Posted By Philip McAleenan
Some of these issues were addressed at the World Safety Congress last year. Below are a few paragraphs from a paper I presented at one of the sessions that examined competency and function in relation to prevention.
Within the competency definition there is an inference that the competent person has the resources necessary to act and the authority to decide appropriate actions. Without either the resources or the relevant powers of authority competence is negated and consequently the person is in the position where a breach of his duty of care becomes a distinct possibility.
Competence, as a concomitant to the duty of care, is a universal responsibility that must be exercised by all parties within the stakeholder framework, from the Board via the management team to production operatives, and between Government, private companies, contractors and suppliers.
The proper exercise of responsibility requires that all within the matrix of work not only hold the competences appropriate to their own post but give respect and due consideration to the competences and requirements of others within the matrix.
This means that everyone comes to his or her respective position or job competent to function in that role. Those with management and directorial responsibilities ensure that the people they manage are provided with adequate resources to carry out their jobs and have been given the authority to make all the decisions necessary to achieve a successful outcome. In general there is common agreement that the provision of sufficient resources is necessary for work processes to be carried out competently, whether those resources are human, material or financial. Statutory regulations and attendant codes of practice when addressing responsibilities regularly include a resources requirement, although what is frequently overlooked is that authority is a necessary adjunct to responsibility. How often has an individual been held responsible for a task or function where they have not been given the relevant authority to make the correct decisions necessary for success? That individual is usually the person subsequently held responsible or accountable when something does go wrong. Consequently responsibility is equated with blame, and blame has the habit of filtering down through the management hierarchy, rather than upwards.
Where each participant in a work situation is armed with the three elements, (authority, resources and competence) then the requirements for a preventative safety culture is met.
The belief that this [OSH] business is everybody’s business is steadily gaining recognition as a core value, among enlightened organisations but that does not happen automatically. It takes a conscious act to make it a reality and vigilance, commitment and competence to sustain the belief.
For the concept of prevention as a universal responsibility to become successfully embedded in the organisations’ values and effective within their operational methodology, an acceptable perspective on the roles of the various players in the organisational framework is required. Regardless of the socio-political environment in which an organisation exists it is fundamentally a holistic entity, whether it is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by a single individual or a co-operative owned and controlled by the all participants in the organisation. The effectiveness of an organisation is predicated upon each participant within the framework performing up to and within the parameters of their position and being influential in such directions as is necessary for the effective working of others. An effective organisation is comprised of a range of roles or positions that are necessary for and whose function it is to achieve the successful outcome of the aims, objectives and targets of the organisation. Each role has a clearly defined and necessary function that is occupied by personnel who are competent, resourced and in possession of the appropriate level of authority to control their particular task.
Roles that exists above and beyond the functions needed to successfully execute the organisation’s business are superfluous and create a draining effect on the vitality of core functions by abstracting from them authority, responsibility and resources. For example, if a financial manger exercises control over resources that should necessarily be controlled by operational managers, or a safety officer strays into the role of trying to manage the safety aspects of an operation the consequential outcome is to neuter the effectiveness and compromise the competence of operational staff. In the process you negate the practice of universal responsibility thus mitigating against prevention as a universal responsibility within each necessary function.
Companies using the OAC management model examine the requirements necessary for successful and therefore safe outcomes and ensure that the resources; human, material and financial, are in place to control their operations. The OAC approach is expandable from simple everyday tasks to the comprehensive task of governing the organisation. Its effectiveness requires that each functional role has a sphere of control and a sphere of influence. Individuals operating within the necessary functions must have the competence to manage within their sphere of control interacting with neighbouring functions to the extent necessary to co-ordinate their activities and communicate essential information, within each contributor’s sphere of influence. Overlaps within the sphere of influence exist to the extent that they support smooth operations. Greater overlaps lead to an unnecessary duplication of role and a subsequent reduction in organisational effectiveness.
Regards, Philip