The risk-based approach has taught us to look beyond regulatory documents, anticipate negative events, and prevent their consequences. However, questions still arise: what should be organized first? Should we develop a clear and comprehensive document signed by all parties for inspections, or concise, transparent introductory materials understandable to every employee? Let's try to combine both using the risk assessment process as an example.
Risk management can be compared to immunity – it is the system that protects the body from incidents, accidents, deteriorating health of employees, and other negative events. The human immune system is incredibly adaptive; most recognition and response protocols are acquired gradually. Similarly, a risk management system should be implemented in doses, training all participants step-by-step, setting clear goals for employees based on their skills and competencies.
Even at the planning stage, people often feel discouraged because we imagine the scale of questions from colleagues: \"Why do we need this?\", \"What is required of us?\", \"Why is so much required?\", \"Why is nothing required except a signature on the briefing map?\", \"You already conducted the Workplace Safety Assessment (SOUT), why risks now?\", \"Can't we sign for two documents at once?\". By answering all, even the most uncomfortable questions, we can determine the development vector and highlight the most difficult ones as separate development projects.
The stages of system implementation are quite clear and transparent:
But a single approach to working through each implementation stage often acts as a blocker – a preliminary assessment of employees' readiness to implement the risk management process is necessary.
For a comfortable assessment, let's apply the practice of situational management and divide employees into groups depending on their abilities and desire to perceive new things.
| Assessment of implementation abilities (competence) | \nAssessment of employee desire (mindset) | \n
| \n - has health and safety training been conducted previously? \n- do employees realize their role in risk management? \n- did employees participate in risk identification? \n- was there a positive experience in implementing other HSE management processes? \n | \n\n - does the employee want to participate in the project? \n- is the benefit of reducing risk levels clear? \n- is there confidence that there will be resources (including moral ones) for process implementation? \n- is the project interesting as a whole? \n | \n
Depending on how many of these questions we answer \"yes\" for a particular employee (or group/department/service, etc.), four main groups of risk-based (RB) approach perception can be identified:
RB1 - Simple Enthusiast (doesn't know the system but agrees with everything and is ready for anything)
\nRB2 - Unprepared Novice (not trained and not ready for change)
\nRB3 - Skeptical Performer (knows the system but is not ready for change)
\nRB4 - Active Innovator (knows the system and actively supports its implementation)
At each of the 4 stages of project implementation, questions from one of the identified groups will prevail. By anticipating their behavior, you can plan activities and process adjustments in advance that will lead to a positive result and help employees accept the new risk-based approach as one of their personal development directions.
Simple Enthusiasts (RB1) are often the favorite development group because they support almost any idea dictated by management. However, one of the most difficult stages for this group is collecting feedback. Simple enthusiasts immerse themselves well in the process, support risk identification and the implementation of improvement measures, but they do not dive deep into the process and often miss details. It can be difficult for them to distinguish high-risk hazards from minor risks or to prioritize implementation. It is important to add directive management for enthusiasts and to make questions as specific as possible during feedback collection. Working with such groups provides a reason to build transparent system performance metrics. Ask direct questions or ask them to rate an activity on a scale – such methods allow tasks to be revealed more broadly for them. It will be much harder to get answers to open-ended questions.
Unprepared Novices (RB2) usually ask many irrelevant questions, have a negative attitude toward safety rules, are not ready to take initiative, and do not notice their own mistakes. They have the greatest impact during the adaptation and training stage, as they often resist the new and are skeptical of additional responsibility. For this category, it is important to reveal the personal benefit of implementing the system – increasing efficiency due to the absence of critical risks and, as a result, reducing injuries, growing personal competencies, and the opportunity for career development through a broader understanding of company processes. Often, employees in this group need more mentoring from management and the HSE team for a deeper but smooth immersion into the system.
Skeptical Performers (RB3) are characterized by a hidden decline in the quality of process implementation. They are not ready to accept the new, but at the same time, they are often tired of routine processes, looking for approval and support for ideas to keep the process unchanged. This is one of the most difficult but incredibly useful groups. The need for constant attention and involvement in processes makes them indispensable at the process development stage. Skeptical performers will be happy to determine how the system will develop, what resources will be needed for implementation, and will actively help plan and distribute tasks. If you listen carefully to this group, give enough attention, and choose a supportive management style, performers will quickly, efficiently, and methodically outline the risk management system development procedures and prepare all necessary documents within the project.
Active Innovators (RB4) usually act as leaders in risk assessment. Their experience, knowledge, and skills make them universal process auditors who can be fully involved in creating system development plans and action plans at all stages. They are quite independent and know how to use resources effectively, are capable of involving colleagues from other departments in the system development process, and are ready to take responsibility for their own decisions. Active innovators also help prepare employees, conduct risk-based approach training, and motivate the team to develop the system. To work with innovators, it is necessary to choose a delegating management style – making them leaders of specific areas or project managers for risk reduction measures.
Regardless of which group of employees currently prevails, you can quickly and effectively distribute risk management tasks based on your team's capabilities. Simultaneously launching the development of the descriptive part of the project and an active visual and mentoring campaign is possible with the correct distribution of tasks to those responsible with the appropriate level of competence.
Do not forget the strengths of your colleagues and team when managing HSE processes! Using situational management, you can consistently prepare a package of documents, organize high-quality training, plan risk reduction measures, integrate the process within existing internal resources, and make the risk-based approach one of your main advantages.