各位好！EHStoday网站总结了进行EHS对话的5大步骤，前面两天，与各位分享了第一辑，今天我们将分享第二辑，欢迎阅读、分享并点赞！说明：以下中文为自行试翻译，英文原为EHStoday网站文章，欢迎各位提出建议，谢谢！
如有英文、日语资料分享或需要加入外语群，可直接联系微信号puliangyuan！
A 5-Step Guide for a Safety Conversation
安全对话五步指南
It takes at least two people to have a conversation.
一个对话至少需要2个人
By: DavidA. Galloway
Discover Error Traps
找到错误的提示
For a supervisor who wants to maintain or exert control, rules and policies are edicts. If an incident occurs, the first thing he wants to know is the procedure, rule or policy that was not followed. If someone gets hurt, it almost always means that one of these was violated. In a compliance world, many people believe that if you just follow the rules, you won’t be seriously injured.
对于一个想要维持或者强化控制的主管而言，规则与政策就是原则。假如，有一起事故发生，该类主管最想知道的便是流程、规则及政策未被准守。而假如有人受伤，对于该类主管而言几乎可以说是受伤者肯定违反了原则。在这个合规的世界里，很多人相信只要你遵守规则，你就不可能严重受伤。
If caring drives the conversation, a supervisor knows that another critical part of listening is to discover potential error traps. These are conditions or circumstances that make it more likely to make a mistake. A few examples include time pressure, distraction, vague guidance, multiple tasks, complacency and peer pressure.
而如果关注推动对话，一个主管会知道，对于倾听而言，另一个关键的部分便是要去发现潜在的错误提示。这些条件或环境更容易会产生错误。一些例子，包括时间压力，注意力分散，模糊的指导，多任务，自满和同伴的压力。
These error traps may emerge as part of the conversation, or a supervisor may find additional ones when he takes a holistic view of the situation. Either way, acknowledging these error-prone conditions is the first step in finding ways to mitigate their effects.
这些错误的提示在对话中可能会融为一部分，否则，假如主管有大局观的话，便可能会发现额外的一些错误提示。无论哪种方式，承认这些错误倾向的条件是在寻找方法来减轻其影响的第一步。
Identify the Behavior
识别行为
Dr. James Reason described a “just culture” in his book “Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents” in the 1990’s. Others, including David Marx in his book “Whack-a-Mole. The Price We Pay For Expecting Perfection,” later clarified the concept. One definition is “a culture where failure/error is addressed in a manner that promotes learning and improvement while satisfying the need for accountability.” Using this model, Marx listed three possible behaviors that might contribute to an undesirable outcome:
在上世纪90年代，詹姆斯-里曾博士在他的《组织事故风险管理》一书中描述了一种“'只是’文化”。另外，还包括大卫-马克斯后来在其《监视与打击-期待完美，我们所需的代价》陈述了“'只是’文化”的观点。一种定义是：“只是文化”是一种在某种方式上失败/错误被强化的文化，它促进学习和改善，同时满足问责制的需要。使用这一模型，马克斯列举了可能促成不良后果的三种可能的行为:
·Human error人为错误
·At-risk behavior有危险的行为
·Recklessness鲁莽
A supervisor whose motive is control often assumes that the primary reason for a safety incident is that an employee made a mistake or made a poor choice. With this mindset, it is not a surprise when the supervisor attempts to correct the behavior through some kind of admonishment.
一个动机是处于控制的主管经常会假设在安全事故中的首要原因就是员工犯了错误或者做出了错误的选择。由于具有这种心态，这类主管试图去通过某种处罚的方式去纠正员工的行为也就见怪不怪了。
In contrast, a supervisor who believes in a just culture realizes that more than 90 percent of the time people are set up to fail (by error traps) or are influenced to take a risk (by a perception, habit, obstacle or barrier). This supervisor realizes that truly reckless behavior rarely happens.
与上诉类型主管相反的是，一个相信“'只是’文化”的主管会意识到大约有90%的时间因设置而失败（错误的提示），或者受到影响而冒险（某种知觉、习惯、困难或障碍），他也会意识到真正的鲁莽行为真的是极少发生。
His focus in a safety conversation is to actively listen for influences and error traps. The employee’s behavior is identified as reckless only when there is a choice to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Reckless behaviors exist in the industrial world, but they happen only occasionally.
这类主管将安全对话的焦点放在为影响力而积极倾听以及错误提示上，员工行为只有在有机会主观地忽略实质性的和不合理的风险时才被视为鲁莽行为。鲁莽的行为存在于工业界，但却是偶尔发生。
Take Action
采取行动
A supervisor who expects to maintain control takes actions that are directed toward compliance. These are typically some form of re-training, warning, counseling, or discipline.
期待维持控制的主管会采取与合规直接相关的行动，这些通常是某种形式的重新训练，警告，劝告，或处罚。
In a culture of compliance, supervisors assume that people should perform work using standard procedures and abide by the safety rules. If they do not, then they need to be held accountable.
在合规文化中，主管们假定人员工作应该使用标准的程序，并遵守安全准则，反之，他们必须被问责。
It is a mistake to simply warn, counsel or discipline someone for not using a procedure or following a safety rule without understanding the reason for this decision. There could be hidden organization or process issues that influenced the employee. Sydney Dekker in “The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error” identified numerous reasons for what he termed procedural drift (a mismatch between standard procedures or rules and actual practice that increases over time):
因为没有使用程序或者由于没有理解安全规则（为什么需要如此），就去警告，劝告，或去处罚某人是错误的。可能会有隐藏的组织或过程问题，会影响员工。悉尼-德克尔在《理解人为错误的现场指导》中确定了许多原因，他称之为程序漂移（标准程序或规则与实践之间的不匹配，随着时间而增长）：
·Rules or procedures may be over-designed and do not match up with the way work is really done.
规则或程序可能被过度设计，与实际工作方式不一致。
·There may be conflicting priorities that make it confusing about which procedure is most important.
可能会有优先级的冲突使得人们困惑：到底哪个程序是最重要的。
·Procedures may be vague, poorly written or outdated.
程序可能是模糊的，写的很差或者已经过时
In a culture of commitment, a safety conversation concludes on a very different note. Because the conversation proceeds in a spirit of learning and co-discovery, the actions are built on collaboration.
在一个承诺的文化中，安全对话在一个非常不同的方面得出结论。因为谈话是在一种学习和合作发现的精神中进行的，而行动是建立在合作的基础上的。
When a mistake is identified, the supervisor seeks to understand and mitigate any error traps. In some cases, this could include a collaboration on mistake-proofing solutions. These are simple process design changes that make it easy to do the right thing and difficult to do the wrong thing.
当一个错误被发现时，主管寻求理解并减少错误提示。在某些情况下，这可能包括基于防错方案的合作。这些都是简单的过程设计变化，使做正确的事情容易，而做错误的事情会很难。
If an employee drifts into an at-risk behavior, the types of influences on risk determine the best course of action. Coaching often is effective for perceptions or habits. Like addressing error traps, a collaborative effort is a common approach to removing obstacles or barriers. Counseling or discipline is warranted for truly reckless behavior.
如果一个员工不知不觉进入有风险的行为，对风险的类型的影响类型决定最佳的做法。对于感知与习惯而言，辅导经常是有效。就像强调错误提示，共同努力是一种用来消除困难或障碍的常见方法。劝告或处罚，对于真正的鲁莽行为是有必要的。
A Critical Influence Strategy
关键影响策略
Using this five-step guide, anyone can conduct an effective safety conversation. It is designed to be used when your primary objective is to promote learning and improvement.
使用这五步指南，任何人都可以进行有效的安全对话。当你的首要目标是促进学习和改善的时候，它是被设计使用.
This guide is centered on the “why" of caring. When you start with this motive, the conversation that follows is more open. The real pay-off in having a candid dialogue is in discovering the hidden weaknesses in the process and in the organization by building trust. It sets the stage for collaboration to improve the work processes and to eliminate sources of failures or errors.
Supervisors and managers need to be skilled in facilitating effective safety conversations. Having a daily proactive safety dialogue like the one outlined here is a cornerstone in building a culture of commitment. This conversation should be an integral part of your safety strategy.
本指南的核心是“为什么”关注。当你以此为动机，下面的对话就更开放。坦诚对话的真正回报是通过建立信任的方式，在过程中发现隐藏的弱点。它设定了合作的阶段，以改善工作流程，并消除故障或错误的来源。
主管和经理需要熟练的促进有效的安全对话。日常积极的安全对话，就像在这里概括的，其在是承诺文化的基础。这一对话应该成为你的安全策略的一个不可缺少的组成部分。
Tips:
1、针对自由交流与不敢开口两类人，我们有不同的外语微信群满足不同人群的需求，详询微信号puliangyuan。
2、需要语音辅导的，可加入“英语基础群”（每月仅需99元，如需根据工作需要进行单独辅导的，费用可协商），即可享受没有鸡血句的贴合实际的原创英文，付一年费用享8折优惠，详询微信号puliangyuan，或者直接扫描以下二维码【请务必看清楚前面的说明再扫描，谢谢】：
【今天的内容就是这些，感谢阅读与分享】
联系客服
