Rob Vetter is technical director and managing partner with the Ives Training Group, in Blaine, WA, USA, a leader in North American mobile equipment training systems since 1981.
What goes around comes around. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got. You get out what you put in. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. A job done well is a job well done. Garbage in, garbage out.
Chances are you have heard or perhaps spoken one or all of these familiar phrases at some point in your life. They are all very old clichés and they got that way by being correct. The truth has a remarkable propensity for remaining useful over time, doesn't it? Another reason for the longevity of truthful phrases like these is that they are applicable over the entire range of human endeavour, and training is no exception.
Throughout my career as a trainer, I have tried to live the philosophy implied in the wisdom of the aforementioned phrases. This has produced a lot of very good results for me in that I believe the trainees I have worked with received the benefits of my desire and dedication to do things right. I have never subscribed to the theory that a trainer needs to go 'above and beyond' to get things done. Although such a trait is admirable, I feel that when a trainer does whatever is required to help a trainee or facilitate a need, it is simply business as usual and not an 'extra' effort ,regardless of the time or the tasks involved.
Certainly, this type of approach is not without limits. There are always those occasions that, despite our best efforts, do not yield the desired results. Personally, I have always had a tough time with those but my disappointment is always based strictly on the result, never my effort.
The reason I am pointing all this out is not to toot my own horn. I am hoping that as you read this, you are relating to - if not sharing - the desire to do things right to the best of your ability. I have never understood companies or individuals that choose to knowingly sacrifice the quality of a training program in favour of saving time or some other consideration. Nor have I been able to understand why some companies choose not to support training programs with ongoing supervision and corrective measures afterward. It seems incomprehensible to me that a company would allocate the resources necessary to deliver meaningful training and then abandon the process at its most critical juncture.
To expand on this, allow me to tell you about a time when I was asked to audit the training and performance of operators at a company that claimed to be doing things properly, yet was experiencing what they thought was an excessive amount of mobile equipment-related incidents. The first red flag went up shortly after my arrival on site. I was scheduled to meet with the production manager, safety director and one of the equipment trainers to discuss things before starting the audit. I was informed that the production manager and the trainer would be unable to attend the meeting as they were "too busy". Although the safety director seemed to hold safety in high regard, through our brief discussion it was clear to me that she was not only unaware of exactly why I was there but completely preoccupied with other issues that were constantly streaming to her through her cell phone; another red flag. Next, she accompanied me to a small office where I was to undergo a computer-based safety orientation that all outside contractors were required to undertake. However, as I tried to navigate my way through the program, it was not co-operating with me or the computer techs that tried to repair it. I was then given a written test and escorted to the plant to start the audit. I never did find out if I passed that test. My escort (I was not introduced) was briefed by the safety director on the reason for my presence (he's conducting a safety inspection) and asked to get me across the yard and to the main building, which he did, then promptly disappeared. More red flags.
During the course of the audit, I noted many, many things but in the interest of brevity, I will skip to a summary of some of the main points contained in the report and some of the related conclusions.
* The absence of the production manager and equipment trainer at the scheduled pre-audit meeting indicates that they perceived it as trivial and/or too burdensome to add to their daily tasks. Although no-one is denying how busy these people were, it seems counterproductive to invite a consultant on site and then fail to place the appropriate priority on utilising the service.
* The inability of the safety director to provide any meaningful particulars on the objective of the audit is disturbing in that it indicates a lack of communication of important safety concerns with the safety and health department.
* Being left unescorted while touring the plant or briefed on plant pedestrian procedures indicates that either, a) no plant pedestrian procedures are in place or, b) the procedures were in place but not communicated, neither of which is desirable.
* In separate discussion with four operators who claimed to be trained and experienced, most were unable to correctly answer three basic equipment safety-related questions that any properly trained operator should and none was able to provide details on any site-specific policies related to their operational duties. This indicates that either no training is taking place, or the training is inadequate.
* In a discussion with one supervisor, he told me that he did not know what was taught in the operator training classes. He went on to say that even though there were approximately six equipment operators in his department, he did not feel he needed to know what the operators were taught as safety and training were both areas outside of his department and, therefore, not his "problem." This indicates a breakdown at a critical level of the overall safety and health program. Supervisor involvement is critical and indeed required in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety rules and procedures.
* I was not able to locate consistent training and evaluation documentation for the 63 equipment operators on site, nor was I able to find anyone that could direct me to it. Accurate and consistent documentation is the hallmark of a good safety and health program as well as a vital component in establishing regulatory compliance.
I could go on here, but I think the "problem" this company was having is clear: inconsistent or non-existent training coupled with a lack of follow-up from management to identify problems or take corrective measures. This company was just not giving the matter of equipment operator safety training any priority within its safety and health program. They were doing a lousy job and getting lousy results. The only positive I could see was that they at least had the presence of mind to recognise their poor results and call for help. However, even this was marginalised by the fact that they made no meaningful attempt to utilise the help when it arrived.
Throwing money at safety issues will not make them go away. Regularly taking the time to identify hazards and do something about them will certainly help but when it comes to training, a specific and concerted effort by all those involved must be made. Trainers have to be qualified and invested in what they do with an honest desire to do things right and ensure understanding and competence is achieved. Supervisors must support the training by taking it upon themselves to know what is being trained and seeing to it that such training is adhered to on an ongoing basis. Company managers must support supervisors, trainers and the entire safety program with the resources required and regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their safety programs and make changes as required.
In short, safety involves everyone so everyone has to get involved. It's not easy, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Another proverbial truth.