Episode 22 - " But at the end of the day I still have to answer to regulators and our legal team" / A case for HOP

We discuss the common objection around "rules" and the role they play in keeping people safe. As you might expect, it leads us back to the conversation around people problems vs. system problems.

Andy and (a sick) Matt discuss one of the most common places of tension when someone talks about HOP. What does it mean when we say "not all accidents are preventable"?

The workforce is getting younger and coming in with less experience. We discuss why it is so crucial to learn from the new workforce about their reality.

We tackle the next audience question centered around how HOP may run into conflict with both regulating bodies and internal legal teams.

We answer a listener's question around injury rates and the adoption of HOP.

We tackle a listen asked question on how to handle the pushback from leadership that the organization does not have "the time or the resources to make this change" by making a business case for HOP.

After wrapping up homework with our invented mitigation defense, we move on to share how we see HOP adopted by organizations. We'll spend time on what's worked well for some places and what challenges we hear most often.

Andy starts with a story around how we respond to an incident without considering what performance mode(s) the people executing the task are in. From there, we discuss why we should shift our energy and resources into adding mitigation defenses rather than something like "retraining" post-incident.

Let's talk about Performance Modes. What are they and how do they fit into our view of work?

We wrap up the operational learning mini-series by going over what happens after you define the problem statements.