Businesses have always been fixated on measurement. Management must keep the board—who are not involved in daily operations—informed about progress. One of the most straightforward indicators of success is financial performance, largely because money is quantifiable. However, many critical aspects, such as major project progress, are not as easily measured. Despite this, boards often seek the most ‘countable’ indicators of success possible, even in these less tangible areas.
The same applies to health and safety reporting. To meet the board’s expectations, two sets of data have emerged as the go-to indices: lag and lead indicators. However, both have significant limitations, as indicated below:
Limitations of Lag Indicators
- Reactive Nature: Lag indicators measure past incidents like accidents or lost workdays. However, they offer little insight into the future, as past events are unreliable predictors of the future.
- Incomplete Data: Underreporting due to fear of repercussions or lack of awareness skews accuracy.
- Inherent Biases: Even in mature safety cultures, incident investigations often blame individuals rather than identifying systemic failures.
- Focus on Negative Outcomes: Emphasising injuries fosters a culture of blame. As the proverb states, “The future belongs to those who improve what’s right, not just correct what’s wrong.”
- Delayed Feedback: The time lag between an incident and corrective action implementation reduces effectiveness.
Limitations of Lead Indicators
- Predictive Challenges: Lead indicators track safety activities like audits and near-miss reports but often reflect ‘safety administration’ more than actual safety performance.
- Quantity vs Quality: Lead indicators often focus on quantity rather than quality. For example, counting worksite audits completed tells us nothing about the quality of the audits.
- Potential for Misinterpretation: Data from lead indicators can be open to interpretation. For example, is reporting a large number of near misses an indication of a good reporting culture, or is it indicating a large number of times ‘we were only lucky it wasn’t worse’?
- Overemphasis on Metrics: Are we measuring what’s easy to count or what truly matters?
Rethinking Traditional Measurements
To develop a solution, we must first understand why traditional measurements fail. Consider an analogy: both the 100-meter sprint and artistic gymnastics win gold at the Olympics, but they require entirely different measurement approaches. If gymnastics were judged by a stopwatch, the event would lose its meaning.
Safety is not the same ‘competition’ as financial performance—it cannot be reduced to simple counting. Metrics like LTIFR (Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate) and TRIFR (Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate) have well-documented flaws. But it is also true for so-called lead indicators.
I have never understood how something as loosely defined as a ‘near miss’ can serve as a reliable safety metric. When is a near miss truly a near miss? The same with counting the number of hazards reported—when are all the hazards known?
A New Approach to Measuring Safety Performance
Instead of focusing on administrative safety activities like reporting and committee attendance, we should measure what actually makes a workplace safe. Organisations do not employ people to report near misses—they want them to work without injury.
We should assess how well we prepare workers for safety, rather than focusing on completing audits or attending toolbox meetings.
In my book Safety 2.1: The Safety Envelope, I argue that organisations must provide four essentials for safety, leaving the rest to those who do the work:
- A Safe Work Environment: The necessary equipment and tools in good condition.
- Proper Training & Skill Development: Ensuring workers have the competence to perform safely.
- A Strong Safety Culture: Where individuals willingly take responsibility for safety.
- Mental Wellbeing: A workplace free from bullying and psychological harm.
When evaluating these four factors, we should not just ask countable questions. They are not absolutes, and their measurement is somewhat subjective. But this does not make them less important. These four elements are the organisation’s responsibility, enabling workers to uphold their part—performing work safely.
The Role of Structured Feedback
Perhaps we should gather this information from those whose safety we are discussing—the frontline staff. Structured interviews by expert interviewers could offer richer insights than conventional data collection.
This approach is not new—many governments rely on focus groups to inform policy and budget decisions. While the results won’t fit neatly into a bar chart, over time, they can provide deep insights to guide safety policies and resource allocation.
Initially, this approach may not yield abundant data, as workers may be sceptical. But as the process is repeated and management acts on the findings, trust will grow, and the quality of insights will improve.
The Ultimate Benefit
As perceptions of safety improve, so will attitudes toward related areas like productivity, quality, and efficiency. Nothing builds trust like truly listening—provided you act on what you hear.
This is only scratching the surface of a crucial aspect of safety management. True progress will require a shift in approach—one that I explore in depth in Safety 2.1: The Safety Envelope.
Other topics in the series
Risk Assessments More Meaningful