Safety Myth #6 – Safety Training

Chris Goulart Challenges the Value of Safety Training

Myth #6- Safety Training… actually does some good.

Ok, I might be a little late getting to this myth.  Some safety people are beginning to realize that training, just for the sake of training, provides little benefit.  Some of the terms that I have heard include “the Training Trap” and “It’s Training Again” (sung to the tune of “It’s Raining Again”).  But for those of you who still think it is a good idea to conduct regular safety training, please read on. 

Anyone who is versed in education and the true communication of knowledge to adult learners scoffs at the notion of “training”.  Dr. E. Scott Geller puts it very well when he talks about the difference between training and education.  Think about your 15 year old daughter, if you have one.  If not, imagine this situation.  Your daughter comes home from school to tell you about a new class she will soon be taking.  It is part of the district’s new progressive curriculum.  How would you feel if she told you she was getting A. – Sex Education or B. – Sex Training???  

Training is defined according to Dictionary.com as: to make proficient by instruction and practice, as in some art, profession, or work: to train soldiers: ,  to make (a person) fit by proper exercise, diet, practice, etc., as for an athletic performance:,  or  to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

When you begin to look at training in this context, it doesn’t sound all that appealing.  No wonder employees never want to attend safety training. 

Also, consider this; if a knowledge gap exists, is that enough of a reason to spend time, energy, and resources on training?  Absolutely not.!!!!!   I am sure most of your employees don’t know the primary export from Mongolia is molybdenum and fluorspar.  I am also  sure there is no need for them to know this.  In order to initiate training you first need to establish not only that a knowledge gap exists, but that your organization will benefit if this gap is filled.  Essentially, there must be a discernable benefit that can be expected if employees receive some type of safety education. 

 So why is it that companies routinely train employees on topics that are completely irrelevant?  Is it because they think that the employee really wants to know all of the intricacies of donning and doffing a respirator that they will never use? Or is it because the employees are really interested in knowing all about the MSDS for Chloral Acetate?   Obviously, the topic of safety training needs further exploration.

There are a few fundamental reasons why companies use safety training. 

•1.   There is a legitimate reason

There will be numerous situations where an actual lack of knowledge exists for your employees.  Although companies may rationalize that whenever they use training it is justified; this is patently false.  That said, here are at least three conditions where conducting safety training actually makes sense.  There are probably a few more justifiable situations where training employees is an appropriate action, but these three are likely the most common.

One of the best examples where safety training makes good sense is also one of the most common and easily understood, new hire orientation.   Obviously, new employees are likely to have both general and specific gaps in knowledge that they will need to work safely.  Therefore, having a well designed plan for new hire training is more than appropriate.  Remember, you need to tell new employees three basic principles – 1) what hazards exist in your workplace;  2) what are your expectations for your employee’s behavior; and 3) what you will do to them if they fail to comply. 

Another good example is when an organization changes a process or when new hazards are discovered with an existing process.  This concept borrows heavily from OSHA’s primary training requirements, but in this instance, OSHA provides insightful regulatory requirements.  New hazards or newly discovered hazards (such as the realization that the industrial cleaning chemical your company has been allowing employees to use for skin moisturizer is actually a carcinogen) require that employees be educated about their specific hazards.  In this instance a true lack of knowledge exists and it is incumbent upon the organization to give whatever education is needed to help employees enhance their personal safety. 

A final reason for legitimately conducting safety training is when you are introducing yet another safety “flavor-of-the-month”.  Programs like incentives, new safety management protocols, or new risk assessment techniques all require training for employees.  The basic rule of thumb here is, if you are changing the maze, at least give the rats a fighting chance to find the cheese. 

 

•2.   It is required

This one is a very easy concept to understand.  OSHA requires training.  If you fail to train and provide documentation as OSHA requires you will be cited and fined.  If you train but don’t retain documentation you will be cited and fined.  If you train and document the training, but  you can’t find it you will be cited and fined.  If you train and document the training and you can find it, but you missed one employee signature, you will be cited and fined.  It is all well and good to do annual safety training (actually, it is pretty pointless and useless, but I digress) however, the documenting the training provisions are so subjective that even if your company undertakes due diligence to train everyone the way they are supposed to, you could still be cited, fined, and have your name placed in the OSHA Rogue’s Gallery.

I see little good with required annual training.  As a safety consultant who has met with way too many customers to do the annual Lockout/Tagout Refresher Training.  I can tell you that many employees would rather burn their eyes out with a live current feed than sit through another description of “lock, tag, and test… Isn’t this fun”.  Come to mention it, if I am ever asked to do another LO/TO training session I may very well grab both ends of a live circuit and try to become the Super Hero the Human Arc Flash!!!

 •3.   It is easy

Training really is the easiest safety intervention you can have.   Management is not required to confront any of their real problems.   If we have an accident involving forklifts damaging racking, we need to train the forklift drivers.  Never mind that the designated travel paths barely give the lift trucks enough room to maneuver or that the forklifts were new when dirt was young.  The real problem is lack of training for the 30 year veteran operators. 

Correcting the real problems is a much better solution.  Unfortunately, most companies never get to the first step in this process.  First, you have to identify the actual problem.  In his book, “Bringing Out the Best in People, the Amazing Power of Positive Reinforcement” Aubrey Daniels refers to this concept as Pinpointing.  Specifically, Pinpointing is the process of determining EXACTLY where the deficiencies exist by figuring out where the organization really is and where it wants to be.  This cannot be accomplished by finger pointing, scape-goating, or blaming employees for a lack of knowledge by using inappropriate training.  Until and unless organizations begin using a more exacting approach like pinpointing the coffers of training consultants will remain burgeoning and bloated.

 •4.   It is used as a CYA device

Ok, your employees finally brought in the union.  You hoped it wouldn’t happen but it did.  Now you need another, more creative way to get rid of those bad apples.  Wait a second, how about  you conduct a bunch of safety training, get everyone’s name on a sign in sheet for something you know they will never do safely, and fire them all when they don’t comply. 

The above scenario my sound farfetched, but it is scarily very close to an actual organization that I worked with many years ago.  The union was already in place and entrenched, but management really wanted to loosen their hold.  So, in an attempt to send a message they began disciplining workers for failing to follow PPE requirements of eye-protection and foot protection in areas where it had only recently begun to be required.  Worse, management would also “write-up” people who weren’t wearing hearing protection in designated areas… even if they walked through one of the designated rooms without ear plugs and were in it for no more than a few seconds.   Management always referred back to the training sign in sheet as documentation to cover their a$$ when they were challenged on these volatile and pointless actions.  Ultimately, the management changed and was replaced by a more progressive administration that actually started a behaviorally driven safety process and got rid of the useless training that had only served to hold the workforce hostage.

Using documented safety training as a way to be able to say “well our employees should have known better, they were trained” is an age old crutch.  It is management’s way of blaming employees for working unsafely when they have accidents, injuries, or do something else that the upper-crust finds offensive.  If an employee gets injured lifting something that is too heavy, all the average safety coordinator has to do is point to the sign in sheet that shows the employee received lifting/ergonomics training earlier that year, in order to get off the hook.  This relieves the safety department from doing any meaningful investigation and trying to find out why the employee had to look for help for 10 minutes and still couldn’t find anyone to assist with the lift.  With the continuous pressure to improve production in today’s workplace, the use of safety training as a tool to remove or alleviate problems is becoming more and more common.  Unfortunately, this “tool” allows the user to cover their true motivations and employ deceptive management practices. 

 •5.   Plausible Deniability

Safety training is also used as a tool for managers to say, “well we trained them to do X or Y task safely.  See here on the sign in sheet?  If they didn’t do it, that’s not our fault”.  Plausible deniability is a close cousin of CYA, but there is one key difference.  When organizations use Safety Training for a CYA tool it is intentionally applied to remove the unwanted in a manner that appears legitimate.  In the cause of plausible deniability, management doesn’t necessarily intend removal of the employee.  It is simply, when the employees don’t perform as expected, the employer can conveniently say “It’s not our fault, we trained them”. 

Essentially, it is plausibly deniable that the employer is at fault because, according to the sign in sheet, they did train the employee.  In reality, this is just another excuse for an organization to be lazy.  It is easier to blame the employee for poor performance if you can say they were “trained” to complete a task.  This relieves the organization from undertaking the much harder task of determining the true root cause for why unsafe acts and conditions exist in the facility.  Once a company has conducted safety training, all responsibility for safe work practices rests with the employee, and the company no longer needs to be involved.

 •6.   It makes people feel better

We care about our employees.  We want to see them go home in the condition they came to work.   We have some of the most well trained people in the industry.    All of these statements make management and safety persons feel good.  This is a key consideration for safety training.  If we do safety training, at least we are trying to make a difference and to make people safer.  Well intentioned managers and safety practitioners feel better about themselves and their respective companies when they have established and completed a safety training program.

Among the key sub-points to this argument are:

 •a.      Management gets the sense they are actually doing something positive. 

With safety training, management does give themselves the sense and satisfaction that, at least, they are doing something.  It may not be very effective, but if there is a problem, managers want to deal with it and be done with it.  Conducting safety training allows them to think that they have accomplished something worthwhile that will solve any safety related issues they may have.

•b.      Safety people have perfected this skill for decades.

Safety professionals have been conducting training for so long that they are very accomplished instructors.  In fact, many safety professionals are such good teachers that they can easily be classified not only as trainers, but as true educators.  Unfortunately, this also means that they are both proficient at training and very comfortable with it.

Intuitively, most safety professionals realize that conducting training session on top of training session won’t do any good.  However, they are personally so comfortable conducting training that they default to this mode of safety program enhancement.  Also, just like everyone else, safety professionals are looking for the simplest way to solve problems.  Safety training is certainly simple, and when you are good at it, it becomes the easiest solution of all.

•c.      Mom, Apple Pie, and Safety Training.

This is a term I came across in a paper a number of years ago.  I wish I could reference the source but several internet searches would not reveal the location.  That said, this statement has stuck with me for many years.  Safety training is the golden calf of our profession.  It is as wholesome as mom, apple pie, baseball, etc…  to say anything bad about safety training is to risk being labeled as an anarchist and a rabble-rouser (terms I wear with pride).  Safety training, and its attendant benefits, are almost always hailed as universal truths.  Speaking against safety training is akin to publicly declaring yourself a supporter of the “Society for the medical harvest of organs from living children for resale to the highest bidder”.   

We accept the omnipresent and benevolent existence of safety training because in our heart of hearts we know it is right, good, and just. 

When all is said and done, I am not totally against using safety training.  It has it place in the lexicon of safety, and safety professionals must be versed in its correct application.  However, under the current paradigm, safety training is a crutch and a closed gate that is keeping our profession from reaching its true potential and making the kind of profound organizational improvements that we are surely capable of.  If we can throw off the shackles of the tired dogma that safety training is the best solution all the time, we will indeed, have made progress.

Could I interest anyone in an OSHA 30 Hour General Industry Session?

Peace,

cg

Tagged as: Commentary, michigan, profession, safety