AI generated image: Tommy Cooper, a British comedian used to perform a magic trick where he requested a volunteer to hand over a wristwatch. An audience member would oblige, and the watch would be placed in a bag on stage. Cooper would produce a hammer and smash the watch. Cooper would then look at the smashed contents and look bewildered. “I’ve forgotten the rest of the trick”, he’d tell the audience. I can’t help but think that this is the current for managing change in OHS or any organizational endeavor.

Why Do Large-Scale Changes in Organizations Fail so Often?

 

It’s a question that haunts executives and employees alike. We often try to answer it by poring over spreadsheets and process maps, following the well-worn paths of 5 or 7-step change models. But the real answers lie not in data, but in how we are tending to the hearts and minds of the people navigating the upheaval.

In a recently conducted safety assessment at a 100,000 employee company, the managers and executives, on the surface, were personable and well-intentioned. Yet, a troubling reality was unfolded. One of the safety executives, passionate about addressing the company’s mental health challenges, was eventually fired for her outspokenness. The prevailing sentiment was that she had pushed mental health “too far,” even though employee surveys painted a stark picture of overwhelming stress and anxiety due to layoffs and unsustainable workloads.

It was a jarring experience. The company boasted about its mental health support, yet the employees’ cries for help were seemingly dismissed. The disconnect was palpable. It is a recurrent theme: the tendency for organizations to prioritize metrics and bottom lines over the lived experiences of their people. Survey comments, those raw and unfiltered glimpses into the unspoken culture, are often brushed aside as anecdotal or unrepresentative. To a reader with the ability to mirror other’s emotiions, each comment represents a human being desperate to be heard, hoping that this time things will be different.

This experience, coupled with countless others, has led me to question the prevailing assumptions about organizational change management. Too often, change initiatives are driven by a relentless pursuit of shareholder value, with leaders fixated on cost-cutting and technical solutions. The human cost of these changes – the fear, the stress, the broken trust – is often overlooked or minimized. The research on failure rates is controversial but appears regularly at 70% from 1996 to 2019 (Kotter, 1996; Jones-Schenk, 2019).

This case is a cautionary tale of what happens when organizations ignore the human side of change. It’s a story of well-meaning leaders blinded by metrics, of a safety team silenced and sidelined, and of a workforce pushed to the brink.

But it’s also a story about caring individuals that see the psychological injuries and take action to help people. In fact, his group which consists of safety and management team members is the potential catalyst for a new approach to change management, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of enterprise risk management (ERM), traditional safety risk management (SRM), and the complex socio-psychological realities of the workplace. It’s about acknowledging that even in the most data-driven organizations, the human element remains the beating heart of success or failure.

In the following sections, we will delve deeper into the case study, exploring the specific ways in which the company’s change initiatives went awry and the lessons from their missteps. We will also examine the critical and often-overlooked role of power dynamics within organizations. As well as the importance of creating a culture where people feel valued, heard, and that they belong.

Ultimately, these challenges are not unique. It is the intention of this article to re-examine the current assumptions about organizational change management in the context of organizational safety and health. A case study, using the pseudonym of Nexus Corporation, serves to illustrate the risks and factors not typically recognized in change management literature. It exposes how board-level pressure to increase shareholder value, coupled with leadership decisions that underestimated the impact of change on people, ultimately compromised safety.

Ultimately, even though the examples are from the results of a safety & leadership assessment, what we discuss here are at the nexus of human existence. In the process it explores how organizations function in silos failing to integrate Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), traditional Safety Risk Management (SRM), and socio psychological dynamics important to people’s well-being. Doing so might have helped Nexus leaders achieve their goals while preventing the mental suffering and increase in high-potential incidents they experienced.

Key Organizational Questions:

1. Why do so many of the typical approaches to large-scale change fail?
2. What are the specific social and psychological factors that often get overlooked in change management?
3. What role does leadership play in the success or failure of organizational change?
4. How can ERM, SRM, and social psychology affect the change management processes?
5. What are the specific risks associated with neglecting employee care and relationships during times of change?

The fix that created a wicked problem:

The intention of the new Safety Management Integration Platform was designed to streamline and enhance safety operations across diverse work environments within Telstra. This platform aims to integrate safety procedures directly into operational processes, ensuring that safety is not treated as an adjunct but as an inherent part of everyday work activities. The platform will provide real-time data access, facilitate communication between safety and operational teams, and support compliance with safety regulations.

Importance of Solving the Problem Now

Addressing these safety management issues is critical to prevent potential safety incidents and ensure compliance with safety regulations. The current fragmented approach not only poses safety risks but also leads to inefficiencies that can affect overall operational performance. Immediate action is necessary to integrate safety into operational processes, thereby enhancing both safety outcomes and operational efficiency.

Data Points and Potential Churn

• The safety team is currently perceived as a blocker rather than a partner, leading to resistance from operational teams.
• Resource constraints have led to delays in implementing safety initiatives, with significant portions of the safety team diverted to compliance tasks.
• The lack of real-time data access and communication between safety and operational teams has resulted in missed opportunities for proactive safety management.

Risks

• Resistance to change from both safety and operational teams accustomed to existing processes.
• Potential initial costs associated with developing and implementing the integration platform.
• The complexity of integrating diverse work environments and ensuring consistent application of safety procedures.

Key Human Dilemmas Faced by Stakeholders:

1. Frontline Employees:

• Overwork and Stress: Employees are grappling with unsustainable workloads due to downsizing, leading to exhaustion and stress. This directly impacts their well-being and creates safety risks.
• Fear of Repercussions: The lack of psychological safety prevents them from speaking up about their concerns, creating a sense of helplessness and further contributing to stress.
• Loss of Access to Safety Information: The new SMS system is cumbersome and inaccessible, leaving them feeling unsupported and vulnerable.

Dilemma: Do they prioritize their well-being and speak up at the risk of potential repercussions, or do they remain silent and continue to suffer in an unsafe environment?

2. Health & Safety (H&S) Team

• The H&S team members observed the increased workload and stress among employees, the difficulties with the new SMS system, and the general decline in morale following the reorganization and downsizing.
• The interviews mention that “employees and contractors reported the system felt time-consuming and like a bureaucratic exercise without real impact on safety.” The H&S team, being closer to the implementation and feedback on the system, would be acutely aware of these shortcomings and their implications for safety culture.
• Additionally, the statement “A distrust of leadership grew as people viewed their response as inadequate” suggests that the H&S team witnessed the erosion of trust and its potential impact on safety culture.

2. “…they may fear retaliation or further marginalization if they speak up too forcefully.”

This fear is supported by the following:

• The text states that “many members of the H&S team did not agree with the direction of the reorg” but their “suggestions and feedback on how an effective health and safety management system and team can function and how to maintain engagement with… employees” were ignored. This suggests that speaking up against the prevailing decisions might not be welcomed.
• The general atmosphere of distrust in leadership and the fact that “all pleading to dismantle the new S&M platform and start anew was disregarded” creates an environment where expressing dissenting opinions might be perceived as risky.
• Even the team tasked with promoting psychological safety felt they lacked it themselves, indicating that open communication and dissent might not be truly encouraged within the organization.

3. “They recognize the negative impacts of the recent changes on safety culture and employee morale, and likely feel a moral obligation to address these issues.”

This is inferred from their professional role and the nature of their concerns:

• As H&S professionals, their primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and well-being of the workforce. It is reasonable to assume they feel a moral obligation to address any factors that compromise safety or employee well-being.
• The text mentions that “quite a few [H&S advisors] have left because [management]… ignored their suggestions and feedback.” This indicates that at least some members of the team felt strongly enough about the issues to leave their positions, suggesting a deep sense of moral obligation.
• The fact that one H&S team was specifically “tasked with promoting psychological safety” further highlights their commitment to employee well-being and their recognition of its importance for overall safety.

The H&S team felt ignored and undervalued:

Their expertise and concerns about the new system are dismissed by leadership, leading to frustration and a sense of powerlessness. The fact that these issues were only addressed after significant problems arose could reinforce a feeling of being undervalued and unheard.

The H&S team members observed the increased workload and stress among employees, the difficulties with the new SMS system, and the general decline in morale following the reorganization and downsizing.

The interviews mention that “employees and contractors reported the system felt time-consuming and like a bureaucratic exercise without real impact on safety.” The H&S team, being closer to the implementation and feedback on the system, would be acutely aware of these shortcomings and their implications for safety culture, yet they were not consulted prior to making changes in the safety system.

They may fear retaliation or further marginalization if they speak up too forcefully.”.

• The interviews state that “many members of the H&S team did not agree with the direction of the reorg” but their “suggestions and feedback on how an effective health and safety management system and team can function and how to maintain engagement with… employees” were ignored. This suggests that speaking up against the prevailing decisions might not be welcomed.
• “A distrust of leadership grew as people viewed their response as inadequate.” The general atmosphere of distrust in leadership and the fact that “all pleading to dismantle the new S&M platform and start anew was disregarded” creates an environment where expressing dissenting opinions might be perceived as risky.
• Even the team tasked with promoting psychological safety felt they lacked it themselves, indicating that open communication and dissent might not be truly encouraged within the organization.

“They recognize the negative impacts of the recent changes on safety culture and employee morale, and likely feel a moral obligation to address these issues.”

Their sense of obligation is inferred from their professional role and the nature of their concerns. As H&S professionals, their primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and well-being of the workforce. It is reasonable to assume they feel a moral obligation to address any factors that compromise safety or employee well-being.

• The text mentions that “quite a few [H&S advisors] have left because [management]… ignored their suggestions and feedback.” This indicates that at least some members of the team felt strongly enough about the issues to leave their positions, suggesting a deep sense of moral obligation.
• The centralization of the H&S function isolated them from the workers they are supposed to protect, hindering their ability to effectively manage safety risks. If an H&S team struggles to get accurate and consistent data from the field, it can hinder their ability to identify and address safety risks effectively, potentially leading to a feeling of isolation and frustration.

In conclusion, the S&H team interviews provided ample evidence, both direct and indirect, to support these statements about the H&S team’s dilemma. Their position at the intersection of safety concerns, organizational change, and leadership dynamics places them in a challenging situation that requires careful navigation.

Ethical Conflict: They see the negative impacts of the changes on safety and employee well-being, but are unable to influence the direction of the organization.

Dilemma: Do they continue to advocate for change at the risk of further alienation or even job loss, or do they compromise their professional values and stay silent?

3. Leadership & Executives:

• Pressure from the Board: They are under immense pressure to deliver results and increase shareholder value, leading to a focus on cost-cutting measures that may have unintended consequences.
• Blind Spots: They are disconnected from the realities on the ground and fail to recognize the impact of their decisions on employees.
• Overreliance on Metrics: They rely too heavily on positive engagement scores, ignoring the underlying issues and concerns of the workforce.

Dilemma: Do they prioritize short-term financial gains at the expense of employee well-being and long-term organizational health, or do they take a more balanced approach that considers the human cost of their decisions?

4. Board of Directors:

• Focus on Profitability: They are primarily driven by the need to maximize shareholder value, potentially overlooking the broader implications of their decisions on the organization and its employees.
• Reliance on Past Success: They base their decisions on historical patterns, failing to recognize the changing dynamics and potential risks of the current situation.

Dilemma: Do they continue to push for aggressive cost-cutting measures despite the evident negative impacts, or do they adopt a more responsible approach that balances financial goals with employee well-being and long-term sustainability?

 

Nexus Case Study: Shortcomings of Traditional Safety Risk Management During Upheavals

Things were not going well at Nexus. After substantial downsizing and reorganization, Nexus leaders found their new safety management system faltering. The way change was implemented compromised workforce morale, employee relationships, and ultimately system usability, posing higher safety risks. Right away we are alerted to fact that the scope of this problem is way outside of the boundaries of H&S—it encompasses the total organization.

Case Study Company Background

Nexus is a 100K employee company involved in construction and property management. The company was under tremendous pressure from the Board of Directors to cut costs and increase stockholder value. One strategic decision was a 15% reduction in headcount, while another was to centralize the H&S function. To cover the reduction of safety and health personnel at the front lines, they implemented a new SMS system platform. The plan was for the platform to provide access to safety information on risk management typically provided by an H&S person. However, it didn’t work out as intended, leaving frontline workers without direct access to important safety protocols and procedures. (Please note that this paper will not be examining the benefits of centralization versus decentralization. It examines how the change was led.)

Presenting Problems

Nexus employees were acutely aware of the unsustainable workload and its impact on safety. One worker stated, “There’s too much work…exhaustion prevails… Many do not come forward for fear of repercussions.”

This highlights the critical need for this company to address not only workload but also create an environment where people feel safe to speak up about how it affects them. Even with the mainstream adoption of “psychological safety” these scenarios persist. What is missing from the industry’s approach to psychological safety? An understanding of the multiple socio-psychological dynamics at play is missing.

Workload Strain and Low Psychological Safety

As a result a survey indicated that 25% of employees reported feeling overworked and stressed. About 10% specifically mentioned that they did not feel safe asking for mental health help. Nexus would not disclose their high potential incident rate but admitted it was uncomfortably high. Additionally, stress leaves increased. Employees blamed it on workload.

Safety Management System Usability

The H&S team members felt the new safety management platform was working well. Unfortunately they were disconnected from workers in the new structure. Employees and contractors reported the system felt time-consuming and like a bureaucratic exercise without real impact on safety. Employees were observed employing workarounds. In short, the system was unfriendly and difficult to navigate.

A distrust of leadership grew as people viewed their response as inadequate. It appeared that leadership’s decision to centralize the H&S function, while aiming for efficiency, didn’t adequately understand the impact on the user experience. Leadership was unprepared for the negative reaction to the usability of the system and the increase in psychosocial hazards, such as workload stress and confusion around safety roles.

Some people saw the centralization as a move for management to take control. “In many other organizations, the safety department sets the agenda and has a seat at highest levels rather than being hidden several layers down.” The reorg broke up long-time relationships and established ways of working. As the evidence mounted that the reorg was falling apart, all pleading to dismantle the new S&M platform and start anew was disregarded. Too much money and effort had been sunk into it just to abandon it.

When engagement scores mask distress

Nexus has a long history of positive employee/management relations as proven by their 80% positive employee engagement scores. Gallup reports the average engagement score in the US, hovers around 30-35% (2023). When asked why the scores were so high in spite of the downsizing, the answer was, “We were very transparent.”

Those high scores indicate that there are good leaders on the frontlines. For example a response to a survey asking for any concerns about wellbeing, an employee stated, “… thankfully my manager strongly supports this but I fear that if I were to move leads, the focus on mental health and wellbeing would change.” These variations in leadership create uncertainty and anxiety—both contributors to reduced safety awareness.

It was only a couple of years ago that the stressful conditions had started according to employee comments. They began perceiving leadership as lacking in empathy as managers did not appear to address employee concerns. Executives referred to the high engagement scores as confirming that they listened well and were very people centered. So they felt no sense of urgency to change anything.

Leadership blind spots

As often happens Nexus management perceptions of reality were vastly different from the workforce’s. Nexus employees reported feeling overwhelmed by their workload due to personnel cutbacks. “We are very good at listening,” said an executive committee member. Yet, employees said they had spoken up and not been heard.

The discrepancy between the workforce and executive perceptions was due to leadership blind spots. When senior executives were told that employees felt there would be retaliation if they expressed disagreement with how the work was managed, they responded that they had never seen anyone retaliated against for bringing up a safety issue. It is unlikely they would because such retaliation is rarely overt. It can be subtle such as being dropped from a team project meeting list or excluded from a social event. The hidden message can impact a person’s willingness to speak out again.

Loss of valuable talent: a hidden risk

Another consequence of blind spots is that you can lose valuable personnel. For instance many members of the H&S team did not agree with the direction of the reorg.

“Being separated from the front line prevents Health and Safety Advisors from building trusted and robust relationships with the employees … quite a few have left because [management]… ignored their suggestions and feedback on how an effective health and safety management system and team can function and how to maintain engagement with …employees.”

One of the H&S teams was tasked with promoting psychological safety. They had not had much success getting their ideas implemented and were making plans to quit. Even those tasked with protecting psychological safety for others didn’t have it. In this way the avenues to receiving the information needed to course correct were slowly cut off.

It wasn’t just H&S personnel that were thinking of resigning. Employees in other functions were also planning to quit because senior leadership wasn’t open to new ideas. Employee resignations due to feeling undervalued and stressed follows a trend that has developed since Covid-19. Employees are prepared to resign and move on to jobs where they feel valued and healthier (Carrillo, 2023; Mellor, 2022; Orvitz, 2022). Research with safety and health advisors showed that over 50% of them were thinking of resigning for the same reasons (Carrillo, 2024).

Internal Conflict at Executive Level

The tensions spread throughout the management teams, further eroding trust and communication. Conversations about risk management became a battleground. Influenced by board pressure to boost shareholder value, some executives adopted a traditional ERM framework that fixated on quantifiable risks like physical hazards. To them, preventing fatalities was the primary means to maintain financial stability and mitigate legal risk.

Despite ample evidence linking workload fatigue to higher fatality rates (WHO & ILO, 2021), some executives dismissed concerns about workload and psychological safety. They viewed these as less tangible, even suggesting they could hinder competitiveness. Others, recognizing the importance of addressing both physical and psychological risks, argued that neglecting worker well-being would ultimately jeopardize productivity and safety. This divide likely contributed to the eventual breakdown of decision-making, fueling resignations.

We/They

Another conflict area concerned long-term employees. Some saw them as people who were simply waiting to retire and added little value because they weren’t technologically savvy. Others saw them as valuable source of institutional knowledge that was a competitive edge. A we/they split was growing.

We have always done it this way

The board of directors was up to date on the conditions on the ground. Nevertheless they voted to proceed with the next layoffs based on past experience of cyclical downsizing and reliance on the workforce resilience. “We have always recovered and come out better than we were.” It remains uncertain how they will handle the emotional turmoil that is sure to come.

The H&S centralization decision may have been necessary, but overlooked the impact it would have on real-world user access and usability of safety systems. This could have been prevented by using established change management processes discussed in our analysis section.

Key Takeaway

While SRM is crucial for managing technical and compliance-based safety risks, it falls short when employees’ perceptions, behaviors, and social interactions are the primary risk factors. ERM, by considering the holistic spectrum of risks, better positions organizations to understand and mitigate risks related to the human and social side of their operations. Rochlin (1999), argued against the traditional focus on technical compliance and individual fallibility, proving that safe operations are an “interactive, dynamic and communicative act.” Hopkins (2012, 2023), demonstrated how organizational culture and power dynamics shape risk perception far more than technical safety management systems do.

Additionally social psychology is a vital discipline that can help us understand the emotional life of organizations. Acknowledging the influence of emotions in decision-making, as emphasized by neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio (1994), highlights the crucial role of emotional intelligence in risk management.

Applied Socio-Psychological Concepts to Risk Management

The Nexus scenario provides an opportunity to examine the risks created when Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and traditional Safety Risk Management (SRM) fail to consider the human, social element. While essential for addressing compliance, technical controls, and quantifiable risks, both ERM and SRM can perpetuate a mindset that views human systems as easily managed. This is where the social psychology of risk (SPoR) fills in the human-centered gaps (Long, 2014).

Brief Introduction on Socio-psychological Applications in Risk Management

This section analyzes the Nexus case study through a socio-psychological lens, demonstrating how this broader perspective can mitigate the risks of human-system breakdowns during large-scale changes. The objective is to provide executives with a model to make better decisions by highlighting the often neglected human and social factors (also known as weak signals) in risk assessments (Sutcliff & Weick, 2007).

While traditional SRM is vital, it’s not person-centered. This oversight, also seen in flawed applications of ERM, led Nexus to prioritize technical solutions and board-level goals over end-user needs. Consequently, Nexus experienced a rising number of stress complaints, near misses, and high-potential incidents.

Social Psychology Concepts

What is social psychology and how can it help leaders manage safety risks during significant organizational change? Social psychology is the study of human social behavior, with an emphasis on how people think towards each other and how they relate to each other under the influence of power, culture, and peer pressure. People can be influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. It fills in the gaps left by traditional SRM by including the often-overlooked human sensibilities that impact risk perception: relationships, psychological safety, decision-making, and cultural norms (Long, 2014).

In the area of risk management, social psychology looks at why and how perception, biases, social influence, and communication play a critical role in how risks materialize. And consequently, how people make decisions to mitigate them. Concepts like groupthink, conformity, cognitive and social biases highlight how our social environment can strongly influence our actions, even unconsciously (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007; Vaughan, 1996; Hollnagel, 2009; Breakwell, 2014). As Long (2014) points out, these social factors can often outweigh individual personality traits when it comes to risk assessment. That means that people can be persuaded that something is safe even if they would ordinarily see it as unsafe.

When reading the case study look for examples from the list below of basic social psychological concepts that play out in the case study. A detailed explanation of these concepts with practical strategies can be found in Table 1., Practical Application of Social Psychology Concepts.

• Social proof: Lack of endorsements from respected workers or success stories from other sites might have contributed to the resistance.
• Bounded rationality: Exceeding the person’s cognitive capacity, leads to frustration and resistance.
• Group norms: A group norm of dismissing people with mental health problems may be at play when people don’t ask for help.
• Cognitive dissonance: When you can’t accept that what you think isn’t real or the truth is contradicted.
• Anchoring bias: When people are convinced that what they think is true, it is hard for them to let go.
• Confirmation bias: We look for evidence of what we think is true.
• Group think: Groups can make irrational decisions due to a desire for harmony and wishing to remain a respected member of the group.

Key take away: By understanding the unconscious social-psychological factors at play, safety practitioners, supervisors or executives can move from reactive investigations to proactive partnerships with their workforce.

Nexus Socio-Psychological Case Study Analysis:

A socio-psychological analysis of the events at Nexus exposes the causal links between leadership decisions and the negative reactions they triggered within the workforce. These reactions are identifiable and predictable patterns recognized by social psychology, including reduced psychological safety, distrust of management, and increased resistance to change.

Reducing headcount

Reducing headcount is a common response to competitive pressures. However, it triggers social proof biases (the tendency to trust and follow the actions of others) and anxieties surrounding job security. Employees frequently see layoffs as a signal of the company’s diminished loyalty, creating uncertainty and undermining their fundamental need for predictability and control.

“… teams and people are stretched to breaking point and yet continually asked to do more. There is a lack of empathy shown by the executive suite that creates a fear of speaking up when wellbeing issues arise (due to the attitudes of our leadership team) – people would rather burn out than be seen as not being able to complete what is asked of them”

Nexus attempted to mitigate these negative reactions by prioritizing transparency throughout their downsizing process. This approach reduces uncertainty and associated resistance, demonstrating a sensitivity to the painful nature of job loss. A lack of transparency, on the other hand, often fuels anger and resistance toward change.

It may be that leadership’s transparency contributed to the high engagement survey scores even after downsizing. However, employees told leaders that they could not handle the workload and that it was creating unusually high levels of stress. Leadership blind spots, coupled with a reliance on past experiences (bounded rationality – the tendency to make decisions based on limited information and past successes), misled leaders. This failure to act on employee concerns became negative social proof of management’s lack of empathy.

Meanwhile, management felt they had responded adequately by reducing corporate objectives in sales and production. As one manager expressed, it felt like a meaningless gesture:

“Corporate initiatives to reduce our objectives are meaningless because this work never stops… Reducing our corporate objectives did nothing to our workload… People are exhausted… It is a H&S issue and is leading to burnout and employee unhappiness.”

Leadership blind spots (not detecting worker stress) and possibly confirmation bias or bounded rationality (interpreting evidence based on past experience) mislead leaders to underestimate the weight of the problem which led to frustration and perceived inauthenticity from leaders.

There is evidence a workforce that believes leadership values the workforce and will behave ethically, the company is much more likely to help the company match or exceed its growth objectives. The book From Good to Great (Collins, 2001) makes that point over and over again.

Poorly introduced technology and restructuring

Nexus’s new safety management platform was a key point of failure. Introduced in the wake of downsizing, its poor reception by workers created a ripple effect of socio-psychological challenges, potentially compromising safety.

Several socio-psychological principles apply when introducing new technology. Management is dealing with bounded rationality, confirmation bias, and social proof. Bounded rationality comes into play as soon as the tech does not perform as expected. Employees already stressed from downsizing might not have had the bandwidth to learn new tech. In the Nexus case they could not predict what could go wrong because there was little input from the end users. It was the perfect storm for reduced learning and awareness.

Lack of User Involvement:

Both the H&S reorg and SMS platform were decided without employee or business leader input. This signaled a lack of respect, making adoption an uphill battle. Furthermore, it prevented the system and reorganized process from being designed with the end user in mind.

Then, when the system came online people were lost. One supervisor wrote,

“Things aren’t working the way we thought they were going to work. Everyone was like, we didn’t know we had to do this. How are we supposed to operationalize it? What are the processes?”

Cognitive Overload and Biases:

Downsizing stress and a complex, unfamiliar platform taxed employees’ cognitive capacity. It made effective adaptation difficult as they were already coping with significant change and uncertainty. Early struggles with the system likely biased workers against the system. That led to confirmation bias—looking for problems to confirm that it doesn’t work.

In environment like this people to figure out how to take control and create some certainty around their work. The system’s limitations encouraged the use of workarounds to make their work easier and more efficient. One example was the use of individual notes for procedures. This resulted in people using multiple approaches to doing the same job. When asked why, they replied that it was too hard to get into the SMS platform to download information. It was much easier to ask fellow workers and keep their own notes.

Anchoring and Social Proof:

Workers are less likely to embrace a system they don’t feel they have a stake in, or one that seems overly complex. This can lead to anchoring bias, where people cling to old routines or only seeing flaws in the new system. Negative social proof (“everyone’s struggling with this”) further reinforces resistance.

Overconfidence, blind spots or groupthink

Several biases could have clouded executive decision-making. The lack of end user consultation is a blind spot: the belief that decisions can be made without input from those directly impacted. Another could be bounded rationality bias as the pressure for the company to produce more profit increased. These biases, once the project was underway, most likely led to the sunk cost fallacy that contributed to stubbornly proceeding despite user difficulties.

Leadership Blind Spots and Dissonance: Why aren’t they listening? What do you mean, I’m not listening?

Nexus leadership, through misguided and well intentioned mental health initiatives, conveyed an unintended message. While 25% of the Survey responses indicated that the initiatives weren’t working, those with the power to change things felt certain all was well.

One of the effects of dissonance is that it is hard to hear or understand disconfirming feedback. Nexus leaders had a self-image of being good listeners and responsive to the needs of the work force. I was hard to accept that employees perceived they did not listen…

“Executives talk wellbeing and mental health but the reality of working here is completely different. For some time now, the number of staff members who use the words burnout, exhaustion, stressed out regularly, is something I have not previously experienced, despite many periods of high intensity work-load over the years.”

“Stop telling me that I should take a break to relieve stress but still load me up with more and more work!”

Fear of retribution: Accurate incident reporting

The same scenario applied to management’s belief that employees felt safe reporting concerns of expressing disagreement. Even though the number of high priority incidents was increasing some managers felt employees were holding back due fear of retribution. There were several anonymous complaints supporting this perception.

• “We are being asked to work a lot harder without the appropriate support and ability to call out if we need support without the fear of retribution”
• “In my opinion well-being includes balance of work, priorities and adequately resourced to perform role without the constant stress of placing work before personal health for fear of repercussions.”

Survey comments are often a plea for help “…maybe someone will listen this time.”

Both SRM and traditional ERM frameworks don’t acknowledge how difficult it is for people to report incidents. Thus they end up creating environments where fear outweighs the perceived benefits of speaking up. Trust is vital for identifying emerging risks and preventing escalation. The survey comments in the Nexus case indicated this was happening, but blind spots prevented management from accepting it as true. Consequently, they did not get vital information.

There is no “program” or platform that will fix this problem. Only by applying the relational principles of social psychology can organizations build a more comprehensive understanding of risk. This empowers leaders to make decisions that not only protect the organization’s physical and financial assets, but generate a climate where workers are partners in detecting risk.

Summary of Analysis

The Nexus case illustrates the inherent challenges of significant change, as seen in most organizations. These were worsened by a lack of empathy that eroded trust and stifled communication. These are all good people, and all share the same socio psychological needs for autonomy, respect, certainty, belonging and fairness. A relationship or workplace that lacks these characteristics also lacks trust. There is no communication without trust, and without communication there can only be failure.

Traditional change management models often neglect the human element. Integrating socio-psychological understanding increases the likelihood of gaining support for change efforts. Learning to identify and how to respond to socio psychological conditions can help managers prepare for possible scenarios.

“Excessive workload” is subjective. There is no acceptable standard measurement, all there is, is people’s feedback. If there isn’t any trust between the worker and the supervisor, the supervisor is likely to believe the employee is gaming the system. In a case where the supervisor trusts the person, they will see it as an opportunity to show they care about and value them.

If someone came to them with a broken arm there would be no question about that person needing some time off. In our society psychic pain is invisible therefore difficult to talk about or acknowledge. Expanding the perception of health and safety to include mental wellbeing is a challenge that H&S is only beginning to address.

Mistakes happen all of the time in organizations. Recovery is possible. The remedy is to listen to people and learn about and apply the principles of social psychology. That is how information can surface to prevent the next incident.

This case study underscores why understanding how people think, feel and behave when confronted by loss and change strengthens risk management. By failing to address crucial human factors like trust, communication, and psychological well-being, organizations inadvertently create barriers to successful change and increase the likelihood of safety incidents. Leaders who understand social psychology can foster environments where employees feel safe, valued, and empowered to proactively identify and mitigate risk. This holistic approach ultimately leads to greater resilience, better decision-making, and a stronger safety culture.

Actionable Tips for Safety Executives

How can a safety executive use this information to help the leadership team? These recommendations come from experience but our subject to change pending on the national culture where you are working. That is a subject for a separate article, so for now keep it in mind. As you read these recognizing that safety encompasses both physical and psychological well-being, develop your own comprehensive approach that addresses the impact of both on systems and leadership decisions.

1. Prioritize in-depth qualitative analysis of survey comments to uncover the root causes of safety concerns and hidden risks. This emphasizes going beyond surface-level trends. Social psychology teaches us that the why” behind numbers reveals the true drivers of behavior and risk perception. There is so much wisdom to be learned from survey comments.
2. Respond to survey comments thoughtfully, acknowledging frustrations and outlining specific steps taken to address issues. Implement a feedback loop demonstrating commitment to user-centered design and transparency. This addresses psychological needs for feeling heard and valued. Builds trust by showing feedback impacts decision-making. For example clearer instructions on the platform) show you’re listening.
3. Prioritize face to face interactions. Schedule town halls, and face-to-face conversations to address concerns immediately. Addresses different communication preferences, cuts through information overload, and allows for two-way dialogue crucial to addressing complex safety issues. Social psychology tells us face-to-face interactions build stronger rapport, essential when addressing sensitive or emotional topics.
4. Establish relationships with managers to build partnerships. Provide training and tools to help them proactively identify and address issues within their teams and advocate for their works. It can empower mid-level leaders who have the most influence on daily work. Addresses group norms and power dynamics that might hinder safety reporting. Suggest managers hold regular safety check-ins with their teams, separate from performance reviews.
5. Incorporate social and psychological risk factors into risk assessments. Use validated tools and surveys to gauge psychological safety, workload strain, and trust levels. A good example is the MiProfile assessment from Human Dymensions.[1]
6. Facilitate data-driven conversations with leadership to bridge the gap between their perception and employee experiences. Present qualitative feedback alongside quantitative data, using storytelling techniques to make the issues real. This helps to challenge cognitive dissonance with evidence, appealing to both logic and empathy. Storytelling is a powerful way to make abstract concepts relatable. As described earlier help leaders practice framing questions in a way that encourages honest sharing from employees.

Recommendations from the org members

The retrospective meeting focused on addressing the relational issues between the Safety, Health, and Environment (SHE) team and the business at Nexus. Key points included the unclear roles and responsibilities, inconsistent partnerships, and the need for a stronger safety culture. A female leader highlighted the challenges in incident response and investigation procedures for mental health incidents, emphasizing the need for supportive leadership and a holistic approach to health and well-being.

Highlights of What Went Well

• Commitment to Mental Health: Nexus’ senior leaders have shown a strong commitment to mental health by putting a spotlight on it and bringing in a dedicated mental health team.
• Focus on Human-Centered Initiatives: The organization is working on best practice initiatives that are human-centered and well-controlled.
• Supportive Leadership: There is recognition of the importance of supportive leadership in managing both physical and mental health risks.

Areas for Improvement

• Incident Response and Investigation: There is a need for consistent application of procedures and better coding of mental health incidents to ensure they are properly investigated.
• Communication and Relationships: The relationship and communication between the SHE team, HR executives, and function executives need improvement.
• Safety Culture: Nexus needs to build a comprehensive safety culture that includes mental health but also addresses other safety risks.
• Leadership Development: There is a need for better leadership development in managing people and creating a positive culture.

Ideas for Improvement

• Standardized Incident Coding System: Implement a standardized incident coding system that requires justification for each code and ensures all relevant departments review high-risk cases before closing them.
• Cross-Functional Safety Committee: Create a cross-functional safety committee that includes members from various departments to regularly review and audit mental health incidents and outcomes.
• Anonymous Feedback Platform: Develop an anonymous feedback platform for employees to report concerns about safety and mental health without fear of repercussions.
• Mandatory Training Programs: Introduce mandatory training programs for all leaders addressing mental health, safety culture, and effective people management strategies.

Key Outcomes

• Recognition of Challenges: The meeting highlighted the systemic issues in incident response and the need for a stronger safety culture.
• Commitment to Improvement: There is a commitment to improving relationships, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and investing in better data management.
• Focus on Supportive Leadership: Emphasis on the importance of supportive leadership in creating a safe and healthy work environment.

Open Questions

• How can we ensure that the incident coding system is consistently applied across all departments?
• What specific measures can be taken to improve the relationship between the SHE team and other business leaders?
• How can we effectively measure the impact of prevention efforts and safety culture initiatives?
• What additional resources or support are needed to build a comprehensive safety culture at Telstra?

Conclusion:

Organizational change significantly impacts human and social systems, and neglecting these factors leads to increased risk and organizational distress. The adoption of psychosocial concepts into risk management is a fundamental shift in thinking about how health and safety emerge as an outcome of organizational life. The people systems play a prominent role in recognizing and mitigating risk. Yet business leaders often default to technical solutions. As explained by a former human performance expert from Los Alamos Labs, “Human performance people go technical first then try to bring in the human factor. We need to normalize socio tech. Start with personal interactions. If you build systems based on the values that people bring, buy-in follows. (James Marinus, personal conversation, 2023).”

Nexus leaders were not prepared to handle the resistance and psychological distress that followed the downsizing, reorganization and introduction of the new SMS platform. An understanding and application of socio-psychological principles would have alerted them to the substantial conversations and training needed prior to implementation. This missed opportunity to prevent the resistance and psychological distress at Nexus underscores the critical importance of this mindset shift.

It has been the author’s experience that discussions around mergers acquisitions and downsizing with safety executives are typically limited to staff numbers, technology, physical hazards and risks. This focus persists in spite of consistent findings that leadership and culture are at the root of most significant failures. Can safety executives drive this shift to prioritize human systems thinking in risk mitigation?

The first step is recognizing the need, but lack the power to drive organization-wide change is a barrier. For lasting impact, they must partner with influential executives who are similarly committed to a people-centric approach.

This case study offers insight into the cultural consequences of leadership failing to prioritize the human element. Edgar Schein’s organizational culture change framework is helpful here. He observed that how leaders react during times of crisis shapes organizational culture. In this case, the ineffectiveness of the H&S system and the disconnect regarding safety priorities exposed a potential cultural issue around trust in leadership and their commitment to safety (Schein, 2004).

However, such a crisis for leadership can be turned into an opportunity by demonstrating openness to the feedback. It shows that the company cares about people’s feedback and is willing to take proactive steps to understand the root causes of the challenges. Not responding in a receptive manner can create cynicism and distrust.

Again, while traditional SRM and ERM play a vital role, focusing primarily on technical controls and compliance can leave gaps. This is where social psychology becomes a powerful ally. It describes how people decide the right thing to do through group dynamics. These include social proof, biases, social norms, and power. Research has shown that there is a level of predictability in these dynamics that leaders can use to mitigate risks arising from human interactions—always remembering that errors are committed within a larger context, not to be blamed on lack of character.

At Nexus, leadership blind spots created workload stress, a breakdown of trust, and ultimately increased potential for serious incidents. Even the team dedicated to promoting psychological safety felt demoralized and unheard. Some of them resigned as a consequence. This is a critical warning sign to executives. They must recognize that a people-centric approach values the mental well-being and insights of their own safety professionals.

By prioritizing the recommendations outlined above and adopting a holistic view of safety that considers both physical and socio-psychological hazards, safety executives can play a catalytic role in helping people feel heard during organizational change. Consider sharing this article with your CEO or a like-minded executive in operations to start preparing for the next change effort.

References

Anand, N. (2024). Are we learning from Accidents? Novellus.

Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The psychology of risk. Cambridge University press

Carrillo, R. A. (2023). Health and safety leadership strategies: how authentically inclusive leaders inspire employees to achieve extraordinary results. Rutledge: London.

Carrillo, R. A. (2023). OHS voices from the resistance. Carril           lo & Assoc. publication.

Chang, A. (2024). Tesla 2/more than 10% of its global workforce. Los Angeles Times. April 15, 2024.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Random House Business Books.

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam

Democracy now. (2024). Profit over safety: Boeing supplier ignored safety warmings before jet door blowout, the Lever reports. https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/9/boeing_warning_signs

Developmental psychology. (2024). www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Developmental_psychology

Gallup Org. (2023). In New Workplace, U.S. Employee Engagement Stagnates. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/608675/new-workplace-employee-engagement-stagnates.aspx#:~:text=In%20the%20latest%20reading%2C%20from,than%202020’s%20high%20of%2036%25.

Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Ashgate Publishing.

Hopkins, A. (2012). Disastrous Decisions: The Human and Organisational Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout. CCH Australia.

Hopkins, A. (2023). The Human and Organisational Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout. Australian National University. Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Oil and Gas Law.

Human Dymensions. MiProfile Methodology. https://www.humandymensions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/MiProfile-Demo-Report-Desktop-Executive-Summary.pdf

Jones-Schenk, Jan. (2019). 70% Failure Rate: An Imperative for Better Change Management. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 50. 148-149. 10.3928/00220124-20190319-03.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Long, R. (2014). The social psychology of risk. https://spor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Social-Psychology-of-Risk.pdf

Long, R. (2019). The social psychology of risk handbook. https://spor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Social-Psychology-of-Risk-Handbook-CH-1-2.pdf

Mellor, S. (2022). Pandemic driven depression is driving labor shortages. Fortune magazine. Accessed 5/14/2022. https://fortune.com/2022/01/21/COVID19-pandemic-driven-depression-world-labor-shortage/Marinus, J. Muschara, T., Farris R. (2022). Critical steps. CRC Press.

Orvits, K. (2022). Worker retention starts with easing employee stress and strain. Accessed 3/1/2022 https://ohsonline.com/articles/2022/02/01/worker-retention-starts-with-easing-employee-stress-and-strain.aspx

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey Bass.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.

WHO/ILO (2021). Accessed July 21, 2022. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-09-2021-who-ilo-almost-2-million-people-die-from-work-related-causes-each-year

Additional Reading

The American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP): https://www.assp.org/about/assp-fact-sheet This webpage from the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) discusses the convergence of ERM and SRM and offers resources for safety professionals interested in learning more.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO): https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html The ISO 31000 standard provides a framework for ERM that can be applied to safety risk management as well.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-30 The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) offers resources on integrating risk management frameworks, including safety.