Blame is bad for business, especially when safety is concerned. It creates a culture of fear and causes frustration, it gives rise to negative human factors, it erodes trust and it can disincentivise incident reporting. From the HOP principle “blame fixes nothing” to the no-blame mindset leadership skill proposed by safety thought leaders Dr. Pandora Bryce and Pete Batrowny, there are widely accepted safety management systems that advise against pointing fingers.
But like so many things in safety, agreeing that blame is bad is different than being able to stop blaming people altogether. For many folks, blame is tangled up with accountability, so imagining a workplace without it is challenging. Does no blame mean no consequences? How do we keep people in line if they aren’t singled out for causing an incident?
Blame and the big picture
In a new webinar based on his keynote presentation “Saving Your Safety Culture With No-Blame Accountability,” safety expert Danny Smith demonstrates how organizations can maintain accountability without the threat of incrimination. It all starts with understanding blame, and in order to do that, you need to look at the big picture of how outcomes are achieved.
All outcomes—from the good, like meeting a production quota on time, to the bad, like a system upset that results in an injury—are the result of numerous influences. Various technical systems (like technology and engineering) and people systems (including pre-shift meetings, supervisors and culture) affect the thoughts and internal factors of individual employees, which influence their actions. And while those actions directly contribute to outcomes, they are really the product of all the other influences behind the action.
When we blame someone, we are usually singling out the actions of an individual involved in an incident, although sometimes we blame the system or even ourselves. Regardless of where we point the finger, blame fails to account for the big picture. And when our focus is too narrow, we get dragged down unproductive paths of disciplinary action, passive aggression and ridicule, none of which produce better or more reliable outcomes in the future.
The four commitments of accountability
Maintaining accountability without blame requires us to avoid the tunnel vision that comes with pointing fingers, focusing instead on the big picture and what our teams are trying to achieve. In his presentation, Smith proposes that true accountability requires an organization, and its leaders, safety professionals and workers, to commit to four principles:
1. Communication
“Ensure that we’re having those conversations,” says Smith. “Even the ones that may be a bit difficult. ”
Communication contributes to accountability by ensuring individuals are aware of each other and the systems they work with, helping address concerns as they arise and building trust. Sharing a common language, raising issues and asking questions are all ways to build this first commitment. Safety professionals can help foster an environment where workers feel heard, while leaders can contribute by making sure they are proactively signaling their intentions and responding to questions. This aspect of accountability can be strengthened by exercising soft skills like storytelling and humor.
2. Transparency
“We need to commit to transparency,” Smith says. “Be willing to talk about even the tough things. Make sure we’re bringing things to light, and when people do bring things to light that we respond in the appropriate manner.”
A culture of communication needs to be supported by a commitment to transparency. Encouraging workers to provide feedback after actions have been taken to fix an issue is one way to practice transparency. Another way is for safety pros to check in with everyone involved to make sure there isn’t any ambiguity around the issues that are currently being faced. And for leaders, transparency means being clear about what actions are being taken, why those actions are being taken and when they are expected to happen.
3. Safety
Communication and transparency can only be achieved if workers feel both physically and mentally safe. But workers also need to participate in safety by following procedures, building habits and addressing human factors. Safety professionals are challenged to engage workers and leadership to keep safety fresh and prevent folks from slipping into complacency. And leaders must participate in safety, too. This commitment needs to start at the top—workers won’t be able to commit to communication and transparency unless they feel safe in doing so, and unless they see their company’s leadership team doing so too.
4. Outcomes
“Above all, we need to commit to outcomes,” says Smith, who includes safety as one of an organization’s key targets. By committing to a clearly communicated objective, we have a common direction to move in. With shared goals, individuals at every level can keep their eyes on the prize, even when things go wrong. What’s more, a strong company mission helps foster a sense of fulfilment, preventing some common forms of burnout.
These four accountability commitments can be actively implemented in any workplace, provided that there is a strong foundation of psychological safety and trust. To help organizations get things started, Smith walks viewers through how to make an accountability map, which can function as a blueprint to establishing a pro-accountability environment that isn’t held back by the negative repercussions of blame.
Wait… What about consequences?
Organizations that have these four commitments in place can eliminate the need for blame without creating a workplace that has no consequences.
As Smith explains:
“Things are going to happen and when they do our commitment comes first. That doesn’t mean there’s no consequences, it just means that consequences are not the number one priority. And the consequences may not be disciplinary. That tends to be our “go-to,” but that doesn’t have to be the case.”
By collectively committing to communication, transparency, safety and outcomes at all levels, organizations can keep individuals accountable through teamwork instead of blame. And they can focus on taking actions to improve future outcomes rather than punishing individuals for past errors.
One blog post can only scratch the surface of this immense topic. To learn more about no-blame accountability—including the various ways blame manifests in organizations and how to commit to accountability in good faith—watch Danny Smith’s new webinar, or catch him at this year’s VPPPA Safety+ Symposium and experience his presentation live.