Right to be cynical

I have seen safety web sites put down and criticise so many aspects of safety and further confuse the safety sector by adding more over complication and trying to add more role obligations onto safety workers. It is only fair people have the chance to see the realist side of things.

This is that site.

I do not live in any dream world, I have nothing to sell, nor am I promoting any business tacts. What I do want is some sense put back in safety as too much has been taken out....in my opinion

The Art of Persuasion and humble enquiry (being sold in safety) are every con-persons genuineness. Humble enquiry and all other means to get people to buy things or believe in things is just plain manipulation. Anyone who disagrees is not ethical or just naive; as ethical people do not practice persuasion to sell ideas, and smart people do not endorse it, they practice moral advice that allows those to persuade themselves to a new way. Free chapters of books, free samples of systems, and all other tempters are all those things in which those who practice persuasion use to buy you, suck you in...wake up. Safety needs to get back to the basics first, as this first step has not been completed!


Go to the HUB HERE

Contact Me; libertyswaggie@gmail.com



Introducing Donnellyism



As my ideology develops and grows in the general sense, I thought it time to layout my ideology; Donnellyism. 

So to set my solid foundation, I have listed core principles to what it is to be a Donnellyist!.

Please note that ideas do not need be given in a complete and polished form, but can appear in rawness. And as I view life as comical...this is not a doctrine so is not common.

"Ideas begin as 'raw thought' and then can take a lifetime to master" MD 
Donnellyism's core principles/constructs are;
.

Core logic 1  

Safety in my context is; doing what we know we ought to be doing (this logic has not been disproved). 

Safety is then doing what we know ought to be doing, 
Safe is the outcome of having in place what we ought to have in place to reduce failure

If there is knowledge about risk/s and we a have means to protect against said risk/s, then we must do what is required from that knowledge to control said risk/s. 

Core logic 2 

Safety is Safety - there is only one form/construct of safety. The goal of 'all' should to be remain true to safety as a value and moral good for all. A foundation to set upon building from. Adding a separate term and meaning to the safety  or calling it another term, automatically creates a division of safety into parts. This then makes way for chaos and of a means to blame. 

The only pathway to ensure safety remains founded is to keep safety on one track. This cannot be done when people chose to construct alternate views and different approaches. If people address a new view, then they should be expressing their views as; I think safety could benefit if we did...... 

This way, safety remains true and there is no ability to create a division between safety that causes disconnect from what we already have and should be building up from.

Core Logic 3

Safety seeks perfection of Zero Harm, Zero Harm drives all that we do in safety.

The ultimate goal of safety is to eliminate risk, all risk (in safety) is a negative, the overarching goal and driver of all safety is ZERO HARM. Acting in a safe way is a choice and is an absolute.

Zero Harm is embedded into our natural law of self preservation. Each safe action we place to control risk first must consider the goal of zero harm. From there, we choose between risk tolerance and acceptability.


~~~

Four noble truths - HERE



Consensuses of Failure - HERE



ART of Safety - HERE

~~~

1) One cannot do safety per se; safety is a collective input, given by way of many separate inputs of what we ought to be doing. The term safety is just an umbrella term used to cover all the things we ought to be doing that grant safe methods, such as training, maintenance, auditing, inspection etc. You can only provide those things that grant the result of safe. (in simple analogy terms, you cannot do living, you do many separate things that result in living). 

Safety then is doing what we know we ought to be doing. I.e., if workers need training, then we provide training, if we need maintenance, then we provide that, if we are required to follow OHS Laws and other guiding material, then we do that. All these things are things we know we ought to be doing...as safety is and can only be known/practiced after we know what a risk is...safety is in place to manage risk, risk is and con only been a known.



2) Safety is not owned by a singular entity; many expertise's are needed to provide the result of safe. All entities share in the ownership/accountability of safety, hence safety is owned by all in partnership of providing the result. Safety is a result of many things we know we ought to be doing.



There is no use in naming any one or any group as safety (i.e. safety manager, safety person etc)...this only offers up confusion and makes way for unnecessary complexity. hence the role of a risk manager would be more applicable, or incident investigator etc.


3) Safety should not be made complex; Simple methodologies avoid confusion and give practicality and clarity. Simple does not mean easy. People do not react well to complexity or can even practice it. Almost all tragic events could have been mitigated using simple processes. we are not collectively ready to practice anything complex...nor ever will be in our current age.

It is therefor important to keep complex topics in the higher order (in academia), then once tested and proven, released into mainstream using simple methods/tools etc. If this not possible due to not being able to simplify, then only allow the complex topics to be managed by those competent to implement/run the topic.

4) Pressures are the primary factor that cause events, hence need the greatest attention; managing pressures is more fundamental in providing safety than all other topics; there are five core pressures in Donnellyism; Reputation, Time, Profitability, Legality and Sustainability. 

If we cannot manage these things then safety cannot be expected to operate in it full operation. i.e., it is no use having competent people if they are forced to ignore such competence.

5) Workplace activity must always be viewed with scepticism/pessimism (optimism is unsafe); Donnellyism is not a philosophy to surround ourselves in na├»ve optimistic (dreamerstanic) belief systems, theories and false representations for making managing risk easier or cheaper or for the comfort of those in an incompetence state of being. 

Donnellyism is not a method for contentment and or comfort, nor designed for making a silo of conformists driven by fear of raising real issues. The only way to truth is critically analysing all unsafe/causal notions. All things we do must be challenged so to ensure the safest means are being done from what we know via past learnings...optimism fails to think critically as it sees no failure, only success...and you don't plan to improve on having success.

6) Everyone has the right to give solution and participate; Donnellyism does not favour academic views over unscholarly views. All people regardless of hierarchy and tittle are treated the same and there is no more respect given to any over another. There exists no academic bias.

All safety initiatives regardless of where they come from, should be tested and reviewed before being presented as a worldly safety initiative we should be doing. This avoids people making claims 'their' ideas work and who then flood the market with what could actually be a false way. Safety is not game and safety should serve people in the greater good philosophy..not as most advertise a purpose for ones own whims.

7) Logic must be understood (A is A); A Human is a human. 

Since a human is a human, we know they make many mistakes. The logic of safety is to always seek ways to respond to risks humans invent. Hence safety chases risk we make. Humans cannot be trusted to make the right choices (but understand they can), safety is the means to ensure constraints (such as laws, rules) are provided to ensure humans have the best means to provide a state of safe.

8) We have priced ourselves out of practicable safety; It is understood that no organisation can practice practicable safety. In simple terms the true cost to apply all known risk mitigation practices (often noted after a tragic event) would make an organisation not viable/successful. Society is not prepared to pay for safety as everything would increase in cost to a point no-one could afford any product or service or for those to produce and provide any product or service. 

9) OHS legislation is objective. There is no OHS law that is subjective. While people may interpret OHS law in different ways (hence can become subjective) this does not, nor can imply OHS law is subjective.

What is OBJECTIVE? 1)The use of available resources to achieve a target(the objective), within a specified time frame. A collection of goals is usually termed as an objective.Policy appraisals and performance appraisals are based on objectives, which can be considered to be the foundation for planning and strategic activities. 2. Neutral: An unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence.

What is SUBJECTIVE? 1)Related to or based on beliefs, attitudes and opinions instead of verifiable evidence. In contrast to objective.

10) Safety is a choice. Every action we do to act in safety requires us to manage risk, since all risk is known, then we have the ability to discern what risk we take or don't take. If we do not know of risk/s, then the choice to continue is taking a risk, which in my philosophy is an unsafe safe choice as we cannot prove there exists a safe choice.

11) Human Error. If we are to design safety, then the fundamental means to control safety is to learn from human error. Human error must be a constant goal in understanding what has failed. In understanding human error we can then go on to make improvements to alter possible future failures caused by human error. Human error is not a term used to only blame humans, it a term used to discern the cause of why the human acted in the way they did.

12) Safety is measured by the absence of failures. Safety is to provide a means to mitigate risk, safety chases the risk we create, safety then reduces the chance of failures from the things we do, via the topics we know we ought to be doing...hence, a reduction in failures is a measure of success. 

13) We can only learn from failures. Our whole existence to our current age has been a long line of success derived from failures. The reason we have success is because we have adapted and improved from failures. Success is only an outcome after we have corrected failures.

14) Safety people do not own safety nor should order. The role of a safety person/consultant should be one to lead those who should know, to facts presented in OHS legislation. A safety person should advise how to use safety tools (like a RA) but not write it. A safety person should conduct audits and inspections, then feedback to those who own the risk that requirements set out in legislation (which would include copy and paste references). NO safety person should make an order to do any work in a way, it is not, nor should not be their responsibility. They (safety person) simply advises the person with control (owner of risk) what they ought to be doing based of objective legislative requirements, then let them (leaders) decide what to do and action to take.


Other key points I have raised;
  1. Managing the unexpected - even if you could, it could not be done in any sense of practicality...try managing all the things that could go wrong driving to work...you would never leave. You cannot plan for the unexpected, you can only plan for the expected.
  2. Planning/managing uncertainty - We only know of things that have occurred, they then become a known. It is impossible to plan for uncertainty as it is not possible to know of its existence until it has occurred...this is why we do such things as experiment...to learn how to control the known. You cannot manage uncertainty, one can only manage certainty. 
  3. Observing what you cannot notice - Looking out for those hidden risks is assuming we can see what we cannot...you only can notice things noticeable.  
  4. Zero Harm as an absolute - Yes, all goals are. Those promoting maturity, resilience, excellence, just, etc are promoting absolute goals.
  5. Thinking unconsciously - You cannot think unconsciously, for as soon as you think, you are aware and thinking consciously. You can only react unconsciously, for a reaction is an embedded action. HERE
  6. Practicable Safety - If we all controlled known risk, then we would be practising practicable controls to manage risk...this practising is a costly exercise, hence not a practicable thing to do.
  7. Common Sense - As we cannot all agree what it is, then is it does not exist. and that is common sense! so it does exist...
  8. Reaching a mature state (HRO) - You can never reach maturity until you have reached the end and all else stops at that point.
  9. Telling v Listening - Both as important as each other, but telling is the most important...you cannot gain expected knowledge from a void.
  10. The ways data is embedded into our minds (S1S-2EH) - Heuristics like all data must be embedded somehow, I give a novel view HERE
  11. Risk assessing individual human choices - impossible, even if one is trained to act a certain way, there is no guarantee they will act that way.
  12. The perfect logo - All logos are fanciful, and should be treated as a gimmick. 
  13. Allowing to be loose on rules - In the workplace, if a rule is set by law or corporate governance, then there is no exception to the rule...looseness causes negative events via personal deviations and violations. 
  14. Living in Grey - All life is grey, but you can only move by making a black or white choice, just like a game of chess...
  15. Managing Biases - Not possible without complete manipulation of the mind and memory erasing
  16. Shifting Risk once that risk controlled - Not all risk is shifted, the wearing of a harness to prevent a fall has stopped that risk of falling. If it creates another risk, that is a different risk
  17. Calling safety people Spudheads/crusaders etc - A term invented by a so called academic who thinks everyone who takes their job serious must be a crusader. HERE
  18. Unlearning Orthodox safety practices (one cannot unlearn) - It is nice and easy to 'tell' things we must do, yet to tell what the specifics are is not so easy. There are people telling us to unlearn orthodox safety, yet cannot even give examples of what is orthodox in the first place.
  19. More Rules - There are people who support embracing risk but who despise an increase of rules...they go hand in hand. Progress is a growing state of complexity...more rules are only introduced to control the extra risk...if you want to stop making rules...stop taking risk HERE
  20. Slow and fast thinking - Views on this soon but does not exist.
  21. Antifragilty (Taleb) - Some first views HERE...more on this later
  22. Unsafe Behaviour - This is all things that make for unsafe practices. It is not just about a worker choosing to violate a rule. Not providing training, poor maintenance programs, purchasing cheap products ete all unsafe acts...all incidents are a result of unsafe acts  
  23. The 'Irish Elk' Dilemma – designing a thing or system for an apparent improvement, so to be more resilient, robust and efficient, yet without fully understanding any long term effects on said improvements due to ignorance. The short term will see the thing (new idea) seem more robust and efficient today, but in the long term, it will result in a total failure after a period of more control, more fear and less choice.

‘Donnellyesque’ is about seeing the world, the one live in now, as exactly what we wanted it to be, thus why it exists. All the means and ways we have are by our own making. Safety closes in on us slowly, taking away liberty, and it is liberty we don’t want, as we require society, and society requires order out of chaos. We then become victims of humanisation, a process forcing us to follow the very things we wanted (law).

Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage





The true means to discover latent human factors in the workforce | Mark Donnelly

Covert - Not openly acknowledged or displayed

Pre-emptive - taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared.

Sabotage - is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction.

Ok, what the safety am I on about?

Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage is a whole new paradigm of conceptual thinking that I have come up with to take safety into a whole new level of proactive safety management; the means to uncover unknown human latent failures in advance. 

This new idea, I would say is going to have a much divided audience; either it has merit or not. Sure every idea has pros and cons, but if you are true to the Art of Safety, there is no question as to why this new paradigm of testing safety ethics is not validated as a significant step towards the protection of all..the greater good.

So, What purpose would there be to sabotage your own workplace for the purpose of improving safety?

Let’s first take the terms above and change the meanings around a bit to make it more understandable for my idea, lets give my idea it's context. 


  • Covert - Not openly acknowledged or displayed to the general workforce. 
  • Pre-emptive - taken as a measure against something possible (hazard), anticipated (failure), or feared (risk). 
  • Sabotage - is a deliberate action aimed to strengthen the organisation through the taking out of a part of procedure and process or the taking out of a thing to find a latent failure that needs to be addressed to reduce risk. 



So, what does all this mean? Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage; a means to determine something, by way of taking away something, without the advertising of the fact something has been done. Simply put - putting into action a risk to see how its managed, when the risk is not pre-warned.

How we manage safety and hopefully stop incidents in an organisation is through all types of systems that either; try to guess what might happen (risk assessments, cause and effect, fishbone, bowtie, what if scenarios etc), monitor the things that are in place to protect against what might/could happen (audits, inspections), or learn what went wrong (incident investigations, 5 whys, RCAs etc). What none of these systems do is check for possible outcomes derived from real latent human performance factor conditions. None of them can give real time evidence of how one may or may not act...and of course what human error it relates too (cognitive, ignorance, laziness etc etc).

The issue I have with BBS and Human performance programs is this; how do you audit and test it in real time or actual? What cannot be tested, cannot be audited, therefore cannot be governed, so how do we expect to test some sort of maturity like the Hudson maturity chart below, if we have no idea of the action that would really happen in real life?. 

Take Note - look at pathological...WHAT IF the culture really is who cares if we don't get caught...any test on the Hudson Maturity is flawed as none of how we measure we we are is based on real facts  




If you cannot read the mind of a person or understand their real risk tolerance, then you cannot evaluate what they are thinking or will do, if you cannot evaluate what they are thinking or will do, then you cannot act upon such insight in a proactive manner. And since this is true, any means to measure safety will be flawed, and will be assumed they are better than they really are.

What the Heinrichs and Birds and those of the modern human performance world have not yet thought of to date is a way to really test human cognitive performance or test what actions any one person may or may not take in any given situation if not planned or warned in advance. The closest thing I can think of that comes close is the use of computer simulation, such as used in the aviation world. An element of a pilots training is dealing with a series of failures that are, without warning, put into play to see how they will respond and what actions they may take to gain control of the situation. 

Now let’s get back to the general workplace. Say I was going to check how well a worker was to inspect their work vehicle. Without using Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage, I may stand there and watch them conduct the inspection. If I stand there and watch them, they will (should) do a good job and revert back to their training as they know someone is watching. This is not a good indicator of what level of inspection the driver would do if I was not there looking over their shoulder with a clip board full of tick boxes. This is not a good method to determine an action one would take in a real working scenario...yet this is how we test safety!

It's like the teenager going for their drivers licence with a stern driving tester sitting in the passenger seat with a red pen and tick sheet in hand. The teenager holds the steering wheel with two hands, travels 5kph under the sign posted speed limit, indicates at every corner and looks sideways at each intersection; looking out for any traffic that maybe coming through unexpectedly. But as soon as they get their licence their mind changes into Dr. Hyde. That night they have a car full of friends that are hanging out of each window while speeding and doing burnouts up and down the road. 5 hrs earlier, they were a very safe and competent driver, now they’re just an accident waiting to happen.







Let’s go forward a week in time and test the latent human performance factor to its full capacity. 

Using my Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage, I would go to the persons vehicle and take away something. In this case, I would loosen three wheel nuts (a thing we need to check). The driver does not know what has been done and no warning was given to allude to the fault. The worker does their weekly inspection using a common tick and flick sheet and signs their name off and then puts the inspection sheet away to be collected by the HSE advisor at a later time for monthly KPI counting. 

The worker then goes to start the vehicle, ready to leave. It then I stop the worker before they have a chance to start the vehicle and then question the worker as to why they failed to find the failure. They may have no valid excuse to justify their human performance failure (human error). 

I could reiterate again to the driver why we do inspections and give the driver some examples of what may have occurred 20klm up the road like he dd not already know. I.e. the wheel come off and the vehicle veered into the pathway on an oncoming road train (semi truck) towing 3 laden trailers behind, or the wheel came off and bounced into an oncoming car that had a mother and 4 kids in it going to school.

What if this worker was about to go out and operate a 30 million dollar plant or he was about to go out and manage 20 other workers. If this person cannot ensure that even simple inspections are done appropriately, that if not done could have very serious consequences, why would you want this person managing anything at all..what else they are ignoring?. 

If I never used Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage as a means to challenge ones latent human performance attitude, how would I know if this person was an incident in waiting? I wouldn’t. The only way I would find out is once the wheel came off and killed some family on their way to school. This is just too late and not the best way to find out a persons safety attitude. 

Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage can be used at every level from the new starter to the higher executive end and in every division/silo to 3rd party contractors and even to the public; there is no limit to when you could proactively use Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage.

Let’s look at another hypothetical scenario in a construction site. While construction workers are doing their usual activities, I place a simple trip hazard in the work area that could cause a potential serious MSD injury (rake). I have placed it in a strategic position that allows plenty of opportunity for me to stop anyone from tripping on it, so I have not introduced any other risks (well I might get distracted). As I sit there and observe; the foreman goes to step over it, the site manager goes to step over it, and every other long serving worker goes to step over the hazard (in each case I would stop them). What sort of safety culture have we really got?


I have used 2 examples here to give an idea of its application, but there are so many ways to use Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage; taking out a process step from a SWMS/procedure, removing a safety device, asking for something to be done that is not right/safe, or even setting up a case of bulling to see how someone like a manager might intervene. We can test even the CEO and ask for advice on any given risk...the use of Covert Pre-emptive Sabotage is limitless and dare I say a very powerful idea.

So, if you really want to see what level of safety maturity you are at..don't ask someone what they would do if the have seen something unsafe or how they would do a an inspection, or what advice the would give to get the job done...test them without them knowing its a test.

I am sure when we do this we just might find that human error causes far more failures that we like to dare admit...

Dam Pyramids...I knew you would have made that mistake!!!










Art of Safety


Click HERE to open BOOK.

or



1

The Art of Safety

by Mark Donnelly



Table of Contents

~ I have observed

I. Implementing Safety Management

II. Implementing Safety Culture

III. Promote by Strategic Methods

XI. Risk Assessments

IV. Proactive Disposition

V. Commitment

VI. Clever and Naive

VII. Development of Policy and Procedure

IIIX. Forcefulness of Safety

IIX. Monitor and Review

IX. Hierarchy of Controls

XII. The Use of Safety Champions



The Art of Safety; for the purpose of this guide, is to help shape those who are true to

the provision of proactive safety management; who are leaders, who are managers and

who are workers (the 3 levels).


The Art of Safety is guidance towards the understanding of what the true workings of

fundamental protection is all about. The guise of risk is there in every act, those who

know this will be safe, and will bestow protection. Those who go through the motions,

who duplicate others, who react after, who challenge not, who do not know their

workers, are not safety leaders; let them learn the Art of Safety in all its practicable

application. Those who practice such vigilance, those who pre-empt misfortune, those

who challenge, those who share, will be true safety leaders.


  •  Know your risks, and know your controls, this is the Art of Safety.
  •  Challenge, innovate, instigate and improve, this is the Art of Safety
  •  Learn, focus, specialise, and coach, this is the Art of Safety



~ I have observed ~

I have observed the poor and careless efforts of leaders, I have seen the result of lax

systems and overcomplicated methodologies. I have seen the promotion of hiding

valuable truths and judging with protective bias. I have seen the misguided. I have

seen those say they need a new approach, after they have failed to implement or try

the current.


It is for these deficiencies I get frustrated...doing is so easy


We often see a long list of recommendations after a major incident, we often see over

reactive actions. We see many say what should have happened, what should have been

done and what should have been in place, this said often by those who should have

done in the first place. This in-itself is reactive. “Those should haves, should have

done”.


I believe what we all need to “do” is get talking, get asking questions, get thinking,

get listening, get time to evaluate news and information, get time to read and learn

from experts and non-experts who have been writing about how to provide safety for

years and get active on those provisions.


We need to not only read through these mindful views; we need to put them into

practice. I have heard many people say “yeah I read that, or went to that course” only

to not apply anything that was promoted.


The only way we are ever going to reduce these controllable incidents is if we “get

serious” not “consider serious”. Training has to be functional, risk management has

to be implemented, incident investigations need to be thorough and most of all; we

need to ensure pressures are controlled in an manner that gives conducting tasks an

ethical sense of practicality.


“Safety does not belong to the safety department or to the safety officer; safety belongs

to each one of us and each one of us is within an entity, and entities should be as one”

Mark Donnelly



I. Implementing Safety Management

1. Mark Donnelly said: The Art of safety management is of vital importance to the

organisations success.

2. It is a matter of health, safety and wellbeing, a road either to success or to failure.

Hence, it is a subject of behaviour in which by no account be neglected by anyone.

3. The art of safety, then, is governed by five constant factors to be taken into account in

safety management development, when seeking to determine and establish the safety

culture within the organisation.

4. These are: (1) The Commitments; (2) safety Culture; (3) Workplace Awareness; (4) The

Business Leader; (5) Method and Discipline.

5. The company commitments align all within, so to be in complete agreement with the

organisations leader, so that all workers will follow regardless of any other negative

influences, undismayed by any unsafe acts or negative culture.

6. Safety Management signifies all that must be maintained to provide a company with its

total success.

7. Workplace safety culture and awareness comprises; attitude, integrity, ethics,

observing hazards and risks, noting non-conformances, reporting near misses and

unsafe acts; all chances of causing ill health and injury to yourself and or to others.

8. The Organisation Leader stands for the virtues of understanding, ethics, integrity,

compassion, openness and firmness.

9. By the implementation of the safety management system, it is to be understood for the

organising of the workers in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of hierarchy

among its workers, the maintenance of policy and procedures, by which guidance may

reach the workers, and the control of company expenditure through facets of safety.

10. These five factors should be familiar to every leader and worker: those who know them

will be successful; those who know them will not fail.

11. Therefore, in a continual improvement process, when seeking to determine the

organisations conditions between leaders and workers, let them be made the

foundation of a comparison, in this wise;

12. (1) Which of the two groups is instilled with the promotion of safety management? (2)

Which of the two groups has the most ability to instil safety management? (3) With

whom lie the advantages derived from safety management? (4) On which side is safety

management most thoroughly enforced? (5) Which group is more able to make

change? (6) Which group should be more knowledgeable in safety? (7) In which group

is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment for actions?

13. By means of these seven considerations, you can forecast a safe or an unsafe culture.

14. The leader that listens attentively to their people, and acts upon such insight, will

succeed; let such a leader be retained in their position. The leader that does not listen

attentively to their people, nor acts upon such insight, will suffer failure; let such one

be dismissed.

15. The leader while working towards safety goals and profit of their organisation should

reward themself further with any helpful situations over and beyond just ordinary

safety rules and guidelines.

16. When safety morale is of a high level and incidents low, one should try to improve

their safety plans and goals even further than anticipated. This is the time to promote

the safety message harder.

17. All unsafe acts, hazards, near misses are born from negative perceptions and from

negative culture.

18. Hence, when the leader observes unsafe acts and conditions, a leader must be ready to

improve instantly; when seeing that safety is not taken serious, a leader must be

forcefully active in re-educating; if the leader sees stupidity, they must rid such

stupidity immediately; if they see uncertainty towards safety, they must make it very

clear and concise.

19. Find unsafe officers or workers and either re-train them, or rid them. This is two

options.

20. If they are strong at production, planning or management; be prepared to educate

them.

21. If they still do not learn, rid them. This is no option.

22. If your safety culture is of negative temper, make haste to change. Push constantly the

safety message, so that all within grow compliant, so that all will become proactive.

23. If the officers are making excuses to ignore safety, give them no respite. If their

subordinates are united, separate them.

24. Educate all whenever you can, give safety direction and advice at all times, even when

not planned or expected.

25. These proactive safety management traits, leading to your very organisations success,

must be transparent and open.

26. Now the good leader who wins over an unsafe culture makes many observations in

their workplace before the culture begins to fail. The bad leader who makes for an

unsafe culture makes but few observations. Thus, many observations lead to a good

safety culture, and few observations to an unsafe one: It is by proactive safety

awareness to this point that you can foresee who is likely to have a good or bad safety

culture, who is likely to succeed rather than to fail.

27. The Art of Safety teaches the reader to rely not on the likelihood of an unsafe act

happening, but on how they are going to mitigate the unsafe act promptly; not on the

exposure of an unsafe event occurring, but rather on the fact that you have made the

unsafe act safe now and that your safe management system is complete and

transparent at the commencement.

28. There are five negative faults which may affect a leader: (1) Negativity, which leads to

poor safety leadership; (2) Non-caring attitude, which leads to loss of worker

commitments; (3) closed door approach, which can limit their workplace safety

understanding; (4) lack of safety knowledge, which is of vital importance to leaders

confidence; (5) failing to educate, which exposes all to risks.

29. These are the five negative faults of a leader, damaging to the culture of safety, which

may provoke forceful promotion of safety in the wrong context.

30. When safety in the organisation has failed and has made the organisation profit

dwindle from many incidents, the cause will surely be found among these five

negative faults. Let them be a subject of awakening in your safety management

promotion. Let them be a learning to the leader and to all within.



II. Implementing Safety Culture

1. Mark Donnelly says; In the operation of health and safety in your organisation, where

there are people, and all other items of tools and trade, the expenditure of

implementing and maintaining a safety culture in such disrepair; processes,

procedures, revision and continual improvement, will cost unexpected expenses. This

is the cost, its expenditure, whilst mostly not tangible, will be calculated both with

unseen conditions and un-noted unsafe events. Culture is a result not an action.

2. When you engage in behavioural safety, if the commitment to safety is long in coming,

then your employees’ safety attitude will not improve adequately and safety

implementation will be hampered. If you fail to commit to and positively promote

safety, you will exhaust your safety culture and your success.

3. Again, if the safety management campaign is long-drawn-out, the profit of the

business will not cover that negative culture.

4. Now, when your officers are low in safety attitude, your safety morale imperfect, your

safety commitments exhausted and your profit spent, hazards that lie in waiting will

spring up to take advantage of your carelessness. Then no leader, however wise, will

be able to reactively avert the negative consequences that will result.

5. Thus, though all have heard of senseless over reactive and reactive methods after such

damaging events, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays in

developing a proactive safety culture.

6. There is no instance of an organisation having benefited from having a lax or negative

safety culture.

7. It is only the true proactive safety conscious leaders, who are thoroughly acquainted

with the potential negative outcomes of unsafe events that can thoroughly understand

the profitable way of preventive actions.

8. The skilful leader does not increase trivial safety programs or systems; neither do they

need to push the safety message via constant generic reminders.

9. Have safety with you at all times, quest it from your employees. Thus, the organisation

will have a proactive safety culture, enough for its success without constant reminding.

10. Inactivity of the officers towards safety culture causes a company to be maintained by

contributions from the general workers. Attempting to maintain a proactive safe

culture at a distance causes the workers to be disadvantaged. Workers need managing

and leadership; not from afar but near.

11. On the other hand, the personal proactive actions of the leader and officers cause

profits to go up; and high profits cause employee morale to be increased, with it, less

incidents and a more successful organisation.

12. When employee morale for safety culture is drained away, their safety will be afflicted

by over-reactive and trivial, short term actions.

13. With this over-reactive trivial safety actions and exhaustion of officer commitment, the

safety of the workers will be put at risk, their risk of being hurt will increase tenfold;

while the organisations expenses for damaged equipment, worn-out tools, reengineering

of dangerous tasks, substitution of unsafe methods, controlling events

with reactive administration, the hidden amount will cost many times more compared

to that of the initial cost of operating a proactive safety system.

14. Hence a sensible proactive leader makes a point of searching out for, and

understanding potential unsafe acts and hazards. One hazard found will prevent many

dangerous events from occurring; many workers constantly looking out for hazards

will prevent many more dangerous events from occurring.

15. Now in order to eliminate injuries and deaths, workers must be educated in risk; that

there may be great advantage from reporting unsafe acts and hazards, they must have

total understanding to the ultimate reward...protection.

16. Risk management is of vital importance for the benefit of maintaining a reporting

culture.

17. Therefore in reporting hazards, when one or more hazards have been observed, those

should be rewarded who alerted of such dangers. Officer’s self-interest should be

substituted for those of the proactive workers. And the hazards presented shared

throughout the workforce to educate all of the dangers. The proactive workers should

be kindly treated and respected.

18. This is called; using the proactive safety message to enhance the organisations own

strengths and successes.

19. In promoting proactive safety culture, then, let your proactive safety objective be that

of zero harm, not trivial reactive safety programs.

20. Thus, let it be known that; the leader of the organisation has the overall authority of

employee’s fate; the leader on what all safety depends, determines whether the

organisation is unsafe or safe, succeeds or fails. The Leader, the manger, by the act of

doing, will provide all that is needed to have the best end result; that of a proactive,

involved and proficient safety culture.



III. Promote by Strategic Methods

1. Mark Donnelly said: In the practical art of safety management, the best thing of all is to

promote a positive safety attitude at all times as a strategy; to be negative and uncaring

it is not so good. So, too, it is better to promote safety in a positive way than to destroy

it through negativity, confusion and inconsistency, to capture a workforce is better

than to neglect them. A leader must be strategic, and be very understandable.

2. Hence to be reactive and indecisive in your promotion of safety, to not have a strategic

plan is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of educating your

workforce without undue forcefulness with workable goals.

3. Thus the highest form of strategy in the organisation is to rid all negative topics; the

next best is to be proactive in the promotion of safety culture; the next in order is to

educate all in the workplace; the worst strategy of all is to drown the workers with

trivial matters and over-reactive actions that have no higher objective than ordinary.

4. The rule is; not drown the workplace with trivial over-reactive actions if it can possibly

be avoided. The preparation of posters, slogans, and various other trivial safety actions,

will take up too much time; and the revision of such trivial actions will take many

more months. Develop what needs to be done to enhance overall safety governance,

whether it be complicated or simple in method.

5. If the naive leader, unable to control their incompetent frustrations, launches their

workforce into trivial over-reactive programs, the unanticipated result is that confusion

will cause more risk, while the unsafe culture still grows. Such are the disastrous

effects of an over-reactive, reactive safety culture with no strategic plan.

6. Therefore the skilful leader moderates the workforce without any haste; the skilful

leader captures the workers soles without laying fear onto them; they overthrow any

negativity and misunderstanding without trivial reactive actions in the workplace.

They set clear goals that are well thought and have a positive meaningful ending.

7. With employee’s morale still intact at the end of such a well though-out strategic plan,

the skilful leader will rid the negative culture from the organisation and thus, without

losing any good workers, their long term strategic achievement will be complete. This

is the goal of promoting by strategic methods.

8. Plan, implement, measure and review, but never think that no plan needs continual

improvement.

9. It is my rule in safety, if there are many negative employees, seek to motivate and

retrain them; if only a few, educate those few; if only one, rid them; ridding one can

influence many.

10. If the goal is slightly off direction, you can influence change; if moderately off, you can

enforce change; if totally off, you may need to exit, before forced to do so.

11. Hence, though a constant strategic approach may be made by the leader and officers, in

the end, it must be embraced by the larger workforce.

12. Now the leader is the controller of the organisation; if their control is complete in all

areas and the show due diligence; the workplace will be positive; if their control is

defective, the workplace will be negatively affected.

13. There are three ways in which a leader can bring misfortune upon their organisation:--

(1) By giving the workers confusing directives without achievable goals, being

unaware of the fact that they do not understand. This is called; hobbling the

workers through incompetence.

(2) By attempting to control the workers in the same way as they manage the

organisation, being uninformed and out of touch of the true operations of the

organisation. This causes confusion and doubt in the workers.

(3) By employing/promoting the officers of their workforce without insight into

their safety mindset, through unawareness of the business principle of

adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the workers.

14. When the workforce is confused and distrustful, incidents are sure to come from any

old-fashioned and or generalised plans. This will simply bring disorder into the

workforce, and further damage safety culture. A leader must have a strategic plan for

success. They must know what they want in order to complete the objective. Be it short

term or long term

15. A leader must not set to many multitasking roles onto workers in any specific role, this

will lower skills and increase incompetence; and then plans will fail.

16. Thus, we may know that there are five essentials for success in strategic planning: (1)

Those will succeed who know when to act and when not to act. (2) Those will succeed

who know how to handle both negative and positive safety attitudes. (3) Those will

succeed whose workforce is energised by the same spirit of the proactive leader. (4)

Those will succeed who, prepares, and understands safety in its entirety. (5) Those will

succeed who have a positive strategic safety method and who is not interfered by

negativity.

17. Hence my saying: “If you know the hazards and know your controls, you need not fear

the result of incident; if you know hazards but not the controls, for every job gained

you will also suffer an incident. If you know neither the hazard nor control, you will

succumb to many incidents and you will fail”



XI. Risk Assessments

1. Mark Donnelly said; there are many ways to avert a negative event. As described; the

first is to identify the hazards, the next is to analyse, next is to evaluate and last is to

treat.

2. These all belong to the most important part of a safety management system; the risk

assessment process.

3. The leader, who does not know the importance of risk management, will succumb too

many failures.

4. There is no time better to conduct a risk assessment than the present.

5. There is no better way to be proactive in the controlling, monitoring, revising of

operations at every level and in every section, than to conduct a risk assessment.

6. A risk assessment is the means to govern all negative and or positive actions.

7. A leader must consider all risks derived from activities within the organisation and

determine their severity levels, this is proactive safety.

8. If an activities risk is neglected, and the severity not determined, then the leader has

failed in their duty of care.

9. If an activities risk is proactively challenged, the severity determined, then the leader

has fulfilled their duty of care.

10. Once a risk has been determined, the leader must allocate that risk to an owner, thus be

it to themself, an officer or a worker. The risk owner must be named and must be fully

aware of their obligation to control that risk and to close that risk. All must know who

the risk owner is.

11. A risk maybe be compared to past knowledge, to aid in the evaluation, hence give a

level of action, but this knowledge should not influence the current divergent pathway

outcome. A casual way, will not give full protection.

12. If a risk is not under control of the organisation, then this is still a risk to the

organisation.

13. All risks, be it internal or external, people or plant, natural or fabricated, should be put

through a risk assessment process. This process could take shape in many forms, but

the application is the same, (1) to find the cause and (2) to control the outcome, this is

the Art of Risk Management.

14. A good leader knows their operation and knows their tasks, hence they know their

risk.

15. It is by the risk assessment process, in all its proper application, that they know this.

16. Through qualitative risk assessments you can gain good understanding, and gain good

measurement, this be safe in task.

17. Through quantitative risk assessment you can gain great understanding, and gain

great measurement, this be safe in operation.

18. There are 5 levels of maturity to assess the level of compliance and effectiveness. (i)

Emerging/ Pathological (ii) Managing/ Reactive (iii) Involving/ Calculative (iv) Cooperating/

Proactive and (v) Continually Improving/ Generative.

19. It is by these levels, a good leader can determine the controls workers might take in

relation to risk.

20. If Emerging/ Pathological, then many unnecessary risks will be taken; hence safety is a

problem caused by workers lack of commitment.

21. If Managing/ Reactive, then some unnecessary risks will be taken; hence Organisations

and workers start to take safety seriously but there is still only action after incidents

22. If Involving/ Calculative, then few unnecessary risks will be taken; hence Safety is

driven by management systems, with much monitoring and collection of data.

23. If Co-operating/ Proactive, then limited unnecessary risks will be taken; hence Safety

with improved performance, the known is a challenged.

24. If Continually Improving/ Generative, then no risks will be taken; hence there is active

participation at all levels. Safety is perceived to be an inherent part of the business.

Safety is taken serious.

25. The journey then to a safe proactive culture, to a safe system, and to a compliant

culture is this; (1) Basic (2) Reactive (3) Planned (4) Proactive (5) Resilient.

26. A good leader who knows this process, they set their strategic goals to meet these

levels.

27. If the operation is vast, if complex application, then the leader must allocate an officer

to manage all aspects of risk. Let this officer be devoted to the challenge.

28. To reach the final goal, to maintain the final goal, is the leaders ultimate

accomplishment in their quest for protection of their workers and of their organisation.



IV. Proactive Disposition

1. Mark Donnelly said: The proactive safety leader must first put them-selves beyond the

possibility of a reactive safety culture; they should be always seeking for an

opportunity to find and eliminate risk. The proactive leader will have innate abilities

that will see and anticipate danger at every level.

2. To protect your workers and that of others against risk is in your disposition, but the

opportunity of finding hazards is provided by the understanding of your organisations

practices.

3. Thus, the good leader who is skilled in safety is able to naturally safeguard a workforce

against all hazards, but they cannot make certain of defeating the negative unsafe

worker.

4. Hence my saying: “A leader must naturally know how to promote proactive safety

without having to enforce it reactively”

5. Protection against possible incidents involves proactive safety measures; ability to

make awareness of hazards means allowing adequate time to educate all of such

hazards.

6. Being reactive on safety indicates an insufficient safety disposition; being proactive,

means a superabundance of safety disposition.

7. The leader who is skilled in safety is naturally transparent in the most positive way;

those who are skilled in proactive safety have the highest expectations. Thus on the one

hand they have ability to protect the entire workforce, hence secure the success of the

organisation.

8. To see safety only when it is within the current understanding of the common workers

is not the acme of excellence.

9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you promote and influence after the fact, and the

whole workforce says, "Well done!"

10. To manage a past hazard is no sign of great disposition; to see the hazards after the fact

is no sign of great insight; to hear the safety concerns of workers after the fact is no sign

of proactive thinking or leadership.

11. What the safety industry calls a clever safety leader is one who not only proactively

promoting safety, but excels in preventing incidents with ease. They are in tune with

all happenings, with all operations, they are natural leaders.

12. Hence the reduction of unsafe events after the fact; bring neither reputation for

knowledge or credit for leadership.

13. A true leader prevents incidents by understanding the workplace practices.

Understanding the workplace practices is what establishes the certainty of success, for

it means conquering hazardous events that are both already known and unknown.

14. Hence the leader puts the organisation in its entirety into a position which makes

hazardous situations impossible, they do not miss the moment for eliminating any

hazard.

15. Thus, it is that in safety, the competent leader only calls success after an incident free

workplace and after a safety culture has been won, whereas those incompetent leaders

who are destined to fail in safety first look for victory before success.

16. The ideal safety leader constantly promotes a safety culture, and strictly adheres to

their innate method and discipline to maintain it; thus it is in their power to control

business success, as nothing is more important in life than preserving it.

17. In respect of safety management, we have First; Measurement of hazards, Second;

Estimation of consequences, Third; Calculation of losses, Fourth; Balancing of

productivity, Fifth: Implementation and control of safety management systems.

18. Measurement owes its existence to Commitments; Estimation of consequences to

Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of losses; Balancing of chances to

productivity; and Victory to Balancing of safety systems.

19. An innate leader’s safety disposition opposed to an unnatural one; is as a life saved, a

consequence averted.

20. The promotion of an innately dispositional safety leader is like the bringing back of a

life after a drowning.



V. Commitment

1. Mark Donnelly said: The commitment of safety in a large workforce is the same

principle as the commitment of safety of a small workforce or the same as the

commitment to safety of a family: it is merely a question of giving everyone the same

information and systems.

2. Managing safety in a large workforce under your control is no different in detail from

managing a safety in a small one: it is merely a question of a commitment to safety.

3. To ensure that your whole workforce may understand safety and remain proactive--

this is effected by decisions both direct and indirect.

4. That the impact of your safety commitment may be likened to the wearing of a seat belt

while driving, if you fail to wear a seat belt, your chances of survival are reduced.

5. In being committed to safety; a direct safety commitment may be used for training all,

but indirect safety commitments will be needed in order to complete business success.

6. Indirect safety commitments, when efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as goods and

services, unending as production and development; like the structure and building,

they end but to begin anew; like the projects, they start, finish and then start again.

7. There are not more than six hierarchies of controls, yet the combinations of these six

give rise to more barriers than can ever be covered by one.

8. There are not more than a few fall prevention systems, yet in combination they

produce more protection than can ever be, if only using one.

9. There are not more than a few basic PPE requirements, yet combinations of these yield

more overall protection than one can ever give alone.

10. In a proactive commitment to safety, there are not more than two methods of

implementation; the direct (requirements) and the indirect (recommendations); yet

these two in combination give rise to an endless series of possible preventative actions.

11. The direct and the indirect commitments lean on each other for continual

improvements. It is like moving in a circle, you never come to an end. Who can exhaust

the possibilities of their combination?

12. The commitments to safety are like heroes, whom motivate and elevate all to higher

expectations and morals.

13. The sincerity of a commitment is like a steam engine, very powerful, and has the

endurance to climb the steepest of mountains.

14. Therefore the good leader will be encouraging in their direction, and prompt in their

implementation.

15. Commitments may be likened to the bending of a bow; implementing, to the releasing

of the string.

16. Amid the implementation and promotion of safety, there may be seeming confusion

and yet no real confusion at all; amid confusion and negativity, your constant safety

commitment may be without total following, yet it will be proof against failure.

17. Commitment to safety suggests perfect conformity; proactive safety suggests

knowledge; collaborating safety signifies order.

18. Promoting safety with positive commitments is simply a question of subdivision; being

open, transparent and educational provides good mentoring; promoting safety with

solid commitments is to be the key to the organisations success.

19. Thus, a good leader, one who is committed to keeping the workforce constantly aware

of safety issues, one who drives a positive safety culture, according to which the

workforce will follow. The leader must always give something, so that the workforce

has something the grasp, they must give commitments.

20. By implementing commitments, a good leader keeps the workforce motivated; then

when the need arises to take action against un-safe conditions, the workforce will be

there always ready to assist and control.

21. The clever leader who is skilled in safety, looks to the combined effort of the workforce,

and does not require too much from individuals. Hence has the right culture to

minimise effort and cost through their combined effort.

22. When a leader utilises combined efforts, the workforce in itself becomes a strong

proactive safety system, full of knowledge and understanding; For it is the nature of a

reactive workforce to remain costly and unsafe, and to react only after an incident; if

lazy and reactive, to become unsuccessful...but if dynamic and proactive, to succeed.

23. Thus the energy developed by a committed leader who is skilled in safety, through

their commitments has an organisation filled with proactive safety conscience workers.

This is why a constant effort is needed to promote commitments and thus promote

safety as most paramount.




VI. Clever and Naive

1. Mark Donnelly said: Whoever is clever in safety and eliminates hazards from the

organisation will be prepared for a successful operation; whoever is naive and who is

reactive will fail in operation.

2. Therefore a clever leader, who is skilled in safety, positively enforces safety onto their

workforce, and does not allow any negative actions to be imposed on them.

3. By promoting clever safety measures into the organisation, the leader can cause the

workforce to follow of their own accord; or, by inflecting clever change, they can make

it impossible for negative culture to develop or grow.

4. If the workplace is losing its safety culture, the clever leader can promote it; if the

workforce has naive employees, the clever leader can manipulate those; if the

workforce is un-manipulated, the clever leader can rid those from the workforce.

5. Target hazards which the business must hasten to control; move fast to find hazards

that are not generally known or expected, this is clever.

6. An organisation may work safely for many years without major incident through luck;

a clever organisation works safely though constant effort.

7. You can be sure of succeeding in your promotion of safety if you promote clever safety

throughout the organisation. You can ensure the safety of your workforce if you have

clever safety officers that cannot be naively influenced by others.

8. Hence, the clever safety leader is skilful in managing safety even when the workforce

does not fully know what to look out for or implement; they are skilful in protecting all

those who are not safe by nature. They are clever at targeting areas in need of

improvement.

9. O divine art of proactive safety! Through you we learn to be clever, through you we

become smart; and hence we can hold the successful advantage in our hands over all

opposition.

10. You may be safe and be absolutely successful if you target unsafe and high risk areas;

you will be clever and incident free if your actions have been cleverly implemented

before they became an incident.

11. If you wish to be naive towards safety, the organisation can be forced into a negative

culture that will sure bring failure and result in injury or even death. As a clever leader,

you need to always think of safety and seek out those hidden hazards that will cause

unfortunate events. This is the art of safety.

12. If you do not wish to have unfortunate incidents, you can prevent hazards from

becoming incidents even though not all hazards are known. All you need do is educate

the workforce on how to find and observe possible hazards before they undertake any

task. This is the making of a clever workforce.

13. By discovering and understanding hazards at the workplace, you can keep your

incidents at zero.

14. You can form a clever safety culture, while naive ones fail in theirs. Hence there will be

an advantage, which means that you shall succeed and they will fail.

15. And if you are able thus to succeed through clever safety initiatives, your competitors

will be naively left to fight over what work is left that you could not do.

16. The hazardous areas you intend to target in your business must be made known; for

then the workforce will be ready to acknowledge your safety commitments; and they

will discuss amongst themselves your safety commitment, everyone will be clever and

proactively talking about safety, then the task of creating a clever safety culture is not

done by a few, but by all.

17. For should the chance to allow anyone part of the organisation to be naive, you have

allowed a gap in your commitments for unsafe conditions to appear. If you focus too

much on one area of your business, other areas may get neglected, hence you have

allowed unsafe conditions to develop; they will become incidents, this is not being

clever. All areas and subdivisions must be treated the same, regardless of any factor.

18. Negative culture comes from allowing parts of the workforce to be naive; clever safety

management comes from convincing your workforce to constantly think about safety.

19. Knowing where all hazards and hi-risk areas are, you can manage and control them

before they become an unwanted event.

20. But if neither hazards nor hi-risk areas be known, then you have given up your guard

and have allowed for your workforce to be naive, thus opened up the gaps for unsafe

acts and conditions to occur.

21. Though according to your current focus on maintaining a high level of clever safety

systems, this shall be advantageous to your organisation. I say then that long term

success will be achieved.

22. Though the hazards and hi-risk areas be in great numbers, you may prevent them from

becoming an unwanted event by being clever. Prepare all so as to control these risky

areas and reduce the consequence of unwanted events from occurring through

promotion and education. This is the key to becoming clever.

23. If the hazard is a naive person, then learn the principle of their activity or inactivity.

Force them to commit to safety so as to find out their naive principles. Once you know

their naive principles you can be clever to manipulate them.

24. Carefully compare the attitude of your officers with that of your own values, so that

you may know where leadership is clever and where leadership is naive.

25. In the making of clever safety officers, the highest pitch you can attain is to support

them; promote your safety commitments and values onto them, and you will be safe

from the naive attitudes, you will be free from the unsafe work practices that cause

harm and failure.

26. How your success may be shaped is from your clever safety officers, this is what will

determine how the whole workforce will collaborate. This is how the whole

organisation will become clever.

27. All workers should see the safety systems a clever leader uses, whereby they make

safety a priority; all workers should see the safety systems, out of which success is

evolved.

28. Always improve on safety tactics which have improved a lax process, but let your

improvements always be proactively instigated by your company’s variety of working

conditions.

29. Clever safety culture is like fertilizer to a fruit tree; A fruit tree with no fertilizer will

bear sour and bitter fruit.

30. So in developing and maintaining a clever safety culture, the way to succeed is to

reward those who are proactive and to provide to those whom are inactive.

31. A clever safety culture shapes its course according to the safety commitments of the

leader and officers that work under the leader; the clever leader works out their success

in relation to the officers whom they have entrusted their safety commitments and

visions onto.

32. Therefore, just as workplace officers are diverse in their thinking, there are no exact

actions that are constant.

33. The officers, who can modify their attitude in relation to their leader, will succeed and

may be called a natural born and proficient follower and leader of the 3rd level.

34. The six hierarchies of controls (Elimination, Substitution, Isolation, Engineering,

administration, PPE) are not always equally enforced; the 3 levels of structure make

way for each other in turn. There are good days and bad; organisation has its periods

of highs and lows. As clever leaders, officers and workers, who are skilled in the art of

safety, they need to understand that cycles come and go, that by staying focused and

committed to the safety commitments, and who have clear and achievable goals, they

will succeed.



VII. Development of Policy and Procedure

1. Mark Donnelly said; in business, the officers receive their safety direction from the

leader. The workers receive their direction from the officers; they all check their action

from the leaders’ commitments.

2. Having collected committed and proactive safety minded officers and after making

safety commitments, the leader must manage and control the different facets of the

organisation to ensure safety is continuously upheld.

3. After that, comes implementing various safety policy and procedures, to which there is

nothing more important to an organisation. The difficulty of developing safety

procedures consists in turning the unknown into the known, the unsafe into safe, then

making these recognisable to all.

4. Thus, to take a quick and committed direction, after re-educating or ridding negative

workers, and through the understanding of safety culture; to rid all hazards before

they become incidents shows great knowledge of procedural development.

5. Developing a safety procedure within a workforce in a disciplined manner is

advantageous; being undisciplined to your procedure, most disadvantageous.

6. If you have to push procedures onto your organisation in order to develop a safe

method way, the chances are that you will be too late. On the other hand, to constantly

develop procedures from the start in all areas of your workplace collectively, over time,

all will improve in safer techniques.

7. If you force too many minor procedures into every aspect of your workplace and onto

all workers, and or make for too big of a document, the system will fail as the

directions will be either limited or to great and the purpose of the procedure

methodology then be too unclear.

8. A good procedure will be followed, the poor one will not, and on this direction you

have allowed for segmented failures, that ultimately have one ending; a failure.

9. If you develop and implement a procedure, it must be clear and easy understood, you

must use terms all can understand. It must be in process order.

10. If you develop and implement a procedure and it is not clear and easy to understand,

and the process not practicable, then the direction will not be followed, and the

mythology of the procedure process lost.

11. You cannot develop a procedure without the consultation of all involved.

12. The procedure will not fit into the real operation unless all are familiar with the process

and how it is worded and to this its importance. A procedure must leave no questions,

and have no confusing grey areas.

13. The workgroup will be unable to reach a safe ending if the procedure is lacking it

detail and guidance.

14. In the development of procedures, practice accuracy and target your audience and you

will succeed.

15. Whether to allow for deviations to the procedure or not, must be decided by

unforeseen circumstances.

16. Let your deviation be that of policy, your quality that of a plan

17. Let you plans be open and transparent, when implemented, followed like a

commitment.

18. The leader will succeed who knows the importance of policy and procedure; such is

the art of safety management.

19. The basic principles of communication say; within the organisation, management plans

are not heard, hence policy and procedures; nor can the leaders thinking be guessed,

hence their commitments.

20. Commitment, plans, policies, and procedures are means whereby the entire

organisation can have a goal and directive. A means to gain knowledge.

21. The leader thus forms one single united safety minded group, it is therefore almost

impossible for hazards to become incident. This is the art of leading.

22. When conducting complex tasks, make much use of procedures, when conducting new

tasks, make much use of guidelines to direct the unknowing to the knowing

23. A whole organisation may be low in morale; a leader may be confused in their

direction. But the procedures will remain and be the map.

24. Now workers integrity is at best in the morning, by midday it has begun to drop, in the

mid afternoon it has all but gone, their mind is on the end of day.

25. A clever leader then knows to promote their policies early, and audits late when

integrity is low; this is the art of effective management.

26. Disciplined and in control, to see the visions and values in action amongst the

organisation; this is the art of governance.

27. To have high level safety procedures, while others are in disrepair and of poor quality;

this is the art of consultation.

28. To listen to your stakeholders, the ones that support your goals; this is the art of

communication.

29. Such is the Art of Safety



IIIX. Forcefulness of Safety

1. Mark Donnelly said: In safety, the officers receive their commands from the leader,

they then direct their workers, and promote safety as if a division of the company. If

promotion is not taken, then it must be forced upon.

2. When the workers are in low safety morale, do not forgo these constant safety aspects.

(1) In low safety moral where many are in pessimism about safety, support those that

are positive. Do not allow for poor safety culture to spread. (2) In very bad safety

cultures, you must resort to forceful safety management. (3) In extremely bad safety

cultures, you must enforce severe disciplinary action. This is the forcefulness of safety

management.

3. There are risks that must not be taken, tasks which must be not conducted, workers

which must not be overwhelmed, decisions which must not be contested, pressures of

the business which must not be relaxed.

4. The leader who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany forcefulness

of safety knows how to handle their workforce in such lax times.

5. The leader, who does not understand these, may be well acquainted with the safe

operation of the organisation, yet they will not be able to turn their knowledge to

practical safety directives.

6. So, the Leader and officers who are uneducated in the Art of Safety, in the art of

forceful safety in extreme environments, even though they be familiar with the five

safety factors, will fail to make safe their workers in such despair.

7. Hence in the leader's plans, considerations of positive and of negative safety will be

blended together.

8. If the expectation of success be moulded in this way, the leader may succeed in

accomplishing the essential part of forceful safety.

9. If, on the other hand, in the midst of bad safety management the leader is not ready to

improve through forceful safety, they will open the organisation to extreme

consequences.

10. The Leader must reduce the chance of a failing safety management system by

constantly reviewing all policy and procedure; and make improvements to them, and

keep them constantly revised; and to make new ones, and implement them cleverly.

And In desperate times, forcefully promote them.



IIX. Monitor and Review

1. Mark Donnelly said: We come now to the question of monitoring safety and

understanding the consequences in lacking a proactive culture through revision.

Control all risks, and know all hazards, thus you will succeed.

2. Lead from the top, be open. Do not expect employees to lead safety.

3. After the learning of a hazard, one must do everything to eliminate it in haste.

4. When safety negative employees are careless in their actions, do not wait for a later

time to interact, it is best to engage promptly, and re-educate swiftly, than to ignore.

5. If you are anxious to act swiftly, do not wait for more than a day to pass before you

engage the employees.

6. Use their unsafe acts as an example for them all to learn from, educate all on the worst

case consequences.

7. In finding damaged equipment, your action should be to repair or replace before the

equipment is used again.

8. If forced to use this equipment, you should use other safety controls, educate and slow

down operations.

9. If there is risk to the environment, seek environmental education and use appropriate

controls.

10. These are the useful guides of reviewing and monitoring which will enable the leader

to maintain a good safety system and a positive safety culture.

11. All successful leaders prefer proactive actions to reactive ones, and the revision and

monitoring of such actions will keep a leader in control of risk.

12. If you are respectful to your employees, and provide practical safety knowledge, the

collective workforce will be free from hazards, for they will monitor also.

13. When you have a new employee, inaugurate them wisely, monitor their progress and

review them after a period. Thus you will be acting for the benefit of all your

employees.

14. When, in midst of an incident investigation, be sure to review all findings before

rushing in with controls.

15. Organisations in which is there is no method of monitor or review, whom have

complacent workers, uncaring workers, disgruntled workers, old school workers, then

constant monitoring and revision needs to be applied at all times.

16. While a leader may tend to not react hastily to such a bad safety culture, when given

opportunities; such as meetings, they should always review safety and then monitor

the controls.

17. If in implementation of controls, there be any workers who are naive, they must be

known and understood; for these naive workers are incidents in waiting.

18. When the naive worker does not monitor controls, the worker is always going to be a

risk to all.

19. When the naive worker keeps aloof and disregards safety revision, they are naive of

the chance of causing great consequence.

20. If the officers are incompetent, then they are fostering unsafe culture by not reviewing

and monitoring for which actions would be derived.

21. Positive reviewing and monitoring of safety practices shows to all; the business is

being proactive.

22. The continual identification of already identified hazards is a sign of poor reviewing

and monitoring. Failing to monitor actions means that an incident is imminent.

23. When there is a rise in hazards, it is a sign of a major failure approaching; when there is

a rise in near misses, it is is a sign of a coming incident, these are to pointing towards a

process lacking in revision.

24. Continual monitoring will raise issues that can be stopped. No monitoring will fail to

raise issues and will give way to unwanted events.

25. When revision is active and timely, then issues can be resolved. This is a process that

aids in learning.

26. Safety management without revision and monitoring using documented processes

does not give trace to your efforts.

27. When there is incident from casual factors, then much over reactive action ensues.

28. When there is incident form formal factors, then less over reactive action ensues.

29. When safety culture is of low morale, then the workers have no goals.

30. When hazards are not being reported, then maturity is of low scale.

31. When workers do not act in improvement by way of monitoring and revision then for

sure a failure will ensue.

32. If failures are low, then monitoring of practices is in good repair, if failures are often

then monitoring of practices is of poor repair.

33. If the workforce is lax in their revision of practices, then the leaders monitoring is

weak. If the actions are never reviewed, then negligence is riff.

34. When the organisation forgives to production over safety, when the officers do not

commit to revision and monitoring, showing they have lost their drive in safety, then

you must know as the leader that you business is failing in safety.

35. The hearing of rumours and speculation amongst your workforce in negative morale,

points to a bad safety culture and lack of monitoring.

36. To frequent of revision for being that of safe, signify that the workers are at the end of

their tether. Too infrequent involvement to review and monitor by the leaders and

officers will result in failure.

37. To promote safety after the predicable end is forthcoming, after nil action, after no

revision, after nil monitoring, will show supreme lack of leadership skill.

38. If your highly motivated workers are in extreme less numbers than that of the lax

workers, only means that the safety culture has not been monitored. All you can do is

wait hope for no serious event to end your run.

39. The proactive and proficient leader, who revises and monitors their activities at every

level, though be it through great officers, is sure to ward off any failure.

40. If the leader advertises their safety commitments derived from revision and

monitoring, the workforce will be always proactive in the actions, their moral will be

high, their drive to reach goals strong, and their integrity in high array.

41. Therefore the leader must be involved, and be connected, though be in also through

their officers, this will be the road to success.

42. If the leader is distant, rarely involved in revision, the workforce will begin to fail

43. If the leader shows their safety commitments towards revision and monitoring, and the

workers show theirs, then the gain will be that of total business success.



IX. Hierarchy of Controls

1. Mark Donnelly said: We may distinguish six kinds of controls: (1) Elimination; (2)

Substitution; (3) Isolation; (4) Engineering; (5) administration; (6) Personal Protective

Equipment.

2. Elimination of risks in the workplace is of best practice.

3. With regard to serious hazards of those needed to be eliminated, action these with

timely manner, and educate your workers of these. Then you will be proactive in

ridding these risks altogether.

4. Risks that cannot be eliminated which still need to be undertaken, should be done

using the others controls, you must work down the list, PPE being the last resort.

5. From this mindset, if the hazard is controlled and made acceptable, the task may

continue. But if the hazard has not controlled and is not made acceptable, and you fail

to control the hazard in any other way, then, incidents will ensue.

6. When the risk owner is unsure of what hierarchy of control to use, then the risk owner

is unsure of the worst case consequence.

7. In a position of this sort, even though the hazard may seem low risk, it will be

advisable not to continue, but rather to step back and rethink, thus enabling the full

consequence to be fully understood; then, when the hazard is fully understood, the risk

owner can then use the appropriate control measures to mitigate that risk.

8. With regard to inexperienced workers, if you can train them on these controls, you will

let them be strongly prepared and you will eliminate the advent of the incident

occurring. This then the top level of control.

9. Should the consequence be serious and prevents you from conducting the task; do not

decide to try your luck; do not rely on probability or likelihood.

10. With regard to naive employees, if the leader is early with their recognition of these

controls, they should have instilled a proactive safety mindset; there should be no

disregard to the leader’s commitment to safety.

11. If the naive employee does not respect the leaders commitment to control risk, do not

ignore them, but re-educate and try to give them better understanding of the

consequences of their inactions and the controls available to them.

12. If the leader is located away from the task, and the workforce is not fully trained in

these hierarchies of controls, it will not be easy to prevent incident, and implementing

reactive controls will not be adequate.

13. These six hierarchies of controls are connected with a successful organisation. The

Leader who has attained a responsible position must be prepared to study them and

know them.

14. Now a workforce is always exposed to risks; not arising just from unknown factors, but

from faults for which the leader is responsible. These faults are: (1) insensible; (2)

noncompliant; (3) neglectful; (4) uncaring; (5) disorganised; (6) confused.

15. Other conditions being equal, if one hazard is allowed against untrained employees,

the result will be the insensibility of the employees.

16. When the employees are too negative and their officers too weak, the result is general

noncompliance. When the officers are too stringent and the common worker too naive,

the result is failure.

17. When the officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the naive give battle on

their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the leader can tell whether or

not they are in a position to resolve, the result is loss. When the leader is weak and

without authority; when their commitments are not clear and distinct; when there are

no fixed controls assigned to tasks, and the instructions are formed in a careless

random manner, the result is utter disorganisation.

18. When a Leader, unable to estimate the hazard consequence, allows for inferior

mitigation of risk, or mitigates with a wrong control, and neglects to place the right

person in control, the result must be failure.

19. These are six ways of courting defeat, which must be carefully noted by the risk owner

who has attained a responsible position.

20. The correct application of any hierarchy of control is the leader’s best ally; but a power

of estimating the hazard, of controlling the risk, and of accurately calculating

difficulties, dangers and efforts, constitutes the test of a great leader.

21. The leader who knows these things, and in application puts their knowledge into

practice, will succeed. Those who knows them not, nor practices them, will surely fail.

22. If controlling risk is sure to result in victory, then you must mitigate risk at all costs.

23. The leader who controls risk without wanting recognition and admits they are wrong

without fearing humiliation, whose only thought is to protect their people and do good

service for their organisation, is the master leader to which others should aspire.

24. The leader, who regards their workers as most valuable, will have full trust amongst

their workers; look upon them as your own beloved ones and they will stand by you

and respect your position.

25. If, however, the leader is generous, unable to make their authority felt; kind-hearted,

but unable to enforce their commitments; and incapable, moreover, of controlling risks:

then the workers are subject to failure.

26. If the workers are competent in using hierarchy of controls, but don’t address observed

hazards, then risk management is not fully conducted.

27. If the workers know the observed hazards, but are unaware of what controls to use,

then risk management is not fully promoted.

28. If the workers know the hazard, and also know how to mitigate the risks through

hierarchy of controls, but are aware of unseen potential hazards, then risk management

is fully promoted.

29. Hence the experienced, competent and safety consciences worker who knows controls,

once undertaking a task, is never bewildered; once they have finished the task, they are

never at a loss.

30. Hence my saying: “If you know the hazards and know your controls, you need not fear

the result of incident; if you know hazards but not the controls, for every job gained

you will also suffer an incident. If you know neither the hazard nor control, you will

succumb too many incidents and you will fail”



XII. The Use of Safety Champions

1. Mark Donnelly said; the developing of a negative safety culture, of that of a few, to

many workers and ordering them to do unsafe work entails heavy loss on the workers

and is a drain on the resources of the organisation. The expenditure to the organisation

will amount exponential losses. There will be confusion at work and abroad, and

workers will suffer from many injuries. Many families will be impeded in these losses.

2. Workers in organisation may face many unacceptable risks for years, though all

wanting to go home as they arrived at work, fit and able. This being so, to remain

unaware of the potential hazards, simply because the organisation dreads the outlay of

a mature safety system, is the height of failing to meet their duty of care.

3. The leader who fails in their due diligence is no leader of an organisation, no controller

of their requirement, no successful leader.

4. Thus, what enables a smart leader and the good officers to help manage safety and

succeed, and achieve a proactive safety culture within, is the implementation of safety

champions.

5. Now the use of safety champions cannot replace the leader’s obligation, nor relax their

commitments, this level of commitment can only come from the top.

6. Learning’s and observations can be obtained from many committed workers

7. Hence the use of safety champions, of which there are 3 levels; (1) new workers (2)

experienced workers (3) competent workers

8. When these three levels of workers are acting as a team, this is what I call “synergised

onsite safety”. It is the organisations most valuable tool in maintaining pure safety.

9. Having safety champions means owning many safety officers within the organisation.

10. Having new workers as safety champions; are naive to common workings and test

practices.

11. Having experienced workers as safety champions; bestows knowledge to assist naive

workers with answers and direction.

12. Having competent workers as safety champions; grant the ability to offer practical

solutions and inform the officers of divergent methods.

13. Hence, it is that these levels combined as a team in which the leader, officers and all

workers can trust on their health and safety. They should be respected and

acknowledged for their contributions. The organisation should always repay their

observations with gratitude.

14. Workers can be Safety Champions if they have great innate safety sagacity.

15. They can be proactive without the leader or officers influences or directions, and with

those being near.

16. Without this innate safety sagacity, the safety champion may not fulfil their obligation

of protection. A safety champion must be rightfully chosen.

17. Be respectful, be respectful and use your safety champions to everyone’s advantage.

18. If any form of information is raised by a safety champion that is of valid concern, it

must be accepted as important and action must be forthcoming.

19. Whether it be via documentation or direct consultation, the leader or officers should

thank the identifier and the team, and advertise the safety issue to all within the

organisation. Safety champions must be initiated to reduce risk.

20. Any negative workers, who see the positive acknowledgement of the safety champion,

may wish to forgo their safety negativity and strive to become the next safety

champion. Thus even without this title, they will be safety conscience at all times while

leading up to their chance.

21. It is through the leaders’ acknowledgement of a job well done by the once negative

worker that those will quickly aid in the guidance and development of other new

future safety champions.

22. It is owing to the safety champions, that the hazards and unsafe conditions be removed

and that the organisation has full compliance and success.

23. Lastly, it is by the proactive actions provided, that the learnings be used many times

over.

24. The ultimate goal of having safety champions at all levels, is the leaders total

commitment to protecting their organisation in all its entirety; the workers, the

families, the friends, the future. All workers knowing this will become safety

champions, with or without the title.

25. The organisation may be old, or maybe young, it maybe solid or it maybe week. But

with safety, your organisation will always be successful.

26. Hence it is the smart leader, the smart officers, the smart workers and all safety

champions, with or without title who will achieve the best result possible.

27. People are the leaders best asset, safety is the highest aspiration...this is the art of Safety




If safety is, the most important thing we can own, the

most important thing we can educate, the most

important thing we can do, the most important thing to

life itself, then why do we then not embrace it as the

most valuable mechanism we have at our disposal. All of

us have access to safety, but many prefer only to have

access to it in hindsight. Mark Donnelly



31