b); and subcon-
tracting and subsequent profit squeezing are more
fundamental safety issues (than rewards) within
the construction industry.
It was suggested in our work that rewards could
help with safety management when implemented ef-
fectively but could also actively hinder safety perfor-
mance. For example, group rewards that acknowledge
low or no incidents within a certain period can create
risks of underreporting, thus hindering learning and
overall organizational performance. Safety rewards
are, of course, far from the complete solution and
represent only one voluntary aspect of a safety man-
agement system to consider. We fully support safety
professionals in asking other more fundamental
questions around safety.
References
Oswald, D., Sherratt, F. & Smith, S. (2018). Problems
with safety observation reporting: A construction industry
case study. Safety Science, 107, 35-45.
Oswald, D., Sherratt, F. & Smith, S. (2019a). Managing
production pressures through dangerous informality: A
case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management [accepted, in press].
Oswald, D., Wade, F., Sherratt, F., et al. (2019b). Commu-
nicating health and safety on a multinational construction
project: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 145(4), 04019017.
David Oswald, Ph.D., Fred Sherratt, Ph.D., and Simon D.
Smith, Ph.D.
 ASSP CONNECTION

EMERGING PROFESSIONAL
AWARD LAUNCHED
ASSP’s new Emerging Professional
Award recognizes the next generation
of safety professionals who demonstrate
leadership and a drive to grow profes-
sionally. Recipients of the Emerging
Professional Award will be placed into a
MARTINEDOUCET/E+/GETTY IMAGES
ence and an opportunity to engage with
the ASSP Board of Directors through
networking events. The program is
intended to further develop emerging
professionals into leaders in the OSH
profession.

yearlong professional development pro- Applicants must be an ASSP member,

gram. This includes being matched with
a mentor who has significant leadership
experience, an invitation to the Soci-
ety’s annual Leadership Conference and
Leadership Development Experience in
October, complimentary registration for
the Professional Development Confer-
be nominated by a supervisor or ASSP
member, be under 40 years of age or have
fewer than 5 years’ experience in the
OSH profession, and provide a letter of
reference. Submit an application by Jan.
31, 2020. Learn more at https://assp.us/
2pH6jPq.

ASSP’s Career Center Explore ASSP’s Total

Provides Job-Hunting Tools
If you’re in the market for
a new job or would like to
pursue great candidates for a
vacant position at your com-
pany, look to ASSP’s online
reading articles on inter-
view preparation, résumé
writing and post-interview
follow up. Expand your
professional connections by
Worker Health Resources
Total worker health is an
approach to work that focuses
on advancing the organiza-
tional culture of safety, health
and well-being. Implementing

YAKOBCHUKOLENA/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

Career Center for help. The using the site to find a men- a total worker health policy
Career Center allows members tor. Learn more about how can be difficult, but ASSP has
to search key terms to find your social media presence collected many resources to
candidates and jobs in their and digital communica- help you apply the initiative to
location. Job seekers tion style can work your workplace OSH plan. The
can upload their ré- to your advantage Society’s Total Worker Health
sumé, easily apply by exploring Resources and Tools web page
for positions, and articles about includes basic, intermediate
create person- networking and and advanced resources such
alized alerts to social media as surveys, scorecards, calcula-
VLADW

keep up to date profiles. tors, tool kits and programs.

EL

on job postings. Learn more at The site also highlights tools to help evaluate the effectiveness
/I S

Prepare for https://assp.us/ of a program when implemented, as well as resources for be-
TO

CK
/G
ET
your job search by TY
I M AG E S P LU S 2sIleuA. havioral health, wellness and health promotion.
Access more than 70 resources at https://assp.us/31Ga6dh.

Society Offers Live

Virtual Classroom Courses
ASSP has expanded its traditional classroom
training to include virtual participants via a two-
way video projection. Designed to accommodate
those who cannot make the trip to ASSP headquar-
ters, this new learning option will enable virtual
NORTONRSX/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

participants to ask the instructor questions in real

time, interact with the entire class and even join the Take advantage of
class when breaking into small group discussions.
Virtual participants must have access to an Internet the many resources
connection and a computer with a webcam and au-
dio. Technical support will be provided on the day our Society
of the course by phone to ensure that participants
are properly set up. provides.
Learn more at https://assp.us/2MJMW1v.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 9

SAFETY MATTERS

ASSP Update

ANSI/ASSP Z10 STANDARD REVISED

Having been approved by ANSI, the revised ANSI/ASSP
Z10.0-2019 standard that guides implementation of safety and
health management systems has been published. Safety and
health management systems set an operational foundation by
ensuring that critical processes are integrated, which helps or-
ganizations reduce injuries and save lives.
“This update establishes Z10 as one of the most comprehen-
sive systems-based standards in the world for occupational
safety and health management,” says Jim Howe, CSP, chair of
ASSP’s Z10 committee. “The standard is a blueprint for any
company to develop and administer a safety and health man-
agement system.”
ANSI/ASSP Z10.0-2019 improves organizational alignment
and communication by eliminating silos and integrating
planned processes into business systems. Safety and health
management systems have customized elements that are based
on the organization’s characteristics such as hazard exposures,
risk levels, industry type and business processes. Workforce
factors such as permanent, temporary, contracted or transient
employees are also considered. Safe work environments emerge
from the interaction of elements such as organizational leader-
ship, employee engagement, risk assessments, hazard controls,
and monitoring and measurement. Learn more at www.assp
.org/standards/standards-topics/osh-management-z10.

California Law Reclassifies

Some Gig Workers as Employees
According to Los Angeles
Times, California state audits
found that nearly 500,000
workers were incorrectly
classified as independent
contractors. To remedy the
misclassification of workers, a
California bill was signed into
law, affecting at least one mil-
lion workers by reclassifying
them as employees as opposed
ISO TC 283 delegates Ken Clayman and Kevin Lehner recap the committee’s
to independent contractors.
meeting in Rwanda. According to California
Governor Gavin Newsom,
ISO Technical Committee who signed Assembly Bill 5
(AB5) into law, AB5 “will help
Meets in Kigali, Rwanda reduce worker misclassifica-
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Tech- tion—workers being wrongly
nical Committee (TC) 283 recently met in Kigali, Rwanda. classified as ‘independent
ISO TC 283 is responsible for the ongoing development of ISO contractors’ rather than em-
45001, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, ployees, which erodes basic
and supporting guidance and standards. ASSP is the Technical worker protections like the
Advisory Group (TAG) Administrator to ANSI for this com- minimum wage, paid sick days
mittee. Kathy Seabrook, CSP, CFIOSH, EurOSHM, FASSP, and health insurance benefits.”
served as the TAG’s head of delegation, and was joined by two By reclassifying these work-
other subject matter experts, Ken Clayman and Kevin Lehner. ers, they are now guaranteed
At the meeting, the committee discussed ongoing work with workplace safety and health
ISO 45003, Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace; rights such as paid sick leave,
the implementation handbook/ISO 45002, Guidelines for the minimum wage, workers’
Application of ISO 45001; and OSH metrics.
“It’s wonderful to have [the African countries’] representa-
tion because it’s been sorely missed in other meetings and it’s
understandable because it’s long distances that they’ve had to
go, whether the meeting is in the U.S., Asia or even Europe: it’s
difficult,” says Clayman. “We have [representatives from] almost
the whole continent here. It’s more amazing to see the work that
compensation benefits and
unemployment benefits.
Effective Jan. 1, 2020, AB5
requires companies to classify
workers as employees accord-
ing to criteria established by
a 2018 California Supreme
Court ruling. According to
the ruling, if the company ex-
erts control over how workers
perform tasks or if the work
performed is part of the com-
pany’s regular business, the
worker is an employee, not an
independent contractor.
Workers from industries
such as construction, hotel,
hospitality, ride-hailing ser-
vices, delivery driving, and
janitorial services will benefit
from AB5. Similar legisla-
tion is already being drafted
in New York, while bills in
Washington and Oregon
failed but may see renewed
momentum, according to
New York Times.
Read the law at http://bit
.ly/2PnuYnf.
ADAMKAZ/E+/GETTY IMAGES

they’re already doing: how they’ve embraced ISO 45001 as a

means to enhance their own legal and regulatory framework and
to work on that at all levels of their culture and countries.”
Watch the interviews at https://youtu.be/5q-8FLjspSQ and
https://youtu.be/Bod6h1_pQWQ. Learn more at https://com
mittee.iso.org/home/tc283.

10 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

OSHA Approves Scientists Warn of Opioid
New Respirator Impact on Women & Children
Understanding the full effects of the nation’s opioid epidemic requires coordinated,
Fit Testing Protocols long-term research involving women of reproductive age and children, according to
OSHA has issued a final rule that pro- National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists. An editorial published in American
vides employers with two new fit testing Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology emphasizes that women and children bear a
protocols for ensuring that employees’ substantial burden of the U.S. opioid epidemic. According to the article, misuse of
respirators fit properly. opioids before and during pregnancy raises the risk of health consequences for both
The new protocols are the modified woman and child, potentially leading to intergenerational cycles of opioid overuse.
ambient aerosol condensation nuclei Access the article at www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(19)30429-6/abstract.
counter (CNC) quantitative fit testing
protocol for full-facepiece and half-mask
elastomeric respirators, and the modi- NSC Releases Opioids
fied ambient aerosol CNC quantitative
fit testing protocol for filtering facepiece Tool Kit for Employers
respirators. Both protocols are variations To increase awareness about the effects of opioids
of the original OSHA-approved ambient on the workforce, National Safety Council (NSC) has
aerosol CNC protocol, but have fewer test released a tool kit for use by employers. The tool kit
exercises, shorter exercise duration and a includes sample policies, fact sheets, presentations,
more streamlined sampling sequence. safety talks, posters, white papers, reports and videos
These two quantitative methods were to help employers put a prevention plan in place.
ANDREAOBZEROVA/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

added to Appendix A of OSHA’s respira- The tool kit aims to help human
tory protection standard, which contains resources professionals, safety
mandatory respirator fit-testing protocols professionals, supervisors and
that employers must choose from to pro- other employees recognize
tect employees from hazardous airborne signs of impairment, under-
contaminants. The rule does not require stand how opioids impact
employers in general industries, shipyard the workplace and develop
employment, and construction to update drug-related policies.
or replace their current fit testing meth- Access the tool kit at
ods, and does not impose additional costs. http://bit.ly/2MJtP7H.
Learn more at www.osha.gov.

Pre-exam training
at home or by the shore.
Use BCSP’s examCORE.

SPECIAL BETA OFFER!

$ 799
6 months access
Offer expires 12.31.19

Regular price $999

6 months access

ONLINE TRAINING X
ANYTIME. ANYWHERE.

Now offering pre-exam training for the Associate

Safety Professional® (ASP®). Start training today!
examCORE.com

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 11

SAFETY MATTERS
Oregon Organizations Collaborate
to Move the Needle Toward Total Worker Health
By Dede Montgomery, Liz Hill and Michael Wood
In this article, three members of the Oregon Total Worker Health
Alliance provide an update on the work of the alliance, includ-
ing development of a total worker health training curriculum
designed for OSH, workers’ compensation, and human resources
practitioners and professions. Learn more about the alliance at
www.ohsu.edu/oregon-institute-occupational-health-scienc
es/oregon-total-worker-healthr-alliance.
Oregon is sometimes praised for being unusually
collaborative in building consensus on various matters, par-
ticularly those related to workplace safety and health. OSH pro-
fessionals, business, labor and regulators may not always agree
with each other’s views, but those in the discussion are often
willing to consider other perspectives to better work together
on matters related to workplace safety and health.
A recent outcome of this philosophy is Oregon’s foray into
the creation of the first statewide alliance in total worker
health. The alliance forges an effective partnership between
three state-based organizations:
•an academic research institute, Oregon Institute of Occupa-
tional Health Sciences at Oregon Health and Science University
(OHSU), which includes the Oregon Healthy Workforce Center
a NIOSH-funded Total Worker Health Center of Excellence;
•Oregon OSHA, the state OSHA;
•SAIF Corp., a not-for-profit, state-chartered workers’ com-
pensation insurance company.
The three partners have agreed that while each may not offer
identical support or specific resources to stakeholders on the
topic, the partners share the belief that total worker health is
important to work organizations. We are united in our com-
(Above) The total worker health classes help profes-
sionals identify total worker health solutions for their
workplaces using evidence-based research, tools and
case studies.
(Right) Representatives of the Oregon Total Worker
Health Alliance organizations gather for signing of the
Alliance agreement in February 2017.
12 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
mitment to help expand the knowledge and application of total
worker health principles by leveraging the combined strength
of these three state-based organizations.
Signing the alliance in February 2017 was an affirmation of
ongoing and historical collaborations between all three parties
over prior decades, whereby discussing total worker health pro-
duced a shared interest in forming such an alliance. All three
partners have regularly collaborated on issues and initiatives
that impact OSH and well-being in Oregon. With the formation
of the alliance, we specifically target how we can work together
to move the needle in Oregon to improve safety, health and
well-being for all workers, using concepts, evidence and data
related to total worker health principles. Our traditional views
of OSH have been updated by: 1) identifying and defining
workplace hazards in a way that allows expansion into nontra-
ditionally recognized hazards related to work; 2) reimagining
effective integration of traditionally siloed departments; and
3) recognizing how the organization of work impacts overall
safety and health. This newer view flavors our explanation of
the hierarchy of controls, and the need to integrate communi-
cation and development of organizational resources to address
these needs. Identification of general aging in the workforce,
increased chronic health conditions and an awareness of men-
tal wellness all affect how we view and redefine our efforts to
prevent injury and preserve health. We pay more attention to
and acknowledge how psychosocial hazards and mental well-
ness contribute to injuries and illnesses, both on and off the job,
and affect workers and their families and communities, and the
organizations that employ them.
We don’t expect to figure everything out or to move ahead
on all possible fronts at once. Our earliest concrete
collaborative initiative has been development and
presentation of our total worker health curriculum,
designed for OSH, workers compensation and hu-
man resources professionals. Implementing this
curriculum seemed a necessary initial step as both
SAIF Corp. and Occupational Health Sciences/Or-
egon Healthy Workforce Center have provided ed-
ucation and training on the concept of total worker
health for some time, often at conferences organized OREGON TOTAL WORKER HEALTH ALLIANCE
by both Oregon OSHA and Oregon chapters of ASSP. It made
sense to develop universal course expectations and objectives
in line with the discussion at NIOSH and other total worker
health partners, and to avoid redundancies or inconsistencies
as we discuss these issues with our often mutual audiences. To
date, we have developed a half-day Total Worker Health 101
course, which serves as a prerequisite to a number of planned
additional courses or modules (and may become available on-
line in the future). The course has been presented, along with
a half-day Total Worker Health Workplace Solutions course,
at three regional conferences (Western Pulp, Paper and Forest
Products OSH Conference, 2019 Oregon Governor’s Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Conference, and through the Uni-
versity of Washington’s NIOSH-funded Engineering Resource
Center’s continuing education program). Fall 2019-20 classes
will be offered to audiences representing Oregon SHARP Al-
liance, Washington Governor’s Industrial Safety and Health
Conference and the Region X Voluntary Protection Program
Participants’ Association Safety Summit. Additional modules
are being created including one addressing total worker health
and sleep for regional conferences, including those sponsored
by Oregon OSHA.
Looking to the near future, we imagine prioritizing joint
projects relating to workers’ compensation improvements and
projects that utilize state-based injury data. In addition to these
tangible results, our alliance leaves us with the additional bene-
fits of a formal format for tracking the evolving thinking about
workplace safety, health and well-being, clearer objectives and
methods for each organization, the ability to standardize and
share resources from each member of the alliance within each
other’s tool kits, and easier avenues of action.

What We Are Learning

Partners view total worker health from different perspec-
tives. Each perspective is important and, as a group, these
divergent perspectives provide a more inclusive opportunity to
understand overall needs. The partners agree that total worker
health is and will continue to be an evolution and work in prog-
ress. There is no one way to proceed in total worker health, and
each industry and organization will best build on the current
strengths of the organization. Participants are excited about the
Total Worker Health 101 curriculum and look forward to new
modules being developed. PSJ
Dede Montgomery M.S., CIH, leads outreach and education for and
provides industrial hygiene expertise to Oregon Institute of Occupational
Health Sciences and Oregon Healthy Workforce Center. She holds an M.S. in
Public Health/Environmental Health Sciences and a B.S. in Biology. She is
Vice President of ASSP’s Columbia-Willamette Chapter, and a member of the
Society’s Council on Professional Affairs and Total Worker Health Task Force.
She is also a member of the Society’s Women in Safety Excellence (WISE)
Common Interest Group (CIG).
Liz Hill, M.P.H., CSP, CIH, is a total worker health advisor for SAIF Corp.
She has more than 20 years’ experience in professional safety and health.
Hill holds an M.P.H. from Oregon State University and a B.S. in Industrial
Hygiene from Utah State University. She is a professional member of ASSP’s
Columbia-Willamette Chapter and a member of the Society’s WISE CIG and
Industrial Hygiene Practice Specialty.
Michael Wood, CSP, is administrator of the OSH Division of the Oregon
Department of Consumer Services (Oregon OSHA). Wood is a graduate of
Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA. Wood serves on ASSP’s Government
Affairs Committee, is a professional member of ASSP’s Columbia-Willamette
Chapter, and a member of the Society’s Construction, Healthcare and Public
Sector practice specialties.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 13

SAFETY MATTERS

CPWR Resource Helps Women

Find Construction PPE That Fits
As part of its research-to-practice library of resources dedicated
to reaching vulnerable workers, CPWR—The Center for Con-

WELCOMIA/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

struction Research and Training has compiled a list of commer-
cially available PPE for women in the construction workforce.
According to National Association of Women in Construc-
tion, 939,000 women were employed in the construction indus-
try in 2016, making up 9.1% of the U.S. construction industry.
“One of the challenges facing women in the trades is finding
PPE that fits properly,” CPWR says. “This is a serious issue be-
cause PPE that does not fit properly will not adequately protect
against occupational hazards and may increase the risk for ill-
nesses, injuries and death.”
Through its “Construction PPE for the Female Workforce” AIHA Guidance Document
web page, CPWR provides a quick reference to help women
working in the construction industry find PPE that fits properly Focuses on Health Risks
and provides adequate protection. for Construction Workers
“Although OSHA construction standards for PPE do not American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has pub-
require employers to ensure that the PPE provided fits each lished a guidance booklet, “Focus Four for Health: An Initiative
employee, doing so will ensure that their employees, including to Address Four Major Construction Health Hazards,” to raise
women, are protected,” CPWR says. awareness about health hazards in construction. The guidance
Visit the resource at http://bit.ly/2Nb5eHN. stresses the importance of recognizing health hazards in addi-
tion to safety risks.
Nearly 15 Million Americans The guidance encourages the construction industry to focus
Drive After Using Marijuana on four health hazards: 1) manual material handling; 2) noise;
3) air contaminants; and 4) high temperatures. Each section de-
According to a survey from In the survey, 7% of Amer- scribes the hazard, the severity of health effects, trades common-
AAA Foundation for Traffic icans reported they approved ly affected and strategies that can be used to control the hazard.
Safety, nearly 70% of Amer- of driving after recently using According to the booklet, a poll of working adults found
icans believe it is unlikely a marijuana, more than other that construction workers and those in outdoor occupations
driver will get caught by police dangerous behaviors such were nearly twice as likely as other workers (43% vs. 22%) to
for driving while high on mar- as alcohol-impaired driving believe something about their workplace may be harmful to
ijuana. The organization says (1.6%), drowsy driving (1.7%) their health. In addition, an assessment of overall health risks
that an estimated 14.8 million and prescription drug-im- to workers after a career in construction found that the risk for
drivers report getting behind paired driving (3%). developing an occupation-related disease over a lifetime in a
the wheel during the past 30 The survey results are part construction trade was two to six times greater than for non-
days within 1 hour of using of the AAA Foundation’s construction workers.
marijuana. The impairing ef- annual Traffic Safety Culture “Unfortunately, health hazards such as noise or air contam-
fects of marijuana are usually Index, which identifies atti- inants are common in construction,” says AIHA’s Matt Gillen.
experienced within the first 1 tudes and behaviors related to “When health problems occur, they can cut careers short, cause
to 4 hours after using the drug, traffic safety. The survey data pain and disability, and even cause premature death.”
the group says, and marijuana are from a sample of 2,582 Access the booklet at http://bit.ly/33yMrgy.
users who drive under the in- licensed drivers ages 16 and
fluence of marijuana are up to older who reported driving in
twice as likely to be involved
in a crash.
the past 30 days. Read the re-
port at http://bit.ly/2qHYytf.
NIOSH Releases Chemical
“Marijuana can significantly Management Strategy
alter reaction times and im-
pair a driver’s judgment. Yet,
to Protect Workers
NIOSH has published a report that details the use and ap-
many drivers don’t consider plication of occupational exposure banding to protect workers
marijuana-impaired driving who may be exposed to chemical substances that do not have
as risky as other behaviors like occupational exposure limits. This approach is a process for as-
driving drunk or talking on signing chemical substances into categories, or bands, based on
the phone while driving,” says their associated health outcomes and potency considerations.
David Yang, executive director According to NIOSH, the banding process is not intended to
of AAA Foundation for Traf- replace occupational exposure limits, but rather is intended as
fic Safety. “It is important for a starting point to inform risk management decisions for con-
everyone to understand that trolling chemical substances that do not have established expo-
driving after recently using sure limits. An e-tool provides online access to the information.
marijuana can put themselves Read “The NIOSH Occupational Exposure Banding Process
and others at risk.” for Chemical Risk Management” at http://bit.ly/2p9LA6Y.

14 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

 CSB Reverses Policy to
Exclude Deceased Workers’
Names From Reports
CSB has decided to return to a policy of including the names
of deceased workers in its investigative reports. In June 2014,
CSB began to omit the names of workers who were killed in
chemical incidents because including them “may infer culpabil-
ity on the part of the entity responsible for the operation of the
facility where the incident occurred.”
At a recent board meeting, CSB Interim Executive Authority
Kristen Kulinowski announced that board members had previ-
ously voted to amend the agency’s Incident Victim and Family
Communication Program to include the publication of names
of the deceased in future CSB investigative reports unless an
immediate family member objects.
“On behalf of families who have lost their loved ones, I’d like
to say ‘thank you’ to CSB,” says Holly Shaw-Hollis, a workplace
safety activist and a member of the board of directors of both
National Council for OSH and Philadelphia Project on OSH.
Shaw-Hollis’ husband was killed after sustaining injuries from
a fall from a commercial barge in 2002. “I remember my hus-
band every day. My sons remember their father every day. No
report about these terrible, preventable incidents is complete
if it does not include the names of those we have lost. Naming
those who have been killed reminds everyone that they are not
just a number and a statistic, but a person with a family who
loved them and will miss them: a family whose lives have been
forever changed by the tragic event.”
Learn more at www.csb.gov.

Platform Helps Address Work-

place Violence in Healthcare February 13 –20 | Las Vegas, NV
Many healthcare and social services workers experience
workplace violence incidents; according to research, 47% of
emergency department nurses experienced a physical assault
in 2017. Collective Medical, a healthcare software company, ■ 1-, 2- and 3-Day options
has created a platform to help providers record and manage
workplace violence incidents. The platform allows providers
■ Earn up to 5.6 CEUs
to document incidents of violence, including physical assault, ■ 50+ Expert Instructors
verbal threats, theft, sexual assault and self-harm, and flags and
stores documentation for future reference. The program tracks ■ 100+ Safety Courses
patients with a history of violence entering the facility and
alerts hospital and security staff, allowing them to respond to ■ 1,200+ OSH Professionals
and prevent future incidents.
“We’ve been working with the staff to encourage them to Learn more at
report these incidents,” says Steve Hardin of CHI St. Anthony
Hospital in Pendleton, OR. “Once we began using the platform SafetyFOCUS.assp.org
to document every violent incident, the hospital recognized the
extent of the problem and provided us with additional resourc-
es to protect the staff and other patients.”
Read more at http://bit.ly/2Jl0Apu.
TOMML/E+/GETTY IMAGES

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 15

LEADING THOUGHTS

SMART MOVES
Movement Training Reduces Soft-Tissue,
Slip/Trip/Fall & Hand Injuries
By Robert Pater
At times, what’s old comes around and becomes new again. This is more likely when what’s
old has been proven effective by many people, especially when preexisting methods have
become updated and honed over many years so that previous limitations are fixed.

Robert Pater Aging can also improve some things (think plish tasks, trying to maximize efficient and effec-
Robert Pater, M.A., wine or certain cheeses or even beef). Some leaders tive motion is not new.
is managing direc- default toward “newer is better,” searching for new Movement, from athletic competitions to dance
tor and founder of methods for solving problems. But if you weren’t pre- performances, has been an integral and traditional
MoveSMART (www viously aware of how to best apply older approaches, part of most cultures to encourage fitness, health
.movesmart.com). these are effectively new to you. and effectiveness. According to Tipton (2014), “exer-
Clients include Am-
When polished, hidden gems from the past can cise prescription for health and disease prevention
trak, ArcelorMittal,
BHP Billiton, BMW, open the gateway to breakthroughs in present has roots that began in antiquity more than two
BorgWarner, BP, Cum- performance (whether folk medicinal or herbal millennia ago.” And those cultures that engaged in
mins, Domtar, DuPont, remedies that have been used to create “miracle” warfare naturally focused on training warriors to
Hawaiian Airlines, HD drugs, applying ancient disciplines become more adept fighters, from
Supply, Honda, Mara-
thon Oil, MSC Indus-
for better health or well-being, or
methods from indigenous peoples By rediscovering the ancient Greeks and Romans to
Asian civilizations that honed the
trial Supply, Nissan,
Northrop Grumman,
for building sustainable living) and some of the arts of armed and unarmed combat.
Fast forward a few thousand
prove to be true for effective injury
ONE Gas, Rio Tinto,
S&C Electric, United
prevention. now-refined years to the turn of the 20th centu-
My first published article (of now ry, where an emerging engineering
Airlines, U.S. Steel,
Wacker and WestRock. more than 300) appeared in the June gems of early focus gave rise to the discipline of
Pater is a professional
member of ASSP’s
1985 issue of Professional Safety.
While “Motion Analysis and Train-
ergonomists, many motion analysis. Frank and Lillian
Gilbreth applied an industrial engi-
Columbia-Willamette ing for the ‘80s” is no longer acces- companies have neering perspective to man-motion
Chapter. sible, the information and methods improvement. After measuring
are still valid; we’ve been applying reaped significant and photographing the best noted
these (ongoingly updated) strategies
with larger global companies for improvements in workers performing their tasks
(predominantly assemblers and
more than 30 years and have had
many reports of significant, last-
safety performance breths construction workers), the Gil-
listed the most efficient mo-
ing statistical and cultural break- and culture. tions needed to perform a specific
throughs. By rediscovering some of task. They deduced that there were
the now-refined gems of early ergonomists, many only 18 basic motions, each termed a “therblig”
companies have reaped significant improvements in (Gilbreth pronounced backward) that a human
safety performance and culture. body could make and that any action was a com-
Movement-related injuries (soft-tissue injuries, bination of some of these. They would then teach
strains/sprains, slips/trips/falls, hand injuries, bodi- other workers to mimic these “best” sequences to
ly reaction injuries, those from repetitive motion) eliminate wasted movements. This was designed
have continued to be an ongoing problem for many to reduce the time required to finish a job, thereby
companies despite all the fixes they’ve tried. The raising the amount of work done per hour and day
latest available Liberty Mutual (2018) Workplace (important to those many workers who were often
Safety Index lists the top 10 injury causes as in- paid on a piecework basis; the more they accom-
cluding overexertion involving outside sources (1), plished, the more they earned).
falls on same level (2), falls to lower level (3), other The Gilbreths’ methodology was significant
exertions or bodily reactions (5), slip or trip without because:
fall (7), repetitive motions involving microtasks (10), •They focused on work standardization, decreas-
accounting for a total of 66.3% of all disabling work- ing time expended and even increasing task quality.
place injuries. •It dovetailed with Taylor’s (2014) time analysis
Given that these are still persistent problems, the approach of timing workers for efficiency.
following is a much revised version of my article •The Gilbreths were interested in making im-
from more than 34 years ago that provides back- mediate improvements only. They rejected chang-
ground and principles for reducing movement-re- es measured over the longer term. Their approach
lated injuries to an often startling degree. Because reflected the then-predominant management
people have always moved their bodies to accom- attitude that workers were interchangeable and

16 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

 expendable (i.e., workers are hired to do a job as
is, not to be developed).
•They categorized worker fatigue into three
areas: 1) coming to work improperly rested; 2)
unnecessary fatigue due to unnecessary work,
motions, uncomfortable positions/surroundings,
and working conditions; and 3) “necessary fa-
tigue” due to working.
•The Gilbreths maintained that, in addition to re-
ducing output, fatigue is negatively correlated with
work satisfaction. That is, the more tired someone
is, the lower his/her work engagement and morale.
This interest in workers’ state of mind was for-
ward-thinking for the era (before bargaining units
and reams of research correlating job satisfaction
with performance).
•They also correlated commitment with quality
of movement. The Gilbreths observed that those
bricklayers building a church of their own religion
exhibited markedly “superior” motions compared
to the same workers building a church they weren’t
affiliated with.
At the same time as the Gilbreths were working,
Taylor (2014), in his 1911 book, The Principles of Sci-
entific Management, expounded four still-relevant
principles of “scientific management”:
First. They develop a science for each ele-
ment of a man’s work, which replaces the
old rule-of-thumb method.
Second. They scientifically select and
then train, teach and develop the work-
man, whereas in the past he chose his own
work and trained himself as best he could.
Third. They heartily cooperate with the
men so as to ensure all of the work being
done is in accordance with the principles of
the science which has been developed.
Fourth. There is an almost equal division
of the work and the responsibility between
the management and the workmen. The
management take over all work for which
they are better fitted than the workmen,
while in the past almost all of the work and
the greater part of the responsibility were
thrown upon the men.
Limitations of Ergonomic Grandfathers
Parallel to the Gilbreths, Taylor predominantly
applied his work and writings to manual tasks of
handling pig iron, shoveling and bricklaying.
Although industrial engineers over the interven-
ing years have studied the Gilbreths’ and Taylor’s re-
ISAYILDIZ/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS
markable findings, these methods haven’t practically
translated into widely usable policies and actions.
There are likely at least four reasons for this:
1) Different emphasis. Reflecting their post-in-
dustrial revolution environment, the Gilbreths em-
ployed a man-as-a-machine model that emphasized
work standardization. The fallacy here is that where
machines thrive on iteration, people need variation,
both for physical well-being (to reduce weardown
effect of forces cumulatively concentrating in a body Where
region) and for mental stimulation (most safety
leaders accept that complacency can be a potent en- machines
emy of safety).
The Gilbreths were short-term oriented. With a thrive on
mind-set of recalibrating people as if they were bio-
logical machines, they were more focused on mak-
iteration,
ing immediate improvements, rather than those that people
required longer periods to learn and take hold.
The Gilbreths mainly focused on quantity in- need varia-
creases, where predominant present productivity
concerns are (at least as much) on quality improve- tion, both
ment. Remember that because the Gilbreths trained
workers who were compensated on a piece-rate
for physical
basis, these workers were strongly motivated to well-being
increase output. Modern employees are rarely paid
this way. and for
Furthermore, 21st-century workers understand-
ably resist being treated as robots. And Gilbreth-like
mental
attempts to program employees to repetitively per- stimulation.
form a task in a set “right” way, where one method
is meant to be copied by all, leads to mistakes, in-
cidents, dissatisfaction and conflict over time, and
doesn’t suit the physical needs of a varied workforce.
Also, many organizational leaders now realize that
failing to develop employees’ potential can lead to
higher turnover, lower morale and even disrupted
management succession.
2) Changing industries. The Gilbreths were man-
ufacturing and construction oriented, industries in
which workers were paid based on their productiv-
ity. And much of the Gilbreths’ and Taylor’s work
doesn’t as readily apply to the wide array of existing
service or knowledge businesses.
3) Dissimilar dynamics. Life expectancy during
the Gilbreths’ era was shorter than today: 47.3 years
for someone born in 1900 versus 76.8 years if born
in 2000 (CDC, 2010). Unlike now, few in the early
20th century were able to do physical work into
their later age.
What might have been effective for workers in
the early 1900s won’t apply as readily to current
times where physiological changes associated with
aging (e.g., neurological changes that affect bal-
ance, sarcopenia/age-related muscle loss, collagen
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 17
LEADING THOUGHTS
Improving motion efficiency
and quality is learnable. Even
experienced workers can
become trained to quickly
develop healthier and safer
movement habits.
breakdown) mean that as the workforce ages there
is a greater chance for cumulative trauma buildup
and increased movement-related injuries such as
slips/trips/falls.
4) Contrasting company-employee relations.
In the Gilbreths’ and Taylor’s time, workers were
seen as more disposable. There were no bargain-
ing units, no OSHA or similar regulating agen-
cies, and no workers’ compensation. “Hands,” as
workers were commonly called, were considered
easily replaceable. This is not the case in current
times, with workers who have critical-to-company
skills and knowledge. And if they even existed
back then, worker expectations of satisfaction,
involvement, challenge, fulfillment or career de-
velopment were certainly minimal compared to
current times.
What We Can Learn From
These Pioneering Ergonomists
Strategic leadership focuses on maximizing the
strengths and minimizing the limitations in any sit-
uation, akin to nurturing the baby while discarding
the bathwater. Although the Gilbreths and Taylor
focused on productivity and weren’t predominantly
concerned with worker engagement, retention or
safety, five principles can still be applied to 21st-cen-
tury safety and organizational leadership:
1) The human body has certain design dynamics
such that anyone with two arms and two legs, any-
where in the world, can quickly and readily apply
some of these movement principles, as they are
based on the way the human body is structured and
can move.
2) Natural motions are most efficient, powerful
and safest. In fact, I recall my thoughts lighting up
when I first read the Gilbreths’ work (“Wow! These
are the same exact motions that I’ve been practic-
ing to become defaults in my internal martial arts
training!”).
3) There is a connection between internal belief,
and motivation and task actions (building a church
of the same denomination and being motivated to
change default actions helps).
4) Improving motion efficiency and quality is
learnable. Even experienced workers can become
trained to quickly develop healthier and safer move-
18 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
SIMONKR/E+/GETTY IMAGES
ment habits. This was the basis of the Gilbreths’
work and Taylor’s second principle of scientific man-
agement. And the results from our work over the
past more than 3 decades corroborates this as well.
5) Safety, productivity and quality are not at odds.
All three objectives can be simultaneously elevated
with a meshed approach that includes mindful at-
tention control and movement training.
Simultaneous improvements are doable. Safety is
on par with importance. Adept leadership doesn’t
have to settle for a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul mind-set.
Rather, it is better to focus on what we call the crit-
ical triangle: 1) safety and health; 2) engagement
and job satisfaction; and 3) productivity and quality.
These can (and best are) simultaneously attainable
with strategic perspective, planning and execution.
To best leaders, safety is not number one, rather
safety, productivity and engagement are all equally
critical to a company’s strength and sustainability.
When well-done, movement training can show
immediate personal paybacks (less tension, greater
strength, more range of motion, improved balance
and enhanced relaxation even while working). This
has shown to be a practical vehicle for activating all
three parts of the critical triangle (Figure 1).
Seven Keys for High-Level Movement Training
So how can you implement movement training to
attain significant safety and cultural improvements?
Examples include a more than 85% reduction in
soft-tissue injuries (ONE Gas, multistate utility),
45% fewer slips/trips/falls and a 50% decrease in
soft-tissue injuries (U.S. Steel), Northrup Grumman
reported a more than 40% reduction in soft tissue
injuries at its Lake City, MO, facility. Savannah Riv-
er Remediation (AECOM), saw an almost 70% de-
crease in strains and sprains as well as a significant
decrease in slips/trips/falls. MSC Industrial Supply
achieved a 58% decrease in soft-tissue injuries.
Our more than 3 decades of experience has shown
that high-level movement training should incorpo-
rate these seven elements:
1) Fit with ergonomic design. In fact, always design
out what can be cost-effectively and practically elimi-
nated. Also, recognize limitations of the “just design”
approach: exposures at home, on clients’ turf or in
uncontrollable situations (e.g., can’t prevent it from
raining). Or when not feasible to wholesale replace or
rebuild existing facilities or tools (or where these may
be delayed until capital is available).
2) Be practical and real, grounded in applications
that workers really perform. Shift focus from the “old”
P&P, policies and procedures to be memorized, to
upgraded P&P, principles and practices that are un-
derstood and exemplified by actual tasks. Don’t show
someone how to lift a box off a floor if s/he never or
rarely has call to actually do this. Instead, let the person
discover for themselves through guided practice how to
more effectively and safely perform those daily tasks.
To both build safer default actions and spark in-
terest, it’s essential to include at-home or off-work
personal applications, not just work-related ones.
3) Be easy to learn and quickly apply; be under-
standable to all. Focus on making small changes
rather than expecting large adaptations. The less you
expect from people and the easier you can make it
for them to change, the more likely they will.
FIGURE 1
THE CRITICAL TRIANGLE
Productivity/quality
4) Be offered, not proscribed, to reduce pushback.
Encourage people to make this information and
these methods their own through personal varia-
tions (something the Gilbreths didn’t do).
5) Be demonstrable/experienced. Few people
modify the way they move from just hearing or
reading directions on what to do, or from viewing
a video. They must experience the adjustments per- Few people
sonally to convince themselves.
Simply put, the underlying principle of movement modify the
training is “do easy.” That is, as much as possible, per-
form all tasks in accordance with the natural laws of way they
kinesiology, with greater effectiveness and less fatigue.
For an artistic take on movement training, I recom-
move from
mend William S. Burroughs’s short story, “The Disci- just hearing
pline of Do Easy” (also made into a short video with the
same title by Gus Van Sant) an account of a fictionalized or reading
movement training explorer. While tongue-in-cheek
and certainly not useful as a training video, it provides
directions
an interesting look at movement training for efficiency. on what to
do, or from
viewing a
video. They
must expe-
rience the
adjustments
personally
to convince
themselves.

•Greater involvement
•Fewer at-risk actions
•Lower trailing indicators
•Reduced turnover
•Better communications
•Enhanced motivation
•Attention control
•Better decision-making
•More creative input
•Lessened stress
•Energizing
•Personal safety

Safety/health Engagement//
satisfaction

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 19

LEADING THOUGHTS
6) Be reinforced in many ways. One exposure is nev-
er enough to change preexisting movement patterns.
And self-reinforcement is the ultimate approach as each
of us is the only one present in every task we perform.
7) Focus on tangible mental and physical skills
that people can try out for themselves. This is the
secret of internal martial arts: how learning to apply
Don’t make the right small motions can enable even an older
and smaller practitioner to physically defend him/
the error herself from a younger, faster, larger and stron-
ger attacker. If you think of safety as the ultimate
of only fo- self-defense (protecting yourself from not getting
cusing on hurt), it’s possible to envision how the mental and
physical aspects of movement training can greatly
physical protect against harm.
Note that akin to internal martial arts, high-lev-
methods, el movement training is not just body mechanics,
which is much more akin to the Gilbreths’ external
which are (“I tell/show you and you copy”) approach (which
unlikely to didn’t work over time due to its noted limitations).
High-level movement training relies strongly on
be success- mental as well as physical skill sets. Don’t make the
error of only focusing on physical methods, which
fully applied are unlikely to be successfully applied without at-
without tention, perception, judgment, understanding and
motivation to do so and to modify.
attention, Mental movement skills include developing a
personal control mind-set, understanding how cu-
perception, mulative trauma builds from small actions, thinking
forward, making off-work/at-home applications,
judgment, controlling/redirecting attention, self-monitoring
understand- to scan tension buildup and balance, and to make
quick and easy adjustments, practically applying the
ing and mo- three laws of motion, and preparing and recovering
from exertion or repetition.
tivation to Physical movement skills include developing
do so and natural alignment while changing positions for
safer force transfer, improving physical leverage,
to modify. maximizing usable strength through leverage, deep-
ening balance, coordinating eyes with hand and foot
movements, synchronizing breath with motion, and
reducing fatigue by employing dynamic relaxation
in the midst of action for effective energy control.
Conclusion
High-level movement training has shown to re-
duce all-too-prevalent movement-related injuries
while simultaneously boosting engagement and
safety culture. PSJ
References
Burroughs, W. (1979). The discipline of do easy (D.E.). In The
Exterminator (pp. 55-67). New York, NY: Penguin Publishing
Group.
CDC. (2010, Nov. 26). Life expectancy at birth, at 65
years of age, and at 75 years of age, by race and sex: United
States, selected years 1900-2007. Retrieved from www.cdc
.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf
Ferguson, D. (2000). Therbligs: The keys to simplifying
work. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/
Therblgs.pdf
Gilbreth, F. & Gilbreth, L. (1973). Applied motion study.
Easton, PA: Hive Publishing Co.
20 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
Gilbreth, F. (2018, April 19). Motion study: A method for
increasing the efficiency of the workman. London, U.K.: For-
gotten Books. (Original work published 1911)
Liberty Mutual. (2018). Liberty Mutual workplace safety
index. Retrieved from https://business.libertymutualgroup
.com/business-insurance/Documents/Services/Workplace
%20Safety%20Index.pdf
Pater, R. (1985, June). Motion analysis and training for
the ‘80s. Professional Safety, 30(6), 26-29.
Pater, R. (2012, Nov). Leading a concentric ergonomic
culture. Professional Safety, 57(11), 23.
Pater, R. (2013, June). Synchronizing safety leadership:
Preventing hand injuries and strains/sprains. Professional
Safety, 58(6), 44-46.
Pater, R. (Producer). (2015, March). Fusing organization-
al strategies and individuals’ skills for actually preventing
slips, trips and falls [webinar].
Pater, R. (2016, Jan.). No strain safety. Occupational
Health & Safety. Retrieved from https://ohsonline.com/arti
cles/2016/01/01/no-strain-safety.aspx
Pater, R. (2016, June). Overcoming seven ergonomic
leadership mistakes. Professional Safety, 61(6), 40-44.
Pater, R. (2016, July 1) Raising ergonomic mindfulness.
Occupational Health & Safety. Retrieved from https://
ohsonline.com/articles/2016/07/01/raising-ergonomic
-mindfulness.aspx
Pater, R. (2017, March). Use leading indicators to derail
ergonomic injuries, part 1: Preparation strategies. Profes-
sional Safety, 62(3), 22-24.
Pater, R. (2017, April). Use leading indicators to derail
ergonomic injuries, part 1: Set up and apply early indicators
of success. Professional Safety, 62(4), 21-23.
Pater, R. (2017, April. 1). 3 B’s for preventing soft-tissue
injuries. Occupational Health & Safety. Retrieved from
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/04/01/3-bs-for-prevent
ing-soft-tissue-injuries.aspx
Pater, R. (2017, Aug. 1). The three leadership laws of
physical and organizational motion. Occupational Health &
Safety. Retrieved from https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/
08/01/the-three-leadership-laws.aspx
Pater, R. (2017, Dec. 1). The “surprising” realities of slips,
trips and falls: What it takes to actually make significant
improvements. Occupational Health & Safety. Retrieved
from https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/12/01/surprising
-realities.aspx
Pater, R. (2018, May). The impact of movement on safety,
health and longevity. Professional Safety, 63(5), 26-28.
Pater, R. (2018, Nov.). Internalizing safety. Professional
Safety, 63(13), 22-24.
Pater, R. (2018, Dec. 1). Balancing safety: Overcoming
surprising contributors to slips, trips and falls. Occupation-
al Health & Safety. Retrieved from https://ohsonline.com/
articles/2018/12/01/balancing-safety.aspx
Pater, R. (2019, Jan.). Sure-footed leadership. Professional
Safety, 64(1), 21-24.
Pater, R. (2019, April). The left hand of safety. Profession-
al Safety, 64(4), 23-25.
Pater, R. (2019, June). Natural safety. Professional Safety,
64(6), 52-55.
Taylor, F.W. (2014) The principles of scientific manage-
ment. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books. (Original work
published 1911)
Tipton, C.M. (2014). The history of “exercise is medicine”
in ancient civilizations. Advances in physiology educa-
tion, 38(2), 109-117. doi:10.1152/advan.00136.2013
Watch Old Movies Online. (2017, Jan. 20). The discipline
of D.E. (1978). Retrieved from http://youtu.be/S4Aio-lrVo8
 CHECKPOINTS

LONE WORKER SAFETY

How Wireless Equipment Can Improve Safety in the Field
By Rick Pedley
When workers are alone in the field, they are largely responsible for their own safety and health.
They may have to deal with a range of potential hazards and difficult working conditions on their
own, which can lead to incidents and injuries.

So, what does it take to keep lone

workers safe in the field? In the digital As companies
age, companies and safety managers can
use wireless technology to stay connected begin investing
to lone workers to protect their safety
and health. This article describes the lat- in this new tech-
est workplace safety technology and how
these devices can keep lone workers safe
nology, lone
on the job. workers can
AF_ISTOCKER/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

Why Safety Gear May Not Be Enough stay connected

Protecting lone workers usually in- to colleagues,
cludes providing the proper safety gear
and equipment, such as sun and heat managers and
protection, flame-resistant clothing,
night visibility, and fall prevention. This workplace safe-
equipment protects lone workers from
all types of hazards, especially if they are
ty technicians.
working outdoors, on elevated surfaces
or near other potential hazards. In ad- or protect themselves with the proper risk. Those using this technology should
dition to this equipment, lone workers gear. Alerts can be sent to the worker’s set some time aside to make sure every
should have regular access to drinking smartphone or computer so they can device is functioning properly.
water to avoid dehydration and heat ex- keep tabs on various working conditions
haustion. All company vehicles should throughout the day. Keeping Workers Informed
have water on board to keep workers hy- Wireless devices can also monitor the Some employees may perceive these
drated throughout the day. movements of lone workers. If no move- technological advances as Big Brother
But this equipment may not be enough ment is recorded for several minutes, in the field. They may be accustomed to
when it comes to protecting lone work- those monitoring the situation receive working in isolation, and these devices
ers. If these workers are not connected to an automatic alert so they can respond can seem more like an invasion of priva-
the rest of their team, it may take their as quickly as possible if the worker is cy than a useful tool intended to protect
colleagues some time to respond if some- injured. Companies can also use wireless them from potential hazards.
thing goes wrong in the field. GPS trackers to monitor the locations of Companies can avoid this mispercep-
workers in real time. If a truck or vehicle tion by educating workers on the benefits
Protecting Lone Workers is delayed or stops moving, these devices of this technology. Employees should un-
With Wireless Digital Devices send an automatic alert so those moni- derstand that these devices will be used
Wireless technology can help compa- toring vehicles can respond immediately to protect them from dangerous working
nies stay connected to workers as they if an incident should occur. conditions. If an emergency should oc-
contend with a range of hazards, includ- cur, these devices may be the worker’s
ing heat exhaustion, fatigue, dehydration Maintaining Wireless Technology first line of defense against serious injury.
and poor air quality. If something goes As effective as this new technology can Companies should organize safety train-
wrong in the field or working conditions be, these devices can only work properly ing sessions so employees can learn more
change suddenly, these teams can take if companies maintain their wireless about how these devices work in the field.
action immediately, which reduces the safety equipment. To better protect em-
chances of workplace injuries. ployees in the field, companies should Conclusion
Some wireless adapters can transform perform regular testing to ensure that As companies begin investing in this
gas detectors into wireless gas monitor- remote monitors and sensors are operat- new technology, lone workers can stay
ing devices, so companies and safety ing as expected. If a device fails or stops connected to colleagues, managers and
managers can respond as quickly as pos- recording information, remote workers workplace safety technicians. Over time,
sible in the event of an emergency. If tox- will not be able to depend on this addi- these advances will improve the safety and
ic gases are present, the adapter can send tional safety net, which could put them at health of all types of lone workers. PSJ
an automatic alert to those monitoring Rick Pedley is president and CEO of PK Safety (www.pksafety.com), a supplier and manufacturer of
workers so the workers can leave the area occupational safety and PPE.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 21

BEST PRACTICES
10 Things You Wish
EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD ABOUT SAFETY
People who are passionate about safety likely have had several different versions of this
conversation around the Thanksgiving dinner table: A friend or relative asks, “What do you do?”
and you reply “I help protect people in the workplace.”
The response comes quickly. “I’d
better watch my back, or you’ll send me
to safety jail.”
When you take something seriously,
knowing real people’s lives are on the line,
it can be frustrating to feel that you have to
explain yourself again and again. To help you
overcome those frustrations, this article com-
piles a list of 10 things you, as a safety profes-
sional, wish everyone understood about what
you do every day. Feel free to pass it along.
1) Safety Is a Profession
Safety and loss prevention programs at
companies of all sizes rely on versatile and
educated professionals to help them protect
workers and the bottom line. Increasingly
more organizations are realizing that as-
signing safety compliance responsibilities to
untrained people is both dangerous and bad
for business. Instead, they are hiring capable
professionals and paying them competitively.
That is why more students are choosing
to attend one of 20 accredited OSH pro-
grams in the U.S., and are going on to earn
certifications from BCSP and other reputa-
ble organizations. These certifications sup-
plement their education and credibility, and
signify their special focus on topics such as
ergonomics, industrial hygiene or training.
2) Safety Affects Everyone
When was the last time you put on a
seat belt? How often do you wear special
mitts to protect your hands and arms
when you take a hot dish out of the oven?
Have you seen the OSHA poster in your
workplace, informing you of your rights?
Many people have worked hard over
decades to make these safeguards possible.
The safety professionals, product designers
and legislators who worked on these initia-
tives did so because they knew that safety
affects everyone. While you might think
that identifying risks and then taking
steps to mitigate those risks is common
sense, it takes uncommonly risk-focused
individuals to keep others from harm.
3) Safety, Health & the
Environment Are Connected
People and their organizations exist
within ecosystems. What is good for
22 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
the environment is usually good for
health, which is usually good for safety.
What is good for safety is usually good
for health, which is usually good for the
environment. That is why the full name
of the discipline with which most of our
industry’s professionals identify is called
occupational safety and health (OSH) or
environmental health and safety (EHS).
Companies are increasingly aware of
this fact, spending significant resources
on corporate sustainability and keeping a
close eye on metrics, such as the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index in the U.S., indicating
their competitive standing in these areas.
While undoubtedly there are altruistic rea-
sons for wanting to protect people, property
and the environment, businesses can also
make significant financial gains by invest-
ing in the Earth and their own workers.
4) Safety Professionals Are Not Cops
The first time many people consider
workplace safety is when they are presented
with a list of OSHA regulations and train-
ing requirements. Without a qualified safety
professional to provide context for these
rules, it is easy to understand why workers
would misperceive these regulations as un-
necessary, or worse, irritating. It is also easy
to understand why workers and company
leaders would incorrectly assume that safety
professionals only exist to police mistakes.
Ensuring that organizations are in com-
pliance with safety regulations is a part of
any safety professional’s role, but the job is
so much more: from pinpointing challenges
to identifying business risks to crafting solu-
tions and implementing systems that save
lives. Safety professionals use their technical
and soft skills to make lasting change.
5) Safety Is About
Expecting the Unexpected
Do you work in an area prone to torna-
does? A safety professional has probably
thought about that. Are you coming in
contact with silica dust, pesticides, mer-
cury or other substances that could cause
diseases or fatalities? A safety professional
has probably thought about that too.
These experts are known for being able to
simultaneously evaluate past, present and
future risks in an effort to protect workers
and business operations.
Part of expecting the unexpected is
convincing stakeholders that it is import-
ant to invest in regular risk assessments.
Safety professionals do this by measuring
the effectiveness of previous efforts and
aligning the risk assessment process with
their organization’s strategic plan. That
means they must be proficient in many
aspects of their business’ operations.
6) Safety Does Not Stop at Work
When you get into your car, board a
train or even walk down the street to get
home at the end of a workday, you en-
counter countless risks. Once you arrive
at your front door, the potential for safety
incidents and disease follows you inside.
Smart organizations invest in workers’
safety and health 24 hours a day. They
know people’s habits off the clock, includ-
ing exercise, substance use and sleep, can
affect workplace performance and company
retention rates. The concept of approaching
employee well-being holistically is known
in the OSH profession as total worker
health. With NIOSH leading the way, more
businesses are adopting this model.
7) Safety Earns Companies Money
For many years, few companies adopted
the idea that taking care of workers could
increase profits. Organizations saw expen-
sive and tragic incidents as a cost of doing
business. But companies are getting wise to
the fact that formal safety and health pro-
grams are not just the right thing to do, they
are also a way to make shareholders happy.
More than 60% of U.S. CFOs surveyed
by Liberty Mutual (2019) several years ago
said that each $1 they invested in injury
prevention alone would likely yield at
least $2. Data from Liberty Mutual’s 2019
Workplace Safety Index show that U.S.
organizations pay more than $1 billion
per week in direct workers’ compensation
costs following workplace injuries and ill-
nesses (Huang, Leamon, Courtney, et al.,
2007). As the research in this area expands
to encompass an increasing number of
metrics relevant to businesses, safety pro-
grams are earning a new level of respect.
8) Safety Takes Constant
Communication
It is a familiar refrain in safety: First
you tell them what you are going to tell
them. Then you tell them. Then you tell
them what you told them.
For all their training in engineering,
chemistry or other technically advanced
specialties, safety professionals must
bridge communication gaps between
diverse groups of people with different
motivations for keeping workers safe.
During any given day, safety profession-
als might need to train frontline workers,
talk with OSHA inspectors, present
complex data to C-suite executives and
update peers on their progress. Safety
professionals’ adaptability and agility is
one of many reasons they are a crucial
part of any organization.
9) Safety Does Not Simply Happen
Unfortunately, most people do not
learn safe behaviors once and put them
into practice forever. It usually takes
many explanations, demonstrations and
reminders over a long period for messages
to stick. Safety professionals understand
this better than anyone, and know how to
connect with workers using empathy, ac-
tive listening and storytelling techniques.
Because a large portion of the work
that goes into safety programs is invisi-
ble, these experts have historically been
underappreciated and confronted with
“anyone could do that” attitudes from
leaders within their organizations. When
money is tight and initiatives are cut
from the budget, it is common for safety
to end up on the chopping block. This is
changing slowly over time, driven by new
research and a business culture focused
on sustainability, and safety professionals
are beginning to get their due.
10) Safety Is in Demand
There are a lot of unfilled safety jobs.
A quick online search yields more than
27,000 open positions in the U.S. Not only
are safety jobs plentiful, but the compen-
sation is often attractive. For full-time
safety professionals, the median base
salary is $97,000, according to a 2018 sur-
vey ASSP conducted in partnership with
BCSP (ASSP, 2018). This is good news for
job hunters and students who are about to
graduate from OSH programs.
Because demand has outpaced supply,
and organizations are struggling with
recruitment and retention, candidates
can often anticipate competitive compen-
sation packages. These packages could
include attractive extras such as wellness
benefits, support with financial planning
and flexible work schedules. PSJ
References
ASSP. (2018, May 24). Salary survey pin-
points value of certifications for safety and
health professionals. Retrieved from www
.assp.org/news-and-articles/2018/05/24/salary
-survey-pinpoints-value-of-certifications-for
-safety-and-health-professionals
Huang, Y., Leamon, T.B., Courtney, T., et al.
(2007). Corporate financial decision-makers’
perceptions of workplace safety. Accident
analysis & prevention, 39(4), 767-775.
Liberty Mutual. (2019). Workplace safety
indices by industry: Insights and methodology.
Retrieved from https://business.libertymutual
group.com/business-insurance/Documents/
Services/DS200.pdf

NEW FROM ASSP

SAFETY LEADERSHIP
AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
EDITED BY RICHARD OLAWOYIN AND DARRYL C. HILL
Editors Richard Olawoyin and Darryl C. Hill,
with contributions from academics and industry
leaders, provide a comprehensive road map that
defines the safety profession and promotes leader-
ship and professional development.
Safety Leadership and Professional Development
is perfectly crafted for undergraduate, graduate,
post-graduate students, certification trainees,
higher education and occupational safety and
health professionals.
ORDER AT www.assp.org
or call 1.847.699.2929
List Price: $129.95
Member Price: $103.95
Hardcover, 496 pp, ©2018
Product number: 4459
ISBN 978-0-939874-18-7
e-book also available

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 23

RISK MANAGEMENT
Peer-Reviewed
Moving Risk Assessment
Upstream to the
DESIGN PHASE By Bruce K. Lyon, David L. Walline and Georgi Popov
T
TO ERR IS HUMAN; TO PREVENT BY DESIGN IS DIVINE. For occu-
pational serious injuries and fatalities (SIF) to be effectively and
consistently reduced, safety must be designed into workplace
facilities, systems and methods. Risk avoidance and elimina-
tion, the most effective risk treatment options, are generally
only possible by design and redesign efforts.
A clear link exists between workplace fatalities and unsafe
or error-prone designs. Studies in the construction industry
indicate that more than 40% of fatalities are connected to the
design aspect (Behm, 2005). In Australia, safety in design is an
action area of the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy.
A Safe Work Australia (2014) study examined work-related
fatalities that occurred from 2006 to 2011 and involved ma-
chinery, plant and powered tools. Its purpose was to assess the
extent to which unsafe design contributed to the fatalities. Of
these fatalities, 12% were identified to have been caused by un-
safe design or design-related factors, while 24% were possibly
caused by design-related factors.
In the medical field, the term never events is used to refer to
fatalities, serious preventable events, medical errors and other
incidents that are totally unacceptable to society (Morgen-
thaler & Harper, 2015). Never events, however, cannot be fully
avoided where degraded “always conditions” exist. Always con-
ditions are the elements within a system. When these always
conditions are degraded with embedded hazards, flaws and
undue complexity, a great risk of harm exists. Never events and
degraded always conditions are incompatible, opposing forces,
much like matter and antimatter. From the OSH perspective,
KEY TAKEAWAYS
•Studies indicate that gaps found in design are significant contrib-
utors to workplace serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs), which points
to the need for prevention through design (PTD) concepts.
• The greatest opportunity to avoid, eliminate and reduce risk to an
acceptable level and prevent SIF events is upstream in the design
and redesign of processes, equipment, facilities, tools and work
methods.
• The primary goal of safety and risk management is to achieve and
maintain a level of risk that is as low as reasonably practicable while
accomplishing the organization’s objectives. OSH professionals
have a vital role to play in PTD and design safety reviews.
• This article provides OSH professionals a practical approach to
establishing a method for anticipating, recognizing, avoiding, elim-
inating and minimizing operational hazards and risks before they
are introduced into the workplace.
24 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
SIFs are considered never events and the workplace systems are
the always conditions.
Patterns of interactions between system elements (humans,
tools, machinery, software, materials, procedures and envi-
ronment) characterize human work. Such work is generally
performed to achieve a purpose within system elements, con-
ditions and environment over a period. Most interactions are
intentional and inconsequential; however, some things do not
always go as planned or intended. Human error represents
system interactions that are unintended, but as Shorrock (2016)
notes, there is almost always more to it than just an error on
the part of the human. Always conditions designed into the
system elements include human, organizational and societal
factors. Degraded conditions might include confusing and in-
compatible interfaces, labels or controls that are difficult to read
or distinguish, unserviceable equipment, missing tools and
equipment, time pressure, inadequate staffing, prolonged work
leading to fatigue and stress, varying levels of competence or
different cultures.
For never events to be completely avoided, the always con-
ditions that present hazards and risks that make them possible
must be designed out of the systems. In the OSH world, this
concept is known as prevention through design (PTD).
The Concept of PTD
In 2011, ANSI/ASSP Z590.3-2011(R2016), Prevention
Through Design: Guidelines for Addressing Occupational Haz-
ards and Risks in Design and Redesign Processes, was the first
U.S. standard to address the need for incorporating safety into
the design and redesign phase. A key element of ANSI/ASSP
Z590.3 is that it provides guidance for life cycle risk assess-
ments and a design model that balances environmental and
OSH goals over the life span of a system (Figure 1). Systems
such as facilities, equipment and products have a defined life
cycle in which risks change. These points in the system’s life
cycle where new risks are introduced or existing risks may in-
NOSTAL6IE/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS
crease represent PTD risk assessment trigger points (Figure 2).
A stated goal of the PTD standard is to educate designers, man-
ufacturers, OSH professionals, business leaders and workers in
the principles so that those principles can be designed into new
and existing facilities, processes, equipment, tools and methods.
Fundamentally and practically, it makes the most sense to avoid a
problem rather than allow it to exist and try to manage it.
Manuele (2014) states that “over time, the level of safety
achieved will relate directly to whether acceptable risk levels are
FIGURE 1
LIFE CYCLE PROCESS

Design Preliminary Detailed Build or Commission Production

concept design design purchase (install and maintenance Decommission
debug)

Note. Adapted from Prevention Through Design: Guidelines for Addressing Occupational Hazards and Risks in Design and Redesign Processes [ANSI/
ASSP Z590.3-2011(R2016)] by ANSI/ASSP, 2016, Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.

FIGURE 2
PREVENTION THROUGH DESIGN DURING SYSTEM’S LIFE CYCLE

Design Build or purchase Install Operate Decommission

Conceptual design
•Safety specifications
•External requirement
Operate
Install •Routine tasks
Secifications •Preplan •High-risk tasks Shutdown
•High-risk tasks •Physical agents •Nonroutine tasks
•Prebuild plan
•Nonroutine tasks •Incidents •High-risk tasks
•Procurement
•Third-party exposures •Third-party exposures •Third-party exposures
•Physical agents •Natural disasters
•Intentional threats

Preliminary design Maintain and service Dismantle system

•External requirement Build or purchase •Nonroutine tasks •Nonroutine tasks
•Physical agents •Nonroutine tasks
Debug and setup •High-risk tasks •High-risk tasks
•Third parties •High-risk tasks •Third-party exposures •Third-party exposures
•High-risk tasks
•Natural disasters •Nonroutine tasks •Physical agents •Physical agents
•Third parties
•Intentional threats •Third-party exposures
•Physical agents
•High-risk tasks •Physical agents
•Procurement
•Nonroutine tasks

Repair Disposal
•Nonroutine tasks •Nonroutine tasks
•High-risk tasks •External requirement
•Third-party exposures •Third-party exposures
Design/redesign •Physical agents
•Design safety review
•Safety specifications

Redesign or modify
•Management of change
•Design safety review
•Procurement

Note. Adapted from Risk Management Tools for Safety Professionals, by B.K. Lyon and G. Popov, 2018, Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 25


achieved or not achieved in the design and redesign processes.”
His statement is in accordance with the hierarchy of controls
model found in ANSI/ASSP Z590.3 (Figure 3). The PTD model
promotes the use of higher-level controls—avoidance, elimi-
nation, substitution and engineering—upstream in the design
phase as the most effective and economical. Most agree with this
concept; however, in practice, few organizations take full advan-
tage of incorporating safety into the preoperational phase. This
presents a major opportunity for OSH professionals equipped
with the skills and desire to advise and guide organizations
through the process of identifying hazards and reducing risk
during design and redesign (Popov, Lyon & Hollcroft, 2016).
The greatest opportunity for advancing OSH lies within the
practice of PTD. This article provides OSH professionals a practi-
cal approach to establishing a method for anticipating, recogniz-
ing, avoiding, eliminating and minimizing operational hazards
and risks before they are introduced into the workplace.
System Safety Roots
PTD concepts are rooted in system safety. Stephans (2004)
describes system safety as the effort to make things as safe as is
practical by systematically using engineering and management
tools to identify, analyze and control hazards. The 15 tenets
of system safety that Stephans describes (Table 1) align with
those found in risk management and PTD standards, notably
ANSI/ASSP/ISO 31000-2018, Risk Management: Guidelines,
and ANSI/ASSP Z590.3.
A review of the tenets of system safety reveals that strong
correlations exist between system safety and PTD. System safe-
ty tenets strongly reflect the concepts of risk reduction through
assessment, treatment and designing safety into system ele-
ments, as do PTD principles.
Hazardous Energy Control
A critical area to be considered in design is the control of
hazardous energy. A prominent theory developed by William
Haddon Jr., known as Haddon’s energy release theory, establishes
a relationship between incident causation and risk control meth-
ods. Haddon’s model relates well to engineers and can be applied
systematically. It includes 10 sequential control strategies that
should be considered in the design of new products and systems:
1) Prevent stored energy.
2) Reduce stored energy.
3) Prevent energy release.
4) Reduce rate of release.
5) Separate energy release from humans and assets by space or time.
6) Separate energy release from humans and assets by physi-
cal barriers.
7) Modify contact surfaces.
8) Strengthen susceptible structures.
9) Increase detectability and prevention of harm.
10) Prevent further damage.
As Haddon’s strategies indicate, the most effective control is
accomplished when it is incorporated into the design. Special
attention to the potential for hidden energies in products and
systems is warranted. Table 2 provides a simple list of energy
types and hazards that should be considered during a design
safety review (Popov, Lyon & Hollcroft, 2016).
Barriers to PTD
The concept of addressing safety during design seems logical
and desirable; however, the practice of doing so occurs far too
26 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
FIGURE 3
ANSI/ASSP Z590.3 PTD RISK
REDUCTION HIERARCHY OF
CONTROLS MODEL
Controls
Most Risk avoidance: Prevent entry of hazards
preferred into a workplace by selecting and
incorporating appropriate technology and
work methods criteria during the design
processes.
Eliminate: Eliminate workplace and work
methods risks that have been discovered.
Substitution: Reduce risks by substituting
less hazardous methods or materials.
Engineering controls: Incorporate
engineering controls/safety devices.
Warning: Provide warning systems.
Administrative controls: Apply
administrative controls (e.g., the
organization of work, training, scheduling,
Least supervision).
preferred PPE: Provide PPE.
Note. Adapted from Prevention Through Design: Guidelines for Address-
ing Occupational Hazards and Risks in Design and Redesign Processes
[ANSI/ASSP Z590.3-2011 (R2016)], by ANSI/ASSP, 2016, Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
rarely. For many organizations, OSH professionals are not in-
vited to the design table or included in the design and redesign
processes. The reasons are many.
Recently, one of the authors participated in the planning for
a new manufacturing facility to be built in the U.S. The project
planning session was to determine the work breakdown struc-
ture, specific steps and tasks, resources and time frames over
the 18 months leading up to operations. The planning team
included regional and local management, engineering, produc-
tion, maintenance, quality, human resources, and safety, health
and environment staff.
As the team worked through the steps it became apparent
to the author that a risk review of the new facility’s design
had not been discussed. When it was suggested that a risk
assessment of the designs would be beneficial, there was
hesitation from team members. Most of the members did
not see this as a feasible time for an assessment and indicat-
ed that risk assessments would be performed once the fa-
cility was operational. Two safety representatives explained
that it would be difficult to identify hazards and assess
risks without the physical structures, equipment and em-
ployees in place. It was the group’s belief that the corporate
design and engineering departments were addressing all
necessary requirements including safety and code compli-
ance issues in the design. As a result, no formal safety re-
view of the design was scheduled. The author continued to
work with team members as the designs and construction
progressed, identifying and addressing hazards and con-
cerns. However, embedded problems were introduced into
the new facility including:
•Emergency shower and eyewash stations placed directly in
front of or near electrical panels. Specifically, these stations
were located in the forklift recharging bays at each of the orga-
nization’s similarly designed facilities.
•Lack of ventilation and local exhaust systems. As part of the
quality assurance process, a destructive testing laboratory per-
forms tests including chemical reactions, grinding, cutting, braz-
TABLE 1
SYSTEM SAFETY TENETS & PTD ALIGNMENT
System safety tenets Risk management and PTD concepts
1) Systematically identify, evaluate and control hazards to prevent (or mitigate) Hazard analysis and risk assessment
incidents. Risk treatment
2) Apply a precedence of controls to hazards starting with their elimination, Risk treatment
designing to preclude hazards and finally administrative controls. Administrative Hierarchy of controls
controls include signs, warnings, procedures and training. (The lowest precedence Layers of protection
are those controls that rely on people.)
3) Perform proactively rather than reactively to events. This starts with a program Risk management process
plan. Prevention through design
4) Design and build safety into a system rather than modifying the system later in Prevention through design
the acquisition process when any changes are increasingly more expensive.
5) Develop and provide safety-related design guidance and give it to the designers Prevention through design
as the program is initiated. Design safety specifications
6) Use appropriate evaluation/analysis techniques from the tabulated variety Hazard analysis and risk assessment
available.
7) Rely on factual information, engineering and science to form the basis of Establish context
conclusions and recommendations. Risk-based decision-making
8) Quantify risk by multiplying the ranking of undesired consequences of an event Risk analysis
by the probability of occurrence. There are variations to this “equation.”
9) Design, when allowed, to minimize or eliminate single-point failures that have an Prevention through design
undesired consequence. Make at least two-fault tolerant, that is, tolerant of Layers of protection/defenses
multiple faults or system breakdown that would have adverse safety consequence.
10) Identify, evaluate and control hazards throughout the system’s life and during Prevention through design and redesign
the various operational phases for normal and abnormal environments. Design safety reviews
Management of change
System’s life cycle
11) After application of controls to mitigate hazard(s), management must recognize Acceptable risk level
and accept the residual risk. ALARP
12) Recognize the quality assurance interface: a) Decrease risk by using materials Design safety specifications
that are properly specified and possess adequate quality assurance; and b)
implement to continually improve the system.
13) Tabulate and disseminate lessons learned and incorporate those lessons for Risk communication and consultation
future safety enhancement.
14) Apply system safety to systems to include processes, products, facilities and Prevention through design
services.
15) Recognize that near-hit conditions, if not corrected, most likely develop into Hazard/risk identification
incidents. Risk assessment
Risk treatment

ing and welding, which produce air contaminants; however, these

TABLE 2
health hazards were not considered during the design phase.
•Lack of adequate emergency/tornado shelter space for ENERGY TYPES & HAZARDS
planned occupancy in the new facility. In addition, conveyor
systems and equipment created obstacles for emergency evacu- Energy Hazards
ation routes in some areas of the facility. Mechanical Acute force to tissues, chronic stress to tissues
•No containment for indoor tank storage of chemicals to pre- Physical Noise, vibration, gravity, inertia, configuration
vent spillage from entering floor drains. Chemical Toxicity, caustic, acute, chronic
•Multiple blind corners and bottlenecks for forklift and pe- Electrical Electrocution, explosion, fire, arc flash
destrian traffic. Biological Bacteria, bloodborne pathogens,
•Elevated work platforms requiring fixed ladders and stairs, microorganisms, animals, insects
guardrails, and lifting and lowering of equipment and materi- Thermal Extreme temperatures
als. One platform containing electrical service panels was 24-ft Radiological Ionizing, nonionizing
high with only ladder access.
•Poorly designed workstations such as nonadjustable work Note. Adapted from Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide to Assessing
surfaces and seating, excessively wide conveyors, extensive Operational Risks, by G. Popov, B.K. Lyon and B. Hollcroft, 2016,
manual material handling, poor placement of storage, high Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
noise areas and poor lighting.
This experience is likely not uncommon for OSH profes- Career Center. The review revealed that a majority (88%) of
sionals. Many organizations require OSH practitioners to only the listed job responsibilities described duties such as program
focus on the operational phase. The authors estimate that 10% management, regulatory compliance, workplace audits and
of OSH professionals’ time is spent in the preoperational and inspections, incident investigations, employee training, loss
design phase. This assumption was tested by performing a re- analyses and other duties associated with operations. Less than
view of job descriptions for OSH positions posted on the ASSP 12% of the job postings reviewed mentioned preoperational du-

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 27

FIGURE 4
PERCENT OF TIME SPENT IN THE
FOUR RISK MANAGEMENT STAGES
ties such as reviews of new systems/equipment, preplanning for
Postoperational stage
(decommissioning) construction or expansions, and process changes analyses. No
mention of PTD, designing in safety or design safety reviews
Postincident stage (investigation, was found in any of the job descriptions.
claims management, litigation,
regulatory issues) This premise is supported by data collected by one of the
authors. Figure 4 reflects data compiled from student training
Operational stage (compliance and survey and feedback collected over a 5-year period from 2-day
retrofit)
PTD training course attendees (Walline, 2014). Participants
Preoperational stage (avoidance
included more than 200 OSH professionals from a wide range
and elimination focus) of industries, varying sizes of organizations, nationally. The
survey data was used to determine OSH professionals’ time
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% allocated to the four major stages of occupational risk manage-
ment as outlined in Section 1.3 of ANSI/ASSP Z590.3.
Additionally, one of the authors collected responses from
FIGURE 5 course participants while conducting PTD training for ASSP
PERCENTAGE YES RESPONSES members over a 3-year period (Figure 5). Questions measured
FROM COURSE PARTICIPANTS participants’ knowledge of and experience with PTD concepts
and functions.
The future OSH professional’s job description must look much
Participate in design safety reviews different than it does today. Progressive employers will want in-
for capital projects dividuals who possess key competencies in PTD, risk assessment,
higher level risk treatments and SIF prevention, to name a few.
Know about and actually apply the
hierarchy of controls approach to
Barriers to OSH professionals in the design and redesign
hazard control in their work phases are many. It is important to identify and understand
these barriers so that OSH professionals can overcome such
Have worked to incorporate safety
requirements into procurement
challenges (Popov, Lyon & Hollcroft, 2016).
specifications
Traditional Barriers
Have read ANSI/ASSP Z590.3 PTD
standard prior to taking PTD course
Organizational cultures and structures are highly compart-
mentalized (silo management) with a chain of command. Infor-
mation does not typically flow from one department to another
Experience performing task- or
process-based risk assessments
(horizontally) or above or below a particular manager (vertical-
ly). These interdepartmental barriers prevent collaboration.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The following scenario illustrates how individual department
goals can conflict and impede interdepartmental communi-
cation and cooperation if no formal mechanisms or specific
requirements to do so are in place.
SEVEN STEPS TO PTD •Engineering department: Designers and engineers develop
designs according to design criteria including project objectives,
OSH practitioners can employ the following seven steps for improving
cost, quality and performance within their department as ex-
PTD within their organizations. pected by the organization. The engineering department’s prima-
1) Establish safety specifications and safety minimums for design, ry goal is to produce a design that works. There is no requirement
procurement and management of change. to seek peer review by other departments concerning the design.
2) Establish a protocol for performing risk assessment during the •Procurement department: Components and materials spec-
conceptual design and redesign phases. The protocol should require ified by the engineering department are provided to the pro-
design safety to be addressed at the earliest possible point during the curement department. Typically, there are few specifications for
conceptual scoping and specification phase. safety, health, environmental or ergonomics requirements other
3) Establish a strong safety culture that requires acceptable risk than code compliance or regulatory requirements. The procure-
levels be attained and maintained.
ment department’s goal is to acquire the necessary materials
4) Explicitly communicate goals for achieving safe designs for all
departments. Goals must be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, by the specified time, at the lowest cost possible (often within a
relevant and time-based) with accountability. Expectations and specified budget). There are no requirements for peer review of
accountabilities for safety in design must be clearly defined and com- materials selected by other departments.
municated. •Supplier/contractor: The completed design is handed over
5) Enable, encourage and require effective communication regard- to a third-party supplier/contractor responsible for building
ing the design process among departments (horizontally) and within and installing the unit. There are few contractual require-
departments (vertically). ments regarding safety and limited oversight by the facilities
6) Provide/verify basic competency in hazard recognition, risk engineering/maintenance or production departments during
assessment, risk control options and PTD concepts for engineers, archi- the installation. The supplier/contractor’s goal is to install and
tects and designers. Decision-makers (senior management) should also
have some basic knowledge of these concepts as well.
complete the unit according to design specifications within the
7) OSH professionals must become the subject-matter experts and required time frame and budget.
lead the effort to bring PTD practices into organizations. •Production department: Once installation is complete, the
production department takes over operations. Operations may

28 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

include pre-start-up inspections and procedures, program- FIGURE 6
ming, adjusting, lubricating, clearing jams, resetting machines DESIGN SAFETY REVIEW
and normal production operations. The production depart-
ment’s primary goal is to achieve and maintain maximum pro- PROCESS EXAMPLE
duction (as measured by number of units produced), meeting
quality standards at the lowest cost possible. There are no re-
quirements for the production department to involve the OSH
department until incidents or safety problems arise.
•Maintenance department: The operation requires regular
scheduled preventive maintenance and occasional breakdown
repair service performed by the maintenance department. The
maintenance department’s goals are to maintain equipment,
perform repairs and return systems to normal as quickly as
possible to reduce downtime and prevent business interruption.
Outside of OSHA’s lockout/tagout requirements, the organiza-
tion does not require involvement from the OSH department
until incidents occur.
•Maintenance/decommission contractor: At some point, the
system or equipment completes its life span or usefulness. It is
removed from service by maintenance or an outside contrac-
tor, making way for a new unit or technology to take its place.
The OSH department has little involvement in decommission-
ing equipment except to respond to incidents that may occur
during the process.
•OSH department: Throughout the life cycle of the system,
exposure to hazards can cause harm to people, assets or the
environment. The OSH department is responsible for identify-
ing and controlling existing hazards, as well as responding to
incidents that occur. For those systems and products that have
not adequately addressed safety in the design, a greater number
of control measures is required to achieve the organization’s
acceptable level of risk. Often, the primary goals of the OSH
department are to meet compliance and reduce losses.

Training Barriers
Formal education and training provided to engineers, archi-
tects and business professionals typically has not included ba-
sics in OSH principles and concepts. Many designers have little
or no experience in hazard recognition, risk assessment or the
concept of the hierarchy of controls. NIOSH’s (2013) PTD pro-
gram recognizes this deficiency and has prepared educational
modules to help universities to integrate PTD principles into
engineering curricula. OSH professionals need to improve their
understanding of the design process, business objectives, cost
drivers and internal protocols for engineering and design to be
more effective in their organizations.

Turf Barriers
Architects and engineers are responsible for designing
buildings, systems and products according to established
design criteria, within set time and budget constraints, with
the primary goal of designing things to work (Main, 2012).
Engineers are not prone to deviate from their formal educa-
tion and training or established protocols. As a result, they
are reluctant to seek input from nonengineering departments.
This presents an opportunity for OSH professionals to prove
their value to designers and management by facilitating pre-
operational risk assessments that enable designs that are safer
and more cost effective. The use of financial measures such
as cost/benefit analysis and return on investment, as well as
nonfinancial benefits, will aid in communicating the value of
design safety reviews.
Time Barriers
Time is limited during the critical path from conceptual de-
sign to production. Tight schedules and deadlines coupled with
lack of forethought or time allotted for safety reviews during
design are common. OSH professionals should engage as early
as possible, providing safety requirements to the design team.
In some cases, risk assessments may require more time than
allowed during a design review session. It may be necessary to
perform the risk assessment separately, providing risk-based
information to the design team during the conceptual stage.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 29


OSH practitioners largely have not engaged in the design
process. Many reasons can be cited including job descrip-
tions, daily work demands, lack of notification or invitation
to participate in design reviews, position and status with an
organization, and general lack of knowledge in the design and
engineering process. This presents a great opportunity for OSH
professionals to become change agents, advising in the safety
requirements of new designs, and avoiding and eliminating
hazards and risks. The “Seven Steps to PTD” sidebar (p. 28)
outlines steps for improving PTD within organizations.
Design Safety Reviews
Codes and compliance reviews are common in fire protec-
tion-related designs, often conducted by third-party consul-
tants and insurance representatives. However, designing to
regulatory compliance does not ensure that all hazards are ade-
quately controlled or that error traps are avoided (Lyon, 2016).
Design safety reviews are used to anticipate, identify and
assess hazards during the design and redesign process of new
facilities, expansions in existing buildings, new or modified
processes and systems, equipment and machines, and prod-
ucts. The purpose of a design safety review is to avoid antici-
pated hazards in the design of a new system or redesign of an
existing system.
Main (2012) recommends that design safety reviews be per-
formed in the conceptual stage to provide designers specific
safety guidance in the design. In simple designs, anticipated
hazards can be identified by the team and addressed by design-
ers. Where potential risk is high, design safety reviews may be
needed at each stage (i.e., conceptual, preliminary, final design,
testing) as a sign-off or approval process from the OSH, ergo-
nomics and compliance stakeholders (Main).
Design safety reviews and assessments will vary in their
degree of complexity depending on the context and the system
being reviewed. Methods include:
•design safety checklists and guide words;
•preliminary hazard analyses;
•failure mode and effects analysis;
•what-if analyses and what-if/checklist analyses.
Design safety reviews are most effective when performed
early in the design process while objectives are being discussed
and should be considered in any major planned change. Design
reviews typically include a compliance/codes review aspect.
ANSI/ASSP Z590.3 states that the design safety review process
is an effective means for achieving inherently safer designs and
includes an informative addendum (Addendum E) on design
safety reviews. Figure 6 (p. 29) presents an example showing the
trigger points for risk assessments in the life cycle of a system.
The process should be systematically applied to all designs,
changes in existing designs, and procurement and construction
of new systems, and used to anticipate, identify, avoid, elimi-
nate or control hazards. A commitment from management is
required to fully integrate PTD concepts into the organization.
An established process for design safety reviews within the
organization’s operational risk management system should be
implemented. The following model depicted in Figure 7 pro-
vides general steps for a design safety review process:
1) Design safety policy: A written management policy that pro-
vides direction on when, where and how hazard analyses and risk
assessments are performed, including the design phase, should
be established and communicated. Roles, responsibilities and ac-
countabilities for design safety should be outlined to include en-
30 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
FIGURE 7
DESIGN SAFETY REVIEW PROCESS
gineers, designers, production, maintenance, quality, legal, OSH,
human resources, procurement and other involved parties.
2) Design safety team: A qualified leader and cross-functional
team to perform the design safety review should be selected. Design
safety review team members should have expertise in applicable areas
such as safety and health, ergonomics and human factors engineer-
ing, environmental safety, fire prevention and protection, and prod-
ucts liability prevention as appropriate for the project. In some cases,
it may be necessary to include outside consultants or specialists to
assist in the review. Effective communication should be maintained.
3) Method(s) selection: For each design, specific methods
should be selected for conducting the design safety review based
on the complexity of the project and the established context.
4) Design safety review: In the conceptual stages, a design
safety review that includes hazard analysis and risk assessment
should be initiated to identify hazards. ANSI/ASSP Z590.3 ad-
vises that design safety reviews should be performed as design
objectives are being discussed. Depending on the project, the
safety review can be performed separately, with the findings and
risk reduction recommendations incorporated into the design
process. Design safety reviews may include analysis of similar
designs; plan drawings; specifications and limitations; hazard
checklists; applicable standards; discussions with manufacturers
of components and materials; safety data sheets; loss experience
related to similar designs; and existing controls and technology
on similar designs. The design safety review should address op-
erational hazards as well as hazards resulting from nonroutine
activities such as maintenance, emergency upsets and repairs,
testing, adjusting, lubricating, and other related activities.
5) Deviations approval: Established safety standards and spec-
ifications should be followed. If a deviation from stated standards
or specifications is requested, appropriate management person-
nel including OSH, legal or other parties must review the request
and determine whether it is approved or denied.
6) Design completion sign-off: Upon completion, the project
leader should sign off on the project to verify that the design
safety review has been completed, signifying a consensus
among the safety team and engineering group. Communication
is needed between the design safety review team and engineer-
ing/design group throughout the process.
7) Action plan: The findings and recommendations from the
completed design safety review may include modifications or
markups of drawings; changes in specifications; a prioritized
list of specific hazards and means for avoidance or control; a
list of design modifications necessary prior to approval; action
FIGURE 8
PTD SELF-ASSESSMENT

Max Your
No. Description points organization
1 My design team members and I have read and understand the basic concepts and 10 7
critical steps outlined in ANSI/ASSP Z590.3-2011(R2016) standard on prevention
through design (PTD).
2 My design teams and I have access to and knowledge of the capital projects taking 10 5
place within my organization.
3 My organization has established PTD business rules that trigger design safety reviews 10 7
of projects.
4 My organizational leaders know the percentage of serious mishaps that have 10 3
occurred in my organization related to design gaps.
5 My organization has created a design safety checklist based on lessons learned from 10 5
past mishaps and incidents that have taken place within my organization or facility.
6 My organizational leaders understand that to reduce severity of harm (magnitude of 10 3
energy/exposure) the organization must avoid risk, eliminate the hazard or seek to
mitigate risk through substitution.
7 My organization insists that design safety reviews and risk assessments for capital 10 7
projects are documented to an acceptable level of risk.
8 My organization captures and shares long-term burden costs with leaders and design 10 5
teams related to poor design decision-making.
9 My design teams and I participate in documented pre-start-up safety reviews and 10 3
commissioning activities with proper stakeholders to verify that all required
established safe design criteria have been meet before releasing new or modified
facilities, processes or equipment into operational mode.
10 My organization insists that proven solutions and cost-effective safe design criteria 10 3
from completed capital projects are captured, shared and incorporated into future
similar projects to reduce risk, cost and eliminate barriers to safe work.
Point total 100 48

item list with assigned responsibilities; and follow-up questions,
concerns or requests for additional information necessary to
satisfy or complete the review and approve the design.
A PTD Success Story
The role of OSH professionals now and in the future is to
affect positive change that reduces risk and resulting losses. An
example of how this might look is presented in the following
success story based on the authors’ personal experiences. The
names of the organization and the individuals involved have
been substituted but the story is real.
Alpha Manufacturing, a privately held medium-sized
company, operates six manufacturing facilities within the
U.S. The company had experienced significant growth
during a recent 4-year period. Two facilities were designed,
built and put into operation within this business growth
period to meet customer demand. In late 2014, Alpha Man-
ufacturing recognized the need to add a second full-time
OSH professional (safety specialist, and safety and health
trainer) to support growth, meet business objectives and
achieve an acceptable level of risk. The primary job of the
new safety position was to help manage the rising frequen-
cy and costs of occupational incidents in the company’s
operations and support the organization’s objectives.
As a result, Jane was hired in early 2015 as the new OSH
business leader. During her first week, she discovered startling
statistics surrounding design-related causal factors and their
association with workplace incidents. A large number of seri-
ous and even fatality-level risks seemed to have contributing
factors linked to design issues in the facilities and processes.
Jane prepared a report for senior management on her find-
ings. The report showed that several serious incidents were
directly or indirectly connected to design-related factors.
Specific examples, pictures and diagrams were included to
help visualize some of the concerns. In addition, she identified
the annual costs to the organization for existing engineering,
administrative and PPE controls required to manage the risks.
Management was intrigued and asked her to make a short
presentation to the management team. Jane prepared hand-
outs with graphics, photos, cost-benefit analyses and a brief
summary of the report. A compelling case was made that the
company was spending more than $1 million to implement,
maintain and monitor these control programs. Anticipating
management’s questions, she followed up with a recom-
mended action plan starting with a company self-assessment
in design safety. Management agreed, and as a result she pre-
pared a PTD self-assessment checklist (Figure 8) to establish a
baseline and determine areas that could be improved.
Step 1: Plan & Prepare
Jane obtained a copy of ANSI/ASSP Z590.3. She immersed
herself particularly in the sections of the standard around:

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 31

FIGURE 9
DESIGN SAFETY REVIEW CHECKLIST
Work condition
Hazard category Case no. Normal or Severity
Pathway to harm Incident description Year abnormal potential Design specification Hierarchy of risk treatment
Powered machinery (377042) 2012 Abnormal (facing Life 1) Redesign machine

and equipment (hot Employee hand caught sheet was not altering with guides to keep 
roll machine) between hot power adhering to product in line with  
In-running nip point rolls (150 °F) and fixed product) rolls to avoid employee e 

Caught in/between guides while adjusting interface with material. 
feed. Multiple fingers g
2) Install fixed guarding 
amputated, second- to prevent worker  

degree burns to right access to machine 

hand. hazard zone with
 
equipment powered
up.  



FIGURE 10
HIERARCHY OF RISK TREATMENT MODEL
Effectiveness Compliance
Hierarchy
Hier
Hie ar
er c y of rrisk
a ch ttreatment
iss k tr eatm
eat en
tm e t
and reliability burden

Avoid
Complete None
Eliminate Design and
Substitute redesign
rede
Minimize Very high Low
Simplify

Passive control
Engineer
Engin High Limited
Active control

Warn Moderate Moderate

Adminstrative
Limited High
Adminster
Admin
PPE

Very low Very high

TABLE 3
HAZARD CATEGORY: POWERED MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT EXAMPLE

Performance Hazard
No. objective (energy source) Above-the-line control
1 No exposure to Electrical, air, Energy isolation at point of need
hazardous energy mechanical (engineering)
2 Fixed barrier guards Mechanical Engineering
3 No exposure to 480 V AC Diagnostic ports, energy isolation devices, protective covers
electrical energy (engineering)
4 No hearing < 80 dBA, 8-hour Avoidance
protection TWA
5 No machine tip over Gravity Engineering, machines anchored
6 No portable ladders Elevated work, Work performed at ground level, fixed stairways and platforms
gravity with protective railings (avoidance and engineering)

32 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

FIGURE 11
TASK-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET EXAMPLE

Task-Based Risk Assessment Worksheet: New Line 22—Powered Conveyor System

Design performance objective: No uncontrolled exposure to conveyor hazards
Design (residual risk) target: No SIF mishaps
See ANSI/ASSP Z590.3, Addendum F, Table 2

Probability

Residual
Severity
Conveyor task Design

Risk

risk
No. Hazard Proven solutions
exposure specification

Air receiver tank Elimination: Acoustical

Adjust air pressure Fall to level
1 5 5 25 and controls at treated sound enclosure at 1
at receiver station below: 12 ft
floor level floor level, no elevated work
Manually upload Restricted work Automated Elimination: Forklift product
2 parts on conveyor space: crushing 5 5 25 product feed feed station, removal of 1
at feed station by forklift system exposure
Mechanical Elimination: Automated jam
Clear jam at Jam clearing
3 energy: cutting, 5 5 25 clearing system at chopper 1
chopper station device
chopping station, removal of exposure

•design safety reviews (Section 6);
•hazard analysis and risk assessment process (Section 7);
•hazard analysis and risk assessment techniques (Section 8);
•hierarchy of controls (Section 9);
•the corresponding addendums.
She summarized an action plan based on the PTD standard
and presented it to management. The plan was to form a
design safety team, create design safety criteria and specifica-
tions based on available data, develop a design safety check-
list, implement a design safety review protocol, and track
progress. With management approval, she initiated the plan.
Step 2: Form Team
With this newfound knowledge and understanding,
Jane identified the capital project leaders, design partners
and suppliers for the corresponding projects that her or-
ganization was planning to engage with over the next few
years. Jane trained her teams on the key concepts and
critical steps outlined in the PTD standard and her newly
crafted PTD self-assessment checklist elements. This be-
came her PTD implementation strategy. Jane’s effort was
aligned with the following sections of the PTD standard:
•Section 4, roles and responsibilities;
•Section 5, relationship with suppliers.
Step 3: Establish Parameters
To clearly establish with all stakeholders the PTD busi-
ness rules, Jane created a list of trigger events to ensure
that all risk-based design safety review requirements
would be fulfilled for all projects going forward. The trig-
gers for risk assessment were:
•new facilities, equipment and machinery;
•regulatory driven;
•customer expectations, new products;
•redesigns and modifications;
•company injury claims and loss history;
•Kaizen and lean manufacturing events relating to de-
sign/redesign;
•relocated equipment and processes;
•highly complex processes;
•demolition, decommissioning.
Step 4: Analyze Data
During the first 3 months, Jane compiled and reviewed data
from Alpha’s injury/illness and workers’ compensation claim
report database, near-hit reports and associated incident
investigation reports. Her review focused on gaps in current
operation designs and processes. She reviewed in detail some
200 injury/illness cases and serious near-hit reports from a
4-year period and identified the following critical information:
•37% of OSHA recordable injury cases identified a prima-
ry causal factor related to gaps in design of equipment,
machinery and process.
•21% of the total recordable injuries had potential to be
a SIF event.
•Of the cases that had SIF potential, 42% were linked to
gaps in design of equipment, machinery or process.
When Jane shared these facts with company leadership
and project delivery teams, the information was shocking to
them but it reinforced the importance of designing for safe-
ty and health. Management encouraged her to proceed.
Step 5: Develop Design Checklist
From her incident analysis and findings, Jane estab-
lished a set of safety performance objectives for all cap-
ital projects. The safety performance objectives are the
outcomes to be seen at the completion of the design and
install. These safety performance objectives are hazard
and exposure avoidance based. The design safety perfor-
mance specifications were:

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 33

 •no portable ladders (step and extension types); new equipment, materials and chemicals, and in the man-
•no open chemical systems; agement of change (MOC) process. Such reviews would be
•no manual handling or lifting of products greater than documented. The same expectation would be set for em-
15 lb in production cycle; ployee participation in design safety reviews. As part of the
•no chemicals/materials to be used as noted on organi- design safety review process, a documented risk assessment
zation’s material of concern list; would be conducted with all appropriate parties. Design
•no elevated work without protective guardrails; safety reviews would include hazard category checklists and
•no sharp edges; documented task or process-based risk assessments (Table
•no energized work; 3, p. 32; Figure 11, p. 33). These tools were created over time
•no exposure to energized parts, including diagnostics; by Jane and the other company safety resources.
•energy isolation devices for lock-tag-try at ground or
floor level and at point of need; Step 8: Document & Communicate Results
•no respirator-required tasks; To communicate to management the many benefits
•no exposure to noise levels above 80 dBA for an derived from PTD and design safety risk management,
8-hour time-weighted average; Jane captured the ongoing burden costs from managing
•no pedestrians in warehouse while forklift traffic present. risk below the line. She wanted leaders to understand
The information collected by Jane was incorporated into a that selecting low-level controls (e.g., procedures, signs,
company-specific design safety review checklist that offered training, PPE) to manage high-level risks comes with a
design solutions to prevent future mishaps. The design safety long-term cost that would add up to millions of dollars
review checklist included hazard category, incident descrip- over the life expectancy of major capital projects. The
tion, year, whether it was a normal or abnormal condition, company advised staff that these two new manufactur-
severity potential and design specifications linked to the ing facilities each have an expected life span of 50 years.
hierarchy of risk treatment (Figure 9, p. 32). The checklist was Jane’s approach was to avoid and reduce burden costs
then used in every design safety review for capital projects. associated with managing design-embedded problems by
incorporating safety into the design process. As a result,
Step 6: Use of Higher Level Controls she presented management with an ongoing burden
Jane established strong linkage between PTD and control
effectiveness. All the cases she studied with a causal factor TABLE 4
related to design could have been prevented with what she ONGOING BURDEN COSTS
called an “above the line control” solution. To reduce ener-
gy levels and severity of harm potential, particularly with
SIF risks, avoidance/elimination, substitution, minimization, People- Equipment- Methods-
simplification and engineering controls were to be the related costs related costs related costs
primary controls used. This was a new stake in the ground Training Purchase Scheduling and
that Jane established for her organization and engineering/ planning
design partners for assessing and controlling design risk Buddy systems Rental Written program
going forward. Jane was establishing for the organization,
PPE Repair and Safe work
an acceptable level of risk (ALOR) for all designs and proj-
ects by designing above the line. Any exception to this maintain procedures
rule would require documented verification from her that Supervision Clean Audits/inspection
above the line control was not feasible. Alternative feasible Injuries Retrofit Permits
controls that would reduce risk as low as reasonably practi- Claims Storage Observations
cable (ALARP) would be required in any case. Citations and Transport Investigations
Jane developed a training module that she shared penalties device
throughout the organization and with external design
partners to educate them on her findings and approach
to risk reduction in the design phase of projects. The title
of her presentation was “PTD: Design Above the Line.” The FIGURE 12
cornerstone of her message was the hierarchy of risk treat- PTD TRACKING SHEET EXAMPLE
ment model (Figure 10, p. 32) with risk reduction strategy
options, effectiveness levels and ongoing cost burdens.
OSH Affected
Jane established and communicated two PTD business professional workers
rules for design safety with the design team: PTD milestone (approval) (approval)
1) All hazards identified must be adequately addressed using Final design review approval X X
above the line controls to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Vendor trial(s) approval
2) Any exception to this business rule must undergo X X
(as required)
OSH professional review and approval. Pre-start-up safety reviews and
X X
commissioning approval
Step 7: Establish & Implement Process ALOR documented X X
Jane established the expectation that company safety Final open punch list items to
X X
resources would participate in the design safety review of achieve ALOR completed
all capital projects, new designs, redesigns, procurement of

34 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

costs table identifying some of the operating costs an
organization must fund and manage annually for most
compliance-based programs (Table 4).
Step 9: Monitor & Refine
As part of the safe design verification process, Jane
helped establish a PTD business rule declaring that ade-
quate safety resources and affected workers would be in-
volved in final design approvals, vendor trials, pre-start-up
safety reviews and commissioning activities for the pur-
pose of achieving an ALOR. In addition, the completion of
these activities and resources would be verified and docu-
mented in a PTD tracking sheet (Figure 12).
Step 10: Communicate
Jane established a SharePoint site for her organization
where risk reduction solutions (proven solutions) and
cost-effective design criteria would be posted and shared.
Workers often identified proven above the line controls that
would achieve ALOR and remove burden costs from the
operation or design. A big part of the proven solutions cen-
tered around fail-safe design, and error tolerant designs and
processes. These proven solutions were then referenced for
future projects to expedite PTD process to achieve ALOR.
OSH professionals who participate in the design safety
process and PTD efforts should take credit for the ben-
efits derived from a successful completed project. An
organization’s value creation and protection as well as
achievement of business objectives at an acceptable risk
level, improved quality and production, employee and
stakeholder satisfaction, and cost savings are all ultimate-
ly derived from successful safety through design efforts.
Conclusion
The pace of risk reduction and prevention improvement is di-
rectly linked to the speed of change led by OSH professionals in
PTD. Risk assessment and safety in design must be at the forefront
of the OSH professional domain. Specifically, OSH professionals
must 1) become subject matter experts and leaders in PTD; 2)
define safety specifications for designers to incorporate into their
designs; 3) help define acceptable risk levels; 4) be active in the
design process, design safety reviews, MOC and procurement; and
5) implement higher-level risk reduction strategies to avoid, elimi-
nate and reduce risks throughout the life cycle of systems.
As a key stakeholder of a design team, the OSH professional has
the responsibility, creativity and power to cause injury-free lives
ACTION STEPS
As a key stakeholder of a design team, the OSH professional must be an
agent for change.
1) Learn. Read, understand and embrace the Z590.3 standard and
share its value and benefits with key stakeholders.
2) Practice. Gain knowledge and experience in risk assessment, safe
design criteria and the design process in your organization.
3) Engage. Break out of the comfort zone and engage in the work-
place design process. Don’t wait for an invitation.
4) Communicate. Share successes, learnings and value of safety
design initiatives across the organization.
5) Influence. Become a trusted agent for change in your organiza-
tion among designers and decision-makers.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 35
around the world. This must be our legacy. The benefits are many
and the OSH profession must be viewed as creating value. OSH pro-
fessionals must be the agents for change. If not us, then who? PSJ
References
ANSI/ASSP. (2011). Risk assessment techniques (National adoption of
ISO/IEC 31010:2009) (ANSI/ASSP Z690.3-2011). Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
ANSI/ASSP. (2016). Prevention through design: Guidelines for ad-
dressing occupational hazards and risks in design and redesign process-
es [ANSI/ASSP Z590.3-2011 (R2016)]. Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
ANSI/ASSP/ISO. (2018). Risk management: Guidelines (ANSI/ASSP/
ISO 31000-2018). Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
Behm, M. (2005). Linking construction fatalities to the design for
construction safety concept. Safety Science, 43(8), 589-611. doi:10.1016/
j.ssci.2005.04.002
Howard, J. (2008). Prevention through design: Introduction. Journal
of Safety Research, 39(2), 113.
Lyon, B.K. & Popov, G. (2018). Risk management tools for safety pro-
fessionals. Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
Main, B.W. (2012). Risk assessment: Challenges and opportunities.
Ann Arbor, MI: Design Safety Engineering.
Manuele, F.A. (2014). Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10
and serious injury prevention (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgenthaler, T. & Harper, C.M. (2015, Oct. 20). Getting rid of “nev-
er events” in hospitals. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://
hbr.org/2015/10/getting-rid-of-never-events-in-hospitals
NIOSH. (2013). Prevention through design. Retrieved from www.cdc
.gov/niosh/programs/ptdesign/pubs.html
Popov, G., Lyon, B.K. & Hollcroft, B. (2016). Risk assessment: A practi-
cal guide to assessing operational risks. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Safe Work Australia. (2014). Work-related fatalities associated with
unsafe design of machinery, plant and powered tools, 2006-2011. Re-
trieved from www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/
1702/work-related-fatalities-unsafe-design.pdf
Shorrock, S. (2016, Feb. 27). Never/zero thinking. Humanistic Sys-
tems. Retrieved from https://humanisticsystems.com/2016/02/27/never
zero-thinking
Stephans, R.A. (2004). System safety for the 21st century: The updated and
revised edition of system safety 2000. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Walline, D.L. (2014, Nov.). Prevention through design: Proven solu-
tions from the field. Professional Safety, 59(11), 43-49.
Bruce K. Lyon, P.E., CSP, ARM, CHMM, is vice president with Hays
Cos. He is a board member of BCSP, advisory board chair to University of
Central Missouri’s (UCM) Safety Sciences program, and vice chair of the ISO
31000 U.S. TAG. Lyon is coauthor of Risk Management Tools for Safety Pro-
fessionals and Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide to Assessing Operational
Risk. He holds an M.S. in Occupational Safety Management and a B.S. in
Industrial Safety from UCM. Lyon is a professional member of ASSP’s Heart of
America Chapter, and a member of the Society’s Ergonomics and Risk Man-
agement/Insurance practice specialties.
David L. Walline, CSP, is president of Walline Consulting Ltd., which he
formed after spending 42 years in global safety leadership roles with Owens
Corning and General Dynamics Corp. He is former chair of the ASSP’s Risk As-
sessment Committee and Risk Assessment Institute. He served on the review
committee for ANSI/ASSP Z590.3-2011, the prevention through design stan-
dard. Walline is a professional member of the Society’s Gold Coast Chapter.
Georgi Popov, Ph.D., CSP, ASP, SMS, ARM, QEP, CMC, is a profes-
sor in the School of Geoscience, Physics and Safety Sciences at UCM. He is co-
author of Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide for Assessing Operational Risk
and Risk Management Tools for Safety Professionals. Popov holds a Ph.D.
from the National Scientific Board, an M.S. in Nuclear Physics from Defense
University in Bulgaria, and a post-graduate certification in environmental
air quality. He graduated from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College in Fort Leavenworth, KS. Popov is a professional member of ASSP’s
Heart of America Chapter and a member of the Society’s Risk Management/
Insurance Practice Specialty.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Peer-Reviewed

MANAGEMENT
LEADERSHIP
Improving Employee
Safety Engagement
By Rebecca Mullins, Earl Blair and E. Scott Dunlap

A
A THESIS CONDUCTED in the safety and security department at People can use varying degrees of their selves,
Eastern Kentucky University focused on measuring levels of physically, cognitively and emotionally in work role
employee engagement at a large manufacturing facility in south- performances, which has implications for both their
eastern U.S. (Mullins, 2018). The study analyzed four categories of work and experiences. . . . [the article describes and
self-reported employee level of 1) engagement with other employ- illustrates] three psychological conditions—mean-
ees; 2) engagement with management; 3) engagement with policies ingfulness, safety and availability—and their individ-
and procedures; and 4) employee self-initiative. The main question ual and contextual sources. (p. 692)
of the thesis was whether less-engaged employees are more likely
to sustain an injury while on the job. A voluntary, anonymous Background: Research Indicates Employee
Likert-scale survey was administered and completed by 171 hourly Engagement Impacts Safety Performance
employees. The data analysis indicates that these engagement cri- An empirical study at Indiana University provided evi-
teria relate to an employee’s on-the-job injury status. dence of a significant relationship between organizational
Two limitations applied to this study. First, it was a qualitative safety climate and injuries (Seo, Torabi, Blair, et al., 2004).
study focused on one manufacturing plant. The reader must In addition, Clarke (2006) conducted a “meta-analysis to
determine transferable elements that can be applied to worker examine the criterion-related validity of the relationship
engagement in other contexts. Second, workers self-reported between safety climate, safety performance (participation
responses to survey questions, which introduces a degree of lack and compliance), and occupational accidents and injuries.”
of control over the data collected. An assumption of the research The study supported the hypothesis “linking organiza-
was that all participants responded truthfully to questions. tional safety climate to employee safety compliance and
Engagement was defined as active participation in safe- participation, with the latter demonstrating a stronger rela-
ty activities across the four defined areas of investigation, tionship” (Clarke).
such as “involvement in decision-making,” as defined in Dodge Data and Analytics (2016a) conducted a study that
ISO 45001 (ISO, 2018). examined the use of safety management practices among
KEY TAKEAWAYS Engagement in safety also 254 U.S. contractors. Contractors reported more benefits
• Research supports the suppo-
sition of a strong connection
included additional ac-
tivities of participation
from their investments in safety management practices
with a growing recognition of the need to actively engage
between employee engagement as defined in ANSI Z10, workers to improve project safety. According to the report,
and safety performance. such as being involved in worker involvement is the most widely recognized aspect of
• This article emphasizes the
importance of getting all em-
safety committees and of-
fering recommendations
a world-class safety program, selected by 85% of the contrac-
tors surveyed in 2016, which was a 19% increase over 2012.
ployees meaningfully engaged for safety improvement, James Dorris, EHS vice president at United Rentals, explains,
in all aspects of safety. where employees engaged in “When workers are made a part of the process and are pro-
• It examines the implications of non-decision-making safety
a recent study measuring em- activities.
vided the tools and training they need to succeed, safety
becomes recognized as the one thing that sets them, and the
ployee safety engagement. company they work for, apart from the others” (Dodge Data
• It also provides practical rec-
ommendations on how manage-
Literature & Background
The concept of employee
& Analytics, 2016b).
Workers’ perceptions of safety climate, often explained as
ment can institute leadership engagement has evolved both the perceptions and expectations that employees have
approaches that result in em- and expanded since Kahn’s regarding their safety in their organizations, have been regard-
ployees being more motivated (1990) study, which began ed as a principal guide to safety performance (Gyekye, 2005).
to engage in safety. with the premise: Gyekye explains:

36 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

 Researchers have noted that workers with a negative
perception of safety climate tend to engage in unsafe
acts, which increase their susceptibility to accidents,
and workers who perceive job insecurity, anxiety and
stress have exhibited a drop in safety motivation and
compliance whereas workers with a positive percep-
tion of their workplace safety have registered fewer
accidents. (p. 292)
The extent to which workers view their organizations as
being supportive, concerned and caring about their general
well-being and satisfaction likely affects workers’ perception of
the organizational safety climate and influence safe work be-
haviors and the frequency of incidents (Gyekye, 2005).
Government-Related
Recommendations for Employee Participation
Government agencies, standards-setting organizations and
numerous consultants presume that employee engagement is a
positive force for safety. These entities and individuals have giv-
en practical advice about employee engagement.
An example of a government administration that promul-
gates employee participation is illustrated in OSHA’s (2016)
safety and health program guidelines. A core element of the
seven recommended practices is worker participation. This
section identifies action items and describes how to accom-
plish each:
•Action item 1: Encourage workers to participate in the
program.
•Action item 2: Encourage workers to report safety and
health concerns.
•Action item 3: Give workers access to safety and health in-
formation.
•Action item 4: Involve workers in all aspects of the program.
•Action item 5: Remove barriers to participation (OSHA, 2016).
SKYNESHER/E+/GETTY IMAGES
Safety Standards Mandating Employee Participation
Safety management standards that mandate employee
engagement include ANSI/ASSP Z10 and ISO 45001, each ti-
tled “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems”
(OHSMS). ANSI Z10 Section 3.0 is titled “Management Lead-
ership and Employee Participation.” Manuele (2014) considers
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 37
this the most important section of the Z10 standard. Section
3.2, “Employee Participation,” states, “The organization shall
establish a process to ensure effective participation in the
OHSMS by its employees at all levels of the organization, in-
cluding those working closest to the hazards” (ANSI/ASSP,
2017). ANSI/ASSP Z10 includes informative appendixes. Ap-
pendix C provides additional information to support Section
3.2. Appendix C, “Encouraging Employee Participation,”
provides five pages of detailed information regarding how or-
ganizations can effectively encourage employee participation
for continuous improvement.
ISO 45001 defines participation as “involvement in deci-
sion-making” (ISO, 2018). Section 5 of ISO 45001 is titled
“Leadership and Worker Participation.” Section 5.4, “Consulta-
tion and Participation of Workers,” states:
The organization shall establish, implement and
maintain a process for consultation and participation
of workers at all applicable levels and functions, and,
where they exist, workers’ representatives, in the de-
velopment, planning, implementation, performance
evaluation and actions for improvement of the
OHSMS. (ISO, 2018, p. 10)
ISO 45001 includes a number of points for guidance on how
to accomplish this goal.
Methodology
Building on existing literature that addresses the issue of work-
er engagement in workplace safety, Mullins (2018) sought to de-
termine whether the level of engagement in workplace safety has a
potential influence on injuries sustained, such as whether workers
who were more engaged experienced a lower rate of injury. A
survey was issued that included 20 questions that solicited Likert
scale responses to explore the four areas of employee engagement:
•employee engagement with other employees;
•employee engagement with management;
•employee engagement with policies and procedures;
•employee self-initiative.
Those surveyed included the complete population of a man-
ufacturing facility. During one of the weekly “Take a Minute”
meetings within each department, supervisors distributed and
FIGURE 1
EMPLOYEE INJURY EXPERIENCE
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Injured Uninjured No Response


collected the surveys. Participants voluntarily and anonymous-
ly completed the survey. Salaried employees were not included
in the survey. Employees on both first and second shifts were
surveyed. The survey collected demographic data that includ-
ed age, gender, level of education, length of employment, pay
grade and injury status. The manufacturing facility employed
220 hourly workers, 171 of whom completed the survey (78%
response rate).
Data were analyzed solely through the use of descriptive
statistics. Percentages were calculated and used to identify
findings based on participant responses to questions that
addressed the four areas of employee engagement and injury
experience.
Study Results
The study identified strong relationships between an employ-
ee’s injury status and the four areas of employee engagement.
Following are the findings and analyses of the data.
1) Employees who experienced work-related injuries re-
ported low levels of engagement. Nearly 60% of respondents
reported that they had been injured at some point during their
employment at the facility (Figure 1). More than 45% of these
respondents reported working at the facility for more than 5
years (Figure 2).
Nearly 70% of injured workers reported that they sometimes,
seldom or never reviewed their job risk analysis (JRA).
More than one-third (34.3%) of employees who reported
sustaining an injury during their employment at the facility
reported that they do not always fully complete lockout/tagout
procedures (Figure 3). Failure to review JRAs and failure to
conduct a full completion of lockout/tagout procedures identi-
fies a weakness in an employee’s engagement with policies and
procedures, as well as a low level self-initiative for safety.
Only 39% of respondents reported that they would most-
ly or always like to meet with management to solve safety
concerns. Of the 102 respondents who had reported an
injury during their employment at the facility, 82 (80.4%)
reported that they are not always in full support of new poli-
cies and procedures.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents (73.5%) who reported
that they had been injured at some point during their em-
ployment at the facility felt that safety policies and procedures
sometimes got in the way of doing their job.
38 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
FIGURE 2
INJURY PREVALENCE BY
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
18%
Less than 5 years
39%
5 to 10 years
14%
10 to 15 years
29% More than 15 years
These findings indicate a need for management to involve
employees in the development and implementation of safety
policies and procedures. Currently, employees are not engaged
in these activities to a great degree. Employee engagement
could influence safety performance improvement through
buy-in and an understanding of why safety policies and proce-
dures are important. Additionally, management can establish a
welcoming and nonpunitive environment for employees to feel
comfortable coming to management to address and help solve
their safety concerns.
2) Employees who reported no job-related injuries reported
a higher level of engagement (Figure 4). More than one-third
of respondents (35.6%) reported that they had not been injured
during their employment at the facility. Of these respondents,
54% reported that they worked at this facility for more than
5 years. The following responses indicate a vast difference be-
tween engaged and nonengaged employees:
•95% of these employees reported that they mostly or al-
ways follow safety procedures.
•88.5% reported that they would sometimes, mostly or
always confront another employee about an unsafe act or
behavior.
•91.8% reported that they mostly or always wear PPE in good
condition.
•78.6% reported their likelihood to report an unsafe act or
behavior to management as sometimes, mostly or always.
•91.8% reported that they sometimes, mostly or always sup-
port new policies and procedures.
Categories of Employee Safety Engagement
The study included four categories of employee safety
engagement.
Category 1: Employee Safety
Engagement With Other Employees
Only 6.4% of respondents reported “mostly” or “always” to
all the questions measuring employee engagement with other
employees. These questions identified 1) whether an employee
would confront another employee about an unsafe act; 2) the
likelihood of the employee to participate in discussion during
safety meetings or training; 3) whether the employee partici-
pated in group preshift stretching; and 4) whether the employee
communicates with other employees outside of work.
 A majority of respondents (57.9%) reported that they some- Category 3: Employee Engagement
times, seldom or never participate in discussion during safety With Safety Policies & Procedures
meetings and training. The consequences of this low level of The data collected indicate a high degree of noncompliance
engagement with other employees meant that potential ideas with safety policies and procedures at the facility. The data
to improve safety efforts may go unheard, or that management suggest a connection between noncompliance and employee
may be less likely to be aware of hazards that must be identified injury status.
and corrected. Questions in this category identified whether an employee
One-third of respondents (33.3%) reported that they would 1) follows safety policies; 2) gets frustrated when employees do
always confront an employee about an unsafe act or behavior. not follow safety policies; 3) identifies that employees never take
More than one-quarter of respondents (27.4%) said that they shortcuts; 4) supports new safety policies and procedures; 5)
would always report an unsafe act or behavior. These data sug- fully completes lockout/tagout, and feels that safety policies and
gest that many unsafe acts and near-hit situations go unnoticed procedures do not get in the way of completing their job. Less
and unreported by colleagues or supervisors. This is important than 20% of respondents (16.3%) reported “mostly” or “always”
because a reporting culture is a prerequisite for an effective to all of the questions measuring employee engagement with
safety culture (Reason, 1997). policies and procedures.
The data indicate that employees communicate with each
other outside of work. A majority of these employees (64%) Category 4: Employee Self-Initiative
indicated that they would confront another employee about Related to Safety Solutions
unsafe behavior. Confronting a colleague can be a daunting Less than 10% of respondents (7.60%) reported “mostly” or
task, but when employees form bonds and relationships with “always” to questions measuring employee self-initiative. These
colleagues, they become emotionally questions addressed whether the employee 1) is likely to be in-
invested in their well-being, both at and
away from work. FIGURE 3
REACTION TO SAFETY AMONG INJURED EMPLOYEES
Category 2: Employee Safety
Engagement With Management 120
The data indicate less than 20% of
respondents (19.8%) reported “most- 100
ly” or “always” to all of the questions 80
measuring employee engagement with
60
management. Questions in this area ad-
dressed whether an employee would 1) 40
want to meet with management to solve 20
safety issues; 2) suggest new ideas to im-
0
prove safety; and 3) whether they would Workers injured Do not always Want to discuss Safety procedures
report an unsafe act or behavior to man- follow safety with get in the way of
agement that they personally observed. lockout/tagout management work
More than 80% of respondents reported procedures


“sometimes,” “seldom” or “never” to
these questions, indicating an opportu-
nity to more fully explore why employ- FIGURE 4
ees are not engaged in these activities,
as reasons could range from employees
REACTION TO SAFETY AMONG
simply not caring to management cre- UNINJURED EMPLOYEES
ating a culture in which such activity is
not encouraged. 70
Data indicate that more than 85% of
employees who had been at the com- 60
pany for 5 years or less would like to 50
be involved with management to solve
safety issues. This was in contrast to 40
less than 40% of employees overall who 30
reported wanting to meet with manage-
ment to solve safety issues. These data 20
indicate a potential shift in the safety 10
culture where more than half of the
employees hired in the past 5 years have 0
Uninjured Mostly or Would Mostly or Likely to Support new
experienced an injury but, given the workers always follow confront a always wears report unsafe policies and
opportunity, they would like to work safety coworker on PPE acts or procedures
with management to solve safety issues procedures unsafe behavior
and prevent these injuries from happen- behavior


ing again.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 39

volved in a solution to a safety concern; 2) would fix an unsafe
situation if s/he could; and 3) reviews the JRA prior to a shift.
Conversely, nearly 80% of employees reported that they
think about safety while at home with their families, and
more than 87% admit that they would like to be rewarded for
their safety efforts.
An association existed between gender and whether an
employee thinks of safety while at home. Of respondents
who identified as female, 87.5% reported that they “mostly”
or “always” think of safety while at home with family. In
contrast, 65.4% of respondents who identified as male re-
ported that they “mostly” or “always” think of safety while at
home with family.
Study Conclusions
The data collected identifies strong relationships between
employee engagement and workplace injuries. This study
concluded that at the facility surveyed, unengaged employees
are in fact much more likely to sustain a workplace injury as
compared to their well-engaged colleagues. Disengaging with
policies and procedures introduces an opportunity for error,
increasing an employee’s risk of injury. For example, bypass-
ing any part of lockout/tagout procedures can increase the
risk associated with the unintentional start-up of a machine
during maintenance. More than 60% of employees who report-
ed that they do not always fully complete lockout/tagout also
reported sustaining a workplace injury, identifying a distinct
relationship between employee engagement with policies and
procedures and workplace injuries sustained. Among injured
employees, 73.5% also reported that safety policies and proce-
dures at some point got in the way of doing their job. If these
employees chose to bypass safety procedures, they may have
put themselves at risk of injury.
FIGURE 5
HIERARCHY OF ENGAGEMENT
Work has
value and
meaning
Development
opportunities
Pay and benefits

are consistently treated with respect and corrective actions are
Note. Adapted from “Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance,” by S. Markos and M.S. Sridevi, 2010, International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(12) 89-96.
40 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
This study, although limited to one manufacturing plant,
supports previous literature of the need to engage employees in
occupational safety. Such engagement can result in a reduction
in injury occurrence. The study also supports the inclusion of
employee engagement in ANSI Z10 and ISO 45001 as a core
component of an effective OSH management system.
Recommendations for Increasing
Meaningful Employee Engagement
As noted, in ISO 45001 management leadership and employee
participation are fundamentally connected activities. More than
80% of respondents in this study indicated negative perceptions
of management and management involvement. Organizational
leaders can address these perceptions by creating a culture in
which management engagement in safety is encouraged and
included as a requirement in management annual performance
evaluations. Accomplishing this objective could include iden-
tifying structured avenues through which operations manage-
ment can obtain continuing education in the value and need of
including safety in daily operational activity and how efforts in
safety help achieve the organization’s operational goals.
The following roles are recommended for effective safety en-
gagement of employees, both hourly and management.
1) Employees’ Role as Safety Advocates
Encourage employees to become safety advocates.
•Give employees a voice. Cooper (2015) notes, “Safety is a
social activity.” Leaders should institute a system that encour-
ages employees to be engaged and gives them a voice.
The conclusion of a recent study on compliance from an
employee engagement perspective supports the notion of the
importance of employee voice and participation:
Drawing on Kahn’s engagement theory, we identi-
fied two behaviors through which employees might
contribute to an effective procedure management
system: allocation of effort in complying with the
procedures, and voicing their thoughts and opinions
about the procedures they use. Our results indicated
that when employees perceive the procedures are
useful for their jobs, they are more likely to invest in
their effort when complying with procedures. When
they are more confident with their job, they are more
likely to speak up about their opinions about the pro-
cedures. Furthermore, we also found that supervisor
could facilitate the perceived usefulness of proce-
dures and employees’ job self-efficacy by helping em-
ployees to achieve their job goals. (Xiaowen, Griffin,
Yeo, et al., 2018)
•Provide opportunities for employee development. One
of Deming’s (2000) 14 points for management is, “Institute
a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.” He
encourages education and self-improvement for everyone. A
genuinely vigorous program of education and training will help
employees become deeply engaged, better appreciate the orga-
nization they work for, and enable them to be more knowledge-
able and safer workers. Figure 5 shows hierarchy of engagement
(compared to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) where all employees
taken promptly for safety deficiencies.
•Establish and implement strategic safety measures.
Well-designed safety metrics that focus on leading indicators
and measures of success versus measures of failure release
motivation of the workforce to be engaged. Employees are
more likely to buy in to safety when they are involved in the
development of safety metrics. Three specific benefits of these
strategic safety measures that are process-based (rather than
outcome-based) include:
•illuminate (or clarify) safety expectations;
•increase safety awareness;
•influence supportive and safe behaviors (Blair, 2017).
Blair (2017) also describes practical applications of strategic
safety measures and additional benefits.
2) Management’s Role as Servant Leaders for Safety
Institute management’s role as servant leaders for safety.
•Management engagement with employee safety is key. Man-
agement engagement is a primary safety responsibility. Geller
(2008) suggests leaders must be held accountable and take
responsibility for failure in workplace safety. In a case study
involving the impressive turnabout in safety at General Mo-
tors (GM), Simon and Frazee (2005) repeat a quote from GM’s
president’s council: “Continuous leadership involvement is the
single most important factor for success.”
If management sets an example by engaging with employees,
especially as it relates to safety, it seems logical that employees
will be more engaged in safety themselves.
Dunlap (2011) identifies a key to encouraging employee en-
gagement: management engagement. Managers commonly en-
gage in safety when reacting to an incident. In some cases, this
may be the only time that management gets involved. Dunlap
states, “Rather than becoming involved only when an incident
occurs, ongoing engagement in the safety program allows man-
agers to understand an incident within the context of the com-
prehensive safety management system” (p. 45).
•Consistently treat all employees with respect. Treating all
employees with respect cannot be overemphasized. Research
indicates that the strongest indicator of positive safety perfor-
mance is when employees perceive they are respected by the
management of their organizations. “The pivotal finding from
Erickson’s research (1994) is the way in which employees are
treated is the factor most significantly related to the level of
safety performance” (Erickson, 2008). This finding might be
somewhat surprising to many in the safety profession who may
assume the factor most related to the level of performance is the
professional’s level of expertise or some other factor, such as an
employee’s level of safety awareness or understanding of safety
regulations.
Paul O’Neill (2014) emphasizes that in organizations
with the potential to be great, all employees are treated with
respect at all times. As CEO of Alcoa, O’Neill focused on
safety to an extreme level; he started with safety because it
cuts across all units and aspects of the organization, and he
believed that action in safety is part of the bigger picture in
life. O’Neill believed that organizations should establish en-
vironments resulting in employees experiencing purpose and
meaning in their work.
Treating people with respect is a universal and enduring
principle. It is not a technique or program of the month. Treat-
ing employees with respect is an overarching principle and a
prerequisite to meaningful employee engagement and motiva-
tion for safety.
•Engage by listening to employee concerns and taking cor-
rective actions. Judith Komaki developed a leadership model,
the operant model of effective supervision. Komaki (1998)
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 41
says, “If we had to sum up all that we have learned in the past
decade, we would encourage those who aspire to heighten their
leadership talent to lead by listening.”
A specific element of respect involves listening intently and
listening for opportunities when others speak. The best leaders
are great listeners. Listening with the intent to respond and
solve safety issues is just as important as talking or coaching
about safety.
•Servant leadership is a superior approach. Cooper (2015)
found strong support in the literature for servant leadership as
a superior approach to safety performance. Cooper’s research
revealed that servant leadership has a greater influence on em-
ployee engagement than other styles of leadership and “creates
a supportive environment that exerts a much stronger influence
on employee engagement, safety behavior and incident reduc-
tion” (Cooper, 2015).
Sarkus’s (1996) article on servant leadership in safety de-
scribes traits of the servant leadership model, which include
believing that problems and solutions are found within, em-
phasizing the growth and needs of others, and providing a
participatory model of leadership. Servant leadership develops
a foundation of trust, and gives employees a voice so they can
advocate for safety.
A strong safety culture requires visible, ongoing leadership
support. From a practical standpoint, leaders can practice ser-
vant leadership as it relates to safety. Two basic and important
activities that fall under the umbrella of servant leadership in-
clude (Blair, 2018):
1) Practicing safety leadership by walking around and focus-
ing on people, their needs and safety. These walks should not be
confused with inspections or audits.
2) Following up on necessary safety corrective actions.
Some of the benefits of walking around while focusing on
caring, listening and safety include:
•helping employees find their voice;
•building trust levels;
•increasing management knowledge;
•demonstrating a visible commitment to safety;
•reinforcing the safety process;
•demonstrating that leaders care through safety walks
(Blair, 2018).
•Servant leadership is primarily about character, not
technique. Leadership is more than a technique. There are
individuals whose titles infer leadership, but who exhibit very
little leadership, and there are many employees without such
titles who demonstrate great influence and character. Greenleaf
(1991) defines servant leadership as:
The servant leader is servant first . . . it begins with
the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve
first. Then, conscious choice brings one to aspire to
lead . . . to make sure other people’s highest priority
needs are being met. The ultimate test of servant
leadership is: Do those served grow as persons? Do
they, while being served, become healthier, wiser,
freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to
become leaders?
A distinction Hunter (2004) makes is that leadership is about
character. Hunter said character is about doing the right thing,
and leadership is also about doing the right thing. Hunter’s dis-
tinction between management and leadership is “Management
is what we do. Leadership is who we are.”
 Hunter (2004) claims we have glorified and complicated
leadership. Leadership is not primarily about personality,
because personality deals with style. Leadership is about
character, because character and leadership both deal with
substance. Servant leadership involves more than simply
learning from a book or seminar. It is a mind-set and a skill
that can be learned and mindfully practiced. Hunter and
others make additional points about leadership and servant
leadership, such as:
•leadership is a “latent skill waiting to be developed in most
people,” (Hunter, 2004);
•leadership is “character in action,” (Hunter, 2004);
•leadership can be defined as influence (Maxwell, 1993);
•the test of servant leadership: Does it help those who are
served to grow? (Greenleaf, 1991).
Hunter (2004) emphasizes that leadership development and
character development are one. He further describes how consis-
tently making ethical choices and establishing habits of integrity
develops character that makes powerful leadership possible.
Conclusion
Management’s leadership is the key to gaining eager and
meaningful employee engagement. Management must ensure
that all employees are always treated with respect, employees
are listened to and given a voice for safety, and existing hazards
are corrected or dealt with appropriately. The recommended
approach to accomplish this is to institute education and expec-
tations to apply servant leadership in an organization. PSJ
References
ANSI/ASSP. (2017). Occupational health and safety management sys-
tems [ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012(R2017)]. Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
Blair, E. (2017, Feb.). Strategic safety measures: Seven key benefits.
Professional Safety, 62(2), 32-39.
Blair, E. (2018). 3 keys to building a strong safety culture. Safety Deci-
sions, 4(3), 12-17.
Clarke, S. (2006). The relationship between safety climate and safety
performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11(4), 315-327.
Cooper, D.M. (2015, Feb.). Effective safety leadership: Understanding
types and styles that improve safety performance. Professional Safety,
60(2), 49-53.
Deming, W.E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dodge Data & Analytics. (2016a). Building a safety culture: Improv-
ing safety and health management in the construction industry. Smart-
Market Report. Bedford, MA: Author.
Dodge Data & Analytics. (2016b, Apr. 12). Construction industry is
split across a safety culture spectrum (Press release). Retrieved from
www.construction.com/news/construction-industry-split-across-safety
-culture-spectrum-apr-2016
Dunlap, E.S. (2011, Sept.). Safety leadership: Finding common
ground. Professional Safety, 56(9), 42-49.
Erickson, J.A. (2008, Nov.). Corporate culture: Examining its effects
on safety performance. Professional Safety, 53(11), 35-38.
Geller, E.S. (2008, March). People-based leadership: Enriching a work
culture for world-class safety. Professional Safety, 53(3), 29-36.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1991). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Gyekye, S.A. (2005). Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety and job
satisfaction. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonom-
ics, 11(3), 291-302.
Hunter, J.C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle:
How to become a servant leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). Oc-
cupational health and safety management systems—Requirements for
42 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
guidance for use (ISO 45001:2018). Retrieved from www.iso.org/stand
ard/63787.html
Kahn, W.H. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement
and disengagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal,
33(4), 692-724.
Komaki, J. (1998). Leadership from an operant perspective. London,
U.K.: Routledge.
Ludwig, T.D. & Frazier, C.B. (2012). Employee engagement and orga-
nizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 32(1), 75-82.
Manuele, F.A. (2012). Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10
and serious injury prevention (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Markos, S. & Sridevi, M.S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to
improving performance. International Journal of Business and Manage-
ment, 5(12) 89-96.
Maxwell, J.C. (1993). Developing the leader within you. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson Inc.
Mullins, R. (2018). Measuring employee engagement: Are engaged em-
ployees less likely to sustain a workplace injury? (Master’s thesis). Avail-
able from Online Theses and Dissertations, 545.
O’Neill, P. (2014, Feb.). Paul O’Neill on safety leadership [Video]. Re-
trieved from https://youtu.be/0gvOrYuPBEA
OSHA. (2016). Recommended practices for safety and health pro-
grams (Publication No. OSHA 3885). Retrieved from www.osha.gov/
shpguidelines
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Al-
dershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.
Sarkus, D.J. (1996, June). Servant-leadership in safety: Advancing the
cause and practice. Professional Safety, 41(6), 26-32.
Seo, D.C., Torabi, M.R., Blair, E.H., et al. (2004). A cross-validation of
safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Safety Research, 35(4), 427-445.
Simon, S.I. & Frazee, P.R. (2005, Jan.). Building a better safety vehicle:
Leadership-driven culture change at General Motors. Professional Safety
Journal, 50(1), 36-44.
Svensden, E. (2016). 6 drivers of employee engagement: The road rules
of the “super” culture highway [PowerPoint presentation]. Presented at
BLR Safety Culture 2016, Austin, TX.
Williams, J.H. (2008). Employee engagement: Improving participa-
tion in safety. Professional Safety, 53(12), 40-45.
Woods, S.A. & Sofat, J.A. (2013). Personality and engagement at work:
The mediating role of psychological meaningfulness. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 43(11), 2203-2210.
Xiaowen, H., Griffin, M., Yeo, G., et al. (2018). A new look at compli-
ance with work procedures: An engagement perspective. Safety Science,
105, 46-54.
Rebecca Mullins, M.S., is an environmental, safety and health specialist
in the steel fabrication industry in Louisville, KY. She is a recent graduate of
Eastern Kentucky University, and holds an M.S. in Safety, Security and Emer-
gency Management and a B.S. in Criminal Justice.
Earl Blair, Ed.D., M.S., CSP, FASSP, teaches safety management
courses at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN. He is a professor, author
and a frequent speaker at corporate, national and international events. Blair
received the Lifetime Achievement in Safety Award from BLR in 2018 and the
honor of ASSP Fellow in 2019. He is a professional member of ASSP’s Central
Indiana Chapter and a member of the Society’s Academics and Consultants
practice specialties.
E. Scott (Scotty) Dunlap, Ed.D., CSP, is a professor in Eastern Ken-
tucky University’s Safety, Security and Emergency Management graduate
program where he teaches both campus and online courses and leads grad-
uate student research. Dunlap is a professional member of ASSP’s Louisville
Chapter, as well as a member of the Society’s Academics Practice Specialty.
HUMAN PERFORMANCE
Peer-Reviewed
A Systematic Approach to
SAFETY
PERFORMANCE By John F. Kowalski and John C. Summers
I
IN TODAY’S BUSINESS WORLD, success necessitates meeting
more than the required minimum standards (regulations).
Safety performance is about individuals, leaders and the orga-
nization working together using safety (human) performance
fundamentals and tools to protect personnel, property and the
place (environment).
Safety has come a long way since the 1970s. For years, tra-
ditional safety focused on separating individual pieces of the
process to obtain results. A systemic approach to safety perfor-
mance is fundamentally different from traditional safety in that
it focuses on the safety process.
A high performing organization is grounded on five funda-
mental safety performance principles:
1) People make errors.
2) Organizational values and programs influence behaviors.
3) Behaviors are influenced by what is encouraged and rein-
forced.
4) Errors and risk can be reduced through the use of safety
performance tools.
5) Events can be eliminated through the use of defenses.
Senge (2006) defines system thinking as “a way of
thinking about, and a language for describing and under-
standing, the forces and interrelationships that shape the
behavior of systems.”
Systems thinking focuses on how people interact with the
others in a system, “a set of elements that interact to produce
behavior” (Aronson, 1996). Systems thinking expands its view
to take into account increasingly larger numbers of behavior
interactions (organization, leader, individual) in a system (the
process) that produces desired results.
Each individual plays a key role in working together as part
of the organization to achieve the desired safe results. The be-
KEY TAKEAWAYS
•andThisorganizational
article provides a systematic thinking approach using human
performance fundamentals and analysis tech-
niques to improve safety performance. The techniques described
apply to individuals, leaders and the overall organization.
•The authors present a six-part model based on the philosophy that
to reduce errors and eliminate events of consequence, adequate
human performance tools and defenses must be in place.
•The theory aspects are presented, as well as several real-life exam-
ples from various industries where applying the correct actions or
methods leads to improved, consistent results.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 43
havioral aspects include those by the individual as well as those
supported and reinforced by the organization.
In all cases, individuals, leaders and the organization should
consistently strive for high safety performance standards. An
aspect that plays a key part in what safety behaviors are em-
ployed is the culture and subcultures of the organization. Sim-
ply stated, culture can be considered as “the way we do things
around here.”
To establish a proper perspective, consider that, according to
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2018a; b) data, the rate of fatal-
ities in the U.S. has almost leveled off (with a recent slight in-
crease) while the rate of nonfatal injuries has steadily declined.
Why do significant events, including injuries, continue to occur
even though lower-level incident rates are declining? Some may
answer that lower-level incidents are not being reported. Why
could this be occurring? Possible reasons include:
•rewarding the consequence (i.e., low incident rates), which
indirectly encourages nonreporting;
•creating a punishment atmosphere when lower-level events
are reported;
•not encouraging the reporting of lower-level incidents and
near-hits.
Leaders in many organizations tend to reward and recognize
job results (production) and frequently overlook or take for
granted the prevention behaviors necessary to safely complete
the job. Additionally, production results are visible and es-
tablish natural feedback, whereas prevention behaviors get no
natural feedback. For example, you wear a hard hat and safety
glasses and shoes all day in a hot, humid environment. At the
end of the workday, nothing happened. So, you might say, “I am
really glad I wore this hard hat, safety glasses and shoes; they
caused me to sweat more, I probably lost some additional hair,
and nothing happened that demonstrated these were needed.”
We often associate safety with the OSHA incident rate or
days without a lost-time incident. With this premise, the orga-
nization could (and sometimes does) conclude that no OSHA
recordables means no problems.
In some organizations, after an incident (event) the primary
focus is on identifying what the person did or did not do that
caused the event. Additionally, the cause is frequently identified
as an “unsafe behavior” and opportunities for improvement
focus on the individual. Dekker (2014) offers:
Do you try to understand why it made sense to do
what s/he did? The worker probably did not come to
FIGURE 1
SAFETY PERFORMANCE PROCESS

Programs,
processes, •Does the investigation include reviewing preparations for
procedures job performance, what job previews, hazard analysis, walk
and training downs or prejob briefings occurred before work commenced?
•What previous operating experience, if any, existed before
Organizational Hazard risk this performance?
behaviors analysis •What was the focus of the job brief?
Often, the focus before and during the task is on what it takes
Safety to get the job done. High-reliability organizations also focus on
performance what to avoid while achieving success. A site vice president at a
process nuclear power plant in northwest Ohio has great words to con-
sider when briefing workers: “We have all the time necessary to
perform the job correctly the first time, we just don’t have any
Safe results Team behaviors time to waste.”

Safety Performance Process

Safety performance combines industrial safety, human per-
Individual formance and organizational performance into one process to
behaviors protect people, the property (plant) and place (environment).
The safety performance process has six key elements starting
with organizational behaviors and rotating clockwise toward
safe results (Figure 1). Simple-to-use programs, processes and
procedures, and hazard risk analysis are vital parts of the safety
FIGURE 2
performance process. However, they alone do not guarantee
NORMALIZED DEVIANCE success. To be effective, the alignment of behaviors of the orga-
nization, leaders and individuals is needed. Each aspect of the
safety performance process is outlined here.

Real risk level Organizational Behaviors

Safety starts with the culture of the organization. Safety
performance is management-sponsored and leadership-driven
by the collective behaviors of the company, from the board of
directors to the workers in the field.
Perceived risk After providing human performance training at a power sta-
Risk

Event tion in western Pennsylvania, training feedback was solicited

Time
work to do a bad job. If what s/he did made sense to
him/her, it probably makes sense to others as well.
That points to systemic conditions to examine.
If an assumption is made that individuals come to work
to do their jobs, not to get hurt, then digging a little deeper
to identify organizational factors that influence individual
behaviors is warranted. In the worst possible scenario, the
person performed the correct action, and a hidden (latent)
flaw or problem existed, leading to the event. All the individ-
ual behavioral change actions in the world will not improve
this condition.
Peeling back the layers can lead to more important questions
(and answers):
•What about the behaviors of the leaders?
•Does the investigation include review of the work situation
that existed when the event or injury occurred?
•Does it include supervisor and manager follow-up to identi-
fy how they may have influenced (or did not influence) on-the-
job behaviors?
from trainees, some of whom provided negative feedback. A
meeting was held to discuss the subject material. During the
meeting, the attendees huddled around one individual, a sea-
soned worker and an informal leader who the workers respect-
ed. Attendees commented that they liked the training, but that
their supervisors would not let them use the human perfor-
mance techniques.
In the days that followed, after being asked several times to
help lead the human performance effort, the informal lead-
er finally agreed to help. With his leadership, the program
thrived. Workers became involved with the process and made
several suggestions to improve it. Workers also started to coach
each other and apply safety performance tools more consistent-
ly. A key result was that errors decreased.
Every organization has leaders like this informal leader at all
levels of the organization. It is critical to identify and engage
these leaders to improve safety performance.
While interacting with hundreds of companies and thousands
of employees, the authors have often been asked, “How can
we reduce errors?” After analyzing hundreds of consequential
events, a few common themes usually appeared. First, individu-
als were not consistently applying appropriate error prevention
tools. Second, and more importantly, defenses to protect against
errors were either flawed or missing. On further investigation,
the authors frequently identified an organizational weakness. If
a program was in place to reduce errors and ensure defenses, it
was inconsistently applied. Worst case, there was no program, no
systematic approach, to protect individuals and the organization.

44 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

The authors frequently recommended consistently using appro-
priate safety performance tools and verifying that at least one
defense is in place in the event that an error occurs.
Just like other programs and processes, the safety program
must be predicated on the fact that people are not perfect; they
are human and will make errors.
For several reasons, sometimes the best workers make the
most grievous errors. We typically give the best workers the
most important, time-restricted tasks. We assign them the most
complicated tasks, recognizing that they are our heroes who “get
the job done.” This reinforces to the workforce the importance of
“getting it done.” Unfortunately, this can unduly influence a work
group about the importance of getting the job done versus get-
ting the job done safely. A simple example: A maintenance man-
ager at a large western Pennsylvania electrical generating facility
with approximately 1,000 employees created a three-statement
philosophy: “1) Be safe; 2) do it right; 3) git’r done.”
Interviews approximately 6 months after this was imple-
mented with personnel from the maintenance organization
indicated that every person, when asked for the maintenance
philosophy, answered “git’r done.” After additional questioning,
personnel would frequently add that there was a safety part
to this philosophy also. As an example, suppose a high-per-
forming maintenance technician is doing a time-critical task
by himself at 2:00 a.m. and the job requires brief work in the
overhead (that had not been staged for). Which of the following
pathways will the technician likely take?
1) Stop, call the supervisor and wait for a ladder to be deliv-
ered (but the job is to be completed by 2:30 a.m. or the plant
must shut down).
2) Walk to the ladder storage area (a brisk 10-minute walk)
and get a ladder.
3) “Git’r done” by climbing on the handrail (without fall pro-
tection as it is not staged) adjust the valve, spending less than 2
minutes performing an unsafe act.
Used properly, safety performance fundamentals and tools
are a good defense, fighting the normalization of deviance that
can exist in the culture. This term was a result of analyzing
NASA incidents.
Figure 2 is a pictorial explanation of normalization of devi-
ance. As an example, when less than 100% of safety devices exist,
a heightened sense of uneasiness exists across the organization.
As personnel initially perform work with this type environment,
respect is strong for performing actions associated with the miss-
ing barriers. Depending on the time element of how long workers
must live with the missing barriers, the risk perception of the
threat diminishes. People drift away from consistent use of pro-
cedures and processes that were designed to maintain defense-
in-depth and prevent vulnerability to an event.
The NASA Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is a good exam-
ple of normalization of deviance. On Feb. 1, 2003, Columbia
disintegrated upon reentering Earth’s atmosphere, killing all
seven crew members. Investigations revealed that NASA’s orga-
nizational culture and decision-making processes had been key
contributing factors to the incident, with the agency violating
its own safety rules (CAIB, 2003).
For example, one design requirement stipulated that no foam
shall be released during shuttle liftoff and flight. In 107 shuttle
launches, foam breaking loose had been identified on every
mission, and analyzed away (mostly via paper calculations) as a
challenge. Since the start of the shuttle program, NASA manag-
ers had known that foam was a problem.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 45
Specific to the Columbia mission, NASA managers also dis-
regarded warnings from engineers who identified that a large
piece of foam struck the orbiter wing shortly after takeoff.
NASA leadership denied three requests for in-orbit pictures by
Department of Defense satellite photography (to assess damage
potential) during shuttle flight pass by.
Organizational behaviors key messages: Safety performance
initiatives begin at the highest levels of the organization. Hu-
mans make errors and organizational focus either reduces or
increases errors.
Programs, Processes, Procedures & Training
Management provides the programs, processes and proce-
dures necessary to achieve safe job performance. A high-per-
forming organization has simple, easy-to-understand programs,
processes and procedures with effective training programs.
The foundation for success of highly reliable organizations
is not based on meeting minimum requirements but rather is
based on best safety practices. As an example, a nuclear site had
a loss of all power March 20, 1990 (U.S. NRC, 1990). Although
the nuclear fuel was down to its last safety barrier, natural
circulation cooling, for about 18 hours, the senior executive
identified at the start of the event that all Nuclear Regulatory
Commission requirements were met. In follow-up speeches and
seminars, the executive used this example as a reason to stay
above requirements, because that is only the minimum level of
safety protection.
Leadership implements and reinforces use of the programs
and processes to set up jobsite conditions for safe job perfor-
mance. In all cases, safety must be integrated into procedures
with the desired safe behavior reinforced on a continuing basis.
Educating the organization and providing an effective train-
ing program is a key building block for success. This effort must
involve workers and supervisors from development to imple-
mentation. Dynamic hands-on learning exercises are preferred
so trainees can visualize the desired safe behavior.
Following is an example from another nuclear site. The chal-
lenge was to create an interactive and dynamic learning center
in which people can demonstrate proper safe work practices
and use of safety performance tools. The purpose was to simu-
late jobsite conditions with various industrial and radiological
issues that challenged the students.
Training is staffed by qualified instructors, but the discussions
in the center are facilitated by subject matter experts from the
line organization. This grassroots approach drives ownership of
safety and human performance from the lowest level of the orga-
nization. The center has been a great benefit to the workers. Most
enjoy the hands-on approach, the open discussions of safe work
practices and the use of safety performance tools.
Preparations to perform a task are just as important as the
task itself. The work planning process sets up the job for safe
performance. Job planning includes a job safety analysis specif-
ic to the task to be performed.
The work planning process frequently includes the following:
•precautions and limitations;
•energy source controls (lockout/tagout);
•confined space considerations;
•job accessibility (scaffold/personnel lifts);
•PPE;
•fire prevention;
•special considerations;
•procedures/work instructions;
 TABLE 2
DETERMINE PROBABILITY
TABLE 1
DETERMINE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE Probability
value
Probability that a sequence
Likelihood of events will result in injury
5 Frequent Injury has occurred from hazard
Consequence Potential consequence (most exposure
value probable result of unabated hazard) 4 Probable Injury possible, not unusual; has
5 Catastrophic: Serious injury or fatality even 50-50 chance each hazard
(SIF). Hazards exist that if left unabated exposure
would most likely result in a fatality or 3 Occasional Injury would result from an
disabling injury (e.g., unprotected fall unusual sequence or
hazard, exposed high-voltage conductor, coincidence
unguarded equipment/tools; exposure to 2 Remote Injury has never happened after
chemicals). many years of exposure, but is
possible
4 Critical: Potential SIF. Hazards exist that if
1 Improbable Injury practically impossible (has
left unabated the most likely
never happened)
consequence would be life altering.
3 OSHA-recordable injury (non-SIF):
Hazards exist that if left unabated the
most likely consequence would be an TABLE 3
injury requiring medical treatment DETERMINE FREQUENCY
beyond first aid (e.g., a person lifts
extremely heavy or awkward load that
OF EXPOSURE
could likely result in sutures, medical
prescription, physical therapy, restricted Exposure frequency
work or lost time). Exposure (how often personnel are
2 Medical case: Hazards exist that if left value Likelihood exposed to the hazard)
unabated the most likely consequence 5 Frequent Continuous (or many times
would be an injury that would require
daily)
medical care. Examples include non-
4 Probable Frequent (about once daily)
OSHA-recordable medical treatment (e.g.,
tetanus shot). 3 Occasional Occasional (once per week
1 Minor injury/near-hit: Hazards exist that to once per month)
if left unabated could result in an injury 2 Remote Unusual (once per quarter)
that would be very minor in nature and 1 Improbable Rare (has been known to
would not require first aid. occur)

•critical steps or actions that can cause immediate irreversible
harm to people, property (equipment) or the place (environment);
•tools and equipment;
•chemical control (safety data sheets);
•past learning experiences.
During job preparation, a task preview is performed by the
workers to ensure that the task can be performed as planned in
a safe manner. During the walk down, adjustments are made as
necessary. Subject matter experts provide procedures and work
instructions needed to perform the job safely. This includes the
industrial safety manual, written to meet OSHA regulations.
Procedures and work instructions provide the safe work
practices that include the warnings, cautions and notes, and
identify whether any critical steps are necessary for safe task
performance. Strict compliance with procedures and work
instructions is needed for safety. People put themselves at in-
creased risk for error with the possibility of injury if they do
not follow procedures and work instructions. When these pro-
cedures and work instructions are faulted, workers must stop
and correct the deficiencies.
Programs, processes, procedures and training key messages:
The quality of programs, processes, procedures with consistent
adherence reduces the risk of error. All levels of the organization
are trained to recognize at-risk conditions and behaviors as well
as how to correct, coach and reinforce desired behavior.
Hazard Risk Analysis
Jobsite conditions are an advertisement of safety stan-
dards. Although everyone says they have high expectations,
existing standards dictate the minimum acceptable condi-
tions and behaviors. Remember that everyone’s first impres-
sion is what they see. When a work area is clean and neat,
there is positiveness to the work environment. Good jobsite
conditions encourage work to be performed in a safe and
organized manner. Poor jobsite conditions can create an un-
necessary hazard.
Presence of safe jobsite conditions means having a safe place
for materials, tools and equipment, and arranging things to
help create safe working conditions. An example of this is a
NASCAR or Winston Cup garage. The work area is well lit and
clean, and tools are stored in an organized and neat manner.
This promotes efficient, error-free rebuilds and repair. Much is
the same for other businesses; time and errors cost money.
Every job performed involves some level of hazards and risk.
Once the risk is clear, appropriate defenses can be applied to
reduce the risk to an acceptable level. All work activities require
some amount of control, oversight and management involve-
ment. As the risk increases, the need for control and oversight
increases. A risk analysis process identifies where additional
controls, barriers and oversight are needed to either reduce the
likelihood of an error or to minimize the consequences of an
event should an error occur. Hazard and risk analysis provides
a basic understanding of:
•hazard identification;
•risk assessment;
•hazard mitigation controls and risk reduction.
One risk strategy used by several nuclear utilities is preven-
tion, detection and correction. Risk analysis efforts work best

46 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

FIGURE 3
DETERMINE A RISK SCORE FOR EACH HAZARD
Risk (R) = probability (P) x exposure (E) x consequence (C)
Consequence (C)
Minor OSHA- Critical
injury/ Medical recordable (potential Catastrophic
Likelihood near-hit case (non-SIF) SIF) (SIF)
Exposure
1 2 3 4 5
Probability (P) frequency (E) Score
Frequent Injury has occurred Continuous
for hazard (or many 25 25 50 75 100 125
exposure: 5 times daily): 5
Probable Injury possible, not Frequent
unusual; has even (about once
16 16 32 48 64 80
50-50 chance each daily): 4
hazard exposure: 4
Occasional Injury would result Occasional
from an unusual (once per
9 9 18 27 36 45
sequence or week to once
coincidence: 3 per month): 3
Remote Injury has never Unusual
happened after (once per
many years of quarter): 2 4 4 8 12 16 20
exposure, but is
possible: 2
Improbable Injury practically Rare (has
impossible been known
1 1 2 3 4 5
(has never to occur): 1
happened): 1

when prevention aspects are identified and applied. But no one TABLE 4
can think of all the what-ifs, so an effort to analyze potential LEVELS OF RISK
detection and correction actions is needed. Best performance
occurs when the prevention actions achieve success, but a pre-
pared organization is ready to implement correction and detec- Risk score Risk priority Risk rating
tion actions to a reasonable level. 80 or higher 1 - High Not acceptable
There are hazards associated with every activity performed. 50 to 79 2 - Serious Manageable with
Typical job hazards include:
•chemicals or dust; administrative
•unwanted energy; controls
•overexertion; 11 to 49 3 - Medium Tolerable with
•gravity; administrative
•configuration; controls
•mechanical; 10 or lower 4 - Low Acceptable
•environment.
Some hazards such as housekeeping and tripping hazards
can and should be fixed as they are found. Fixing hazards on •catastrophic: serious injury or fatality (SIF);
the spot emphasizes the importance of safety and takes advan- •critical: potential SIF;
tage of a safety leadership opportunity. •OSHA-recordable (non-SIF);
Hazards by themselves do not cause injuries. Contact with •medical case;
hazards through energy transfer can cause harm to people, the •minor injury/near-hit.
environment or the plant. The energy can be kinetic, potential, A consequence/probability matrix can be developed to rank
thermal, electrical, elastic, gravitational, magnetic, radiant, risks, sources of risk and risk treatment based on the level of
sound, nuclear or mechanical. If the energy can be eliminated, risk (ANSI/ASSP Z690.3-2011). To develop a consequence/prob-
then there would be no injury or illness. ability matrix, first determine the potential consequence (C) of
Once all hazards are identified, the risk of harm to personnel, the hazard if it is unabated using Table 1. Next, determine the
property or the environment is computed as follows: risk (R) = probability (P) a sequence of events will result in injury using
consequence (C) x exposure (E) x probability (P). Table 2. Determine the frequency of exposure (E) to the hazard
The potential consequences of task performance with expo- using Table 3. Finally, determine a risk score for each hazard
sure to the hazards can be: using the chart in Figure 3.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 47

FIGURE 4
HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS: MULTILAYER APPROACH TO HAZARD MITIGATION
Increasing
worker and
Individual behavior/PPE
supervisor
participation
Team behavior
Increasing Oversight controls
organization
participation Administrative controls
Isolation/warning
Engineering controls
Substitution
Elimination
Hazard
Cultural controls
Note. Adapted from Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents (1st ed.), by J. Reason, 1997, Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Based on the risk score, there are four levels of risk (Table
4): green (lowest), yellow, orange and red (highest). Most tasks
performed are either green or yellow risks. Risks in the red
levels must not be performed without appropriate manage-
ment approval.
•Green risk levels 1 to 9: Frequently performed activities that
resulted in events of minor or negligible consequences (i.e.,
injury requiring first-aid treatment, near-hit environmental or
process safety event).
•Yellow risk levels 6 to 12: Occasionally performed activities
with exposure typically less than 1 hour that resulted in events
of moderate consequences (i.e., injury requiring medical treat-
ment, minor environmental event or process safety event).
•Orange risk levels 13 to 18: Remotely performed activities
(fewer than two times a day or less than a few hours a month)
that have the potential to result in a significant injury, environ-
mental or process event.
•Red risk levels 19 to 25: Infrequently performed activities
that could result or recently resulted in an SIF, environmental
or process event.
Example: Removal of a fire protection system. The risk analy-
sis classifies the evolution as a yellow risk score.
•Approval is required by management.
•Preparation: Work documents that should be reviewed
include the continuous use procedure to shut down the fire pro-
tection system, any reference use procedures developed to cover
an abnormal condition during shutdown of the system and any
applicable past experience when this was performed before.
•Prejob briefing: Supervisor oversees the prejob briefing. Discus-
sion includes asking “What is the worst thing that could happen?”
Ensure that hazard controls are addressed before the start of work.
48 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
Event
•Oversight: Supervisor will oversee any critical steps or
key actions.
A multilayer approach can be used to mitigate the hazard:
eliminate or reduce exposure. As shown in Figure 4, like the
Swiss cheese model used by Reason (1997), hazards (harm
to people, the plant or the environment) would need to pass
through several layers of defenses to become an event.
Unfortunately, there are small to large flaws (holes in the Swiss
cheese model) that increase the potential for an event of conse-
quence. Increased worker and supervisor wariness (a healthy un-
easiness) is needed at the work site. The elimination or reduction
in hazards necessitates increased organization participation.
Cultural, leadership, administrative and engineering controls
are the strongest hazard mitigation controls. Cultural controls
require management sponsorship and leadership support of
the overall risk management process. Administrative processes
ensure that programs and quality procedures are in place. En-
gineering controls are hard or physical defenses such as inter-
locks or safety barriers existing or put into place for protection.
When a hazard is identified, the highest level of control must
be applied, commensurate with the risk level. Lower value con-
trols may be used in the interim until long-term controls are
implemented. Additional controls, barriers and oversight are
needed to either reduce the likelihood of an error or to mini-
mize the consequences of an event should an error occur.
Kahneman (2011) introduces two systems of thinking. System 1
is fast, automatic and emotional (unconscious thinking). System 2 is
slow, deliberate, systematic and rational thinking. Safety performance
tools (i.e., job hazard analysis adherence, job brief, safety minute, and
self- and peer-checks) are a form of System 2 thinking to deliberately
focus a worker’s attention on safe behaviors before performing a task.
TABLE 5
HIERARCHY OF HAZARD MITIGATION CONTROLS & RISK REDUCTION

Hazard
mitigation
control Description Examples Risk reduction
Cultural The assumptions, values, Personnel in excellent organizations Sponsors and
controls beliefs, and attitudes and practice safe work practices and error- supports overall
related leadership practices prevention rigorously, regardless of their risk
that encourage both high perception of a task’s risk and simplicity, management
standards of performance or how routine it is and how competent the process
mediocrity, open or closed performer. The integrity of this control
communication, and high or depends on the respect they have for each
low standards of performance. other and their pride in the organization.
Engineering Redesign equipment or •Redesign system or process Eliminates or
controls process that automatically •Physical interlocks reduces
reduces risk. •Improve material handling process consequence by
one level
Elimination Remove the hazard from the •Remove hazard (e.g., pinch point) Eliminates
area or workplace. •Reduce human interaction consequence
•Repair damaged equipment
Substitution Replace with a less hazardous •Safer travel path Reduces
material or process or •Substitute less hazardous chemical consequence by
equipment. •Automatic versus manual tools one level
Isolation Isolate the hazard from the •Guards/stops Reduces
person. •Presence-sensing device likelihood up to
•Fencing along a walkway 70%
Warning Visible or audible warning •Alarms Reduces
systems improving awareness. •Signs or labels likelihood up to
•Barriers 30%
Administrative Policies, procedures, practices •Procedures (e.g., JHAs, permits) Reduces
controls and training to control risk. •Training likelihood up to
•Work management 30%
Oversight Verifies safety margins, •Planning Reduces
controls integrity of programs, •Risk management likelihood up to
procedures, processes and •Safety meetings 10%
quality of performance. •Observations and coaching
Team behavior Team awareness of hazards •Prejob briefing Reduces
and mitigation measures and •Effective communications likelihood up to
PPE to be used. •Peer check 10%
Individual Individual awareness of hazard, •PPE Reduces
behavior/PPE mitigation measures and PPE •Self-check likelihood up to
to minimize risk. •Work instruction/procedure use and 10%
compliance
•Stop when unsure

Most events are initiated while performing repetitive, per- (JHA), oversight, prejob brief, safety minute and PPE would
ceived as routine low-risk green activities. Team and individual reduce the risk to from 27 to 12.3 (54%):
behaviors were added to the hierarchy of hazard mitigation con- Initial risk = likelihood x consequence = 9 x 3 = 27
trols and risk reduction (Table 5) to include safety performance
tools as the last line of defense from an event (Figure 5, p. 50). Likelihood (3 x 3 = 9) Consequence
Depending on the level of risk, the application of a defense OSHA-recordable
(e.g., job hazard analysis) and the use of safety performance Probability (P) Exposure (E)
(non-SIF)
tools can reduce the risk of a given task. Following is an exam-
ple of risk reduction with associated calculations. Injury would result
Occasional (once
Using a portable grinder to cut pipe would be perceived as a from an unusual
per week to once
low-risk task. However, many people have been injured, some sequence or 3
per month)
seriously, while using a portable grinder. Using the risk matrix coincidence
3
(Figure 3, p. 47), risk is calculated to be 27 (yellow) [probability 3
(3) x exposure (3) x consequence (3)]. Using the hazard miti- Risk reductions from the hierarchy of hazard mitigation con-
gation controls and risk reduction chart, job hazard analysis trols and risk reduction table (Table 5):

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 49

 •JHA -30% likelihood; risk = 6.3 x 3 = 18.9;
•oversight -10% likelihood; risk = 5.7 x 3 = 17.1;
•prejob brief -10% likelihood; risk = 5.1 x 3 = 15.3;
•safety minute -10% likelihood; risk = 4.6 x 3 = 13.8;
•PPE -10% likelihood; risk = 4.1 x 3 = 12.3.
In this case, the risk was reduced from 27 to 12.3 (54%) by
having and adhering to the job safety analysis, followed by safety
performance tools. Substituting a different method to cut the
pipe (e.g., band saw or pipe cutter) could further reduce the risk.
A risk matrix can also be used to aid the decision-making
process when considering hazard/risk mitigation controls to
determine whether the risk is acceptable. Safety committees
typically have a list of items that need to be improved. Some
refer to it as a top 10 list. Most items on the list typically in-
volve improving jobsite conditions. Items on the list would
include conditions that require maintenance to restore as
designed safe conditions. Some items suggest new systems or
process changes.
Using a hazard risk analysis approach, we can determine
hazards and risk as well as the effectiveness of existing and pro-
posed risk mitigation controls. A five-step process can be used:
1) Identify the hazard(s).
2) Determine existing risk without hazard/risk mitigation
controls.
3) Determine risk reduction with existing hazard/risk miti-
gation controls.
4) Evaluate proposed additional or modified hazard/risk mit-
igation controls.
5) Quantify risk reduction with additional hazard/risk miti-
gation controls.
Using this approach, an organization can quantify risk
reduction as a result of recommendations or suggestions to
improve jobsite conditions. One can determine risk associated
with existing jobsite conditions and controls, and controls with
proposed additional or modified jobsite conditions and controls
to determine return on investment.
Hazard risk analysis key messages: Every job performed in-
volves some level of hazards and risk. Safety performance tools
reduce the likelihood of human error.
Team Behaviors
Teamwork is determined by how people are treated by team
members, both by the supervisor and by peers. If both the su-
pervisor and the group make fair decisions, people will have
positive attitudes toward the supervisor (trust) and the group
commitment leading to better team functioning.
Trust is related to how well the team functions. Team mem-
bers in a high-performing team build trust, and team members
readily identify themselves with the team. Team identification
leads to team trust resulting in cooperation.
Teamwork determines how effectively people get work done. How
people are treated sets the stage for how safety is perceived to be
valued by the organization, the culture for raising safety issues, and
the likelihood that people will talk with each other about safety.
Team behavior key message: Crucial conversations occur at
all levels of the organization, resulting in consistent alignment
of the culture.

FIGURE 5
HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS INCLUDING
SAFETY PERFORMANCE TOOLS AS LAST LINE OF DEFENSE

Increasing
worker and
Event
Individual behavior/PPE
supervisor
participation
Team behavior

Increasing Oversight controls n

o
c ati Self and
organization uni peer check
participation Administrative controls mm
i ve co ure
ec t uns Safety
Eff e n
Isolation/warning wh minute

Job Safety
Engineering controls brief performance
Substitution tools
Program, process,
Elimination procedure adherence

Hazard

Cultural controls
Note. Adapted from Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents (1st ed.), by J. Reason, 1997, Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

50 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

Individual Behaviors
Individuals bring their knowledge and skills to the work-
place. Their behaviors were molded through their biases and
filters through years of experience. Individuals are also influ-
enced by the culture of the organization. It is up to leadership
to establish high standards to meet the organization’s goals.
Individual behavior key message: Individual behavior is in-
fluenced by organizational culture and what is encouraged and
reinforced. Safety performance tools used daily promotes situa-
tional awareness and hazard recognition.
Safety Performance Tools
Safety performance tools promote good situational aware-
ness. Situational awareness is having an accurate understand-
ing of our surroundings: where we are, what happened, what is
happening, what is changing and what could happen.
The military defines situational awareness as the ability to iden-
tify, process and comprehend the critical elements of information
about what is happening to the team with regard to a mission.
More simply, it is being aware of what is going on around you.
Safety performance tools are proven techniques promot-
ing good situational awareness on a daily basis. Similar to
PPE, safety performance tools reduce errors that can lead
to events including injuries. The likelihood (risk) of errors
can be reduced by 10% through proper use of safety perfor-
mance tools.
From the job brief to self and peer checks, the tools influence
team and individual behaviors to reduce risk and perform
the job safely. Every task performed starts with a prejob brief,
followed by a safety minute, program, process and procedure
adherence, and self and peer checks, and ends with a postjob
brief. Throughout the job, personnel effectively communicate
and stop when unsure.
Job Briefing
The most important teamwork tool used for successful
work outcome is the job briefing: pre- and postjob. The prejob
brief sets the stage for safe job performance. It is a huddle-up
of all the players involved with the job to discuss how the
work is to be performed. Fundamentally, it is a meeting to
discuss what it will take to succeed, and what must be avoid-
ed (to preclude failure).
Workers should have the opportunity to participate in the
development of prejob briefing checklists. As required by
OSHA before each job, the person in charge conducts a job
briefing with all workers that covers, at a minimum, hazards
associated with the work, procedures to be used, any special
precautions, control of energy sources, PPE required and envi-
ronmental controls.
The most effective prejob brief is performed in a reverse
manner from the workers to the supervisor. Having workers
engaged in the job brief ensures that roles and responsibilities
are determined for safe job performance. When a worker takes
the leadership role for conducting a job brief, it establishes an
understanding of the task with engagement, ownership and
teamwork. For jobs of higher risk or infrequently performed
tasks, the supervisor would take a more active leadership role in
conducting the briefing.
The postjob brief provides the opportunity to discuss what
went well and learning opportunities for future performance.
Capturing the experience of job performance is vital for future
safe performance.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 51
FIGURE 6
THREE-PART COMMUNICATION
Get receiver’s attention
and deliver the message
Repeat the
paraphrased message
Confirm message was
correctly understood
Safety Minute
Before starting work at the jobsite, when distracted or re-
turning after a break, workers take a safety minute to establish
situational awareness and recognition of job hazards.
After arriving at the jobsite, take time to establish situation-
al awareness (takes about a minute). A walkaround or look-
around is used to verify that jobsite conditions and all other
assumptions made at the prejob brief are correct, and to verify
that work is ready to proceed.
Companies have various versions of this concept: 2-minute
rule, 2-minute drill, “take 2 for safety” or a safety minute. A
typical safety minute may contain the following:
Explore: Look up, down and around asking:
•Is this the right unit/component?
•What are the hazards?
•Review hazard/risk controls discussed at prejob brief.
•What’s the worst thing that can happen and why won’t it?
What else can happen?
•Are signs/barriers in place?
•Stop and seek help if unsure.
Program, Process & Procedure Adherence
Rule-based errors can be prevented by adhering to written
programs, processes and procedures (e.g., permits and work
instructions, such as work packages and clearance instruc-
tions, that support creating and maintaining a safe work en-
vironment). When working in a rule-based environment it is
key to seek direction (vs. acting on assumptions) when faced
with uncertainty.
Place-keeping is extremely important when performing pro-
cedure/work instructions. A frequent type used is the circle/
slash method to ensure that the procedure or instruction is per-
formed properly. This is also beneficial for when personnel are
distracted or interrupted. The method is:
1) Circle the step number to start the action.
2) Read the step.
3) Perform the action required.
4) Slash through the circle after completing the step.
Also, place-keep notes, cautions and warnings to ensure that
they are understood.
If a series of steps must be repeated, then establish a
place-keeping method for the repeated steps, such as placing a
sequential number next to the steps being reperformed, then
repeat place-keeping.
The risk of not following a procedure, process or work in-
struction can be as high as 50/50 with potential to harm people,
property and the place (environment).
Self & Peer Checks
Self-checking is a safety performance technique for in-
dividuals to focus attention on the task. The individual
focuses attention on the appropriate component, to think
about the intended action and its expected outcome before
performance, and to verify component condition after per-
formance.
The most common self-checking technique is the STAR
technique: stop, think, act and review. This technique is used
when checking protective equipment, reading signs, identifying
equipment to be worked on, operating plant equipment or per-
forming other functions.
A peer-check is a series of actions by two individuals work-
ing together at the same time and place, before and during a
specific action, to prevent an error by the performer. Although
together in the same area, independence of thoughts must be
maintained. The intent is to prevent an error before the per-
former takes the action. People can request peer-checks at any
time for any work situation.
Effective Communication
Effective communication is clear, concise and free of ambigu-
ity. It is provided in a way that minimizes the chance of being
misunderstood.
Three-part communication entails transmission of a message
by the sender, a repeat back or a paraphrasing of the message
by the receiver, and an acknowledgment of the accuracy of the
repeat-back by the sender (Figure 6, p. 51).
It is used for all communications that involve giving or tak-
ing direction associated with process activities, especially for
critical steps or actions. Examples include communicating sys-
tem, plant or component status or parameters, or directing ac-
tions affecting personnel safety or system, plant or component
configuration.
The fast-food industry found that the significance of human
errors can be high in this high-volume and low-profit-margin
industry. The industry highly relies on satisfied repeat custom-
ers. Fast-food restaurants use self-checks, peer checks and re-
peat-back communications and computer screens to reduce the
potential for errors. For example, when placing an order at the
drive-up window at a typical fast-food restaurant, the screen
displays the order and the server repeats back the order for an
accuracy check.
An example of another restaurant that has implemented
actions to reduce errors and improve performance is a waffle
restaurant with 2,100 restaurants in 25 states. A visit to several
locations in the Atlanta, GA, area identified interactions be-
tween the customer, servers and cook consistently use error-re-
duction techniques:
•self-checking and peer-checking techniques;
•two- and three-way communications when preparing cus-
FIGURE 8
PREJOB BRIEF CHECKLIST EXAMPLE

FIGURE 7
SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Move from reactive
lagging measures:
•compliance driving the safety
program;
•low employee involvement in
safety;
•training heavily focused on
technical aspects of job;
•focus on a single cause;
•correct the individual failure;
•narrowly apply solutions;
•OSHA-recordable injuries;
•lost-time incidents;
•workers’ compensation costs;
•regulatory violations.
To predictive
leading measures:
•leaders inspiring and motivat-
ing employees to own safety and
go beyond minimum standards;
•employees more involved in
developing and implementing
safety and training programs;
•training incudes both techni-
cal and soft skills;
•focus on organizational cause;
•correct system/process failure;
•improvement opportunities;
•reporting lessons learned, near-
hits, good catches or suggestions;
•recognition of safety perfor-
mance tools use;
•observation and coaching
participation;
•quality of safety meetings;
•self and independent assess-
ments;
•safety perception surveys;
•average time to correct defi-
ciencies.

52 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

tomer orders (grill operators use repeat-back to verify the cus-
tomer’s order called out by servers);
•reminders of specific parts of the order are placed on a clean
plate; some industries refer to this practice as flagging or robust
barriers (small pieces of hash browns, cheese, a jelly packet, a
mayonnaise packet, pickles, etc., help grill operators know what
the order is and on which plate to place specific items).
Stop When Unsure
A powerful tool that can create teamwork and prevent people
from making mistakes is to stop when unsure. How is it used
and is it recognized as a desirable behavior in the workplace?
Generally, the people who make fewer mistakes (errors)
have an in-depth understanding of safety error traps, followed
by use of appropriate safety performance tools for the desired
behavior that produces safe positive results. Following are key
safety error traps for consideration:
•Time pressure: Time pressure or being hurried can lead to
taking shortcuts. Shortcuts can quickly lead to injuries, damage
to equipment or harm to the environment.
•Distractions: Distractions are a concern as people multitask
or use social media. Interruptions lasting 2.8 seconds on aver-
age were found to double the error rate in a sequencing activity
(Altmann, Trafton & Hambrick, 2013).
•Inaccurate risk perception: Having performed the job previ-
ously without errors leads to complacency and overconfidence
that can result in having an inaccurate risk perception. Just
because a worker has done the job several times before does not
mean there is less risk. Low risk does not equal no risk.
•Assumptions: When we make assumptions and choose to
not use or refer to programs, processes or procedures, the risk
of error can be as high as one in two.
When uncertainty exists, individuals are always expected to
challenge assumptions and unexpected conditions or to con-
firm a detail. This is particularly true when saying or thinking
the following words and phrases: Probably, I assume, I think,
maybe, should be, not sure, might, we’ve always, I’m 90% certain.
Stopping when unsure and contacting leadership are the only
acceptable actions to prevent errors and events. This alerts peo-
ple to imminent hazards, warning signs and uncertainties in
the work environment or with the work instruction.
When questions are asked, we need to follow through
and ensure that the question is properly answered before
proceeding. Proceeding in the face of uncertainty can sig-
nificantly increase the risk of error. The entire organization
must support a stop-when-unsure environment to promote
trust and teamwork.
Safe Results
The phrase, “What gets measured gets done” means that reg-
ular measurement and reporting keeps us focused, because we
use that information to make decisions to improve results. The
most critical measurements are called key performance indica-
tors. These are agreed-upon measurements that reflect the orga-
nization’s critical goals for success: a numerical snapshot that is
measurable, objective and actionable (Wolf, 2010).
But unlike behaviors associated with production and cost,
behaviors associated with good safety performance have no
natural feedback mechanism unless an event occurs (e.g., inju-
ry, equipment damage).
In safety, there are two basic types of performance measures:
predictive “leading” and reactive “lagging.” Historically, safety
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 53
has primarily focused on reactive lagging measures, which are
real, easily counted and deal with the consequences of behav-
iors that are visible, tangible and measurable. Unfortunately,
lagging measures are always past tense. For years, most organi-
zations have used only lagging measures (e.g., OSHA data such
as recordable incidents).
Lagging measures do not provide adequate instructive guid-
ance, nor do they provide motivation to improve performance
behaviors. In other words, they do not tell us enough about why
we are succeeding or failing. In some cases, they encourage
people not to report injuries or errors by providing financial
incentives for reducing the rate or numbers of injuries.
To achieve the next level of safety performance, we need to fo-
cus on the behaviors of the organization by moving from reactive
measures to predictive measures (Figure 7). Predictive leading
measures allow organizations to take a more proactive approach
to improving safety performance with workforce ownership, em-
powerment and involvement. They measure key behaviors that can
have a predictable relationship to the desired safe performance.
A system-thinking-oriented organization asks, “How did
they achieve it?” instead of, “What did they achieve?” What
steps do we take to keep people safe every day? It takes an extra
effort to use proactive measures such as safety meetings, sug-
gestions, job briefs and participation.
Proactive leading measures keep the focus on the behaviors
that resulted in successfully safe performance, the desired results.
In the 1990s, a nuclear power plant initiated a human perfor-
mance program to resolve performance issues that did not meet
the plant’s expectations. The plant started with an independent
assessment of performance. The independent assessment team
made two basic recommendations:
1) Obtain workforce involvement.
2) Focus on one safety performance tool.
As a result, human performance leadership teams were creat-
ed with workforce involvement. The team created zero-incident
performance (ZIP). ZIP successfully integrated safety perfor-
mance tools with the existing peer-to-peer safety observation
program. The team primarily focused on the prejob brief and
developed its own checklist.
The team focused on job preparations, specifically the pre-job
brief. It developed a prejob brief checklist (Figure 8). The check-
list was developed to meet minimum OSHA requirements
(1910.269) along with specific behaviors that needed to be per-
formed for safe and successful job completion.
The first few items on the checklist identify the risk score of
the task. According to the risk management program, low-level
repetitive tasks (risk score 1) required that a worker, designated
as the safety advocate, lead the prejob brief. For higher-level risk
tasks, the level of oversight increased: supervisor (level 2), man-
ager (level 3) and plant manager/vice president (level 4).
Over time, briefing checklists were created by every depart-
ment (operation, maintenance, chemistry, security, radiation pro-
tection, engineering, training). Each department owned its brief
checklists, monitored use and revised them as necessary. Person-
nel who performed excellent job briefs were recognized.
The accumulation of these everyday interactions leads to
building relationships and trust within the organization. As an
example of everyday recognition, a worker is recognized for us-
ing a 2-minute drill prior to material handling (Figure 9, p. 54).
When participation in processes improves, people are en-
couraged and develop a sense of personal responsibility for
continued contributions and continuous improvement.
FIGURE 9
EVERYDAY RECOGNITION EXAMPLE
FIGURE 10
HUMAN PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE:
PREJOB BRIEFS VS. EVENTS
Prejob briefs
Prejob briefs
Events
Events
Over time, the number of prejob briefs and peer-to-peer
coaching increased dramatically and events decreased (Figure
10). Later, ZIP became keep improving performance (KIP) as
the program went to other power stations.
At this station, it became unacceptable to not perform a prejob
brief for employees and contracted workers who were later referred
to as supplemental personnel. It can take several years of consis-
tent focus on new behaviors to change a safety-focused culture.
This organization also experienced several examples of
coaching that were recognized on a daily basis. As participation
increased, safety performance improved.
The U.S. nuclear power generation has greatly reduced the
number of lost-time or restricted-duty OSHA-recordable inju-
ries over the past several years. The industrial safety incident
rate (lost-time and restricted work injuries per 200,000 hours)
declined from 2.0 in 1990 to 0.02 in 2018. During the same pe-
riod, the capacity factor (ratio of actual electrical energy output
to maximum) increased from 70% to 93.4% (INPO, 2018).
Many factors led to and continue to sustain the nuclear pow-
er generation safety culture. A key contributor was the human
and organizational performance initiative in 1999.
A safety performance principle is that behaviors are in-
fluenced by what is encouraged and reinforced. Interactions
54 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
FIGURE 11
CONTACT TIME VS. ERROR RATE,
2-YEAR PERIOD
(direct or indirect) between management, supervision and the
workforce encourage or reinforce values. Given work demands,
it is not uncommon for management to spend little or no time
in the field having conversations with workers. Every conver-
sation, body language or memo sends a message about you and
what you value. One company found a direct correlation be-
tween contact time and error rate. It found that as contact time
increased, the error rate decreased (Figure 11).
As a result, observations and coaching interactions by man-
agement and supervision were scheduled. The results of these
interactions (both positive or improvement opportunities) were
openly discussed at the next day’s meeting. “Coach-the-coach”
training followed, and coaches were recognized for high-quali-
ty observations and coaching. An it’s-not-an-observation-until-
there-is-a-conversation approach followed. The organization’s
active participation by sharing safety performance experiences
with others is a powerful motivational tool to recognize and
reinforce safe behavior.
The human error rate can be dramatically reduced using
safety performance tools. However, getting to the next level of
safety requires strong defenses (hazard and risk mitigation con-
trols) to prevent events including injuries. Safety performance
is just as important as quality, cost and production. In the nu-
clear power industry, the focus on human and organizational
performance had a direct effect on production and the environ-
ment. Proactive measures allow organizations to take a more
instructive approach to improving safety performance with
workforce ownership, empowerment and involvement.
Leaders in a system thinking organization enable and re-
inforce discussions of the processes to prevent injuries. Such
conversations increase awareness of doing the right thing, at
the right time, all the time. When an outcome such as 1 million
hours incident free is reached, a consequence of successful be-
haviors, we must recognize the series of small safety wins that
led to this achievement, indicating that the process is working.
Safe results key message: Focus on proper safe behaviors to
achieve desired results, not just results, creating an environment
in which people are encouraged to take safe personal responsibili-
ty for themselves and others.
Conclusion
The benefits of safe and reliable job performance are evident
in the productivity and job satisfaction of the workers. Safe and
reliable behaviors at all levels are substantially influenced by
the culture that exists within the organization. Successful orga-
nizations that have established productive work environments
value the importance of safety. These organizations encourage
and support a strong focus on the understanding and preven-
tion of errors.
A systematic approach is needed to achieve and maintain the
focus on safety and consists of the following key elements:
1) Organizational behaviors:
•Safety performance initiatives begin at the highest levels of
the organization.
Humans make errors and organizational focus either reduces
or increases errors.
2) Programs, processes, procedures and training:
•The quality of programs, processes and procedures with
consistent adherence reduces the risk of error.
•All levels of the organization are trained to recognition
of at-risk conditions and behaviors as well as how to correct,
coach and reinforce desired behaviors.
3) Hazard risk analysis:
•Every job performed involves some level of hazards and risk.
•Safety performance tools reduce the likelihood of human error.
4) Team behavior:
•Crucial conversations occur at all levels of the organization,
resulting in consistent alignment of the culture.
5) Individual behavior:
•Individual behaviors are influenced by organizational cul-
ture, and what is encouraged and reinforced.
•Safety performance tools used daily promote situational
awareness.
6) Safe results:
•Focus on proper safe behaviors to achieve desired results,
not just results, creating an environment in which people are
encouraged to take safe personal responsibility for themselves
and others.
A safety initiative that focuses on a systematic approach to
improve and sustain safety performance derives its power from
awareness and active participation of everyone in the organiza-
tion. Active participation with the process at all organizational
levels creates a culture in which safety is a valued component of
overall operations.
Finally, safety performance is management sponsored and
leadership driven. A key to success is the passion for excel-
lence in safety performance that every leader of the organiza-
tion displays. PSJ
References
Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G. & Hambrick, D.Z. (2013). Momentary
interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 143(1), 215-226.
ANSI/ASSP. (2011). Risk assessment techniques (ANSI/ASSP Z690.3-
2011). Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
ANSI/ASSP. (2017). Occupational health and safety management sys-
tems [ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012(R2017)]. Park Ridge, IL: ASSP.
Aronson, D. (1996). Overview of systems thinking. Retrieved from
www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf
Bennett, J.T. & Kohlmeyer, J.L. (2014). Operational risk management:
A model for business management systems integration. Proceedings of
Safety 2014, ASSP’s Professional Development Conference, Orlando, FL,
USA.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2018a, Nov. 8). Employer-reported
workplace injuries and illnesses, 2017 (Press release). Retrieved from
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 55
BLS. (2018b, Dec. 18). National census of fatal occupational injuries
in 2017 (Press release). Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
cfoi.pdf
Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). (2003). Report vol-
ume 1, August 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
Dekker, S. (2014, Aug.). Employees: A problem to control or solution
to harness? Professional Safety, 59(8), 32-36.
Dekker, S. (2014). The field guide to understanding human error (3rd
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Geller, E.S. (2005). People-based safety: The source. Virginia Beach,
VA: Coastal Training Technologies Corp.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). (1997, Sept.). Excel-
lence in human performance. Atlanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2006a, April). Human performance tools for workers (INPO
06-002). Atlanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2006b, Oct.). Human performance reference manual (INPO
06-003). Atlanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2007a, Feb.). Human performance tools for engineers and other
knowledge workers (INPO 05-002 Rev 1). Atlanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2007b, Dec.). Human performance tools for managers and su-
pervisors (INPO 07-006). Atlanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2009, Feb.). Procedure use and adherence (INPO 09-004). At-
lanta, GA: Author.
INPO. (2018). Annual reports. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Krause, T.R. (2005). Leading with safety. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Martin, D.K. & Black, A.A. (2015, Sept.). Preventing serious injuries
and fatalities. Professional Safety, 60(9), 35-43.
OSHA. (2014). Job briefing (29 CFR Part 1926.952). Retrieved from
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.952
OSHA. (2015). Job briefing [29 CFR 1910.269(c)]. Retrieved from
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.269
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents (1st
ed.). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the
learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC). (1990, Apr. 16).
Loss of vital AC power with subsequent reactor coolant system heat-up
(Information notice No. 90-25). Retrieved from www.nrc.gov/reading
-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1990/in90025.html
Wolf, L. (2010, Sept. 15). What gets measured gets done: Key perfor-
mance indicators. University of California, California Digital Library.
Retrieved from https://cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2010/09/15/what-gets-measured
-gets-done-key-performance-indicators
John F. Kowalski, CSP, ASP, CUSA, is owner and president of Safety
Performance LLC. He is a safety and human performance professional with
more than 40 years of diverse experience in safety and human performance.
Since 1977, he has held various positions including senior consultant, staff
advisor, industrial safety engineer, staff nuclear advisor, project engineer
and engineer. He has extensive knowledge of power plant design, operation,
industrial safety and human performance, and is recognized as an industry
safety and human performance expert providing training, presentations,
workshops and articles. Kowalski holds a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from
Pennsylvania State University. He is a professional member of ASSP’s West-
ern Pennsylvania Chapter.
John C. Summers is an expert in human performance, safety culture and
process improvement with more than 44 years’ experience. He has been a se-
nior manager/director at several utilities as well as Institute of Nuclear Pow-
er Operations leader for the human performance initiative to improve the
nuclear industry. In addition, he has provided general and focused training
to more than 30,000 utility employees. Summers has presented papers at
conferences around the world. He was a key U.S. contributor to International
Atomic Energy Agency’s Managing Human Performance to Improve Nuclear
Facility Operation. Summers holds a master’s degree in Organizational Tech-
nology from Kennesaw State University.
BEST PRACTICES
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
to Ensure Safety for All at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute
By Annette P. Chism
With nearly 600 wet labs, more than 250,000 chemicals on campus and a commitment to ensuring the safety of
students, faculty and staff, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute had an organizational need to evaluate and strengthen
the procurement, receiving, storage, distribution, use, tracking, disposal and security of chemicals on campus.
Ensuring safety and efficient handling
for such a large number of chemicals can
be challenging for many research and
pharmaceutical organizations. The task
is made even more complex by detailed
tracking requirements for certain chem-
icals as imposed by regulatory agencies
such as U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and Drug Enforcement Agency.
Comprehensive Review
In August 2017, Rensselaer formed
a strategic advisory team consisting of
academic researchers and administrative
leaders to review policies, procedures
and administrative practices related to
handling and tracking all chemicals. The
project was led by the author, who is the
university’s director of environmental
health, safety and risk management
(EH&S), and Ron Moraski, its director
of procurement. They were charged with
making recommendations to the vice
president for human resources to which
the EH&S department reports. The first
task was to identify gaps in the current
system. These gaps included:
•With no central receiving depart-
ment in place, deliveries were being
made directly to labs and offices and
were sometimes left in a hallway by the
delivery person.
•No method existed to easily deter-
mine all chemicals on campus.
•It was difficult to provide chemi-
cal-specific and research-related infor-
mation to first responders in the event of
an on-campus issue. Without this infor-
mation, responders were more likely to
be placed in harm’s way.
•Management of sensitive chemicals
was handled by principal investigators
(PIs) and in most cases was performed
effectively; however, EH&S was not made
aware of purchased chemicals and was
not provided the opportunity to review a
PI’s management plan for the chemicals.
•Regulatory reporting was difficult due
to the number of individual chemical
inventories EH&S collected from each of
the 600 labs. Even with a standardized
inventory format, each lab was at liberty
56 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
to maintain the data in the format that
the PI deemed appropriate.
•Specific chemical training on han-
dling benzene, for example, was hard for
EH&S to track when the department had
to rely on the PI to inform the depart-
ment when purchasing the chemical.
•EH&S did not have a means of col-
lecting a comprehensive list of faculty,
staff and students in each lab. This was
problematic due to the manner in which
EH&S provides umbrella lab safety train-
ing. The lack of a list of names tied to an
individual lab meant that automatically
assigning training was not possible.
Based on the review, the advisory
group recommended an institution-wide
chemical central receiving function with
state-of-the-art inventory management
for all labs.
Seeking Input From All Players
The two directors invited represen-
tatives from across the campus who
ordered, handled, budgeted for, received
and used chemicals, and asked for their
input and feedback regarding the im-
plementation of a new system. Feedback
included a feeling of disconnection
between the purchasing process and
chemical inventory management. Lab
staff members requested a better way
to purchase chemicals and for EH&S
to develop a better method for track-
ing specific chemicals. They were also
concerned with untrained individuals
in offices receiving chemicals. Over
several months, the team gathered input
about current recordkeeping practices.
This process revealed that each lab was
manually keeping its own records on
individual spreadsheets, which meant
no visibility to the university’s complete
inventory and a lack of awareness about
potential hazards.
All of this input helped the advisory
group determine what was needed in
terms of both space and resources to
fully implement a centralized chemical
management system on a campus that
had a decentralized procurement and
receiving process. All stakeholders were
also asked about any concerns they had
about a switch to a centralized system
and those concerns were factored into
the plan. The advisory group also de-
termined what was needed in terms of
space, proximity to a loading dock and
safety equipment, including eyewash sta-
tions, a shower and proper ventilation in
the new receiving area.
After months of research, the institu-
tion established a centralized chemical
receiving office within the EH&S depart-
ment. The author, along with the director
of procurement, led the implementation
of the chemical management system.
The new, state-of-the-art, institu-
tion-wide chemical management system
put in place at the university is supported
by a leading provider of cloud-based
business automation solutions. Rensse-
laer is the first university in the U.S. to
use this system to integrate procurement,
management and inventory of chemicals
with receiving across the entire univer-
sity. The system allows for managing the
complete chemical management life cycle
from sourcing of chemicals to receipt,
tracking and disposal, and provides the
university with the ability to track all
chemicals on site and properly manage
access to effectively meet compliance and
safety requirements. In addition, the sys-
tem provides users with up-to-date safety
data sheets and detailed material hazard
profiles for reporting.
How It Works
Within the centralized chemical receiv-
ing office, a chemical receiving specialist
receives all chemicals, audits the received
chemicals against the order from the PIs,
applies a bar code to each individual chem-
ical, enters the bar codes into the lab-spe-
cific inventory, enters expiration dates into
the system for chemicals that require ex-
piration information, attaches a one-page
sheet with information regarding chemi-
cal-specific safety training requirements,
attaches a safety data sheet, repackages the
chemical and delivers the shipment to the
specific lab. With direct delivery to the lab,
the unsafe practice of delivering chemicals

to inappropriate locations is eliminated
and the receiving specialist has an oppor-
tunity to speak with and become familiar
with each lab’s occupants. By knowing the
lab occupants and their research, EH&S
better understands where gaps may exist in
training, engineering controls or adminis-
trative controls.
If special handling procedures are in-
volved, the chemical receiving specialist
enters that information in the university’s
online learning management system, which
then enables human resources and EH&S to
provide appropriate training to the employ-
ee who procured the particular chemical.
With the launch of the university’s cen-
tral receiving and chemical monitoring
program, regulated materials such as those
found in OSHA’s Z tables can now be iso-
lated. A learning management system is
used to assign chemical-specific training,
and EH&S advises end users on appropriate
administrative and engineering controls.
To maintain accurate inventory, it is
imperative that when a chemical is used
up or expired and ready for disposal
there is an easy method for PIs to remove
the chemical from their inventory. A
chemical disposal sheet placed behind
plexiglass is posted in each wet lab on
campus. The lab occupants are trained
to peel the label and place it on the plexi-
glass when a bottle is empty or the chem-
ical has expired. The chemical receiving
specialist then scans the bar code out
of inventory and removes the bar code,
which allows for inventory management
on a weekly or even daily basis.
For full chemical life cycle manage-
ment, the institution determined that
grouping hazardous waste management
with central receiving and inventory
TWILIGHTSHOW/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS
management would provide the safest
and most comprehensive way to under-
stand usage and regulatory controls.
When hazardous waste is ready for
pickup, lab personnel complete an online
request for pickup form. This form is
managed by chemical receiving where
specialists know the waste profile and
provide details to the university’s waste
vendor. The waste vendor uses the infor-
While the ultimate responsibility
still lies in the labs, this
system not only makes it more
efficient, but gives researchers
the same tool that many of the
most successful pharmaceutical
companies use.
mation to collect the waste and move it exact chemical they need. Implementa-
to the 90-day storage area once a week. tion of the system was successful because
Knowing and understanding the waste it was intentionally designed to make
profile before pickup provides a safer way acquiring and managing researchers’
for the vendor to be prepared for each inventory much easier so they can focus
pickup and transport. This method also on their research.
allows EH&S to quickly determine where
the largest amount of waste is being gen- Ongoing Work
erated on campus. Safety staff have begun to conduct a
Previously, lab workers had to man- physical survey of all labs to identify
ually add and subtract inventory items, those that are in fact wet labs and to
and conduct an annual audit of chem- inventory legacy chemicals that were
ical quantities in their labs. With the already present in labs before the new
new integrated system in place, such system was instituted. An estimated
information is available on a daily basis. 250,000 chemical containers on the
For quality control purposes, PIs are campus before implementation of the
required to conduct an annual physical new system need to have bar codes ap-
inventory of containers and quantity. plied as well.
Lab workers can now update their in- The hard cost savings of the new sys-
ventory on a regular basis. In the case of tem have yet to be determined, but the
labs that contain hazardous chemicals, a university anticipates savings. The system
hazardous assessment signage program is saving time and energy for researchers,
affixed to the outside of the lab door pro- as well as minimizing risk. PIs and lab
vides a strong visual that allows emergen- managers now have a central place to buy
cy responders to readily identify which chemicals, which makes it easier to refer
chemicals are present in the event that to safety information, search, purchase.
they need to enter the lab. After imple- It puts all the information in one place
menting the system, university personnel and allows them to compare costs. The
have easy access to lab-specific informa- institution has already seen significant
tion needed to ensure the safety of staff, results in supplier reduction, from using
faculty and students with minimal dis- more than 200 suppliers down to about
ruption of PIs’ and lab managers’ work. 25, with 90% of the university’s chemical
purchases now coming from its top five
A More Efficient System preferred suppliers.
That Focuses on Safety Managing chemicals at a university is
Through its review, the university no small task. Until now, much of the re-
recognized that managing the inventory sponsibility and manual work fell on the
of chemicals manually on spreadsheets research community. While the ultimate
and managing the safety database as it responsibility still lies in the labs, this
had been was cumbersome and ineffi- system not only makes it more efficient,
cient. Now, all the information is readily but gives researchers the same tool that
available when researchers need to place many successful pharmaceutical compa-
an order. Researchers can now search nies use, supporting the university’s goal
not only by the chemical name, but also of training students in the standards and
by CAS registry number or structure, practices used by the leading commercial
which makes it even easier to find the research labs. PSJ
Annette P. Chism, M.B.A., CRM, is the director of environmental health and safety and
risk management at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with 20 years’ experience in the safety and
environmental field from aviation safety to higher-education safety and insurance. She holds an
M.B.A. from Norwich University. She is also licensed as a mold assessor in the state of New York
and is a licensed private pilot. Chism is a member of ASSP’s Eastern New York Chapter and a past
president of the Society’s Midnight Sun Chapter.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 57
WORTH READING
THE RELATIONSHIP FACTOR
IN SAFETY LEADERSHIP
By Rosa Antonia Carrillo, 2019, Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge
A review by Pam Walaski, CSP
About 5 years ago, I became acquainted with Rosa Anto-
nia Carrillo when I heard her speak at the first ASSP Women
In Safety Excellence Retreat in Orlando, FL, and since then,
I’ve tried not to miss a blog post, webinar or
opportunity to hear from her. Her thinking
about the importance of relationships and in-
clusion in safety have impacted on how I ap-
proach some of the very technical consulting
on management systems and auditing that
are part of my current job. To make sure I
remember to appreciate the disconnected way
in which workers sometimes behave, “Inclu-
sion precedes accountability” is a permanent
note on the whiteboard in my office.
I made sure to get on the list to obtain a
copy of The Relationship Factor in Safety
Leadership as soon as it was published. Read-
ing the glowing front cover reviews by influ-
ential leaders of our profession, and some of
my personal favorites such as Sidney Dekker,
Edgar Schein, Mei-Li Lin and Carsten Busch,
I dug in, knowing I was in for a real treat.
In the first part of the book, Carrillo lays
the groundwork by clarifying the role of
inclusion and belonging in relationship-cen-
tered safety leadership, noting that safety outcomes are con-
trolled, good, bad or in-between, through relationships. She
lays out the path from relationships built on inclusivity and
trust to conversation as the trigger for change to the ways in
which safety leaders can create opportunities for a team to
solve complex problems and improve overall performance. She
also establishes the critical role of psychological safety in the
workplace, which is the shared belief that a team of workers is
a safe place for interpersonal risk-taking. If you have been to
any national conferences lately, including ASSP’s professional
development conference in New Orleans, LA, have been active
on LinkedIn, or read safety-related periodicals, print or online,
you will recognize psychological safety as an emerging term
many of us would do well to understand, appreciate and learn
to integrate into our roles as safety leaders.
Carrillo follows the introductory section by laying a solid
research foundation about the importance of relationships,
reminding the reader that it is not about liking a team member,
but about simply being connected. Through a discussion of the
work of social psychologists such as George Mead and Abra-
ham Maslow, she establishes the biological need for humans to
form relationships to survive. Business theories such as those
established by Douglas McGregor (theory X and Y) and Chris
Argyris (ladders of inference) explore what motivates a worker
and how they view their workplace. Finally, she elevates con-
cepts by Erving Goffman and others on the lengths humans
will go to present themselves as acceptable and to fit in, and
how the fear of appearing incompetent keeps them from letting
their coworkers know when they do not understand how to
perform a work task safely or see an unsafe act or condition.
58 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
Carrillo ties it all together by noting the dangers that evolve
from leaders who believe that suppressing emotions is an im-
portant method of establishing their role in the hierarchy and
of their knowledge and status.
Carrillo then provides two different
frameworks for those who want to change or
improve the way they perform as safety lead-
ers. The first is eight principles of relation-
ship-centered leadership, which address how
leaders view team members and the effect
of the leader’s expectations on performance.
Four of the beliefs resonate strongly with me:
1) true communication takes place in the
presence of relationship and trust; 2) inclu-
sion precedes accountability; 3) people will
speak up to stop an unsafe act if it is in their
best interest; and 4) drift is a positive quality
of adaptive human behavior.
Appreciating beliefs about trust and when
a worker perceives that an environment is
conducive to speaking up provide the miss-
ing link for those organizations that have
top-notch policy and procedure manuals,
but struggle with compliance with those
written documents. Carrillo notes, “We all
know that policy does not change behavior, but companies
still expend a great deal of energy getting the right wording
in the hopes that it will shift an attitude and behavior” (p. 50).
Carrillo continues, “Listening is motivation, and it is a power-
ful motivator, but for some reason it is believed that pizza and
donuts can replace it” (p. 51).
Understanding drift requires the realization that drift in
and of itself cannot be prevented, only managed, and that it
represents actions that make sense at the time to the worker
who is not following a procedure. In that light, an organization
can use drift as a learning opportunity rather than a reason to
blame and discipline workers. After all, Carrillo reminds us
that when drift results in cost savings or some type of success-
ful adaptation, we celebrate it as innovative.
Carrillo ends the section on the eight beliefs by noting that
our beliefs create our thoughts, our thoughts lead to actions
and our actions produce results. If the results in our organiza-
tion related to safety performance and behavior are not what
we want, more procedures and more discipline will not lead to
the change we seek. Leaders must examine their beliefs about
human nature and behavior and correct them.
Having established the groundwork for the eight beliefs, Car-
rillo then discusses trust in an organization. Based on the eight
beliefs, she makes an excellent case for how leaders can mend
broken trust and the importance of each leader taking it on as
personal, recognizing that current leaders most likely contrib-
uted to the current state and that moving on requires an ac-
knowledgement, and a sincere apology and different behavior.
The last section of the book outlines the second framework
for change: five leadership orientations for conversation. Based
on Carrillo’s extensive work with organizations over the years,
these orientations represent different aspects of a leaders’ frame
Fire in My Mouth
By Julia Wolfe, 2019, UMG
of mind that contribute to successful problem-solving through
Recordings Inc.
employee engagement and provide a path for leaders who are
serious about changing how they view their role in creating an Julia Wolfe’s Fire in My
environment for trusting conversations. They are unification Mouth is a musical perfor-
(building relationships toward group identify), penetration mance that documents the
(deeper inquiry and diverse perspectives), resolution (finishing 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Fac-
a task despite unexpected obstacles), enactment (viewing mis- tory Fire. The title, Fire in My
takes as opportunities, encouraging innovation and resilience) Mouth, comes from a quote
and perseverance (engaging the will for continuous improve- from labor activist Clara Lem-
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
ment). Even though each is essential, they are not linear. lich Shavelson, “Ah, then I had was the deadliest industrial disaster
Although it is a slim book at about 100 pages, the author fire in my mouth,” and also in New York City history, and it
packs a lot of excellent information, references and ideas in this references the fire itself, which inspired changes in laws and regula-
book. The stories of Carrillo’s work over the years are inspira- killed 146 garment workers, tions to make workplaces safer.
tional and provide a path to change that any leader can begin if most of them young immi-
s/he understands and appreciates relationships. Carrillo ends grants. The music is performed in four parts: immigration,
with a personal note of experience with exclusion growing up factory, protest and fire. Drawing on oral histories, speeches,
and being ostracized for dual Mexican and U.S. heritage. She interviews and historical writings, Wolfe captures the experi-
reminds us that exclusion in some fashion “permeates every ence of immigrant life, the language of protest, the sounds of
failed initiative and organization” (p. 99). This book can be a the factory and the horror of the fire through Italian and Yid-
game-changer for anyone who is open to rethinking his/her dish folk tunes, harmonizing and discordant voices and click-
views on human nature, trust and communication. ing percussion. Listen at https://bit.ly/31HiTeQ.

The Complete Safety at Work & Emergency

First Aid Pocket Guide Control: A Holistic Approach
By John Furst, 2018, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press By Benedito Cardella, 2019, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
A review by Todd Clayton A review by Kristina Anderson, GSP
The Complete First er curriculum can be Benedito Cardella has writ- The amount of information pro-
Aid Pocket Guide is laid repetitive if using the ten an in-depth guide to assess- vided within this book is a positive
out with standard top- same content and this ing risk from the holistic point strength. However, the largest
ics for emergency care book could add some of view, which weighs on the weakness I found was the scientific
such as how to deal with additional information scientific and technical side of and technical way it is presented,
minor wounds, burns, into the mix. This book the safety or engineering field. which may be a challenge to safety
shock or choking. It also could also be useful in While the book adequately ad- professionals who do not enjoy
has some nonstandard advanced first-aid cer- dresses the subject matter, it is reading scientific and technical
topics not typically tifications, sometimes often difficult for an individual materials. There are also several
covered in a basic first- called first responder, who does not enjoy reading sci- small wording errors that are com-
aid class, including or if set up as continu- entific studies to grasp. The book mon when books are translated
information such as ing education training. is well organized, beginning with from one language to another.
the contents of first-aid An emergency medi- what the author sees as a holistic However, these do not take away
kits (home, vehicle and cal technician might approach and explains in depth from the readability of the book.
outdoor), when someone find this interesting to risk and emergency management Cardella is a chemical and
with a headache should freshen knowledge of with detailed descriptions and safety engineer who does a great
seek further medical at- basic concepts if not examples of risk and value anal- job at breaking down the differ-
tention, and what is and working in the field ysis. Cardella’s holistic approach ent aspects of risk analysis and
what to do with a black every day. Another consists of the concept that “the tying them into an approach
eye. I found these addi- use would be as inter- whole is in the parts and the parts that integrates safety with pro-
tional topics interesting im first-aid training are in the whole” and that each ductivity, quality, environmen-
to review. during the off years risk situation consists of physical, tal preservation and human
I see several useful of a typical first-aid biological, psychological, cultural development creating a unique
times when this text curriculum between and social parts which interact reference book for any safety
would be a valuable certifications. together to create an incident. professional or engineer who can
tool to have in a first- As a certified emer- The book is packed full of cur- see past the scientific language in
aid/emergency care gency medical techni- rent risk management approaches, the beginning of the book to ab-
library. The first use cian and CPR/first aid including detailed hazard analysis sorb the wealth of information in
could be before people instructor, I find this methods, human failures, safety chapters 6 through 10. Cardella
are scheduled for a book to be a good ref- concepts, value analysis, and risk provides many safety and every-
basic CPR refresher. erence for emergency analysis with brief examples and day examples to help the reader
Sometimes the refresh- care knowledge. formulas for calculating the risk. understand each risk method.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 59

BEST PRACTICES
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
FOR SAFETY SUCCESS, PART 3
How to Inspire Self-Motivation & Empowerment
E. Scott Geller and Krista S. Geller
The achievement and maintenance of an injury-free workplace requires relevant safety engagement from
everyone. Workers must be self-motivated and feel empowered to look out continually on behalf of the safety
and health of others.
This includes the application of the
interventions discussed in the first two
parts of this three-part article series: pro-
active analysis of close calls and minor
injuries, and interpersonal behavior-based
coaching that reflects active caring.
Of course, managers and supervisors
must do the same, but they also need to
facilitate self-motivation and perceptions
of empowerment among employees. How
can they do this? Psychological science of-
fers evidence-based answers to this critical
question. First, this article addresses the
issue of self-motivation and explains the
psychological definition of empowerment.
Then connections between self-motivation
and empowerment are specified, includ-
ing similarities and differences between
these crucial psychological dynamics.
The authors hope the research-based
principles explained and illustrated here will
inform and inspire readers to discuss these
FIGURE 1
PERCEIVED CONTROL OR CHOICE
IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER
60 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
safety and life lessons with colleagues to
customize related applications for self-moti-
vation and for leading others to achieve and
maintain a brother’s/sister’s keeper culture,
which is essential for achieving and main-
taining an injury-free workplace.
Leadership & Self-Motivation
Managing people is not the same as
leading people, but both management and
leadership are essential for cultivating an
actively caring injury-free work culture.
Simply put, managers hold people ac-
countable to perform desirable (e.g., safe)
behavior and avoid performing undesir-
able (e.g., at-risk) behavior for OSH. They
manage or motivate behavior with an ex-
ternal or extrinsic accountability interven-
tion or system. In contrast, leaders inspire
self-motivation by influencing particular
person-states (e.g., perceptions, attitudes,
emotions) that facilitate self-motivation.
FIGURE 2
POSITIVE RECOGNITION
BUILDS COMPETENCE
Self-motivation or self-direction often
leads to discretionary behavior: more
desirable behavior than requested or
required. Certainly, safety managers can
be safety leaders. While managers hold
an assigned position that enables them to
control certain motivating contingencies
or behavioral consequences, anyone,
regardless of position in an organization,
can be a leader by promoting self-moti-
vation in themselves and others (Geller,
2016). Psychological science provides
evidence-based strategies to make this
happen by increasing perceptions of
choice, competence and community.
Perceived Choice
At times, people need external activa-
tors (e.g., incentives, disincentives) and
consequences (e.g., rewards, penalties)
to keep them motivated. But sometimes
people develop self-motivation and
self-accountability within the context of
an extrinsic accountability system. This
person-state includes the perception of
choice, as reflected in Figure 1. In fact,
people have a need for autonomy, regard-
less of dispositional and situational fac-
tors (Deci, 1975; Deci & Flaste, 1995).
Participative management means em-
ployees have personal choice during the
planning, execution and evaluation of
their jobs. In the workplace, managers
often tell people what to do to be most
efficient. It takes more time to involve
people in the decision-making process,
and to promote perceptions of choice and
inspire self-motivation. Consider, for ex-
ample, how the language from a supervi-
sor can influence a perception of external
control or personal choice. Should man-
agers give mandates or set expectations?
Should they demand compliance or ask
for commitment? Is safety a priority and
a condition of employment, or a value
and a personal mission to actively care
for the safety and health of others?
Employees are often viewed as passive
followers of safety rules and regulations
because managers plan and evaluate most
aspects of the job, including the safety
protocol. As a result, the wage worker’s
perception of choice can be limited. Yet,
an injury-free workplace requires in-
terdependent engagement, information
gathering and coaching by line workers,
FIGURE 3
CHILDREN NEED TO LEARN
THE POWER OF INTERDEPENDENCE
This article addresses the
issue of self-motivation
and explains the
psychological definition
of empowerment. Then
connections between
self-motivation and
empowerment are
specified, including
similarities and differences
between these crucial
psychological dynamics.
the employees who know most about the
hazards and at-risk behaviors, as well as
the factors contributing to these potential
determinants of injuries and fatalities.
Perceived Competence
“People are not successful because they
are motivated; they are motivated because
they are successful” (Chance, 2008, p. 95).
This provocative quotation reflects the
powerful role of perceived competence in
motivating people to continue working
diligently and safely on a task when no
one is watching them or holding them ac-
FIGURE 4
TOP-DOWN CONTROL
CAN STIFLE EMPOWERMENT
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 61
countable. Much research has shown that
people become more self-motivated and
self-directed when they feel competent at
performing worthwhile work (Deci, 1975;
Deci & Flaste, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1995;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). Offering genuine
praise, recognition or supportive feedback
can make that happen, as discussed in the
second article of this series (PSJ, Oct. 2019,
pp. 28-30). Unfortunately, our culture
seems to downplay the value of praise for
competent work, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Just the language we use when talking to
ourselves (i.e., self-talk) and to others can
impact perceptions of choice and compe-
tence. For example, which of the following
pairs of words or phrases connect more
to the perception of choice or competence
and, hence, to self-motivation?
•occupant restraint or vehicle safety belt;
•requirement or opportunity;
•peer pressure or peer support;
•training or mentoring;
•compliance or accomplishment;
•I must meet this deadline or I choose
to achieve another milestone.
Interdependence
or a Sense of Community
Deci and Flaste (1995) affirm that we
have three basic psychological needs,
and when these needs are satisfied, we
are self-motivated. Specifically, self-mo-
tivation is activated by conditions that
BEST PRACTICES
facilitate the fulfillment of our need for
autonomy or choice, competence and
relatedness: a sense of community or in-
terdependence.
Consider these popular slogans in
American culture: “Nice guys finish last,”
“You’ve got to toot your own horn” and
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”
Now, consider these expressions, pop-
ular in Japan: “One does not make the
wind, but is blown by it” and “The nail
that rises above the board invites a ham-
mering down.” These expressions reflect
an independent (individualistic) or an
interdependent (collectivistic) mind-set
or perspective.
When coming into the world, people
depend on others to take care of them.
Children depend on parents or caregivers
for all their basic needs. In contrast, ad-
olescents look for opportunities to be on
their own. In fact, it seems that a primary
mission of most teenagers is to resist de-
pendency and become independent. As
depicted in Figure 3 (p. 61), this reliance
on self (independence) rather than on
others (interdependence) is promoted
and supported throughout U.S. culture,
from high school and college classrooms
to corporate boardrooms.
However, high-performance teamwork
requires a reciprocal dependency: team
members depending on each other to
complete their task assignments. This re-
flects a shift from independence to inter-
dependence and a sense of community.
With an interdependent community
spirit, people trust others to look out
for their safety; with self-motivation,
individuals choose to contribute their
competence for the safety and health of
others in their work culture.
Empowerment
In the management literature, em-
powerment typically refers to delegating
authority or responsibility, or to sharing
decision-making. In other words, when
managers say, “I empower you,” they
usually mean “Get it done.” As reflected
in Figure 4 (p. 61), the message is, “Make
it happen, no questions asked.” In con-
trast, the actively caring safety leader
first assesses whether the empowered
individual feels empowered. A proper as-
sessment of feeling empowered involves
asking three questions, as derived from
social learning theory (Bandura, 1982).
The first question is, “Can I do it?”
Do I have the knowledge, skills, ability
and resources to achieve a particular
objective? A yes answer to this first em-
62 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
powerment question reflects a personal
belief in having the competence to make
it happen. Bandura (1982) calls this
self-efficacy. Note that the term self-effi-
cacy places the focus on personal belief.
An observer might think an individual
has the competence to complete a task,
but the empowered individual might feel
differently. Thus, a yes answer to the first
empowerment question implies a belief
among those who received the assign-
ment that they have the relevant personal
competence to achieve the process or
outcome goal.
Although goal-setting
and empowerment
precede the occurrence of
behavior, each reflects the
impact of motivational
consequences. More
specifically, feeling
empowered means
the individual has
answered yes to the
motivational question,
“Is it worth it?” and is
activated to work toward
achieving a given goal.
The second question, “Will it work?”
reflects response-efficacy. Does the re-
cipient of an assignment believe that
performing the required behaviors will
contribute to a valued mission for the
performer and for others? In this case,
education about the mission-based value
of performing the task-relevant behavior
may be needed. With regard to behav-
ior-based safety, the response-efficacy
question translates to believing that a
behavioral coaching process will eventu-
ally contribute to injury prevention and
help to cultivate a brother’s/sister’s keep-
er work culture.
A negative answer to the self-efficacy
question indicates a need for more train-
ing, whereas a negative answer to the
response-efficacy question implies a need
for education. In other words, people
might believe they are able to accomplish
a particular process or task (i.e., self-ef-
ficacy), but might not believe such ac-
complishment will make a difference in a
desired outcome (i.e., response-efficacy).
In this case, education is needed, includ-
ing an explanation of an evidence-based
principle or theory and perhaps the
presentation of convincing data. Regard-
ing the behavioral-coaching process,
substantial data are available to show
that a behavioral-observation-and-feed-
back process prevents workplace injuries
(Geller, Perdue & French, 2004; Sul-
zer-Azaroff & Austin, 2000).
The third question, “Is it worth it?” tar-
gets motivation. Is the expected outcome
worth the effort? Will performing the
task-relevant behaviors result in a worth-
while outcome: a positive consequence
to achieve or a negative consequence to
avoid? Figure 5 illustrates these three
empowerment questions by referring to
the three beliefs required to feel empow-
ered: self-efficacy, response-efficacy and
outcome-expectancy.
After answering yes to these three
empowerment questions, meaningful be-
havior-focused goals must be set. To make
goal setting empowering, the authors pro-
pose the following SMARTS acronym:
•S for specific;
•M for motivational;
•A for attainable;
•R for relevant;
•T for trackable;
•S for shared.
The last S is added because sharing a
behavioral goal with others enlists social
support that can activate behavior and
behavioral feedback to facilitate goal at-
tainment.
SMARTS goals are empowering be-
cause they are attainable (“I can do it”),
motivational (“It’s worth it”), and relevant
(“It will work”).
Empowerment vs. Self-Motivation
Although goal-setting and empower-
ment precede the occurrence of behavior,
each reflects the impact of motivational
consequences. More specifically, feeling
empowered means the individual has an-
swered yes to the motivational question,
“Is it worth it?” and is activated to work
toward achieving a given goal. If the goal
setting was SMARTS, consequences are
implicated by the M for motivational. In
other words, feeling empowered implies
that the individual is ready or activat-
ed to work toward achieving a speci-
fied goal, which reflects the potential
achievement of a particular consequence.
Similarly, a self-motivated individual
FIGURE 5
THE THREE BELIEFS THAT
DETERMINE EMPOWERMENT
is anticipating or has received a conse-
quence (e.g., recognition or supportive
feedback) that supports self-directed
rather than other-directed behavior.
Figure 6 illustrates how empowerment,
vision and goal setting fit with the acti-
vator-behavior-consequence model of
applied behavioral science. The simple but
fundamental point is that people need to
feel empowered to work for goal achieve-
ment, including the anticipated acquisition
of a desirable consequence or the expecta-
tion to avoid an undesirable consequence.
People must believe in and own the
vision. They need to feel support from
peers to attain process goals that support
the vision by receiving supportive and
corrective feedback to increase the quan-
tity and improve the quality of behaviors
consistent with vision-relevant goals.
Note that behavioral consequences are
crucial. Empowerment and goal setting
can activate the occurrence of desirable
behavior, but without relevant supportive
consequences, the behavior will not last.
It will extinguish.
Conclusion
This third article of our three-part
series introduces evidence-based tech-
niques for motivating people to imple-
ment the safety-improvement processes
explicated in the first two articles of
this series: implementing effective be-
havior-improvement coaching and ana-
lyzing incidents proactively for leading
indicators to prevent injuries. The safety
success of these critical safety-success
processes increases as a function of the
number of employees engaged in accom-
plishing them. People are more likely to
initiate and sustain focused contribution
to a process when they are self-motivated
FIGURE 6
EMPOWERMENT & GOAL SETTING
MOTIVATE WITH CONSEQUENCES
and feel empowered. Self-motivation Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New
increases when people perceive a suffi- York, NY: Plenum.
cient degree of choice, competence and Deci, E.L. & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do
what we do: Understanding self-motivation.
community with regard to a particular
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
safety-improvement procedure. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1995). Intrinsic
People feel empowered to contribute motivation and self-determinism in human be-
to an injury-prevention intervention havior. New York, NY: Plenum.
when they perceive self-efficacy (“I can Geller, E.S. (2013, Dec. 5). The psychology of
do it”), response-efficacy (“It will work”) self-motivation (Video). TEDx VirginiaTech.
and anticipate a beneficial outcome (“It’s Retrieved from https://youtu.be/7sxpKhIbr0E
worth it”). Plus, behavioral goals are Geller, E.S. (2016). The psychology of self-mo-
empowering when they are challenging tivation. In E.S. Geller (Ed.). Applied psychology:
but attainable, relevant to achieving a Actively caring for people (pp. 83-118). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
worthwhile mission and are expected to Geller, E.S., Perdue, S. & French, A. (2004,
result in desirable consequences. While July). Behavior-based safety coaching: 10
self-motivation, empowerment and guidelines for successful application. Profes-
goal setting precede the performance of sional Safety, 49(7), 42-49.
relevant behavior, each of these human Reed, D., Yanagita, B.T., Becirevic, A., et al.
dynamics includes an expectation of a (2016). Actively caring for higher education. In
desirable consequence and therefore acti- E.S. Geller (Ed.). Applied psychology: Actively
vates motivation to perform. PSJ caring for people (pp. 563-593). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
References Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-de-
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mecha- termination theory and the foundation of
nism in human agency. American Psycholo- intrinsic motivation, social development and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
gist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise Sulzer-Azaroff, B. & Austin, J. (2000, July).
of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Co. Does BBS work? Behavior-based safety and
Chance, P. (2008). The teacher’s craft: The 10 injury reduction: A survey of the evidence.
essential skills of effective teaching. Long Grove, Professional Safety, 45(7), 19-24.
IL: Waveland Press.
E. Scott Geller, Ph.D., alumni distinguished professor and director of the Center for Applied Be-
havior Systems at Virginia Tech for 50 years, is also senior partner of Safety Performance Solutions and
cofounder of GellerAC4P Inc. (www.gellerac4p.com). He has authored more than 300 research articles,
40 books and 75 book chapters addressing the application of psychological science to improve human
welfare and life satisfaction on a large scale. Geller and his daughter, Krista Geller, coauthored Actively
Caring for People’s Safety: How to Cultivate a Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper Work Culture. Geller is a profes-
sional member of ASSP’s Star Valley Chapter.
Krista S. Geller, Ph.D., became the people-based safety global teacher, coach and consultant
for Bechtel in 2012, whereby she helped employees develop the competence and courage to actively
care for the safety of themselves and coworkers. She traveled worldwide to assist in customizing the
people-based safety process for diverse cultures and work processes. Her mission is to inspire people to
actively care for the safety of themselves and others. This mission inspired her to develop and become
president of the consulting and training organization Geller AC4P Inc.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 63
STANDARDS INSIDER

PITCHING STANDARDS
CERTIFICATION TO THE C-SUITE
Q&A With Alexi Carli
Implementing industry consensus standards and certifying those standards can provide
many benefits to an organization by improving safety performance and entering new
markets around the globe. Alexi Carli discusses how safety professionals can gain
executives’ buy-in by demonstrating the return on investment of safety standards.

Alexi Carli PSJ: Talk about the benefits of implementing PSJ: As a safety professional, once you determine
Alexi Carli, CSP, is the an industry consensus standard and getting that it would make sense to implement an indus-
CEO of Carli Consult- certified. try consensus standard at your organization,
ing LLC. She was pre- Alexi: There has been a lot of discussion about ISO what are the next steps in that process?
viously vice president 45001. That standard takes a proactive approach to Alexi: Certification is really the culmination of all
of global safety and
risk control and incorporates safety and health into of your efforts to integrate an effective safety and
health at UPS. She
holds an M.S. in Occu- a company’s management system. Because of this, health management system. Certification might be
pational Safety and top management and executives have a stronger the endgame, but you have to do your homework
Health from Columbia leadership role in the safety and health program first. You must outline the method and the means
Southern University because their management commitment is demon- to get there. Take a step back and thoroughly an-
and a B.S. in Business strated by an active and participatory role. That is alyze the company’s current management system:
Management from the key. The C-suite has to support adoption and how it operates and the metrics you’re using to mea-
University of Phoenix. certification, otherwise it just won’t work. sure performance. You can’t only look at it from an
Carli is a professional Because companies have tight and efficient oper- OSH professional’s perspective. Find all of the pain
member of ASSP’s ational processes, to deliver on their promises with points in the company’s current system, particular-
Georgia Chapter, and
a member of the Soci-
quality and service, bringing ly from the operator’s point of
ety’s Women in Safety effectiveness up to a consensus Having management view, where the work actually
Excellence Common standard demonstrates impact gets done. You have to probe
Interest Group and in many areas. For example, systems in place that deep, roll up your sleeves and
Management Practice it increases a company’s oper- work to truly understand what
Specialty. ational capacity because risk meet industry consensus you’re up against because what
and waste are decreased. Sec- and having an objective changes are required could
ondly, employee morale and also result in significant costs.
engagement increase because evaluation of proof of that The depth of your research
there is increased effectiveness. and who you talk to when
In other words, you’re work- provides companies with a making a presentation shows;
ing smarter, not harder. Also, competitive advantage in to it’s a key component. You need
hopefully you’ve even taken be personally involved in
some of the employees’ ideas many areas, such as OSH. that process.
into account, which can lead Next, you need to identify
to more enthusiasm among workers or employee your stakeholders. Share perspectives with them and
engagement with the company and what it wants ask questions about certification. Engage with and
to accomplish. Lastly, there is a positive impact to educate leadership on why they would want to im-
company brand and trust as a good partner to do plement ISO 45001, and be prepared to explain the
business with. ISO certification is a good marketing operational and financial impact in their own lan-
tool for customers and, in some environments, it is guage. You must be able to translate it into what they
an absolute necessity. understand so they can make an informed decision.
There is a higher demand for certification in Establish the shared understanding that a problem
Europe as well as in certain industries where com- exists to ensure that your proposal of certification
panies have to certify to their own standards. That will be well received. It is crucial to understand who
also includes their service partners. So, service part- you are talking to and what they care about most. It
ners have a brand impact based on association. If a helps to gain support from other key stakeholders
partner does something bad, it’s going to have an who might not be in executive leadership but might
impact on the company it does business with. Hav- be able to influence the conversation. In a way, you
ing management systems in place that meet industry are informally crowdsourcing your idea.
consensus and having an objective evaluation of
proof of that provides companies with a competitive PSJ: What is the natural progression to move
advantage in many areas, such as safety, health, en- that conversation up the chain of command?
vironment and quality. How does it go from a safety professional with an
idea to a presentation to the C-suite?

64 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

Alexi: After identifying stakeholders and support-
ers, you can begin to move up levels in the organi-
zation. Some people may want to jump to the top
first. But in my experience, while it’s more work,
there is a better chance of success if you work your
way up the chain of decision-makers and get wide-
spread buy-in. C-suite executives have to make
many decisions on a daily basis, and they may not
give their stamp of approval without the recom-
mendation and support of lower-level stakeholders.
C-level executives want to know that their teams
are on board. Why would a leader adopt a product
or invest in a solution that no one wants? It’s a rec-
ipe for a failed buy-in and sunk costs. They don’t
have time for that. C-suite executives are strapped
for time. Everyone wants a piece of them, and they
depend on you to have researched, contemplated,
analyzed and recommended the right solution.
You need to clearly demonstrate alignment and
show how certification supports the company’s goals
as well as individual executives’ goals. Have a solid
implementation plan to show a clear path for com-
pletion and success. You have to take them along
the journey or give them a road map showing how
you are going to get there. It may have to be phased.
Leaders will think about what resources are needed,
what timelines are realistic, total costs and, ulti-
mately, what results will come from a project or pro-
gram. Knowing how you’re going to measure success
is also key. Remember, when selling a big idea, the
most important things people want to understand
are the costs and the return on investment?
PSJ: From a business and safety perspective, where
is the best place to start gathering the information
you need to make a case to the C-suite?
Alexi: One of the first things to investigate is wheth-
er the company has certified to any other ISO
standard, and you will want to benchmark with the
group that led that effort. This group will be able to
give you a head start, and you might even be able to
develop some alliances and strengthen both of your
cases since there are costs in both attaining and
maintaining certification. Other questions you have
to think about: What business are you in? What are
some of the focus areas of your marketing team? Are
you trying to get into areas with segments that re-
quire certification, or would it be a good value to do
so? What kind of questions are the customers asking
for on their proposals for business related to safety
and health in certification, or even certification
overall? Has there been any loss of business due to a
lack of certification?
If you’re starting from scratch, you have to iden-
tify all of the pain points and risks of the current
system. Be willing to look

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation (PS Form 3526, July 2014)
1) Publication title: Professional Safety. 2) Publication number: 0099-0027. 3) Filing date: 10/1/2019. 4) Issue frequency: Monthly. 5) Number of
issues published annually: 12. 6) Annual subscription price: $60. 7) Complete mailing address of known office of publication: 520 N. Northwest
Highway, Park Ridge, Cook County, IL 60068-2538; Contact person: Sarah Astra, (847) 768-3414. 8) Complete mailing address of headquarters
or general business office of publisher: Same as 7. 9) Full names and complete mailing addresses of publisher, editor and managing editor:
Publisher, American Society of Safety Professionals, same as 7; Editor, Tina Angley, same as 7; Managing Editor, Tina Angley, same as 7. 10)
Owner: American Society of Safety Professionals, same as 7. 11) Known bondholders, mortgagees and other security holders owning or holding
1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. 12) Tax status: The purpose, function and nonprofit status of
this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes has not changed during preceding 12 months. 13) Name of publica-
tion: Same as 1. 14) Issue date for circulation data below: September 2019.
Average no. copies No. copies of
each issue during single issue published
15) Extent and nature of circulation preceding 12 months nearest to filing date
a) Total number of copies 31,964 31,306
b) Paid circulation
(1) mailed outside-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541 28,179 28,016
(2) mailed in-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541 0 0
(3) outside the mails including sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors,
counter sales and other paid distribution outside USPS 1,492 1,521
(4) by other classes of mail through the USPS 17 9
c) Total paid distribution 29,688 29,546
d) Free or nominal rate distribution
(1) outside-county copies included on PS Form 3541 0 0
(2) in-county copies included on PS Form 3541 0 0
(3) copies mailed at other classes through the USPS 0 0
(4) outside the mail 21 0
e) Total free or nominal rate distribution 21 0
f) Total distribution 29,709 29,546
g) Copies not distributed 2,255 1,760
h) Total 31,964 31,306
i) Percent paid 99.93 100.00
16) Electronic copy circulation
a) Paid electronic copies 5,113 5,133
b) Total paid print copies + paid electronic copies 34,801 34,679
c) Total print distribution + paid electronic copies 34,822 34,679
d) Percent paid (both print and electronic copies) 99.94 100.00
17) Statement of Ownership will be printed in the November 2019 issue of this publication. 18) Signature and title of editor, publisher, business
manager or owner: (signed) Tina Angley, 9/23/2019. I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that
anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject
to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions (including civil penalties).

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 65

STANDARDS INSIDER
PEOPLEIMAGES/E+/GETTY IMAGES
The key outside of traditional safety and health metrics. You
have to truly understand all of the excess costs, risks
to gaining and waste of the current function. Are there any
processes that impede effective functioning? Can
respect to you identify that? Can you link them? Can you link
operational metrics such as quality or production
speak au- downtime that might align with concerns in your
thoritative- current safety and health management system?
You also want to understand your organization’s
ly about enterprise strategy and link metrics to the organiza-
tion’s goals. Look at concerns such as brand, financial
your sub- goals or service. To persuade the main decision-mak-
ers, align to what they care about. If the organization
ject is to be publishes a sustainability report, study the strategy
prepared and look at the matrix of the areas that have high
impact to both the company as well as its critical
with hard stakeholders, such as customers and the general pub-
lic. Usually, those matrixes are even published right
data and along with the sustainability reports.
metrics. You also have to analyze a cost certification, not
only consulting costs but what is needed to ramp
up the system to meet certification. That’s probably
the biggest area of concern. I cannot overemphasize
the need to support ideas with research and facts.
Conduct adequate research to ensure that you have
enough raw facts and information to back your case
for certification. This ensures that the case will be
persuasive, and it increases your chance of being
heard. Also, be aware of deadlines or trending topics
that could either impede or help your business case.
Are there budgeting cycles? Is there a long-term
planning session? Is the company undergoing a
transformation effort where you may have to consid-
er whether there is a better time to make your case?
PSJ: What questions should safety professionals
be prepared to answer when presenting this case
to executives?
Alexi: After compiling the information, the next
challenge is culling that to the important points
because when presenting to executives, clarity and
brevity are key. Try to bring critical points down to
two or three slides with five bullets each. If you can’t
get to the point quickly, you can’t get their attention.
What’s the solution? What’s the opportunity? Show
them the way. You have to present the value of what
66 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org
you can do, what can be accomplished. You have
to prove that the cost of doing nothing and staying
with the status quo is greater than the cost of imple-
menting your recommendation for certification and
overhauling your safety and health management
system, if necessary.
You have to speak in plain English. Sometimes we
get involved in our jargon because we’re educated
professionals. You also need to listen as much as you
can and don’t talk. Understand what they need, not
just what you want to sell.
In terms of slides, don’t get obsessed with them.
People often want to present slides because it helps
move the presentation along, and it helps them re-
member various points. You have to be confident and
comfortable enough to be able to set the slides aside.
Talk to your executives. Have documents available
to support your ideas, but don’t rely on them or you
will lose the audience. A well-written and positioned
executive summary is also very helpful, and remem-
ber to always put your ask first. What do you want to
accomplish? You don’t put that at the very end.
PSJ: They have to know from the second you walk
in the room what you’re asking for.
Alexi: Exactly. When you’re talking to executives, you
want to try to create a personal relationship. You’re
demonstrating that this case for certification will
really help them implement their agenda.
The key to gaining respect to speak authoritatively
about your subject is to be prepared with hard data
and metrics. If you have done your due diligence
and involved your stakeholders, you have validation
that those metrics are actually valid. And hopefully
they have even heard something from their teams to
support the idea.
This might depend on the organization’s size or
what work will be needed to achieve certification,
but when you’re pitching a big project, it is advan-
tageous to suggest a pilot program on a smaller
scale to quantify preliminary results and benefits.
For instance, for a large corporation or division
with many sites, you may want to start with one to
have proof of concept and build from that success.
Sometimes, ideas that are tried on a smaller scale
are more likely to be adopted. This might even help
with your phasing as you’re making the presenta-
tion. If ISO certification requires a large up-front
investment—again, because you’ve done your due
diligence in looking at the current system, and
there is significant effort and coordination among
different teams and executives—they might have
some concerns about all of the risks and the hur-
dles involved to accomplish it. Implementing and
certifying an effective safety and health manage-
ment system to ISO 45001 affects so many different
departments. By understanding the scope and
clearly articulating the cost and benefits, you can
present this ask in an informed manner.
My last piece of advice is, you have to test and
practice your pitch with your stakeholders first and
be open to their feedback. PSJ
 CHECKPOINTS

ROAD HAZARD AHEAD

By William McCaffrey
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2003), auto accidents are the number one cause of fatal
workplace incidents and cost employers more than $60 billion every year. Nearly every company has employees who
drive to conduct company business, yet many overlook this vital element of a safety and health program.

Companies with large fleets of
commercial vehicles are well aware of the
potential liabilities of having drivers on
the road. However, many employers are
not aware that the same liability may ex-
tend to companies with employees who
only drive intermittently, and even those
who use their own personal vehicles to
conduct company business. Employees
who drive on company business can
present a much greater risk than most of
the workplace and jobsite hazards safety
professionals typically focus on.
The legal concept of negligent en-
trustment holds employers liable for
the actions of employees who they have
entrusted to operate company vehicles,
including personal vehicles used for com-
pany business. Negligent entrustment
claims can arise when an unlicensed,
reckless or incompetent driver is in-
volved in an incident while on company
business. Imagine asking a 16-year-old
summer worker to drive the warehouse
box truck because the normal driver is
on vacation. After the worker has an in-
cident resulting in damages, s/he is cited
for speeding, texting and running a red
light. Then you discover that s/he has
previously had his/her license revoked
for multiple speeding tickets. Get out
your checkbook: this is a textbook exam-
ple of negligent entrustment. Employer
negligence is not always so flagrant; fol-
lowing are some real-life examples.
Xerox lost a $5 million lawsuit involv-
ing a driver in a driving under the influ-
ence fatality. The company never checked
the employee’s driving record, which
showed two previous driving under the
influence convictions.
Coca-Cola lost a $21 million lawsuit
after one of its drivers caused an incident
while on a business call using a hands-
free cell phone. The plaintiff’s attorney
WELCOMIA/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS
train its drivers on the hazards of cell
phone use while driving.
Domino’s lost a $32 million lawsuit
when a delivery driver using his personal
vehicle struck and killed another driver.
The tires on the driver’s car were badly
worn. Domino’s had a written policy that
delivery vehicles were to be inspected
regularly. The jury found that Domino’s
did not enforce its own policies and pro-
cedures, and was liable for the incident.
For most companies, a single negligent
entrustment claim could be devastating,
especially considering that punitive dam-
ages may not be covered by insurance.
How can a company protect itself from
negligent entrustment claims? Every
company, no matter how big or small,
should take the following steps before
putting drivers on the road:
•Develop and consistently enforce a
formal driver safety policy. A driver safe-
ty policy should clearly state who is an
authorized driver (i.e., experience, age,
training) and cover driver requirements,
vehicle requirements, training, incident
reporting and driver management. The
policy should specifically address cell
phone use and other distracted driving.
Companies that permit (or worse, ex-
pect) drivers to conduct business on cell
phones are asking for trouble. Seat belt
use, drug and alcohol use, and speeding
and aggressive driving are among some
of the other policies that should be cov-
ered. There should also be a process for
employees to acknowledge that they have
been made aware of the policies.
•Run motor vehicle record (MVR)
checks on all drivers at least once per
year and make job offers for drivers
contingent on an acceptable MVR. Com-
panies should develop a point system
to score MVRs (not all states use the
same point system for violations). Have
driver monitoring systems, discipline or
prohibiting certain employees from driv-
ing for business purposes.
•Provide driver training for anyone
driving on company business. Training
should include safe driving habits such as
speed and following distance, defensive
driving techniques, inclement weather,
seat belt use and distracted driving.
Training should also cover what to do
following a vehicle incident and report-
ing requirements. Refresher training
should be provided at regular intervals,
and also for drivers with violations or
those involved in incidents.
Employees who use a personal vehi-
cle for business are expected to follow
all the same policies and procedures
as those driving a company-owned
vehicle, including an MVR check and
training. Additionally, employees
should provide proof of insurance with
adequate limits. Companies may also
want to consider which vehicles may or
may not be used for company business,
such as motorcycles.
One final nudge to tighten up a driver
safety policy: Almost every new vehicle
built since 2014 has an event data record-
er, or black box. The black box tracks
speed, braking, acceleration, seat belt use
and other data points, and records them
in the event of a collision. Insurance
companies, law enforcement and plain-
tiffs’ attorneys will be interested in that
black box data following a serious inci-
dent. Ensure that the company’s driver
safety policy is current. A comprehensive
driver safety policy will not only provide
a defensible position against claims, it
can also help prevent incidents and inju-
ries in the first place. PSJ
References
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-

tration (NHTSA). (2003). Economic burden

made the argument that Coca-Cola’s cell a consistent policy for employees with of traffic crashes on employers [Report]. Re-
phone policy was vague and ambiguous, violations, which may include retraining, trieved from https://mcs.nhtsa.gov/index.cfm
and the company did not adequately more frequent MVR checks, onboard ?fuseaction=product.display&product_D=414

Originally published by NIA. Copyright 2019. Re-
printed with permission from Insulation Outlook
magazine, a publication of the National Insula-
tion Association (www.insulation.org).
William McCaffrey, CSP, is corporate safety director for Irex Contracting Group (www.irexcon
tracting.com) with more than 20 years’ construction safety experience. He has worked for general,
mechanical, electrical and specialty contracting firms in the industrial and commercial construction
markets. McCaffrey is chair of National Insulation Association’s Health and Safety Committee. He is a
professional member of ASSP’s Central Pennsylvania Chapter.

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 67

PRODUCT PULSE

Protective Helmet Steel-Toe Boot

Petzl has updated its VERTEX line
of helmets with new features.
To enhance comfort, helmet
is designed with a six-point
suspension system that
conforms to the shape of
wearer’s head. Webbing
suspension maximizes
breathability while ensuring
separation between wearer’s
head and external shell in the
event of impact. New features
include adjustment system to
allow quick sizing and centering on
the head, and folding headband for
easy storage and transport.
www.petzl.com
Twisted X’s WLCS003 steel-toe
work boot is designed for work-
places that require toe protection.
Oil- and slip-resistant molded
rubber outsole provides durabil-
ity and traction. Air-mesh-lined
shaft improves breathability and
moisture wicking, while height
of boot provides ankle coverage.
Lightweight midsole reportedly
improves comfort while
double-stitched storm
welt provides a seal
against the elements.
www.twistedx.com

Firefighter
Safety
MSA’s LUNAR technology
is designed to protect fire-
fighters responding to a fire
or other hazard using inter-
connected devices. Handheld
device allows firefighters to
find each other using dis-
tance and direction data.
Product provides safety offi-
cers or incident commanders
with a bird’s-eye view of all
devices on scene using GPS
location. Motion-detecting,
man-down alarm provides
information about workers in
need. Product features 3.5-in.
high-resolution display that
shows a thermal image of
others on scene.
www.msasafety.com
Scissor Lift
Presto ECOA Lifts’ CLT Series compact
scissor lift is designed for work in assem-
bly, repair, inspection, manufacturing, repair
and warehouse settings. Lift utilizes a dou-
ble-scissor mechanism that allows for a collapsed
height of 8.5 in. while providing raised heights of
up to 56.5 in. Product features cylinders with inter-
nal stops, a lifetime self-lubricating system, com-
posite bearings and safety-restraint maintenance
bars to protect worker during repairs.
www.prestolifts.com
Gas Detector
Bacharach’s MGS-400 gas detector is designed to
monitor gas leaks in industrial settings. With an
app, worker can use, commission and maintain
a gas detection system that can recognize gases
such as CO2, butane, CH4, CO, ethylene, meth-
ane and propane. Temperature compensated
measurements mitigate false alarms and optimize
accuracy in refrigeration applications. Precalibrated
sensor modules do not require calibration gas and
system does not require specialty tools.
www.mybacharach.com

Fleet Safety
Scraper Systems’ Fleet Plow is designed to reduce risk to
workers and motorists by dislodging snow and ice from
roofs of fleet truck trailers. Plow passes over truck trailers,
removing more than 2 ft of snow from trailer, reducing the
risk of injury to workers during manual snow removal. Plow
sits over a facility’s entrance and exit, and can be lowered or
raised to clear trailers entering or leaving the facility.
www.scrapersystems.com

Publication of this material does not imply testing, review or endorsement

by ASSP. To submit a product for this section, send an e-mail to professional
safety@assp.org. Be sure to include product and contact information, along
with a high-resolution product photo.

68 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

 Storage Cabinet Safety Eyewear
Pyramex’s Sitecore safety eyewear is
Crescent JOBOX flammable storage cabinet
designed to protect eyes in industrial
from Apex Tool Group secures flammable
settings where particles, flying objects
liquids and protects them from fire. Cabinet
and debris might cause injury or irrita-
features a three-point lock system to restrict ac-
tion. Designed for indoor or outdoor use,
cess and prevent theft. The 1.75-in.-thick doors
hard-coated polycarbonate lens features
and 18-gauge double wall provide insulation.
UV protection and antifog coating. Ac-
Staked and welded hinges are designed from
cording to manufacturer, lightweight
14-gauge steel and feature a ¼-in. steel pin so
polycarbonate offers strength, durability
door cannot be driven or pried open.
and comfort to wearers.
www.crescenttool.com
www.pyramexsafety.com

Surface Traction
Traction Up’s slip-resistant topical
coating is designed to reduce the
potential for slips on wet surfaces by
applying millions of nanosized spikes
to surface. Coating is reportedly bio-
degradable, noncaustic, pH neutral
and safe to use on food area f loors.
Spray-on coating applies easily to sur-
face and is suited for environments
that present slipping hazards such as
poolside, marble steps and hospitals.
www.tractionup.com
Warning Signal
E2S Warning Signals has expanded its D1x
family of explosion-proof beacons. The D1xB2
warning signal features xenon or LED light
source. Strobe has four flash rate options and is
reportedly suitable for private mode fire alarm
use. Lens filter is protected by stainless-steel
guard, and is available in several colors.
www.e2s.com

Noise Control
The Optimus Green sound level meter from Cirrus Research
captures basic noise data and measures environmental noise to
protect workers against high levels of noise exposure. Meter can
reportedly be used for occupational noise surveys and records
the maximum sound level to help professionals identify noise
hot spots in the workplace. Product can be used as a handheld
meter or as a long-term outdoor monitoring solution and re-
cords noise at tenth-of-a-second intervals for quick analysis.
Large buttons and bright screen allow for operation by many
workers with minimal training, according to manufacturer.
www.cirrusresearch.co.uk

Defibrillator
Stryker introduces the LIFEPAK CR2 defibrillator,
designed to help rescuers deliver high quality CPR
and to provide the fastest first shock when defibrilla-
tion is needed. System allows chest compressions to
continue during ECG analysis, which reportedly helps
to increase the hands-on time and reduce the longest
pauses in CPR to improve survival outcomes. Child
mode reduces defibrillation energy for pediatric pa-
tients, while optional bilingual feature allows rescuer
to toggle to a second preset language. Self-monitor-
ing device connects to the LIFELINK central AED
program manager to allow an organization’s AED
manager to remotely monitor and manage issues
such as low battery or expired electrodes, helping to
ensure device readiness when needed.
www.strykeremergencycare.com
Security System
The Wi-Fi-enabled floodlight securi-
ty system from Swann is designed to
prevent crime and keep homes and
businesses safe from intruders. The sys-
tem’s high-definition security camera is
equipped with heat- and motion-sens-
ing technology that when triggered
switches on two LED floodlights, a loud
warning siren, video recording, two-
way audio and sends alerts to a mobile
device. User can customize brightness,
audio volume and siren, and can turn
the system on and off from anywhere.
www.swann.com

assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 69

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Baltimore, MD

DENISTANGNEYJR/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

December 3-5
COSHCON 2019: National Conference on Worker Safety & Health
With the goal of empowering workers, making the workplace safer and reducing the
toll of on-the-job injuries, illnesses and fatalities, this conference features more than
40 workshops and panels, an exposition, a poster contest, and keynote speakers. This
event draws professionals from areas such as academics, government, public health,
legal and OSH.
National Council for Occupational Safety and Health; (857) 997-0673; http://nat
ionalcosh.org/coshcon2019

NOVEMBER 2019 San Luis Obispo, CA Portland, OR

North Branford, CT 12/2-12/4: Principles of Ergonomics. 12/5: Introduction to Evacuation and
11/20: Hazardous Materials Technician. OSHA Training Center Chabot-Las Pos- Emergency Planning. Northwest Center
Field Safety Corp.; (203) 483-6003; www itas Community College District; (866) for Occupational Health and Safety; (800)
.fieldsafety.com. 936-6742; www.osha4you.com. 326-7568; http://nwcenter.washington.edu.

Chicago, IL Webinar Franklin, PA

11/20: Automation Fair. Rockwell Auto- 12/3: Estimating the Financial Impact 12/6: Confined Space Rescue. Honeywell
mation; (440) 646-3434; www.rockwell of Ergonomics. Humantech; (734) 663- Safety Training; (855) 565-6722; www
automation.com. 6707; www.humantech.com. .millerfallprotection.com.

Webinar Philadelphia, PA St. Louis, MO

11/20: Practical Steps to Investigate Fire and 12/3: Hazardous Waste Management. 12/6: Lead Worker Refresher. OSHA
Explosion Incidents. DEKRA; www.dekra.us. Environmental Resource Center; (800) Training Institute Midwest Education
537-2372; www.ercweb.com. Center; (800) 464-6874; http://ceet.slu
Webinar .edu.
11/21: Safety Leadership. DuPont Safety Schaumburg, IL
Resources; (800) 532-7233; www.safety 12/3: Audiometric Testing. Acoustic As- Tampa, FL
.dupont.com. sociates; (847) 359-1068; www.acoustic 12/6: Qualified Rigger Level 1 Train-the-
associates.com. Trainer. Crane Tech; (800) 290-0007;
Charlotte, NC www.cranetech.com.
11/21-11/22: North Carolina Safety Con- Online
ference. North Carolina Safety Congress; 12/3-12/5: Cause Mapping Root-Cause Lakewood, CO
(704) 527-8400; www.safetync.org/safety Analysis. ThinkReliability; (281) 412- 12/6: Hazardous Waste Site Safety: 8-Hour
congress.htm. 7766; www.thinkreliability.com. HazWOPER Refresher. OSHA Training
Institute Rocky Mountain Education Cen-
Tampa, FL Emmitsburg, MD ter; (800) 933-8394; www.rmecosha.com.
11/25-11/27: Rigging Gear and Sling 12/4: Science of Disaster. Emergency
Inspector. Crane Tech; (800) 290-0007; Management Institute; (301) 447-1000; Park Ridge, IL
www.cranetech.com. http://training.fema.gov/emiweb. •
12/8-12/14 Math Review, CSP and ASP
Exam Preparation. ASSP; (847) 699-2929;
DECEMBER 2019 Murray, KY www.assp.org.
Huntsville, AL 12/5: 8-Hour Electrical Safety With
12/2-12/3: Risk Management for Safety NFPA 70E. Safety Training and Environ- Houston, TX
Engineers. A-P-T Research Inc.; (256) mental Protection; (270) 753-6529; www 12/9-12/10: Managing Safety Per-
327-3373; www.apt-research.com. .stepky.com. formance: Tools for Supervisors and
Managers. Balmert Consulting; (281)
Rockford, IL Raleigh, NC 359-7234; www.balmert.com.
12/2-12/3: OSHA 10-Hour General In- 12/5: 8-Hour HazWOPER. Southeastern
dustry. Rockford Systems Inc.; (800) 922- OSHA Training Institute Education Cen- Charlotte, NC
7533; www.rockfordsystems.com. ter; (800) 227-0264; www.ies.ncsu.edu/ 12/9-12/10: SafetyFirst: Habits of Excel-
otieducationcenter. lence. EnPro Industries; (704) 731-1459;
https://safety-culture-training.com.
Events during November, December & Portland, OR
January 12/5: Introduction to Incident Investigation. Dallas, TX
Send event announcements to professionalsafety OSHA Training Institute Pacific Northwest 12/9-12/10: NFPA 70E 2018 Electrical
@assp.org. Education Center; (800) 326-7568; http:// Safety. AVO Training; (877) 594-3156;
• Current month advertiser depts.washington.edu/ehce/OSHA. www.avotraining.com.
• ASSP community

70 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

Waipahu, HI
12/9-12/12: Fall Protection. OSHA Train-
ing Institute Education Center UC San
Diego Extension; (800) 358-9206; http://
osha.ucsd.edu.
Edmonton, Alberta
12/10: Fall Protection Qualified Per-
son. Honeywell Safety Training; (855)
565-6722; www.millerfallprotection
.com.
Irmo, SC
12/10: Introduction to Incident Inves-
tigation. Southeastern OSHA Training
Institute Education Center; (800) 227-
0264; www.ies.ncsu.edu/otieducation
center.
Emmitsburg, MD
12/10-12/11: Fundamentals of Emergency
Management. Emergency Management
Institute; (301) 447-1000; http://training
.fema.gov/emiweb.
Smyrna, GA
12/10-12/12: 24-Hour HazMat Techni-
cian. Georgia Tech OSHA Training In-
stitute Education Center; (404) 894-2000;
https://pe.gatech.edu/subjects/occupation
al-safety-health.
Charlotte, NC
12/11: Safety Culture Development Plan-
ning. EnPro Industries; (704) 731-1459;
https://safety-culture-training.com.
Online
12/11: Mitigating Dust Hazards. Lewel-
lyn Technology; (800) 242-6673; www
.lewellyn.com.
Woolwich, ME
12/11-12/13: Cranes in Construction.
OSHA Training Institute Education Cen-
ter, Keene State College; (603) 645-0080;
http://oshaedne.com.
Orlando, FL
12/11-12/13: Forklift Operator Train-the-
Trainer. North American Crane Bureau;
(800) 654-5640; www.cranesafe.com.
North Charleston, SC
12/11-12/13: SCDOT Advanced Work
Zone Traffic Control Supervisor. Caroli-
nas AGC; (704) 372-1450; www.cagc.org.
Knoxville, TN
12/13: Advanced Process Hazard Analysis
Leader. ABS Consulting; (800) 769-1199;
www.absconsulting.com/training.
League City, TX
•
12/13 Basic Competent Person In-
spection. Scaffold Training Institute;
(281) 332-1613; www.scaffoldtraining
.com.
Hillside, IL
12/13: Introduction to Incident Investiga-
tion. Construction Safety Council; (800)
552-7744; www.buildsafe.org.
Kirkland, WA
12/16: Forklift Instructor Certification.
Evergreen Safety Council; (800) 521-
0778; www.esc.org.
Tucson, AZ
12/17-12/20: 30-Hour OSHA Construc-
tion. ETC Compliance Solutions; (602)
923-9673; www.e-t-c.com.
St. Paul, MN
12/17-12/20: OSH Standards for the Con-
struction Industry. National Safety Edu-
cation Center; (815) 753-6902; www.nsec
.niu.edu/nsec.
San Diego, CA
12/17-12/20: Environmental Boot Camp.
Aarcher Institute of Environmental
Training; (410) 897-0037; www.aarcher
institute.com.
Longwood, FL
12/20: Temporary Traffic Control Re-
fresher. Safety Links Inc.; (800) 768-7036;
www.safetylinks.net.
Houston, TX
12/26: Qualified Signal Person. North
American Crane Bureau; (800) 654-5640;
www.cranesafe.com.
JANUARY 2020
Cincinnati, OH
1/7-1/8: OSHA Industry Safety Basics.
Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation,
Division of Safety and Hygiene; (800)
644-6838; www.bwc.ohio.gov/employer/
programs/safety.
Mesquite, TX
1/9: Introduction to Safety and Health
Management. Texas A&M Engineering
Extension Service; (800) 723-3811; www
.teex.org/prt.
Baltimore, MD
1/10: Silica Competent Person Train-
the-Trainer. Chesapeake Region Safety
Council; (800) 875-4770; www.chesa
peakesc.org.
assp.org NOVEMBER 2019 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 71
Everett, WA
1/10: Flagger Certification. Evergreen
Safety Council; (800) 521-0778; www.esc
.org.
Hillside, IL
1/10: Noise in the Construction Industry.
Construction Safety Council; (800) 552-
7744; www.buildsafe.org.
Park Ridge, IL
•
1/12-1/18 Math Review, CSP and ASP
Exam Preparation. ASSP; (847) 699-2929;
www.assp.org.
Online
1/14-3/10: CIH Review. Bowen EHS Inc.;
(866) 264-5852; www.bowenehs.com.
Louisville, KY
1/16: Arc-Flash Safety for Utilities.
e-Hazard; (502) 498-7978; www.e-haz
ard.com.
San Bernardino, CA
1/23-1/24: CEAS Ergonomics Assessment
Certification. The Back School; (800) 783-
7536; www.thebackschool.net.
Wesley Chapel, FL
1/27-1/30: OSH Standards for General
Industry Trainer. OSHA Training Insti-
tute University of South Florida Educa-
tion Center; (813) 994-1195; www.usfoti
center.org.
Online
1/27-4/17: Wind Engineering for Build-
ings. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers; (619) 239-2400; www.asce.org.
Annapolis, MD
1/28-1/29: Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act Plan-
ning and Reporting Manager. Aarcher
Institute of Environmental Training;
(410) 897-0037; www.aarcherinstitute
.com.
Savannah, GA
1/28-1/31: OSH Standards for General
Industry. Georgia Tech OSHA Training
Institute Education Center; (404) 894-
2000; https://pe.gatech.edu/subjects/
occupational-safety-health.
Birmingham, AL
1/29-1/31: Audiometric Testing and
Hearing Conservation. The Deep
South Center for Occupational Health
and Safety; (205) 934-7178; www.uab
.edu/dsc.
BY THE WAY
Dance Until You Drop
In 1923, New York dance instructor Alma Cummings started
the craze of marathon dancing by waltzing for 27 hours straight,
exhausting six different partners. Within 3 weeks, her record
was broken nine times across the U.S. Dance marathons became
a competition in which part-
ners would test their stamina NOT THE
and ability to stay awake
while providing entertain-
WAY
Here we go
ment to onlookers. Contests
of the 1920s required dancers agrain
to be in constant motion, Submitted by
but partners were given 15 Doug Stevens,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

minutes each hour to rest, Skokie, IL

during which nurses rubbed Safety is serious business. But unsafe practices still occur and we hope
contestants' feet and provided these “Not the Way” images help you recognize and eliminate more
medical attention. Food was hazards in the workplaces you influence.
provided many
times daily, and contestants ate, bathed and shaved
all while dancing. Some competitions allowed one Critter Slumber
partner to sleep if supported by the other. After the The average amount of sleep that these creatures get might put you in
stock market crashed in October 1929, dance mara- the mood to hibernate:
thons became more popular than ever. Contestants Squirrels: 14.9 hours a day North American opossums:
battled for cash prizes, appreciating the provided Cats: 15 hours a day 18 hours a day
meals and housing. In 1932, Callum deVillier and Human babies: 16 hours a day Brown bats: 19.9 hours a day
Vonnie Kuchinski danced from December until Sloths: 20 hours a day
June, with rest time cut from 15 minutes to 3 min- Koalas: 22 hours a day
utes per hour for the last 2 weeks of the contest. Snails: can sleep from a few
Fighting the need to sleep, the final 52 hours of the hours to 3 years at a time
marathon were danced nonstop and on June 3, 1933,
DeVillier and Kuchinski took home a $1,000 prize.

LOPURICE/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

It is a common
experience that a
MCFADDEN PUBLICATIONS INC.

problem difficult
at night is resolved
in the morning af- Second Shift
ter the commit- Do you often spend an hour awake at
night, reading or watching TV? According
tee of sleep has worked on it. to Virginia Tech historian Roger Ekirch,
John Steinbeck you’re just experiencing an engrained
pattern of sleep stemming from the 15th
Alarming Alternative to 17th century. Ekirch’s research shows
that humans used to sleep in a segment-
Before alarm clocks were invented, factories em-
ployed people called knocker uppers to knock on ed sleep pattern. They would go to sleep
workers' doors to wake them up on time. Workers about 2 hours after dusk, followed by a
would wake up and reply to the knocker upper with 2-hour time segment awake. During
their own knock in reply. These knocker uppers this waking period, people would
were night owls and slept during the day instead, smoke tobacco, visit neighbors,
STEPHANIEFREY/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

waking up in the early afternoon in preparation interpret dreams, read, chop

for the night of work ahead. After this career was wood, sew, write or pray.
well established, the knocker uppers were subject Then, they would go back
to many complaints from neighbors of the factory If you have a photo, cartoon, joke or to sleep and wake at dawn.
workers who did not want to be woken up. The solu- interesting safety item you’d like According to Ekirch, this
to submit for publication on this page, pattern of sleep increased
tion was for knocker uppers to use a long stick to tap send your contribution to
on the windows of the factory workers, loud enough people's likelihood of re-
professionalsafety@assp.org. membering dreams, explain-
to wake those in the room, but quiet enough to not Submissions will not be returned.
disturb slumbering neighbors. Other solutions in- ing the popularity of dream
Please include original
cluded soft hammers, rattles and peashooters. photographer’s name.
interpretation during this time.

72 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2019 assp.org

 I AM A SAFETY
PROFESSIONAL
“Being a safety professional
means listening to employees,
being compassionate and
humble, and providing the
tools and resources to make
their jobs easier.”

AMY TIMMERMAN, CSP, CHES

President | AT Safety Inc.

ASSP.ORG