By Frank Garrett CRSP

A number of years ago I was asked to deliver a safety moment at a leadership training session, there were a number of other presenters delivering sessions on various topics none of whom were professional speakers. The stage was simply a raised platform approximately 14 inches (350 mm) above the floor, consistent with what you would find at smaller venues.

The hotel had provided a single half step with built in hand rails and positioned it at the farthest corner away from the audience. This forced the user of the step to walk around 2/3s of the way around the stage, adding several moments between each presenter as they accessed the stage.

This caused most presenters to simply step up on the stage at the front and not use the step. The leader who had organised this event observed the first few presenters do this, so between the third and fourth presenter he requested everyone use the step provided.

The fourth presenter who was higher up the food chain than the organiser, did as those before him had, and simply stepped up on the stage which caused a few quiet comments in the crowd but nothing was said out loud.

We had a break in the sessions following the fourth presenter and during that break I walked up to the stage and relocated the step to the front edge of the stage so it was more visible and its presence could potentially remind a person approaching the stage to use it.

The leader who organised the sessions came over and asked what I was doing, I said moving the step to achieve the compliance you requested. There was no real risk involved, in reality because the step onto the stage was slightly higher than a step you would take on the stairs it actually made people who stepped on the stage more conscious of the risk than if they used the step that was provided by the hotel.

This is typical of Safety (capitalised to indicate an archetype, not a person), the focus was on compliance and telling, we expect compliance because we told you to use it. There was no consideration for other types of hazards.

A fundamental concept in SPoR is Workspace, Headspace and Groupspace; the step and its compliance are part of the Workspace and that’s where the focus ended. There was no consideration for Headspace, as I mentioned earlier none of these presenters were professional speakers they were simply team members who were asked to do a presentation in front of their peers, co-workers and leaders. Even the presenter who was the organisers supervisor was not a professional or seasoned speaker.

Why does that matter you ask?

What is going through our mind as we are walking up on stage to present? What Headspace are we in, are we worried about walking farther than is necessary to take an extra step, are we even looking to the back of the stage to see the step? Are we thinking about the opening line of our presentation, about missing a key point, about forgetting to ask if there are questions at the end? Are we thinking about the technology and if its going to function as we expect? These are Headspace risks that were not taken into consideration.

On every table there were agendas with times printed (oh did I mention 90% of attendees were engineers) so there are 75 people with eyes on you, do we want to keep them waiting longer than we have to? There is probably nothing spoken or even whispered about the time it takes to walk to the stage, but in that dead air time between presenters the collective unconscious speaks far louder than words and, we feel it, we perceive it, we embody the unspoken pressure to get this show going. These are Groupspace risks that again are not discussed or considered by Safety.

The step and the compliance to use it were the focus, objects and things, not the humans who had to use the step, not the collective Groupspace, and certainly not the experience of the presenters was considered. We thought we had to show leadership by telling people to use the step and when they failed to do so I attempted to make compliance easier!

Many will say we learn though experience, I disagree, that statement is not complete.

We learn through reflecting on experience. It’s a minor nuance, but a critical one.

What can we do the next time we set up a session like this to consider more than just the physical objects and things that pose risk?