Workplace Safety is for Everyone

In this episode, Mary Conquest speaks with Dr I. David Daniels, a safety consultant and certified safety director, who holds a Ph.D. in occupational health and safety.

David is passionate about keeping everyone safe - not just the designers of workplace systems. He doesn’t blame anyone for currents oversights that put some sections of society at greater risk of injury. Instead, Dr Daniels attributes these safety system gaps to a historical lack of diversity.

He urges HSE professionals to foster open and inclusive safety cultures. Everyone should input into workplace safety, and no interest groups should be afraid to raise their concerns.

Dr Daniels stresses the importance of always asking the entire workforce for feedback, and focusing on the system - not blaming people - when safety incidents occur.

He maintains that everyone has the right to feel safe at work and challenges why some organizations appear more concerned with equipment than workers.

David encourages EHS professionals to focus on safety goals, constantly check the system, and find the right balance between management and the workforce. Safety success is a journey, not a destination, that requires genuine caring rather than fake workplace safety.

♪ [music] ♪ - [Mary] My name is Mary Conquest. I'm your host for "Safety Labs by Slice," a podcast where we explore the human side of safety to support safety professionals. We move past regulations and reportables to talk about the core skills of safety leadership, empathy, influence, trust, rapport.

In other words, the soft skills that help you do the hard stuff. ♪ [music] ♪ Hi there. Welcome to "Safety Labs by Slice." Today's guest asserts that safety is for everyone or should be for everyone. Now, while that sounds like common sense, he believes that many safety systems have large blind spots that affect some workers disproportionately.

In this episode, I'll talk to Dr. I. David Daniels about the historical reasons for these oversights, the opportunities for improvement, and the future of workplace safety. Dr. Daniels is a certified safety director, emergency preparedness specialist, and workplace violence specialist. He holds a Ph.D. in occupational health and safety and has over 30 years' experience in fire safety and local government workplace safety.

David is the president and CEO of ID2 Solutions, a consulting firm whose work includes safety program development and management, safety hazard assessment and incident review, and organizational safety training. Dr. Daniels is the host of the "Psych Health and Safety USA" podcast, whose mission is to increase awareness of the importance of psychological health and safety, grow the community of psych health and safety advocates, and help reduce exposure to psychosocial hazards in workplaces in the United States.

David joins us from Atlanta. Welcome.

- [Dr. Daniels] Howdy. How are you?

- Good. Good, thanks. I'm looking forward to this.

- As am I. As am I.

- So let's start with what I mentioned in the intro. Safety is for everyone. What do you mean by that, and how has safety maybe not traditionally been for everyone?

- Well, Mary, first of all, thanks for having me. I really believe that most systems are perfectly designed to produce whatever they're producing at the time. And the data suggests that if you look into at least the American workplace, you'll find that women and people of color get injured at rates much higher than their white male counterparts across all industries.

It doesn't matter what industry it is. And often that is because the system itself was not really designed with them in mind. And when I say things like that, sometimes people will come across to say, oh, am I accusing people of being biased, or racist, or any of that type of thing, or homophobic, or sexist? I'm not accusing individuals of anything.

What I am suggesting is that these systems were built many, many, many years ago, and in the United States, they were built without certain people in the room or in mind when the system was built. And the example is the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was passed in 1970 by the 91st Congress. Only 2% of the people who signed that bill were not white.

Only 2% of the folks who signed that bill were not men. Therefore, the group as a whole, they lacked the perspective of the challenges, of the issues, and what safety even meant to anyone other than a white male at the time. And while the act has been extremely effective in bringing down the number of fatalities and injuries in the workplace, this is not to suggest that it hasn't worked.

I'm just suggesting it hasn't worked as well for everyone because it wasn't designed to. And, again, if you look at any system, who was in the room when it was created, they put their input into it, they contributed to it. They did, in many cases, really brilliant work. There's, you know...and it's a longer conversation. We could probably have it another day.

The same concept goes for the [inaudible] that was passed, people like me were considered to be three-fifths of a person or actually property. So times have changed, thank God, but the system itself had some inherent flaws and some things that it lacked, and our safety systems are really no different. And it's good to be able to have a conversation about it now, not have people run out of the room. But when we're having conversations about safety, we need to remember that the systems of safety, again, particularly in the United States, they were not set up to make it safe for everyone, so we have to do that work now.

- So it's time to re-evaluate in light of...

- Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, that takes courage. It really does. Courage that not everyone has because, again, when you bring these concerns up, then folks, you know, some do the pearl-clutching and the, "Oh, I wasn't around," and so on and so forth. And I'm not saying that you were around.

I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm saying that the system itself, so W. Edwards Deming, back in the days of total quality management, suggested that if you look at a system and find a problem in the system, that 95% of the problem is the system itself, and only 5% is the people.

But unfortunately, from a safety perspective, we tend to blame typically the person who got injured for the injury itself. The person who got killed, "Oh, they should have been doing something differently." And I would argue that, no, they were doing what they were trained, educated, cultured, encouraged to do. It, unfortunately, cost them their life or cost them a serious injury or maybe even a minor one, but it was the system.

And until we focus on the system and stop focusing on people, and stop making that individual somehow at fault because they did whatever, then we're not going to get to where we need to go.

- I think that's a really important distinction between a system and an individual, right? You know, I am not responsible necessarily for systems that were set up before I was born. However, I might benefit from them, and some people might not benefit from them.

And re-evaluating the system does not mean accusation.

- It does not. It does not. Now, but here's the point. The question is what is it that you want? What is it that you want from the system that you're in? So, the issue comes up, at least my observation is when you're in a system and it's brought to your attention that it isn't working for everyone and you do nothing about it, then...well, I heard once, if you condone it, now you do own it.

Because you're now aware that it's not working. You're now aware. And, again, there's a difference. I consider myself to be allies of a lot of groups, and particularly women. So, I was raised by a single mom. Matter of fact, I've never met my dad. So, my influences come predominantly from her, and my grandmother, and my aunt because that's who was around.

I have sisters, I have a wife, I have daughters, and I consider myself not only an ally of women but an accomplice. And they're different. The allies are the ones who stand off to the side and say, "Oh, yeah, you know, I'm with you. I feel for you. I have empathy for you." But the accomplices are the ones who will get in the situation with you and put themselves in the middle of what's going on.

And I find that we have a lot of folks who will stand back and, "Oh, yeah, that's really terrible, that system doesn't work." But when it comes down to actually taking steps to change it, that's where we end up with the issue. Because a lot of our values sometimes as people is wrapped up in the systems that we're in, the titles that we have, the things that we believe were accomplished, and somehow to suggest that we should do it differently may take away from your perception of yourself.

And, again, I can only speak for myself, and I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone who's done anything yesterday. But I'm also a futurist, and I believe that we should put more energy into what we do next than we do into what we did yesterday.

- So, safety systems are, by definition, set up to help people, right? They're set up to keep them safe.

- They are.

- If you have that limited perspective, or rather, if you don't have a lot of different voices in the room, can you help? Like, is it possible to help from that kind of monolithic view?

- I honestly believe that it's really not about...and, you know, follow this logic here. It's really not about helping other people. It's really about helping me. And I think, unfortunately, people aren't selfish enough to create a system for everybody.

Here's what I mean by that. So, when I go into an environment, a workplace, an organization, or whatever, the only person I can really be accountable for is myself. I have to watch out for my own safety. I have to watch out for my own well-being. I have to have my own fitness regimen, how I eat and all. That is a very personal thing. And ultimately, again, we focus on safety, but ultimately, it's about feeling safe.

Safe is an adjective. It's not a noun or a verb. It's an adjective. It's a describer of nouns. And my focus is on feeling safe. Because we can do all kinds of things, if I don't feel safe, it's really not any different to me anyway. But what I'd argue is it is important for me to ensure that the people who are around me are also safe, because if not, when I need them, they can't be there for me.

So, the person that I don't... So, we're having a class on first aid. It's in English, but three-quarters of the people in the room don't speak or understand English. Then what happens when I get injured? Who's going to help me? The person who barely understood the class because it wasn't given in a language they could understand? Or the person...

So, this is a very selfish thing for me. I want to see other people be safe because I want to be safe. And there will come a situation where I can't do for myself. And the other thing is, I can't help anyone else if I'm not taken care of and if I don't do things for myself as well. So, it's this kind of two-way street, and I sometimes turn that on its head because a lot of people, honestly, who say they're helping, they're really not helping.

Their concern is about money. Their concern is about their position. Their concern is about how it will look to someone else. Because they really don't care that much about the other person. They barely speak to the other person. They don't know anything about them, about their family. And frankly, look, there are some circumstances where that's not necessary.

There are some transactional relationships out there. I certainly understand those. But the challenge for me is these folks who talk about, "Oh, we're family, and we care. You know, we have a culture of caring, and we're concerned about our employees, and we love each other, and we're just a big..." and no, you're not. You're not.

So, I would rather people be honest about it and say, "Look, this is a transactional thing." I use mixed martial arts as an example. I've never done it, but people who go into that ring, they know they're going to get punched in the face and kicked, and they're not surprised when they get punched. What we do in...yeah, there's no shock. That's what it's about.

I knew when I was in the fire service that if I went in a building on fire, it'd be hot. So, it's not a surprise. But what we get in a lot of organizations is you're told at the orientation, "Oh, we're a family. We care about each other. We're going to take care of you, and we're concerned. And we don't want you to get hurt." Until you actually go out and start doing the work, and you find out, "Well, where's my PPE? Where's my training? Where's the supervision that's going to help me learn this?"

And then as soon as something happens, it's my fault. It's my fault. I'm going to get investigated and dragged in to talk to the HR people and the safety guy, and they're going to have the light flashing over my head. But, again, so it's not accurate. So why don't we just tell people that, "Look, you might get killed here." You know, "This is really, really dangerous work, and we don't do that safety stuff."

And then the people who get into that, at least they can make an informed decision about their demise.

- I, too, would like to make an informed decision about my demise.

- Yeah.

- I was going to say, think some of it goes back to when you're talking about safe being an adjective and feeling safe. That links up with the idea of different perspectives. So as a woman, I can very quickly think of the example, you know, my husband, who's a large man walking down the street alone at night, is going to have a different sense of safety than I would.

I think everyone kind of understands that, and so it's a good example, but that can be expanded. So, for example, maybe the people in the first aid class don't understand English as well. But maybe there's...if they don't feel safe speaking up about that, then, you know...or someone maybe with low literacy, "Have you read the policy?"

"Yes." But they don't want to admit that they didn't fully understand it because there's a stigma.

- Or because they're dyslexic, or because they dropped out of school in the third grade.

- Yeah, there's tons of... Yeah.

- I mean, you pick it. You pick it. There's tons of reasons. And again, ultimately, this is why the workplace and every place ends up being unsafe for some people, because we just really didn't think about it. And you mentioned earlier about how do you get this sense of safety depending on who's in the room. The question is, who is it that we say we are trying to help?

So you're an organization. You hired X number of people, 10 people, 10,000 people. It doesn't matter. If you hired these people or you brought people into your organization, they should have a voice, particularly should have a voice in how safe environment is created, how the safety policies are written.

They should have a voice in that, not this classic command-and-control kind of leadership that says, "I'm the CEO or the safety director, and I will tell everybody what to do." That doesn't work. It really never did, but it works even less now that you have people...I have more information in my phone than NASA had when they put folks on the moon. That's just the way...

We now have Generation Z and millennials who are digital natives, who can get this information in seconds. They don't need you to tell them it's this way or that. They need to tell you what we're trying to accomplish, not how to do it. Most of them, a lot of them, they can figure it out. They can go watch it on YouTube and learn better than you, who doesn't really know much about it but, "That's the way we do it here at our company, our organization."

So, what I'm saying is having this culture of openness and inclusivity in everything that we do that says...so OSHA requires us to have a policy on this. But what that policy looks like for us should be the product of all of our input. Now, again, I'm not naive enough to believe that every single person will be able to contribute, but every interest group.

And we should give everyone the opportunity to say, "You know, that part doesn't work for me." And if it doesn't, let's make the adjustment because ultimately, the goal is to cause them or help them feel safe. That's what it's about. So yeah, it's going to be different. It's going to be different. And I say this so often, I heard someone else say, and I continue to repeat it, different does not mean deficient.

It simply means different. I mean, we're having conversations about diversity and equity and inclusion. And I find those sometimes almost exhausting because they're slogans. Because as soon as someone sees it different, you know, all heads in the room turn to that person and, "Whoa, how could you think that?" "Well, because I do. I don't need a reason to think that way. I just do. I don't feel safe."

"Well, why not? What's wrong with you?" "There's nothing wrong with me. If there's wrong, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the system either, but it just doesn't cause me to feel safe when it goes that way, that's all." Let's not make this something that it's not. Let's not make it accusatory. That's not the point. The question is, does the person exposed to that environment feel safe or not? And if they don't, what is it going to take to get them there?

Because, again, as soon as we bring them in to the family, to the organization, we have a responsibility. If we didn't want that responsibility, we shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

- So, you've spoken out about how for this very reason, uniform systems, like traditionally, safety systems, have been fairly uniform across... I mean, when I say traditionally, this has changed in the last several decades, but there are differences across industries and thatsort of thing.

But some of the same ideas are there.

- A lot of these systems, again, are limited by the people that created them. That's all. And they don't know everything. None of us does. I read a book once called "The Half-Life of Facts," I believe. Yeah. "The Half-Life of Facts." And it suggested that even scholarly research has a limit of about 30 or 40 years.

So, we are currently...as a society, we still live on things that people said 100, 200, 500 years ago, and we act as if nothing has changed. Well, I'm not saying that they were wrong. I'm saying that the world has changed.

The environment has changed. And perhaps, we should consider that there might be another alternative. There might be another way of doing that. But. again, you know, organizations particularly, and sometimes people, we get romantically attached to the way we've done it. I mean, as I said, I spent a number of years in the fire rescue service. And when I first started, I heard...there might be some folks out there who do it this way. They said the fire service was 100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress because

[inaudible] thought that things had to be the same. And I was never with that, which is one of the reasons why I kind of get under people's skin when I talk about the fire rescue service. But I'm into what works and what works today. There are some things that worked 500 years ago, and they still work today. And there are some things that just don't work anymore.

They just don't. They don't work for the context and for the environment that we're in. So, I believe as human beings, it is better for us to continue to evolve and adapt. And let's not take our eye off the ball. The goal is to have this be safe for people. That's the goal. So whatever it takes to get there, that's legal, moral, and ethical, of course, we should be doing that.

That means if we have to change our safety program every week, it's worth the effort because the week that we don't change it and that we injure or kill someone, we will have wished that we had changed it. So, it's this constant... And I know it's easy.

I mean, being safe and feeling safe is a very complex conversation. As a matter of fact, most human interactions are extremely complex. And what we do as humans, though, is we try to simplify it by, you know, "What about this?" Because it helps us process all this information that's trying to get into our brain. I get that.

I understand it. But when we're talking about the lives and physical conditions of other human beings, I think we should take the time and, again, whatever it takes. I don't know how many people I have worked with that have gotten killed at work. I've actually lost count. I used to say often that there were 19 people that I worked with that got killed at work or died from something that they got at work, and I recently went back and started to look at those numbers again, and it's probably twice that amount because of the folks who have now committed suicide after being out of the industry for so long.

Or died from other...you know, but they were, in many cases, directly related to their work. Directly related to...it didn't happen at a picnic while with their family. It didn't happen on vacation. It happened at their work. And it just simply shouldn't be that way. And, again, in many situations, it was taught in a particular way, they were shown a particular thing, and they did that, and they got killed doing it.

So, this not being safe for everyone, it also includes particularly generational differences. That, you know, you got the old guy. Often it's a guy. The old guy who did it that way when they came on the job in the '70s, and we're 50 years down the road and we're still doing it that way.

Why? Because they're still there. Because they don't want it to... "Well, that's comfortable for me." The problem is, it's not comfortable and safe for everyone else. So, can't we have a system that makes it safe for everybody? Wouldn't that be better? Because actually, that'd be better for you because the likelihood of people getting injured on a job is really high when you start, and it's really high at the end of your career.

Early in your career, it's because you don't know. Late in your career, it's because you can't anymore.

- You get complacent.

- Physically, often, your reflex [crosstalk].

- Oh, I see. Like, you physically can't.

- Yes. You know what to do, but your body won't do it that way anymore. It just won't. And particularly if you learned it kind of unsafe in the beginning, that starts to catch up with you.

- Yeah. I mean, if you've been on the job for 40 years, it's unlikely that you were being taught the ergonomic way to lift, for example.

- Absolutely. And you've been lucky for 39 of those years, but, you know, you have enough birthdays, and your back is going to tell you, "Yeah, that's not going to work."

- Uniform systems don't work. So, what are the implications of that for teaching safety professionals, right? Whether it's a certification program or whatever kind of formal education, you know, in some sense, they go on precedent, right? But if we're to be reexamining, how can that be brought into the educational sphere?

- So, first of all, I'll suggest to you that it's not as easy as saying that uniform systems don't work. It's really uniform systems have gaps. They have gaps. So, parts of them work, and parts of them work for certain people. But I'm a systems-type thinker.

I also believe in the seven habits of highly effective the people. You know, first things first, begin with the end in mind. So, we should be doing that constant analysis of what is it that we're trying to do all the time. Every day, what is it that we're trying to do today, and what resources do we have at our disposal to get that thing done?

So, again, some systems as uniform, actually, they make sense. I mean, there are some things that, again, they worked 300 years, but they still work. So, there's heat, fuel, oxygen, chemical reaction. You take away any of those things, a fire goes out. It's been that way forever.

That's physics. It just is what it is. Now, the way that we do that is different. So, I think we have way too many arguments about how to do things and not near enough discussions about what it is we're trying to do. So, what's the goal?

- Do you think that if everyone is really clear and focused on the goal, that the how is easier to find?

- It's much easier to find, because, again, remember, we're dealing with people who are... So, humans have always been intelligent, but now we're in an information age. And in the information age, I heard once that information is actually like oil, and our ability to access information is much quicker than it once was.

So, people could have understood this stuff hundreds of years ago, but we didn't have public schools. We didn't have internet. We didn't have a smartphone. So, the tragic loss of President Lincoln, there are people who didn't hear about that for months. They didn't hear about it for months because at the time, somebody would have to get on the Pony Express and ride across the Prairie and put it on a train.

And eventually, folks on the West Coast heard about that type of thing. Now, we hear about things going on around the world instantaneously because of our ability to communicate through technology. That's what's different. But our systems to educate and inform each other have remained really kind of the same old pedagogy that says, "You know, I'm the person who knows, and I need to teach everybody."

No, not necessarily. Perhaps you need to be the coach and the facilitator that kind of points people in the direction based on your expertise or background in that environment. But don't let your experience... Trust me. Don't get it twisted, as we would say. That doesn't mean that you're smarter than that person. It just means you've been exposed to something that they may not have been exposed to.

Because there are a number of different types of intelligences out there. This is, again, a whole 'nother conversation. But it's this feeling of, "I'm superior to that person." It's these hierarchical type things that we do in organizations that they just really get in the way of really getting things done. Ultimately, what is it going to take so this person will feel safe? What will it take?

What does that take? That's what we should be doing.

- And the person probably has a pretty good idea if you just ask them.

- All you have to do is ask. If you want to help me, ask me. Don't just assume that you know. Again, not to get off on another tangent here, but particularly being a person of African descent who lives in the United States, I have seen over the course of my lifetime these "programs" created by people who are not of African descent.

"Oh, yeah, we're going to come up with this program. We're going to help those people." But you never asked me. You never asked me. I could have told you what would have helped me. That doesn't help me. Actually, that makes it worse. That makes it worse.

And, again, I see this in all kinds of organizations. I also see it in the safety profession, where we say, "Oh, you know, we're going to go out and help these employees be safe." Well, you didn't ask them what safe for them was, and frankly, you haven't been out on the line in I don't know how many years. You don't go out and talk to those people because you make so much more money than them and you're hanging out at the golf club or wherever and hanging with the high-society folks. You don't want to talk to them anyway.

So, how do you know what's safe for them? How do you know? Ask people. Ask them. And if you ask enough...because initially when you ask, they're not going to tell you because they don't trust you. "Well, why is he over here?" So, I make it a practice now, when I go, particularly, to service sector organizations who provide services for me, particularly restaurants...

I actually have a son who's a chef, and he's a sushi chef, actually, and he worked in, you know, a lot of restaurants and whatnot until he decided that he was being treated so horribly, he didn't want to go back. So, he started his own business, and he'll pick up a job here and there for the benefits every now and then, but he operates off of his own business. So, I ask people, "What is it like working here?"

And so, I've done it with flight attendants and people at the bank and all kinds. "What is it like working here?" Particularly public sector employees, because guess what? There's a reason why your service is awful. It's because they're being treated awful. That's why.

So, the person comes and throws a plate on your table and kind of stomps off. It's because...it can't be me. I just showed up. It's because a supervisor, a cook, or somebody was yelling at them and mistreating them back in the back room. And that sticks with people. Or something is going on at home, and they brought that to work with them. I ask this.

I actually have a survey that I've created. The survey is rather long, so people don't sometimes like to take it. It's called the "Psychosocial Hazard Inventory," using my research to see how many of the 88 psychosocial hazards that are listed in the international standard have they actually been exposed to. And most people have been exposed to a lot of them, and they calcified because they've just been beat down and mistreated for so long or been in an unsafe environment for so long, it's become normal.

"I still need a job. I still have a family. I have bills to pay, so I have to put up with it." But it shouldn't be that way. And, again, it shouldn't be that way that certain people, the folks in the c-suite, never get hurt. I mean, really, seriously, when was the last CEO you saw get hurt? Because their environment is pristine and clean, but the folks out on the shop floor that are inhaling all kinds of dust and chemicals and all kinds of things, have slip, trip, fall hazards, and fire hazards, but because you don't ever go out and visit them.

That's why I really enjoy that program, "Undercover Boss." People get an opportunity to go out and see what's really going... And, again, I don't say all this because I'm saying you're a bad person. I'm not saying that people are bad. They take it so personal. Come on, belly up. It's not that you're a bad person.

But the system that you're in, if you don't continue to check that system, the system will start to get a little wobbly, and it'll start getting a little old. And you got to be constantly checking the system. And therefore, that causes you to help put the right people in the right places to do the right things to keep people safe.

- So, I'd like to go back a little bit to psychosocial hazards. First of all, you work as a consultant. Do you think that...

- I do.

- ...because you have that outsider perspective, that when you ask people, "What's it like to work here?" do you think they're able to be more honest with you? Is that a helpful perspective?

- Sometimes. Sometimes. I think a lot of it has to do with how well they connect with me personally, to be quite honest.

- Right. I suppose they could be suspicious, right, of an outsider just as easily.

- So, on Father's Day, my wife took me out to this really nice restaurant. It took us about two hours to get a seat. There are that many people there. And we finally sat down. I know why it took so long, because the food was spectacular. But the woman, I asked her, I said, "What is it like working here?" She says, "Do you know the owner?"

I said, "No."

- She had to feel safe to answer that.

- Right. Right. Oh, yeah. Then she kind of opened up to say, "Oh, yeah, well, it's actually pretty nice, you know, but the owner, he's a little...you know, but the pay is good. And my coworkers are good." So, there's a caveat there based on how comfortable she felt speaking to me. And so, being an outsider, it often does help because I don't have an ax to grind. I tell people when I work with them, "I can help you put a band-aid on your problem or solve it, but it's up to you which one you want to do."

But I just like people to be honest about that. I've been to organizations before, I recall one that brought me in, they'd had an issue with one of the employees, had reported being sexually harassed. And so then they reach out for consultants to come and teach a class. Look, that's putting a band-aid on the problem. That's important.

But that didn't solve anything. I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to take your check, to come in and do the class and teach the people and all that type of thing. That's not really going to solve the problem, though. It isn't. Because the problem isn't because they didn't have a class, the problem is the culture of the organization that allows people to be bullied, harassed, mistreated. It's a cultural thing.

Now, solving it is difficult. It didn't become that way overnight. So, why do you think you can hire someone? "Let's hire that Dr. Daniels, he can come and wave the magic wand and fix stuff in three months." It took you 20 years to get as bad as you got. So, you might need me for a long-term engagement to kind of help you through the process. Now, the reality is culture change generally, at least my experience and observations, it's a two to three-year process generally, if you're interested.

If you're not interested, it never really changes. It's a facade. If you're really, really, really aggressive and can really get people engaged and everybody gets involved, you might be able to do it in about a year, but you can't do it in a week. It's not happening. You're not going to do it in a three-hour...kumbaya, let's have some fruit bowls and yogurt, and it's all going to be good.

That's not going to happen. I'm telling you. It's just not. So, you know, I try to help people just be realistic. That's all. And, again, when I hear myself saying it, there's that voice from back [inaudible]

that says, "That sounds flippant." That's not my intent. It's reality, though, because these are the things that people say, but they don't say it to you because they don't feel safe saying it to you.

- Talking about feeling safe and psychosocial hazards, can you explain to me who is actually a safety outsider? What is a psychosocial hazard? You said 88, there are 88 different ones. Now, I don't expect you to list them, but...

- I can't.

- Are there large buckets of them, sort of categories?

- There are. They actually exist in three major buckets. But first of all, the definition of a psychosocial hazard is a psychosocial factor that is experienced or perceived as harmful to the person being exposed, and it, in turn, affects their behavior. So, something that I experience, some factor in the workplace, in my home, at school, wherever.

A psychosocial factor, psycho. how I think, social, how I act. So, some factor that I perceive or I experience as harmful or potentially harmful. And in turn, that perception or experience on my part causes me to act in a certain way.

- If people push back on that and say, "Well, psychosocial, that's in your head."

- You're right.

- It is in your head, but you've just said it's not just in your head because it affects the way you behave.

- Exactly. Everything is in your head. All things are created twice. Everything is created twice. The first place it's created is in your head. Everything is created in your head. So, yeah, it is in your head.

That's the point. What we've done, you know, as a society is we have minimized the importance about what's going on in people's heads. That's it. "Oh, it's just in your head." You're right. The problem is it stays in my head, and it starts to affect how I walk and talk and interact with other people, and how I drive, and how I pick up things, and how I don't do things, and how angry I get at work.

Whether or not I bring a gun to work. It all started in my head. So, yeah, that's the point. It's in their head. But if it resides there long enough, it will turn into action at some point. It will. And from a safety perspective...so, again, there's an international standard, ISO 45003.

It's about a year old now. Yeah, about a year old. And so, fortunately, when I was doing my research, the standard came out right at the point where I was, I think, in Chapter 3 of my dissertation, I go, "This is wonderful." So I didn't have to create an instrument to be able to evaluate the participants in my study.

There's now the standard. This is great. So, again, in that standard, in Section 6, I believe, there is a list there of 88 psychosocial hazards that are broken into three categories. How work is designed, social interactions, and then the environment itself.

That's not an exact quote, but those three basic buckets. And the hazards, these are things that if I mentioned some of them, most people would recognize them. Role ambiguity.

- Oh, yes. That's a big stressor.

- So, I was given a job, but I'm not even really sure what the job really is. And frankly, you don't tell me until you think I made a mistake or you think I did it wrong, and then you tell me it's wrong. But how was I supposed to know that was wrong?

- I didn't know how I was being evaluated.

- Exactly right. Exactly right. So, my graduate degree is in HR. So, I tend to look at these from that kind of HR kind of perspective that says, "How is it fair to that person to be evaluating them on some sort of metric that they don't even know?" And frankly, you don't either. You don't either. Because who trained you?

That's right. Nobody. We have a thing that says we have to do evaluations, and the evaluation is going to get you a 2%, 5% raise, whatever it is. And that's why a lot of people do it. It's not really a measurement of performance. It's a justification to give people a pay raise or not. That's what it is in a lot of organizations because it's not really connected to much of anything that you do.

Because strategically, nobody sat down and thought about it. "So, why do we do it?" "Well, we always do it." "Well, now we've got new people." "We do it the same way." You see what I mean? So, that's why I go all the way back to psychosocial hazard mitigation is difficult. It is not easy. It cannot be fixed by some uniform...

Again, the standard helps us, but it doesn't solve it on...training helps, but it can't solve it all on its own. Leadership has to be involved. The workers have to be involved. The HR people have to be involved. The safety people have to be involved. Everybody has to be involved. And because I look at this from a occupational health and safety perspective, I think everything's about safety, but if you talk to a finance person, that's what they would say, "It's all about money."

Again, neither of us are wrong. It's just our perspective. My perspective is around the safety of human beings. To be quite honest, I don't care about your infrastructure, your stuff. I don't care. I really don't. Literally, just don't care.

Because if you take care of the human beings, the human beings will take care of your infrastructure.

- The awareness. So, there's an international standard. Is this the first international standard that you're aware of?

- It is.

- Yeah? It is. Okay.

- Now, I will say there was a standard. The first standard that I'm aware of was in Canada.

- Yay.

- There was a standard created in 2013 by the Mental >Health Commission of Canada. It is an exceptional standard. Truthfully, to be honest, I believe it's better than the international standard because it's more focused. It's got more detail to it. And international standards, this standard is a descriptive standard, 45003, not a prescriptive one.

So it's necessarily broad and necessarily vague in certain areas. The Canadian standard is actually very good, and it's revised every five years. As a matter of fact, next year will be due for another revision. And it is used to help, again, organizations in Canada comply with the national requirement through your equivalent of OSHA that says that psychosocial hazards are a thing.

Again, in the United States, we don't have that. So, there are five hazards that are covered by OSHA. Biological, chemical, ergonomic, safety, and physical. We don't have any mention of psychosocial hazards here. In Canada, in the UK, in Australia, and other places, they actually list that 6th hazard.

And there are standards, and rules, and policies around how you address...as a matter of fact, the new standard in Australia just came out in June, I believe, of 2022. And, again, I haven't read it in detail because I don't live in Australia. But when you have a standard...there are three reasons that I believe that people do things safely.

One reason is because they believe it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do. They care it's the right thing to do. Sometimes they don't even know how to do it, but they think it's the right thing to do. The second reason people do it, particularly in capitalist societies like mine, is because of the money. They think they're going to lose money, cost money, whatever. And the last reason people do it is because they have to.

Because there's a rule that says they have to. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me which driver, which intent, as long as folks do it, it's okay. It's better when you do it because you think it's the right thing to do. It feels better to everybody. But hey, you know, if you think you're going to save money, that's great, because you will save money if you retain me.

I'm really qualified. I'm a great worker. I have great skills. And if you don't treat me right and keep it safe for me, I'm leaving. And a lot of people are starting to say that. So, again, ultimately, it does affect your bottom line. So if you want to work on your bottom line, be nice to people, create a safe environment.

It will save you money.

- Yeah, I think...and that's a little bit about the future of work I was mentioning that we talked about before, is that more than ever, there's a massive demographic shift. The boomers are retiring, and there's been this...whatever your opinion on it is, it's been called the great resignation during COVID, which is, I think, maybe the great reconsideration.

- People really thinking...

- Sure. What else do you see for the future of work? Like, to me, when you talk about those things, it sounds like the balance of power is shifting towards the workers.

- It is. It is. It is. And, again, I personally believe... I'm going to nerd out here for a second, but in the Marvel Cinematic Universe... ...that recently, there was a...

- I'm a big fan.

- Yeah, yeah, yeah.. Thanos, he's the big purple bad guy, but what Thanos was trying to do was bring balance. And there's a part of me that that kind of makes sense. Everything is about balance. So, what we don't need is we don't need any system that's out of balance. So, we do need workers to have a voice, but it can't be so much towards the workers that it can't be managed.

We need managers, leaders who can lead and manage, lead the people, manage the activities. But it can't be so imbalanced that the workers don't feel that they have a voice. So, it's that constant balancing act. Constant. I think we're shifting a bit back towards workers. But, again, you know, you can't turn the asylum over to the inmates type of deal because often workers sometimes don't have the skill, the perspective, the expertise to make some of the really important decisions that need to be made.

But on the other hand, they're not stupid. So, it's finding balance. Finding balance. We need both, not either or. We have to have... And it's about power, and influence, and authority sharing. Sharing.

It has to be shared. Everything is a shared responsibility.

- Let's say we have some listeners who are listening and understanding more about the importance, the business case, the ethics of looking after psychosocial hazards. Now, you've already said, culture change is a long road. What could they take away? Where would you recommend they start?

If they feel that they're in an organization that maybe doesn't take these things seriously enough, what would you advise?

- The first thing I would advise them to do is to look in the mirror. No matter what your position, your role, your responsibility is, look in the mirror. What does it mean for you? Because if you don't know what it means for you, there's this tendency for people to skip over themselves and try to fix everybody else. And the problem is not everybody else, the problem's you.

Why are you working there? Why are you working there? What is that you expect out of that employer? Because not every employer can give you that. So, make sure you understand what's important to you, what drives you, what gives you passion, and what inspires you. And don't go places that don't offer that, period. Don't apply in the first place, because if we did a little bit more investigation on the front end, you could have found out that that was a crappy employer for you before you even applied.

But you didn't. You looked at the salary. You looked at the whatever. Let's just jump. So first of all, make sure you know what works for you. But then once you understand what works for you, look at the circle of people around you, and make sure that you're doing everything you can to stay in circles of people that will continue...that you can share with each other.

Because there are some things I do well and some things I don't do well. So, I'm looking for people a little bit better than me in a particular area that I need and we work together. We help each other. You know, my wife and I are really different people, which is why we've made a pretty good team for 35 years, because there's some things she's much better at than I ever will be. As a matter of fact, we've just decided, "I don't even want to be good at that. I'm not going to be good at that, period."

And vice versa, but we've decided to be in this team not because we have to, but because we want to. And the same thing... So, again, if you're on the leadership side, you have more authority and responsibility for this because that's how things work. You decided to go into that line of business, to form that company, that organization. That was your decision, it wasn't theirs.

You decided how to divide the work. Hopefully, you did the job hazard analysis to determine what the hazards would be. You wrote the job description or somebody in the organization did. You interviewed this person. You hired this person. So, now it's your responsibility to make sure if you change something, make sure you go back and say, "Hey, we've changed," or, "We want to change something."

Don't just expect folks to...you hired them a certain way. You hired them with limitations. That was on you, it wasn't on them. So you have just as much responsibility to bring people along, to help them understand what it is you're trying to do. So, if you're in an organization right now, first of all, know what you want and need. And if they cannot or will not give it to you, put yourself in a position to be able to go someplace else that will.

That means you have to invest in yourself. That means you have to get...go out and get the training yourself. Don't depend on your employer to give you everything. Because if they give it to you, they can also take it back. So, develop yourself. You know, know what drives you. My education, I paid for it out of my pocket.

Every dime. I never got a student loan, which is the reason why it took so long. But I did it for me. My employers generally gave me almost nothing to make myself better because I didn't want them to control, because then they could tell me when I could go to class and when I couldn't. I often do these things because I want to do it. It's not important to them, it's important to me.

So, I'm not looking for a handout. I know what makes me tick. So, again, put myself in the orbit of organizations and other people that make me tick. That's all. And if it doesn't work, put yourself in a position to leave. What's more important? Making a lot of money or feeling good?

People have to make that decision. Sometimes money makes you feel, okay, great. I've made a lot of money in at least a couple of jobs. The two jobs I had that I hated the most, two of the three, I should say, I actually made a lot of money. But I didn't like it. I didn't enjoy.

I didn't feel good, so I left. I was willing to give up this because it's more important that you have joy, and peace, and contentment. And frankly, you can't take it with you. You can't take it with you. That's, again, a typical long answer to a short question, but look in the mirror first. What drives you?

And then look around to make sure that you're in a relationship or a situation that feeds you, that inspires you, that gives you what you need. And if it doesn't, start looking for someplace else to go.

- Yeah. If we work from the inside out rather than the outside in.

- Yes. Absolutely.

- Even in a perfect team, you've said before, there's a need to monitor for psychosocial hazards. One thing that I picked out when you were talking about the Canadian Mental Health Act and the standard, the psychosocial hazard standard, you said that by law or by regulation, I'm not sure, they re-evaluate every five years. So, there's an example of baking re-evaluation right into the system.

Let's say that we've got a team where things are going really well, psychosocial hazards have been accounted for, everyone feels safe. But you said, you know, the work is not done. You still need to monitor for these things.

How does that look, or how would you do that?

- First of all, it's perfect and safe today. Today. Today, that's all it means. It means today it's great. Today it's great. But the world changes. Things change minute by hour, by day, by week, by month.

We should never assume that it's where it needs to be. Arthur Ashe, the famous tennis player, said that success is a journey, not a destination. Safety is the same thing. It is a journey.

It's not a destination. You don't ever get there. You don't ever get there.

- You don't get to check a box and say, "Done."

- You never get to check the box off and say, "Done." You can say, "Accomplished today," and then it's off to the next thing because every single day is this process of... So, we had a team of X number of people. We came today, it was all great. We all go home. We get home. We find out that our grandmother's sick.

We find out that our uncle has terminal cancer. We get in a vehicle collision on the way home. Our kid gets arrested. Our kid's failing out of school. You know, whatever. There are all these things outside, these psychosocial hazards, even outside of the workplace, that affect people.

And they bring that back to work with them the next day, regardless of them smiling. But they're not really there. Emotionally, there's some things going on with them. And so we should never assume that we're there. Every day is this constant...you know. So, why is it that we have employers that will come in every single day... You know, let's say...again, in the fire department, we'd come in every day.

We'd check the fire truck out and make sure our equipment was working and make sure we had the air in our tanks. We never checked the people then. We didn't check their blood pressure. We didn't ask them how they were doing. So, let's say you have a trucking...we're going to check the trucks and the air, but do we check the drivers?

We have a pool of people typing. Do we ever ask people, not the perfunctory, "Hey, how are you doing? How was your weekend?" Because people go to school and they have these classes, and when they tell them, "You should say those kinds of things," but you don't mean any of it, and I know you don't mean any of it. So, you say something perfunctory, and I reply, because neither one of us really means it. Why is it that we don't pay more attention to how people are doing?

Why shouldn't there be a time, you know, where the team or a couple of people get together and they say, "Hey, how's things going?" Why aren't we teaching mental health first aid in workplaces? Why don't we have ongoing discussions about people's feelings? Or why don't we have trauma-informed therapists involved?

Why? Because we care more about the stuff, that's why. So, it's this constant regular...and particularly the people who are closest to me. If I have two, or three, or four direct reports, I may not know everything about them. And sometimes, unless they don't want me to know that, but I need to have enough of a relationship it's about building a relationship with them, that, you know, "Hey, are you okay? I'm serious. Let's not talk about the work. How are you doing? Because you did this particular thing or you said this particular thing, and that lets me know that something is up. Because generally, you do this other thing."

And so, there's these clues, there's these things we can pick...these six senses that kind of kick in for us. Don't cast it aside. "I thought something was going on." So why didn't you check into what was going on? Why not? Because that moment that you spend with this person might be the thing that goes, "Yeah, let me just share with you what's going on."

They just really sometimes need to be heard. They want to feel like somebody cares. And taking the time to do that, it just makes things better for everybody.

- I had a guest on here who had a very serious accident in the '90s. He said his home life wasn't going well, his relationship wasn't going well. He wasn't happy with his job, and between all of that, he knew what he was doing and that he took a risk that wasn't safe.

And he said the one thing he felt that could have prevented the accident that day, which led to his paralysis, was if someone had said, "How are you doing?" And meant it.

- Right. Right.

- This is what...you know, he's had so many years of...30 years of thinking about it, I'm sure, and that was the conclusion that he came to.

- Right. Right. If you were to do the analysis, an analysis of virtually every active shooter-type situation, particularly where the shooter wasn't employed, it wasn't a terrorist-related event, the people who do this, they didn't just wake up that morning and it all happened.

It had started at some time in the past, and often when I've done interviews with people, "I've been bullied." The people... "I wasn't being heard." I just recently watched this series, and they talked about the shooting that occurred in Washington, D.C. at the naval yard. This worker had mental illness that probably should have been diagnosed years ago. His sister talked about, "We knew he had mental illness for years."

But nobody really... It doesn't appear, it doesn't appear, and I don't want be accusatory here, but it doesn't appear that anybody took it seriously enough to even get to know him, to know that he had some challenges with mental illness. And so, the real caring is just so important, and there are a lot of major disasters and major problems that we can avoid if we simply cared for one another for real more often.

- Well, that brings me into my last questions. I have some questions that I like to ask every guest. And one of them s...I'm going to call this one the University of David. So, if you were to set up...if you were tasked with setting up curriculum or training for tomorrow's safety professionals, some kind of certification program, aside from technical knowledge, you know, knowledge of standards and regulations, PPE, that kind of thing, what sort of soft skills do you think would be the most important to focus on?

And I'm making the assumption that these are teachable skills.

- So, one of the first things I would do is I would bring in a concept that I learned in future studies. I would teach them about strategic foresight. And not to get into too much detail around it, because I'm not an expert myself, but strategic foresight uses a concept called the cone of plausibility, where we look at a person's past, their present, and their future.

And we project into the future what is probable, what is possible, what is, you know, just absolutely not plausible or possible at all. And instead of coming up with plans, we come up with scenarios on how we're going to handle those things. I think, again, we don't spend enough time thinking about what's next. So, when what's next shows up, we're not prepared for it.

We do what we did last time, but it doesn't fit here. But that's the only thing we have in our brain, is what we did last time. The brain doesn't really know the difference. So, if we think about what's coming up next and kind of prepare ourself, the better off we're going to be in terms of how we handle it.

That also connects to how resilient we are when faced with a psychosocial hazard. So, one of my participants, the one who had the highest exposure to psychosocial hazards at 90%, told me that the reason that he, it was a he in this case, fairly was able to respond to all these is he was prepared.

His parents told him, his education told him these things were going to happen. So, he wasn't surprised. "Didn't necessarily like them all, but I knew they were coming. I knew they were going to treat me in a certain way." And, again, all of my participants were black people. So, he knew what he was going to face. He knew there were going to be some racist policies, and he knew he was going to be overlooked.

He knew it. So, he wasn't surprised by it, and he was able to adjust to it and come out of it okay on the other end. And, again, it doesn't say you got to like it all. So, I found, again, in the research that if I know that this psychosocial hazard exists and have prepared myself...because you can't eliminate all of them, you cannot.

It's not possible. You can mitigate many of them, but you can't eliminate all of them because they're all based on the perception of the person on that day. But if I'm prepared, I know that when this person is stressed, here's how they tend to react. I know that already. I'm prepared.

I won't have the conversation right now because they're not in the headspace to have it, but I can have it tomorrow because it's still a good person. But I know that they've got a deadline. There's things going on. I recognize this. I'm not surprised by it. Again, I don't like that they raised their voice a little bit, but I know we can go back and have that conversation and go, "Okay, now you raised your voice a bit." "Oh."

And often when you bring it to this person's attention, they're going to have to be trained out of that behavior because that's what they've done. Again, long answer to a short question, but those are two things I would really talk about. I would talk about strategic foresight. Looking into the future and being prepared for psychosocial hazards before you get exposed to them, not after.

- Yeah, I don't think anyone else has talked about resilience, really, and looking towards the future in that way. So, that's interesting. Now, that was the future. If you could travel back in time to speak with yourself at the beginning of your safety career and you could only give yourself one piece of advice, what do you think it would be?

- I actually have...and I want to take this forward for a second. I actually have a relationship with my future self 10 years from now. We have this ongoing dialog between me and my future self 10...there are multiple variants of me out there, but the one 10 years from now, that's the one that we seem to have this...you know, we just have a good link.

So, most, not all, but a lot of what I do right now is in consultation with myself 10 years from now. So, if I was able to go back, what I would do is, first of all, I would say to my past self or myself at the time, is believe in you.

It took me a while to figure that out. Believe in you. It doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter the folks who came in in the second grade and told me that I would be in speech therapy for the remainder of my life.

It doesn't matter what they said. The folks who said that because I was raised in a single-parent household, that my family was dysfunctional. Who said, you know, because we were on public assistance, I'd never amount to anything. That believe in you. That's all I'd say.

- Yeah. People say incredibly cruel things. I've known more than one person who's been told they would never amount to anything.

- They say what they believe with the information they have at the time, it's just not accurate for me. You may believe that. So, it's not the stories that other people tell about you that matter. It's the ones you believe about yourself. So, there are people out there who believe that.

They're welcome to believe that. I just don't.

- Okay, so for our listeners who've been listening in, and I mean, we covered a pretty wide range, but if they're interested in learning more about anything that we've discussed, are there any particular resources, like groups, or websites, or books, that you would recommend?

- Well, obviously, I would...

- Your podcast, perhaps.

- I would have people tune in to "Psych Health and Safety USA," the "Psych Health and Safety USA" podcast. And the website is psychhealthandsafetyusa.com, and you can find all of the episodes. We're still fairly new. Still having this kind of new conversation here in the States, but I think you'll enjoy it. I have a website, id2-solutions.com, and folks are always welcome to reach out to me.

Again, I'm not suggesting that I am the purveyor of all answers, but if you like some of the things that I said, a lot of them come out of my head and out of my research and my experience. So, I wouldn't necessarily have you go someplace else.

I'd have you come call me or send me an email at david@id2-solutions.com and let's chat about whatever it is. Now, again, there are tons, and tons, and tons, and tons of resources out there. It depends on where you're trying to go and what you're trying to do.

It just really depends. So, everything is conditional for me. Everything. It's all conditional. What is it you're trying to do? And once we figure out what it is you're trying to do, where you're trying to go, then we can back up and figure out actually how to get there, what resources you need, what information you need, how you should dress, how long it's going to take to get there. It's all conditional on where you want to go and what you want to be.

- Is there anything else you wanted to share today about your podcast, or your company, or any projects you're working on, or research?

- Wow. I'm probably involved in too many things, but I enjoy contributing. I enjoy staying busy. I'm involved in a couple of national organizations. One in particular that I certainly want to mention, the National Association of Black Compliance and Risk Management Professionals.

I joined a couple of years ago and they're mostly lagging indicator risk management people. And I asked them, I says, "Would you be interested in somebody who's more of a leading indicator guy?" And they says, "Absolutely, yes." So, we formed a safety and security workgroup, and they asked me to be the chair. The reason why I mentioned this one particularly, because it goes all the way back to the topic or what we talked about at the very beginning.

We exist to be a home for black safety professionals that is for us and by us. I have membership in other groups and organizations, but most of them, when I go there, I'm the only person. And though I get benefit out of, I really do, but it feels safer and more comfortable when I can be around people like me.

So, we formed the safety and security workgroup. It's still fairly small. It's only been around for less than a year. But I think we're doing some very interesting things and, again, trying to create this safe space where the roughly 2% of safety professionals who look like me can come and hang out and share stories and resources and help each other. So, that's one.

There are a few others, but that one kind of comes to mind because that really connects to the conversation that we're having.

- Yeah, especially talking about being a voice in the room. There's two sides to that. There is inviting people in, but then there's also just expressing your voice, and groups like that allow conversation within themselves and also give a more organized way to express opinions sometimes, rather than it's just this guy who said it.

It's like, "Well, this is a professional association. They've talked about this, they've debated, and this is the statement they're putting forth."

- Yeah. Ultimately, it just feels safer to be in a space with people who are like you. I understand why we have these multi-billion-dollar corporations with a bunch of white men sitting around, because it's safe. It feels comfortable.

The challenge is, if you want to get other people involved, you have to bring them into the room. If you want me to buy your product, you have to know what I want. If you want to provide services for me, you have to know what I want. That necessitates understanding me. You can't simply sit in your comfortable room with other people like you. And, again, because there's so many efforts around diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I'll go here, that the room is full of a homogeneous group of people, whether they be men, or straight people, or...whatever, but you say you want to help people, but their voice is not in the room.

So, just stop it. If you don't want to bring them in the room, just stop it. It's okay to have a group with just you. I understand that. Just don't say it's for me, then. Say it's for you, and I can go find my own group. But when you open up and say, "Oh, we want to beat..."

If you really want to do it, let's do it, but you've got to let me in.

- Well, unfortunately, that's all the time we have for today.

- Sure.

- Thanks to our listeners for their support, and thank you so much for sharing your time and ideas with us.

- My pleasure.

- And my thanks to the global "Safety Labs by Slice" team, whose different perspectives always make our podcasts better. Bye for now. ♪ [music] ♪ - Safety Labs is created by Slice, the only safety knife on the market with a finger-friendly blade.

Find us at sliceproducts.com. Until next time, stay safe. ♪ [music] ♪