While working in an organization, though, it’s important to recognize and/or avoid if possible certain “misbehaviors” that can interfere with the goals of safety awareness and action. Some of these potential problems can mask recognition of unsafe behaviors or conditions and can prevent appropriate responses to mitigate potential hazards. A variety of reasons can lead to these behaviors, including a desire not to look foolish or anger other group members, as well as basic cultural issues related to leadership, openness, and trust.
Group Think – Driven by a need for conformity and personal risk avoidance, group think can develop in organizations that avoid conflict and seek harmony and consensus. The result can be that independent thinking is not encouraged, potentially controversial subjects are not raised, and critical evaluation of different perspectives and approaches is muted. In effect a set of blinders is placed on the group/organization that can increase the risk of safety injuries and incidents.
Abilene Paradox – Likely a special case of Group Think, the Abilene Paradox relates to agreements made by groups that often contradict the actual desires of group members. Again, avoidance of conflict, real or imagined pressures and assumptions to get along with other group members, and personal risk avoidance contribute to poor or at least sub-optimal group decisions. If everyone in private is agreeing that poor group decisions are being made, then your organization may be on the road to Abilene.
Mitigated Communication – Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers describes mitigated speech as communication that attempts to “downplay or sugarcoat” the meaning of what is being said that can result from politeness, lack of confidence, being deferential to authority, etc. Mitigated speech may result from cultural considerations, such as the autocratic leadership or personal risk avoidance, or in some cases, from the natural reluctance to be the bearer of potentially bad news. Lack of clear communication can result in severe consequences, such as the aviation examples discussed by Gladwell.
Ultimately, the impact of these and other organizational misbehaviors is that safety (and other) personnel can, in effect, become “organizational bystanders,” as discussed by Gerstein and Ellsberg in Flirting with Disaster. Organizational bystanders are “individuals who fail to take necessary action even when important threats or opportunities arise.” They may have key safety observations or data that indicate a problem needs to be addressed but are reluctant because of organizational/cultural barriers and personal uncertainties about directly communicating their concerns.
People often will consider “what will happen if they are right, what will happen if they are wrong, and what will happen if they simply do nothing at all.” Organizational misbehaviors can lead some people to simply minimize their personal risk by saying or doing nothing. Maybe their information is wrong. Maybe someone else will speak up. Maybe nothing will happen.
But, what if they’re right? The result can be poor communication that can reduce the availability of possibly important information, limit awareness, and lead to ineffective evaluation and follow-up. The result of that can be a serious injury or incident.
From Process Safety: Key Concepts and Practical Approaches by Klein and Vaughen: “Process safety professionals and others may be the difference between a safe and reliable operation and a potentially catastrophic incident… If the process safety professional is not effective in expressing and acting on their concerns on process safety issues, then who will be? Being effective ultimately means developing appropriate capability, paying close attention, and speaking up to help leadership make sure that process safety concerns are known and addressed.”