/03
05
Leaders who oversimplify issues quickly can be identified by asking them for their definition of safety. When they start with the trite platitudes like “thinking before you act” or “paying attention,” then you suspect they have an overly-simplistic view.
我们可以通过询问安全的定义，来将问题过于简单化的领导者给快速地识别出来。一旦以老生常谈的话开始，比如“三思而后行”，或者“注意一下”，那么，你就可以怀疑他们有着过于简单化的观点。
Likewise, when they throw up their hands and admit they don’t know how to improve safety, it is an indicator that they either misunderstand or overly simplify the problem. Such leaders tend to practice and promote four approaches that almost guarantee limited safety improvement.
同样，如果这些领导者放弃努力，并承认自己不知道如何改善安全时，这就表明他们误解了问题，或者将问题过于简单化了。这样的领导者，倾向于实践和推广以下四种方法，这四种方法只能保证有限的安全改善。
Over-simplified definition – The thinking of organizational leaders often is reflected in their communication to associates. Good followers listen carefully to their leaders to discern priorities and preferred practices. Leaders who oversimplify safety tend to influence others to do likewise. When a whole organization thinks they already are doing what is required in safety, progress becomes problematic. There is no clear path forward and workers tend to feel safety improvement is beyond their control.
在安全定义方面过于简单化-组织领导者的思想，通常会在他们与同事的交流中体现出来。良好的追随者，会仔细聆听领导者的话，以理解优先事项和做法。将安全简单化的领导者，往往会影响其他人也去这么做。一旦整个组织认为他们已经在做安全上所需要做的事情时，进步就会有问题。没有明确的“前进之路”，工人们往往就会觉得安全方面的改善，已经超出了他们所能控制的范围。
This mindset often is reinforced by safety metrics that don’t reflect any improvement. Frustration often follows because trying harder doesn’t produce better results. At this point, many organizations develop a “more is better” mentality. If this level of effort is not producing improvement, we must not be doing enough. This can lead to adopting the latest program of the month or following industry trends rather than accurately defining the site-specific problems and solutions. This leads to and is complicated by the next issue, a lack of an overarching safety strategy.
这种心态，常常被不能反映出任何改进的安全指标所强化。挫折往往紧随其后，因为尝试努力不会产生更好的结果。在这一点上，许多组织产生了一种“多多益善”的心态。如果这种程度的努力并没有产生改善，那么，肯定是因为做的不够多。这可能会导致采用最新的月度计划，或者紧跟行业趋势，而不是去准确地定义现场的特定问题及相应的解决方案。这会引起下一个问题，而下一个问题会让问题更加复杂，并缺乏整体安全战略。
Lack of strategy – If safety is viewed as simply thinking and paying attention, there is no need to develop a strategy for doing so. Leaders can command workers to do so and it will happen. The problem is, it either does not happen or it fails to improve safety. The lack of strategy most often manifests itself in the tendency mentioned earlier: to adopt the program of the month.
缺乏安全战略-假如将安全视为简单的想法，并需要关注的话，就没有必要在安全方面制定战略。领导者只需要指挥员工，而员工只需要执行就好了。问题是，这在安全上既不会出现，也不会有改善。安全方面战略的缺乏，最常体现在前面提到的趋势上：采用月度计划。
Programmatic thinking is the diametric opposite of strategic thinking. Throwing a group of often unrelated programs at a problem is not a strategy. Almost all organizations have strategies for some aspects of their mission. For-profit organizations often include elaborate marketing strategies to compete in the marketplace. These strategies often include market analysis to determine who their customers are and what those customers want or need.
纲领性思维与战略性思维完全相反。在一个问题上，抛出一组通常不相关的项目，并不是策略，而几乎所有的组织在某些使命上都有自己的战略。对于营利性的组织而言，通常会包括精心策划的营销策略，以期在市场上进行竞争。这些策略通常包括市场分析，以确定谁是客户，以及客户想要，或者需要什么。
Unfortunately, few organizations apply this strategic thinking to safety. They fail to recognize their workers are the customers of safety, not the problem to be controlled. Once workers are recognized as internal customers, excellent safety becomes an application of the same strategic thinking: find out what the customers want and need, and develop a strategy to provide it to them.
不幸的是，很少有组织将这一战略思维应用在安全方面。他们没有意识到工人是安全的顾客，而不是需要被控制的问题。一旦工人被确定为组织的内部客户，卓越安全，便成为战略性思维的应用：找出顾客想要什么及需要什么，并制定策略来将顾客想要及需要的提供给客户。
Strategy is how to win. In safety, strategy is winning the war against accidental injuries. An overly simplistic view of how accidents happen can make such victory difficult or impossible.
战略是关于怎么样赢的。在安全方面，战略是赢得意外伤害战争胜利的。将事故发生过于简单化的观点，会使得这场安全方面“战争”的胜利变得相当困难，而且不太可能胜利。
Managing with lagging indicators – In his book, Transforming Performance Measurement, Dean Spitzer boldly states that most organizations don’t get what they want precisely because they don’t measure “what they want.” What almost all organizations measure in safety is what they don’t want. They measure accidents, quantity and severity. They calculate the ratio of accidents to hours worked. They measure lost time and both direct and indirect costs of accidents.
安全上，管理滞后性指标-迪恩·斯皮泽在其《绩效考评革命》一书中曾大胆地指出，绝大多数组织并没有得到确实想要的，因为他们并不考评“想要的”。其实，几乎所有组织在安全上所考评的，并不是他们所想要的。他们对事故、数量与严重性进行考评，根据工作时间对事故率进行计算，并对损失工时与直接及间接事故成本进行考评。
They do not measure the factors that prevent accidents. Even if you think safety is as simple as thinking before you act, why not measure how many times workers think first and how many times they don’t? Lagging indicators are measures of failure. That is why most organizations are not trying to succeed in safety; they simply are trying to fail less than they did previously.
他们并不评测预防事故的因素。你认为安全需要“三思而后行”，为何不去评测工人有多少次在事前思考了，以及工人有多少次在事前并没有思考？滞后性指标，是失败的评测标准。这也是为什么绝大多数的组织并不想在安全上取得成功；他们只是想在安全上比之前失败少一些而已。
With no accurate definition of what safety is, how do you develop a vision of what success looks like? Without such a vision, how do you strive to succeed? Without a success metric, how do you know if you are improving or not? Most organizations simply look at failure metrics and consider reduction as success. The problem with that thinking is that lagging indicators can respond to luck and normal variation as well as effective improvement efforts. When lagging indicators move, it can be difficult to tell with any degree of certainty what made them move. Individual workers are even more removed from these metrics. They almost all fail to see how their efforts impact the numbers.
既然连安全的准确定义都没有，那么，如何制定成功的设想呢？没有设想，如何努力成功？没有这一成功的指标，你如何知晓安全是否有改善呢？绝大多数的组织仅仅是简单的看下失败的指标，并将在安全方面失败的减少视为成功。这种思维的问题在于：滞后性指标，能对运气、正常的变化，同时，对有效的改进做出反应。当滞后性指标变化时，很难确切地说出是什么让这些指标变化了。个别工人更是远离了这些指标。他们几乎看不到自己的努力是怎么样影响数字的。
Delegation – Leaders tend to delegate all or most of the business functions in which they do not have specific training or expertise. Leaders to whom safety is simple or mysterious tend to hand off the whole effort to a safety specialist. Too few organizations have a leader at the C-suite level dedicated to safety.
在安全上进行授权-领导者倾向于将自己没有被具体培训过或者经验的所有或绝大数的业务职能进行授权。将安全简单化或者神秘化的领导者，倾向于把全部精力交给安全专员，很少有组织的高级管理层致力于安全。
This is another direct result of underestimating the importance and complexity of safety. If safety is a simple matter, hand it off to a lower-level person to make it happen. Lower-level personnel tend to manage rather than lead. They think tactically rather than strategically. This often results in safety efforts being focused on basic compliance rather than on true excellence. Lower-level safety personnel are, unfortunately, often used as scapegoats when safety results are unsatisfactory. This is a further indication of leaders who oversimplify safety and think that a good safety cop is all that is needed.
这是低估安全重要性和复杂性的另一个直接的结果。如果安全是一件简单的事情，那么，就把安全交给一个较低级别的人来管理。下一级人员倾向于管理，而不是领导。他们认为战术而非战略。这往往导致安全努力的重点是基本的规范性，而不是真正的卓越安全。不幸的是，低级别的安全人员，经常在安全结果不理想的情况下，被用作替罪羊。这是将安全简单化的领导者的又一个充分体现，还认为所有需要的仅仅是一个在安全方面的好的“警察”。
联系客服
