CONSULTING · TRAINING · COACHING
If workplace safety is described merely as a priority, it risks being pushed behind another priority on a busy day. This is why I value the distinction between “Safety First” and “Safety Must”: treating safety as an indispensable condition of production.
I am not reporting an official change to a company’s slogan here. My focus is the approach I want to see in management decisions.
Reflections on the Alcoa story
Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit, uses the example of Alcoa and Paul O’Neill in his book to describe how a focus on safety can affect an organisation’s working habits. The author also includes this example in his introduction to the book. [1]
The lesson I take from this account is that we should not leave safety on a poster. Reporting a hazard, addressing it promptly and following up the solution involve communication, maintenance, standardised work and leadership behaviour together.
We should not read this story as proof that one practice created all of a company’s financial success. The more valuable question is: how do our words about safety translate into daily decisions?
What do we do when pressure increases?
Delivery pressure, a cost target or an equipment efficiency indicator cannot justify ignoring a known hazard. If an employee believes they will be blamed for reporting an abnormality, the safety message on the board is not enough on its own.
It must be clear who will be informed when a hazard arises, under which conditions work will stop and who will decide that work can safely restart. Risks specific to the business and task should be assessed by competent teams.
For me, “Safety Must” becomes concrete in this question: are we accepting a risk to meet today’s target that we could not explain to a person tomorrow?
