Partly published in The Press and Journal
Offshore Journal Monday, April 16th 2001, Page 8
Safety boils down to courage
Partly published in the Press and Journal, Offshore Journal, February 19th, 2001, Page 4
How is it possible to work even more safely when safety is already good? This is a major difficulty facing leaders in the oil and gas industry, writes BILL ROBB, managing director of Aberdeen-based Profit Improvers
Better safety in ‘kick-ass’ offshore culture may prove an emotive subject
All managers and supervisors I meet during my work as a safety consultant make extensive efforts to ensure no one gets hurt.
But much of this effort is not as effective as it could be because we treat safety improvement as a rational issue. It isn’t! From years of conducting behavioural safety workshops offshore and onshore with almost 1,000 people, there is no doubt that to improve safety we must pay more attention to emotions - fear in particular.
Here are the seven tough lessons we managers have to accept. Some of them will be disappointing but the solutions are straightforward and don’t need tons of cash.
First, many people are afraid of you.The fact that this fear is uncalled for is irrelevant - it’s there and must be overcome. Our industry has a long history of “kick-ass” style management and unnecessary fear of the “boss” is wide spread. Overcome this fear using some of these powerful actions.
Ask
You’ll have to specifically ask: “Should I shorten these meetings?” “Am
I giving you enough time to complete so and so?”
Secondly, many people think you don’t care about them. It’s disappointing to hear this, but perception is all so here are some suggestions to correct it:
Thirdly, many people don’t believe you.
Disbelief
People are told time and time again, and from the most senior Chief Executive
or Vice President that they can stop a job if there is even a hint of it being
unsafe. But most people don’t believe it. Try some of the following:
Fourth, many people think you won’t do anything. As managers we need to do more of the following to overcome this barrier:
Fifth, some people think managers treat them like children. Managers’
efforts at protecting people by being thorough and firm are often misinterpreted.
Try to do more of the following:
Sixth, don’t just inform - communicate. There is so much information out there that people can no longer take it in. Fix this by:
Lastly, work on building personal responsibility and hyper-awareness.
Perhaps managers have subconsciously treated their safety role as one of “parent”
or “police officer”.
Unfair
Many of the suggestions for improving safety are not be new. Many managers will already be acting on some of the suggestions. Notice that there isn’t a technical suggestion among them! They are simple but require lots of small inputs at several different points. There is no one big fix.
From the Press and Journal, Offshore Journal, page 7, Monday June 18 2001
Senior managers in the oil and gas industry are coming to realise that, where there is nothing to pick between companies’ technical know-how, it will be the quality and skills of their people which will provide that vital competitive edge. But bold steps will be required to boost performance, write BILL ROBB
Pseudo-science ‘a waste of Time,
effort and money’
It’s no secret that the oil and gas industry is desperate for more skilled and experienced people. The industry is realising that inter-company alliances and the technical challenges of deepwater require different mindsets. Additionally, most senior managers are realising that technical performance and standards are much of a muchness. A company’s competitiveness depends on the interpersonal skills and behaviours of its people. These three forces are pushing companies to take bold steps to improve the performance of their people.
Unfortunately, much of the training and development effort is wasted!
The waste of money is bad enough but even more serious is the waste of human energy and enthusiasm. I’ve witnessed companies and their people suffer for weeks and months under the latest management fad only to find they are no further forward - or sometimes - worse off. A few exposures to failed initiatives and people become very demoralised and even more resistant to change.
Senior managers in particular, need to think more carefully about how we try to change people for their own and the company’s benefit. Here are nine vital lessons from hard experience.
Start at the “coal-face”.
Ask people in specific departments, projects and teams what they need to help them do even better. This “bottom-up” approach encourages people to offer their own suggestions for better training, better systems and better communication. Allowing people to express what they see as the solution is motivating because it is “not management dictating” and because they see a chance of some action! This bottom-up approach often reveals problems and bottlenecks that have been around a long time - hindrances people have got used to. Remember, most organisations don’t have a mechanism for everyday problems to filter up to top management. In addition, many people don’t want to “rock the boat” or to be seen to be not coping so they keep quiet and struggle on. ·
Work on many fronts simultaneously
Real sustained improvement comes from the cumulative effect of lots of 5% improvements. For example, a project might be to improve the safety record of an organisation. One way to achieve this objective is to attempt attitude change through technical and behavioural workshops. However, this will not be enough. One has to simultaneously work on the leadership ability of supervisors, improving the quality of safety meetings, improving procedures and making safety literature have more impact.
Look for cures - don’t just treat the symptoms
Many training courses only treat the symptoms. We send people on courses because we see something not being done as well as it could be. But what is causing the difficulty in the first place? Yes, tips on time management, team building and brilliant customer care, for example, are useful, but they won’t work if the organisation, albeit unintentionally, puts barriers in people’s way. Production and operations people often have to struggle because sales and contracts people don’t consult them at an early stage about the capacity to fulfil the contract.
Solutions are usually simple to conceive but boring and uncomfortable to carry out.
The solutions to improving people’s performance are usually straightforward. Some are so straightforward that people don’t believe it and they look for something more “thorough”! “There must be something else!” That’s why consultants and management gurus feel they have to keep coming up with new fads in which to package age-old principles.
Take leadership for example. The twelve or so basic principles of being an effective leader require neither great intellectual understanding nor large sums of money to apply. However, for whatever reason, some managers find it difficult to, praise genuinely, ensure people have accurate job descriptions, talk to people on a regular basis about their jobs, find ways to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and to communicate regularly on topics such as company progress and strategy.
Many change initiatives fail because some managers are not prepared to do the mundane and boring tasks required. No matter how expensive and grandly named and intellectually exciting a people-development programme is, it will in the end come down to doing certain basics. We have to get managers to accept this reality and to motivate them to follow through.
Lasting benefit takes time
As with all interventions it is possible to get some quick results - and that’s good. However, the real and lasting benefits can only come with time. For example, when a company installs a new appraisal system, maximum participation and involvement occurs only when trust is established in the second or third year. This means that there has to be sustained action, follow-up and monitoring. One of the biggest complaints from managers on the Performance Improvement Workshops I run, is that “We’ll do all this talking and deciding and then nothing will happen!” It’s often the many small tasks that seem unimportant that make the difference.
Another example of ignoring the “gestation” element is leadership training. What good does it do to send someone on a crammed 5-day leadership course? What chance do participants get to reflect on and apply what they have learned on day one? People need time to develop because it’s from application that the really important questions and learning come. Rather do one day per month over a few months.
Concentrate on HOW? not what?
Experience proves that most people know what they should do to be a good leader, to give a good presentation, to manage their time better, to write an effective report and so on. Their real problem is that they don’t know HOW to do what they know they should. This means that lectures and slides and theory about what should be, are a waste of time.
People want practical solutions to help them fix real workplace problems. In any workshop it is the participants who should be doing most of the talking and problem solving. The facilitator is there to guide the discussion and at times add additional advice from hard-earned experience. Lecturing, no matter how entertaining, does not change people’s behaviours. People have to come to their own realisation of what is required and they do this by participating and having their views challenged. People don’t need gurus, but experienced colleagues who can help them to see that they are, to a large extent, capable of and responsible for, solving their own problems.
Ignore the pseudo-science
We humans, as rational as we are, are still tempted to find the “magic wand” - the cure-all. There isn’t one! That’s why, in my experience, psychometric tests, hand writing analysis, 360 degree feedback questionnaires, psychological team profiling, and surveys with 90 questions to assess the relationship between managers and their workers and “what our customers think of us”, are a waste of time, effort and money. The trouble with these schemes is that they sound good. In reality they don’t get results. To try to turn the results into numbers and pretend that they mean something is an attempt to avoid the straightforward but sometimes onerous work that has to be done to ensure success.
The worst example is an appraisal scheme where you have to rate a subordinate on a scale of 1 to 5 on twenty criteria, and average the result. Statistically it’s incorrect to do this, but what does it tell you in the end? The appraisee and appraiser often end up having 20 disagreements on whether “it should be a 4 or a 5”.
People learn more when they are relaxed and having fun
All events to improve performance should be informal and relaxed. There is no place for silly game-playing that embarrasses people, or all-night sessions that put people under pressure to see if “they crack”, or outdoor challenges which expose people’s incompetence and fear. Only when people know they are not being “watched” and that they will not be “called to account for their words”, will they be willing to take the risks required to face and deal with real workplace problems affecting their and their company’s performance.
Set an example and think strategically about employment
In almost every Leadership or Performance Improvement Workshop, I have to field two difficult questions: “Why isn’t our senior manager here - he/she needs this more than we do?”, “as soon as times get tough half of us will be made redundant so isn’t all this training and development window dressing?” Several additional benefits occur when senior managers attend development events with their middle managers. Openness, commitment and mutual learning are fostered, to mention only one. For training and development to be really successful we have to do more to show that people are not just “human resources” like any other production input to be used during good times and fired in the bad. How to do this will not be easy.
Much of what you’ve just read is common sense. However, for some people the advice offered here may seem unorthodox and simplistic. But, it works for all concerned and isn’t that what counts in the end?
Bill Robb, Managing Director of Aberdeen-based Profit Improvers, which specialises in enhancing performance of people, organisations, mergers and alliances. He can be contacted on 01224 634873.
Partly published in the Offshore Journal, The Press and Journal, Monday April 30 2001, Page 10
Europe’s oil and gas industry may be subject to more regulation than its American counter-part - and the US has no equivalent to the UK’s Health and Safety Executive - but comparisons of safety performance between the two sides of the Atlantic pond are far from easy, writes BILL ROBB, managing director of Aberdeen-based Profit Improvers
No easy answers in European-US offshore safety comparisons
There has been considerable improvement in safety in the Oil and Gas Industry since 167 people died on Piper Alpha 6th July 1988. Indeed, many claim that the Industry is now ahead of many others in its safety practices. However, there is on-going soul-searching about how to get even safer. Zero harm to people is the objective.
Since our US cousins made contributed extensively to starting the oil industry in the UK in 1976 and since there is now even more movement of personnel between the US and UK, I thought we might learn something from comparing current approaches to safety. I have not worked in the US, so I’m grateful to the many Health and Safety colleagues and senior managers who have shared their experiences.
Direct comparisons are difficult. The culture is different - the more regulated European approach versus the more free market US approach with litigious intervention for those who stray off the path. The harsher climatic conditions and predominance of two of the super-majors in the UK will create different approaches than environments where weather is kinder and there are many more small operators. In a short article one cannot contrast and compare every aspect of safety management. Nonetheless, I’ve identified at least ten areas where some differences could lead to more lessons learned.
Criminal responsibility
For me, a most striking difference between the UK and US approaches to safety is that in the UK, the Health and Safety at Work Act makes all managers and indeed all employees criminally responsible if people are injured through one’s own or an employee’s negligence. It is interesting to note that the role of Offshore Installation Manager (OIM) originated in the UK and has spread to some companies in the US through licensing by the US Coastguard. However, in the US the OIM and Senior Tool Pusher are often one and the same person. Perhaps operators and contractors in the US would benefit by employing non-drilling/production OIMs as a balance and support to the professional, but drilling and production oriented, Senior Tool Pusher.
Safety observation and awareness
It is safe to claim that the UK has learned much from the US about getting all personnel to observe potential unsafe acts, building awareness and changing behaviour. The US chemical giant Du Pont Corporation created the STOP safety observation system and the philosophy that all people and all departments are responsible for safety - not just Health and Safety Departments. From STOP have grown several other observation systems such as START and BSAFE.
In addition, some US firms operating in Europe had already started with Safety Leadership courses (aimed at changing the behaviours of supervisors and managers) before the UK came out with its extensive and OPITO -accredited, programme. With major operating companies driving the requirement to tackle safety behaviours, the concentration of effort on changing behaviours is becoming universal. However, in the US with many small companies, this might not be so evident.
Training
There is no doubt that the volume and hence cost of training for safety is considerably more in the UK. For example, in the UK it is mandatory to be trained for almost any role such as Fire Fighter, Helideck Landing Officer, and Coxswain. Some colleagues report that although the volume of training in the US is less, the quality is higher. Many people question the cost-benefit of safety training in the UK. In the US there appears to be more emphasis on people, supervisors in particular, taking responsibility to do the common sense things right.
Working culture
Numerous colleagues who have worked in the US report that generally, unlike the UK, most drilling personnel are proud to work for their company and openly express this. For example, one often sees people in public wearing clothing displaying their company name and logo. Some colleagues report better relationships between contractors and major companies in the US. I too have observed a cynical, suspicious and even combative environment in the UK workplace. While it is not easy to overcome the legacy of respective industrial histories, I know the US is doing more to overcome the "go, go, go" culture and the UK is striving to generate the attitude of "let's get it done SAFELY but let's get it done!"
Safety procedures
In the UK a detailed risk assessment for most jobs is mandatory where as in the US it is not. The Job Safety Analysis in the US is considered by some to be a less thorough version of the Risk Assessment. Time Out For Safety (TOFS) originated in the UK and over the past few years is being taken increasingly seriously. However, I have noticed a few US colleagues expressing worries that TOFS could be used as an excuse to slow down the job. Some safety experts see the extensive procedural approach in the UK as leading to a dangerous false sense of security - “we have followed the procedure so it must be safe”.
Preparation for work offshore
Before any person can work offshore in the North Sea they must have passed a three to four-day (depending on sector) Basic Offshore Safety, Induction and Emergency Training course. People must do a refresher every four years. In addition every individual must pass a medical which has to be renewed every few years. These details are kept on an industry database by the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation (OPITO). Although the IADC in the US has initiated a Rig Pass induction scheme for new starts in the US, there is no mandatory requirement for such a scheme.
Mandatory workforce involvement through safety representatives
While many US companies have several ways of getting their workforces involved in improving safety, the UK has a statutory scheme. Every worker has the right to elect, by secret ballot, a safety representative and to be assigned to a safety constituency. Safety Representatives must be given training. Every installation has to have a safety committee and an installation-wide safety meeting at least once a quarter chaired by the OIM. No similar system is required in the US. This approach is a more thorough way of getting workforce involvement than the informal Rig Safety Committees on some US installations.
Transport and standby offshore
In the North Sea people travelling to an offshore installation must wear a survival suit with life jacket and for some companies, a re-breather. The re-breather is like a small aqualung in case the helicopter should turn over and people are trapped underwater. In addition, it is mandatory to watch the safety video every time one travels offshore. The only exception allowed is if you have already watched it in the past 24 hours. The video explains how to put on survival equipment properly and how to escape from a helicopter in event of a crash landing in the sea.
It is understandable that colleagues in the US don’t have to wear survival suits. Waters are more temperate, visibility is better, weather is better most of the time and more helicopters are in the air for rescue if that becomes necessary. However, a lack of briefings and re-breather could concern some passengers going offshore. I say “could” because there is still considerable debate among water-survival experts about the re-breather’s usefulness in a ditching situation.
One could question the wide-spread use in the US (depending on aircraft type) of only one pilot during helicopter flights to and from installations. In the UK it is mandatory to have two pilots. While some people claim that a second pilot would not have made a significant difference to the outcome of incidents, the trend to using two pilots full-time world-wide, is increasing. The fact that standby boats are rare in the US has perhaps influenced some operators in the UK to investigate using only helicopters for evacuation of installations in an emergency.
Voluntary, industry- wide initiatives
For me, another distinct difference between the UK and US is the extent of co-ordinated voluntary effort. In September 1997 the UK Oil and Gas Industry initiated Step Change In Safety. With budgetary support from the two major operators, Government backing from the DTI, and strong trade association presence in UKOOA, IADC North Sea Chapter and OCA, a massive co-operative pooling of knowledge and research was launched.
At last count there were sixteen task forces of which five had completed their reports. There are five main networks and forums (OIMs, Cross-Industry Leadership, Drilling Safety, Safety Reps, and Safety Professionals Group). A few of the far-reaching initiatives include a Common Induction Process, Behavioural Change Processes Guidelines, Personal Safety Performance Contracts and the Vantage Offshore Passport.
It is understandable that there is no equivalent in the US with oilfield operations being much more dispersed and with trade association’s coverage not as consistent. However, the IADC together with some of the major Gulf Coast operators meet regularly in the Global Drilling Safety Leadership Initiative. This voluntary association tracks the StepChange initiatives, but perhaps even more benefit could come from a similar industry-wide and intensive effort of StepChange.
Regulation
Almost every colleague I interviewed reported that the UK is more highly and unnecessarily regulated. Although the US has the Mineral Management Service (MMS), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the US Coast Guard, there is no direct equivalent to the powerful Heath and Safety Executive (HSE) with its Offshore Safety Division(OSD). The OSD has an annual expenditure of around £7.5 million with duties range from direct enforcement to publishing guidance for employers and funding research. They also consult frequently with employee organisations (trade unions) as a part of their mandate.
Before a rig or platform can begin operating in the UK, it has to prepare and have accepted by the HSE, an extensive safety case that describes in detail how it will reduce to the minimum, injuries from a major incident. This can be up to 600 pages. In the UK there are verification systems for the design of safety critical equipment and many other regulations such as PFEER - Prevention of fire and explosions and emergency response regulations and RIDDOR - Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations. It is mandatory to report all work-related accidents, diseases, and dangerous occurrences, whereas this is not so in the US. Some of the larger companies have their own internal procedures for reporting and IADC members have a voluntary system for reporting drilling-related accidents and collecting statistics.
Some colleague have been direct, stating that the effort to keep the HSE satisfied and to meet the bureaucratic demands of the many regulations diverts resources and time from even more direct safety efforts. This has been recently exacerbated by the HSE charging for inspectors’ time and by the ministerial mandate to issue more improvement notices and seek more prosecutions.
Who is safer?
Here’s where I’ll have to disappoint you. I’m convinced we cannot yet answer that question adequately because the issues are so complex. For me, it is clear that the UK regulations and UK companies make more explicit what everyone is doing to help people work safer. There appears to be more show of concern and more effort to consult and include the workforce. But is this safer?
If you compare the Lost Time Accident Incident Rate, which measures the number of lost-time accidents, calculated per 200,000 person-hours, US drilling colleagues seem to work safer. The LTI Incident Rates for US water-based installations in 2000 and 1999 were 0.54 and 0.31 compared to the higher 0.94 and 0.88 for Europe. (Taken from www.iadc.org). However, these figures are only for company drilling personnel. In the UK incidents for all personnel on board an installation are taken into account. Also, with different reporting regimes, is an LTI defined the same way on “both sides of the pond”? For example, in the US with much shorter offshore travel times, it is possible to get a slightly injured person to a doctor onshore, properly treated and back the same day to the installation to take on light duties. This injury does not become an LTI whereas in the UK it would.
In summary, comparing numbers doesn’t help. Our information age will facilitate the continual learning from each other. However, there is no escape from the detailed examination of the advantages and disadvantages of each individual initiative and then applying the advantages in local settings.
From The Press and Journal, Recruitment Section, Friday May 18th
Interviews involving psychometric tests, one-day job simulations and handwriting analysis are all the rage, but tried and tested methods may give more reliable results. BILL ROBB, managing director of Aberdeen-based Profit Improvers, reports
Testing times
If you are a managing director or chief executive you know the success of your business depends on recruiting the best people for senior appointments. You want to be sure that you’ll recruit the best people. If you’re a personnel manager or human resources director your reputation depends on getting the right people on the short list for interview.
It is understandable, then, that you want the security of some scientific method or programme- some objective way to support your decision. Unfortunately, there isn’t one! Psychometric tests can be manipulated. They depend on people answering truthfully and there are now books available to show people how to cheat. The results I’ve had from these tests vary depending on how I feel on the day I take them.
The same holds for handwriting analysis. For starters it depends on people being honest. Different analysts have different interpretations. When people are anxious they write differently. What writing do you analyse - their everyday scrawl or the neat letter they compile for an job application? Does anyone really believe that you can get an accurate picture of how someone will perform in “real life” from a one-day job simulation? People behave differently when they are under pressure and being watched!
Hardly anyone would rely totally on psychometric tests, job simulations and handwriting analysis. However, even as a “back-up” they waste time and are dangerous. They can lull us into a false sense of security.
Most people responsible for recruitment follow tried and tested methods. Often though we don’t do these as thoroughly as we should. Costly mistakes happen when we skip a step or rush.
This is a reminder of what we should be doing and the
degree
to which we should be doing it:
For senior positions have at least three interviewers and allow for the extended interview when candidates spend the day talking to a wide range of people in the organisation. Get feedback from the people they speak to. If you do all of this you’ll be 99% sure you’ve got the right person.
Let’s talk even if your thoughts are preliminary. Email: bill@ProfitImprovers.co.uk Telephone +44 (0) 1224 634873
The Workforce in the North Sea oil and gas industry is highly professional. People are skilled, competent and proud of what they do. Most employees know that working professionally is the same as working safely. However, in the Advanced Safety Workshops I run, people admit to doing things that aren’t as safe as they could be. Why do people do what they KNOW they shouldn’t and not do what they KNOW they should?
The answer is fear. It sounds insulting to claim that grown men and women are afraid, but it’s not. Here’s why.
You care. You want to help. You don’t want to leave work for the next shift. So you strive to complete all tasks given to you - even though you know at the start you’ll have to hurry to finish them all.
You want to do the best job possible. You don’t want to let people down. It’s been drummed into you that “time means money”. Under this pressure you may take on too much and you feel the world rests on your shoulders. The worry and urgency to get things done may lead to fatigue and injuries.
You’re reputation is important. You want to be recognised as a competent worker. So, when the time given to do a job is unreasonable; when there isn’t another person to help you do a two-person job and when the equipment you have is inadequate for the job, you sometimes go ahead. You think your competence will be questioned if you ask for help.
Can you see how your professional qualities can cause self-inflicted pressure and mistakes? We put ourselves under pressure. It’s our own psychological fears that sometimes prevent us doing what we KNOW we should do. For example, you’re worried:
All these fears are understandable. Almost everyone is afraid to some degree. However, here is a terrible truth. In most cases these fears are uncalled for - we’ve conditioned ourselves into fear. I know this sounds unfair, so let me explain.
Our fears are based, to a large extent, on rumours and the way things used to be. We’re conditioned by the history of “dinosaur” management in our industry. However, as you know, things have changed. Modern managers would be surprised to hear that you’re afraid to approach them. Even if you have been treated badly in the past - why treat every supervisor or manager the same? When was the last time you heard of anyone being fired for a safety-related incident? I’ve checked with hundreds of people over the past five years and the answer is - hardly ever! If someone is fired it’s because he/she has deliberately broken procedures.
You may believe that many managers only do things to “make the right noises” and to impress their bosses. My experience as an independent consultant with no axe to grind is that almost all managers do care. They may not know how to show they care and they may not be aware that their actions are being seen as not caring. Most managers today know they’re only as good as their people. If someone gets hurt, managers get “hauled over the coals” and their careers are blighted.
It’s tough to confront our fears - it makes us feel uncomfortable. If you see an unsafe act and ignore it for fear of being belittled aren’t you colluding? If you are asked to do something you know is blatantly unsafe and you don’t argue to change it because you’re afraid of being fired, aren’t you partly responsible if there is an accident? Here’s how to stop colluding.
The secret is to express your worry and to ask for help. There is no need to complain or get angry, just explain the problem and ask for help.
You already know much of what you’ve read in this article, but it’s frightening to see it in black and white! Managers, supervisors and workmates can do all they can to look after us - as we do for them. However, ensuring you don’t get hurt boils down to having the courage to do what you know you should and what your procedures state you should. Start today - I’m sure you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
