Join me in understanding individual responsibility in the traditional approach to safety management.
In my recent exploration of the role of individual responsibility in accident prevention, I encountered several perspectives that found an over emphasis on social systems and under emphasis on the Technical systems. Rather than “a traditional approach” some might call it the “practical” or even the “most effective” approach. These perspectives, which have existed for a long time, seem to resonate with many safety practitioners. To better understand their enduring appeal, I’ve categorized these perspectives into three areas: 1. emphasis on individual responsibility, 2. focus on physical and regulatory aspects, and 3. additional viewpoints. (See attached document).
I’d like to invite you to critically examine these perspectives and give your input to refine and contextualize them within a human-centered framework.
Emphasis on Individual Responsibility:
- “Safety starts with me”: The idea that individuals have a primary responsibility for their own safety and should take ownership of their actions.
- Accountability for knowing and managing risk: The belief that individuals are accountable for being aware of risks and taking appropriate precautions.
- “If you can do something, you should”: The expectation that individuals should take action to mitigate hazards and prevent harm, even if it goes beyond their prescribed duties.
Focus on Physical and Regulatory Aspects:
- “Stay grounded in reality rather than theory”: The preference for practical solutions and real-world experience over abstract theoretical frameworks.
- “Much of what creates safety is already defined in law”: The emphasis on complying with existing safety regulations and legal requirements.
- “Perhaps we don’t need more theoretical frameworks but rather a focus on why organizations choose not to do what the law already requires them to do”: The belief that enforcing existing regulations is more important than developing new theories or approaches.
Additional Points:
- “Workers bring their own challenges and distractions to the workplace”: The recognition that individual factors, such as personal values and life stresses, can influence safety outcomes.
- “Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one: people are complicated, life is complicated, and pretending it’s all about organizational systems only adds unnecessary complexity”: The skepticism towards overly complex systemic explanations and a preference for simpler, individual-focused solutions.
To further this discussion, I pose these questions:
Accuracy and Completeness: Are these statements accurately and completely capturing the essence of the traditional view of safety management? How could they be refined to better reflect this perspective?
Underlying Assumptions: What are the underlying assumptions and beliefs that make this approach seem practical and effective to some safety practitioners?
Integration with Human-Centered Framework: How can these concepts be integrated into a human-centered framework for safety management? Can they coexist with a more systemic and socially-aware approach, or do they represent a fundamentally different paradigm?
By exploring these questions, we can gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of safety management practices and identify opportunities to bridge the gap between individual responsibility and organizational accountability. This will help us create a more holistic and effective approach to safety that recognizes the complexities of human behavior within organizational and societal systems.
Rosa Antonia Carrillo is the author of
The Relationship Factor in Safety Leadership
