This explored the relationships between implementing and using Human Performance Improvement (HPI) concepts & tools and Organisational Learning (OL) concepts on improving safety management performance in the workplace.
[Note – this is a highly dense paper with a lot of nuance in its research justification and methodology, so I can only scratch the surface.]
HPI includes concepts and tools aimed at improving organisational processes and performance at various interactive levels including societal, work process, human and more and seek to help create sustainable business excellence practices. HPI concepts are said to be similar to the adaptive concepts: Safety-II, Safety Differently, HOP and Resilience Engineering.
From the HPI perspective, errors are inevitable and can highlight organisational weaknesses to varying performance requirements. Moreover, in alignment with the adaptive views, people are seen to be a capability to better leverage and find solutions.
OL includes a range of activities focused on helping the organisation to learn not just reactively from failure but also learning from normal work (in alignment with adaptive views, e.g. HPI/HOP/S-II/SD/RE). The OL activities used by the studied organisation included, from what I can gather, learning teams (since these are mentioned at several points in the study) and other means to help learn about the gap between work-as-imagined and work-as-done. The use of learning teams was perceived to “unlock the complexity, dynamics, trade-offs and goal conflicts inherent in all work and organizational processes and systems” (p2).
In explaining HPI, it’s remarked that managing safety performance is “no longer perceived as measuring failure events but essentially as ensuring safeguards’ existence and functionality” (p1).
Regarding the methodology, the study was based in a large oil & gas operator that has been on a long and continuous performance improvement trajectory (see image below). This study evaluated the impact of HPI and OL on safety management performance. On the latter, how HPI and OL impact the use of risk safeguards was a key component of the methodology. Safeguards include a range of human actions, hardware, software and other controls, actions and systems to manage performance.
The methodology included focus groups with leaders and workers, and then a survey of 260 staff (leaders & workers) across a range of factors of HPI concepts, OL, and safeguard use. This also included factors of safety culture assessment and leadership.
In describing the oil & gas company’s safety journey, it’s said that over the past 3 years the organisation shifted from a blame approach to error to a more learning orientated one. Leaders recognised the need to improve the system rather than simply focus on individuals and thus, HPI was seen to be one means to help guide this shift.
For leaders, this involved coaching & development for: (p4)
· visible commitment;
· messaging human performance in everyday communications;
· reacting well to failure/bad news;
· supporting OL for the right reasons;
· more active listening and empathy;
· focusing on learning more than fixing;
· taking time to build trust with the team;
· closing the feedback loop for any learning activities;
· self-reflection – asking ‘what can I do or what is my role’ first.
Changes in safety management performance were evaluated via focus groups and survey, such as the impact of HPI concepts & tools on how people think about and use safeguards and other measures of performance, so take from this what you will.
Results
HPI concepts & tools had a significant positive effect on OL, such that OL can convey HPI with the involvement of workers. It’s said that these findings highlight that HPI principles encourage learning from human mistakes.
Further, they note that human performance principles “serve as a pre-condition enabling an open environment before learning from how work is done, which is typically facilitated by safety-II professionals within guided adaptability management systems” (p9).
A significant positive effect was also found from HPI on safety management performance, such that HPI “could reduce error likelihood and control risk by recognizing performance mode, error traps, drift and latent conditions” (p9). They say that thus, it’s essential that human performance elements are considered during hazard analysis and improvement initiatives, including consideration of risk safeguards/controls.
OL principles had a significant positive influence on organisational safety culture measures and equally, the correlation of OL on Organisational Safety Culture (OSC) was the strongest found in the study. It’s said that “This study thus shows that incremental [gains in measures of organisational safety culture] can lead to a more trusting/learning culture, communication and commitment” (p9). Improved learning activities that engage workers and help move beyond instances of blame can, not unsurprisingly, lead to greater gains in organisational learning capacity.
A positive and significant effect of OL was also found on safety management performance (e.g. use of safeguards etc), confirming the critical link of learning in managing performance (particularly those focused on organisational and human factors).
In discussing the interactions of the findings, it’s said the strongest links with OL on the other factors supports the need for organisations to “prioritize OL actions, such as building a trust/learning culture, enhancing open communication and encouraging learning commitment” (p9).
Moreover, the effects of OL also support the idea that a focus on enhancing OL may need to precede other initiatives like safety culture initiatives or even HPI, or, at the least, OL is a critical facet in successful roll-out of cultural and HPI initiatives. Indeed, they argue that “organizations cannot transform [organisational safety culture] effectively if they only adopt HPI without implementing OL, because they may not know how to implement the HPI concepts and principles in their daily operation” (p9).
This finding is said to be aligned with the oil & gas company’s initial roll-out of the HPI program, such that cultural measures weren’t enhanced directly enhanced and in fact was stagnant for a couple of years until they learnt how to effectively operationalise the HPI principles via learning. E.g. “Even though the leaders were engaged and trained, nothing was changed until they decided to adopt OL, and hence the indirect effect of HPI on [organisational safety culture]” (p10).
Based on these findings and previous research, they argue that HPI provides a framework for better emotional and performance relationships within an organisation. Further, this study also highlighted the importance of leadership coaching, and in particular servant leadership styles [although I’m uncertain if or how they evaluated the specific leadership styles].
Overall, it’s said that these findings empirically show that both HPI and OL strengthens safety management practices, but because of the strongest effects with OL, the latter should have the strongest intensity placed on it. Moreover, OL should be focused on severe injury & fatality prevention [and arguably process safety/major hazards].
Finally, it’s concluded that these findings “also enhances a guided adaptability safety management system [33] in which safety-II professionals should have fluency in HPI before implementing any OL activities. Safety-II professionals can facilitate the integration of HPI tools into existing safety processes, such as hazard analysis, operating procedures, journey management plans and field safety” (p10).
Authors: Vendy Hendrawan Suprapto, I. Nyoman Pujawan & Ratna Sari Dewi, 2021, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2021.2002571
Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/effects-human-performance-improvement-operational-ben-hutchinson
SafetyInsights.org 