Rank: Super forum user
|
In a follow on to vincehowards post on "Waiver from Liability", I ask the question; why do so many senior leadership teams employ competent advisors and then either reject or actively argue with the advice they have paid for? Why bother? I'm sure there is not a safety professional on these forums that have not experienced this at some time or perhaps all of the time.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My theory is a concept I call 'magical protection'. By employing a competent adviser and putting their name to your business, you have performed health and safety and are thus magically protected. So there is no need to do anything else. You can also do this with an ISO 45001 certificate printed on magical paper, but that requires quite a bit more sacrifice to buy.
|
 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good afternoon Holliday I think that in a well run organisation it is entirely appropriate for managers (both senior and lower down) to choose not to accept all the advice they get from their OSH professional(s). Suppose you have a factory setting (though you can imagine any setting as being a sort of factory, where work is about converting inputs into outputs preferably in a fashion that is both efficient and effective). The Works Manager or someone with a similar title has lots of competing priorities, but the OSH professional tends to focus on just one of those priorities and may not be seeing the broader picture. If the organisation is run as generally advised then that Works Manager should apply an integrated approach where they own H&S just as they own output, quality and many other priorities. That person has to work out how the advice from their OSH professional fits in (or not, or only in part) with all the other things they are responsible for. Suppose you as the OSH professional identify some substandard machinery guarding issues and suggest that the company spends £10,000 on improvements. However, what the OSH professional may not see is that there is a plan brewing to spend £50,000 on chaging the way things are done, possibly completely doing away with the process that involves the machinery with substandard guarding. It might not be sound business to spend £10,000 on new guards for machinery that is going to be decomissioned in the next year or so. Conversely the risk might be so great that such expendurite is needed even though it is a short term investment. Of course, the more the OSH professional is a trusted adviser the more likely it is that they become embedded into a decision making process that DOES look at the big picture. At this point they may be less inclined to press for that £10k short term investment in machinery guarding as they can better see how the same money would add more value as part of a broader investment. Not always the story. Managers sometimes give their OSH professionals insufficient hearing!! - quite often as they don't really own H&S as an integral part of their role - easy to try and offload the H&S to the Safety Bod.
|
 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333  In a follow on to vincehowards post on "Waiver from Liability", I ask the question; why do so many senior leadership teams employ competent advisors and then either reject or actively argue with the advice they have paid for? Why bother? I'm sure there is not a safety professional on these forums that have not experienced this at some time or perhaps all of the time.
I sometimes feel it is to tick a box or to try pass the blame on to some else
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is listening to but notionally dismissing the H&S input any different to listening and notionally dismissing the heart felt and soundly reasoned recommendations by the accountants, fleet managers, IT dept, etc. each could cost the company significantly if/when things go wrong.
We need to be careful that the advisor doesn’t let their ego override how they are a big fitting in to the company’s overall machine.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Having come from a senior operational role before moving into HSE in a senior role I feel that Peter has almost hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the frustrating part being on the other side is not having all the right information given as an operational head to look at the point raised. Now being on the safety side I ensure I have all the right details to have that open discussion, understand as Peter mentioned is there plans being discussed for change. I would say if the business takes safety seriously you or a senior will be part of the business changes and what impact it would have - key to good change management process, multi function leadership engagment. So I always ensure that any discussion and advice given has the details to why its important whether it be risk or financial based etc. I always say being a good safety professional is as good as a good sales man. :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333  I ask the question; why do so many senior leadership teams employ competent advisors and then either reject or actively argue with the advice they have paid for? Why bother?
Yes we have all had our comments argued with, but there is nothing wrong with ideas or opinions being challenged. Sound reasoning and an ability to influence others is an important toolkit in the H&S practitioners arsenal. By the same token I have also witnessed productivity stifled by overzealous H&S bods. On a site a few years back all of the contractors were told to revise their RAMS to include the provision that every time a power tool was not in use the battery was removed, even when placed down for a few minutes. The reason being as there had been an incident on another site(!) that someone had picked up a tool accidently squeezing the trigger in the process and injured themselves. Now given the amount of times trdades pick up and put doen thieir drills, etc throughout a working day and how many times an injury occured, is this reasonably practicable? Now I'm not saying your advice is this flawed, but if your arguement cannot stand up to scrutiny than you need to rethink, or keep documented records of your advice given and move on.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why should the H&S professional expect things to be easy? If you present something to management, you should expect it to be challenged and it’s down to you to provide the evidence to support your recommendations. The H&S bod is not always fully aware of the big picture and ideally should be providing a range of acceptable options rather than insisting there is only one way: my way. It is true some managers don’t get H&S and assume that it is some form of magical charm, which will protect if it goes wrong but if that’s what they believe who’s fault is that? H&S is like missionary work sometimes, but it is interesting when the scales fall from their eyes and they get on board-hallelujah. We can’t assume that everything thing we say is correct and true and sometimes the H&S bod is just following a trend rather than providing advice suitable for that specific workplace.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.