I once met someone whose job was, among other tasks, to stress test the touch screens at a local science museum. I asked how that can be a real thing. He said something to the effect that people, especially children, behave in ways you can’t possibly imagine or anticipate, so you need to design the software to handle whatever comes at them.

The safety profession is focused on preventing and reducing risks. EHS professionals are tasked with tracking lagging indicators. They’re increasingly being asked to track leading indicators, too.

I think some folks are now realizing that no matter how much you try, you just can’t plann for every possible scenario. What’s more, it’s futile to try. I've detected a subtle change in mindset over the past few months in conversations with safety professionals and while editing contributed articles.

For example, Brooks Ross wrote in an article about emergency management that:

“It is impossible to anticipate all outcomes. Instead, the goal is to become proactive about reducing common risks and preplanning responses to probable incidents.”

I’m not a safety practitioner; I’m an outside observer. I can’t speak to being, as Teddy Roosevelt once described it, "in the arena". But it seems to me that by acknowledging it’s a matter of when—not if—a safety incident will happen, you’re allowing yourself to be more prepared for what comes next.

I recently spoke with the American Society of Safety Professional’s current and past presidents Monique Parker, Linda Tapp and Pam Walaski for an episode of the Talking EHS podcast. Something Pam said has stuck with me, because it reminded me why these conversations—and the profession—are so critical:

“We have flipped the script and have really learned to see the worker as the solution—not the problem. We've begun to appreciate that people are human, and they make mistakes. We have to create, as Monique described, that environment where those mistakes don't necessarily lead to their downfall.”

I appreciate the work that has been done to make American workplaces as safe as they are today, but tackling some of those persistently high and frustratingly stubborn lagging indicators demand an altogether different approach. It requires a fundamental reset in how we view both work and workers. 

In an article about operator error and performance metrics, TJ Ryals wrote:

“Fatigue, sensory overload and split-second decision-making are part of the job. Even the most experienced operators cannot maintain peak alertness for every moment of every shift. Expecting them to do so is like asking drivers to keep their eyes on every mirror, every gauge and every inch of the road ahead without blinking for hours at a time. If safety systems are designed with the assumption of perfect human performance, they will fail in the real world.”

Risk elimination is a noble goal, and I agree that workplace safety incidents are preventable. Still, I think it might be a more effective strategy to eliminate the expectation of perfection.

The fact of the matter is, humans are not perfect. We can’t sustainably operate at perfect, let alone peak, performance. Even though some wear it as a badge of honor, perfectionist tendencies can negatively affect people’s health and well-being. A clinical diagnosis of perfectionism is frequently accompanied by depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders and suicidal impulses.

What, then, is a safer—and more realistic—path forward?

It’s to first acknowledge the way the work is already being done before designing something better. By talking about what could happen. By creating a psychologically safe space where workers feel comfortable enough to voice their concerns. By reinforcing the message that workers are more important than any injury-free records or minutes saved to boost production. By encouraging them to take training more seriously, so they know how to keep themselves and their colleagues safe.

Removing the pretense of perfection allows workers to see the possible outcomes as something to be vigilant against. In the process, it normalizes prevention as any other workplace safety protocol, not some bogeyman to fear or hide from. The question then shifts from if to when to what next.