“Safety is in crisis” was the opening line at an Acre event I recently attended, where John Green and thought leader Sidney Dekker gave an outline on Safety Differently.

As the name suggests this self-proclaimed “movement” is set to revolutionize safety from an overly complex, systems crazy, bureaucratic monster to one which realizes people are the solution, not the problem, and puts people at the heart of the solution.

Few would argue that this doesn’t sound sensible.

John, HSEQ Director at Laing O’Rourke discussed the initial journey into safety in the 1970s and their moral and ethical reasons for doing so. It was at this stage that a question jumped out at me:

How did health and safety, which started with a foundation of professionals being driven by their consciences to help the workforce, arrive at a place that the leaders of the profession now describe as “broken”?

How did the profession move from millions of workers able to enjoy a longer, healthier life and businesses being able to enjoy a more productive workforce as a result, to David Cameron describing the industry as a monster and one which he has pledged to cut back?

This is crazy and a situation I’ve dubbed the “safety paradox.” although I doubt I am the first to have come up with that.

So how did this happen? Did the safety professional’s motivations suddenly change and a cohort joined to specifically insight the wrath of David?

Well possibly… As is currently happening to the corporate responsibility industry, the safety sector grew rapidly in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Could it be that during this growth many took a role in the industry as it was ‘a job’ rather than ‘the job”?

Is it possible this would increase apathy of those professionals?

This, coupled with increasing legislation, is a perfect recipe for some in the profession to build and maintain and paper wall of complexity. Unlikely to inspire.

However I believe this to be only a small contributor to the problem.

I believe the real problem could sit with the hiring strategy and continued development of some professionals and companies in the space. The pure focus of hiring strategies based on technical competencies rather than non-technical competencies is the real problem.

The ability to influence, engage, gain buy in, “sell” safety, look for opportunities to improve organizational productivity and output rather than hinder are traits clients tell us time and time again are critical to success.

Although clients tell us non-technical competencies are critical, few if asked have a clear objective strategy on how to identify and select candidates based on these skills at interviews or when promoting individuals; indeed many have never received any interview training themselves.

A base technical knowledge in most roles is essential, no one is disputing this; however could it be the lack of these “softer skills” translating the technical knowledge into action which is the broken spoke in the wheel?

Is it this which has been the catalyst to provoked public outrage?

Unsurprisingly John Green is ahead of the curve. In Australia, he has hired from alternative backgrounds, including psychology and philosophy in addition to “‘traditional” safety professionals and agreed that it’s the non-technical skills that are imperative to drive his program forward.

Could it be if these softer competencies are improved then the industry will be completely revolutionized? Not only will health and safety professionals, with the right skills, engage the workforce but this will be done in such an inspirational way the workforce will grab hold of health and safety and make it their own rather than an add on?

Something does not make sense in the industry. The softer skills could be a key to unlock this. The sooner the industry tests for these softer skills alongside the technical competencies and puts people at the heart of the solution, as John Green suggests, the sooner we will be in a position to “fix” health and safety.

Source: Safety & Health Practitioner magazine (United Kingdom) www.shponline.co.uk