Speaker: Tim Walsh, CTSP, The Townsend Company, LLC
In the evolving landscape of safety practices, the shift from traditional Safety I approaches to the contemporary Safety II, often referred to as Safety Differently, has been profound. Safety I, rooted in preventing incidents by focusing on workers’ behaviors, has undoubtedly shaped our safety culture. Over the years, it has significantly reduced recordable injuries, as evident in the downward trend of Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR) or Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR). However, despite these improvements, there has been a persistent challenge in reducing Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs).
Safety I, being primarily reactive, tends to perceive workers as subjects needing fixing when incidents occur. The investigation process often places blame on the employee, assuming errors or intentional violations as the root cause. This approach, centered on negative outcomes, overlooks the actual dynamics of work in the field. Safety II, on the other hand, driven by Human Performance Improvement (HPI) or Human and Organizational Improvement (HOP), seeks to understand how work truly happens. It shifts the focus from preventing incidents to ensuring positive outcomes, utilizing workers’ knowledge and experience.
Safety II redefines safety by emphasizing the presence of capacity rather than the absence of negative outcomes. It aims to create resiliency, implement controls, and recognize that workers play a pivotal role in maintaining safety within a constantly changing, complex environment. Instead of scrutinizing individual behavior as the root cause, Safety II looks at the system in which the employee operates, acknowledging the importance of context in understanding incidents. Personal accountability is not disregarded but is examined within the broader organizational and environmental context.
In the aftermath of negative outcomes, Safety II advocates for a different approach to response through learning teams. These teams are instrumental in understanding the failures within the system, emphasizing a “what” failed rather than a “who” perspective. This shift is crucial in fostering a proactive and forward-looking safety culture. Safety II encourages a comprehensive understanding of incidents, recognizing that learning from failures is essential for continuous improvement.
In conclusion, the transition from Safety I to Safety II signifies a paradigm shift in safety practices. By focusing on the positive aspects of safety, understanding the complexities of work, and embracing a holistic approach to incidents, Safety II presents a transformative perspective for the utility vegetation management community. Implementing Safety Differently principles can lead to a more resilient and adaptive safety culture, ultimately enhancing the overall well-being of workers and the reliability of UVM operations.