Page 48 - Serious Incident Prevention How to Achieve and Sustain Accident-Free Operations in Your Plant or Company

CH02pp021-028 4/10/02 12:49 PM Page 26

26 Serious Incident Prevention

frequency of occurrence. Without having experienced the consequences,
managers may not have the foresight and self-motivation to maintain the
disciplined approach required for sustaining serious incident-free opera-
tions. When addressing the potential for serious incidents, these managers
may express limited concern because such an incident “has never happened
during my career.”

Misguided Optimism

Many managers share a belief in the power of positive thinking. For
some, such beliefs include a fear that acknowledgment of risks or other ex-
pressions of concern may result in an undesirable self-fulfilled prophecy, or
at the minimum be perceived by superiors as weak leadership.
In these organizations a condition known as “groupthink” may develop
where members of the group relinquish individual opinions to avoid being
perceived as nonsupportive of the group. In such groups there is little room
for critical questions or dialogue regarding alternate approaches. When
groupthink is at work, there is a strong atmosphere to conform, dissension
is unwelcome, and individual censorship is prevalent. Individuals in the
group develop a belief that they couldn’t possibly be intelligent enough to
question the group’s plans. It’s not surprising that in such environments, the
go-ahead is often given to plans that have little chance for success—new
products with no realistic chance for survival are launched, solutions not re-
lated to root causes are embraced, and the safety risks of operations are not
openly addressed. 3
Vernon L. Grose, a pioneer in the application of systems methodology
for controlling risks, once stated:

“Risk, for those committed to benefit, is like a bad dream. Aspiring to
manage risks is like a wartime Marine volunteer hoping to become a sup-
ply depot sentry. It has the glamour, promotion potential, and excitement
of a yawn.” 4

Unfortunately, Grose’s description may be accurate within many organ-
izations. In these organizations, serious incident prevention has not yet been
established as a true organizational priority, and little recognition exists for
identifying and executing the work critical to its success. The straight-ahead
approach with minimal thought to “what can go wrong” may serve man-
agers well when discharging some responsibilities. However, managers
must recognize that, with the catastrophic consequences of a serious inci-
dent, optimism must be tempered with a full understanding of the risks and