How do I get buy-in for an Observation program? (Observations, Part 5* of 4) *bonus

This recent series of observation posts has garnished some really thoughtful and interesting conversation in private linked-in communities. As a bonus to this series of posts on Observations, I plan to share with you some of that content and do my best to answer a very difficult question: How do we get buy-in? I want to approach the answer from the Leadership Team member and from the worker's point of view.

Some (not all) issues with establishing buy-in:

1. A long-time phrase associated with Behavior-Based Observations is "No-name, no blame."
2. A way of introducing yourself to the people you are observing is, "Hi I am James Newman and I would like to do an observation for you." "For" you, not "on" you.
3. I am a worker who finishes up a job and then debriefs with my supervisor who then tells me someone did an observation on me and these are the things they saw.
4. I am a new supervisor and the worker knows more about the work than I do, so I end up just watching and not adding much value.

These are just a few of the many thorny sides of this rose. Each has its own way of devaluing the purposes for conducting observations in the first place.

Let's make a couple of things clear (opinion alert) -

1. My thought on no name, no blame - protecting a worker from culpability when they are purposefully employing an At Risk behavior seems wrong to me.
2. If you are performing an observation directly on someone's behavior, it is on them, not for them, and you shouldn't try to wordsmith around the issue, because that is how the worker will most likely feel.
3. Observing a worker and not telling them you are performing one, and then later going to document what you saw and coached, good or bad seems sneaky and creates negative culture perceptions of trust.
4. New leaders should be mentored by other leaders for how to perform observations and encouraged to perform them together until they have enough confidence to perform them on their own.

What can be done about all this Observation stuff?

Through the awesome LinkedIn feedback, I've developed a new term (I wonder if it will catch on) and a method that makes a lot of sense to me - "System Observations." This is where a leadership team member pays attention to the workers behaviors (for coaching and reinforcement), but their primary intent is to learn how the worker was set up for success or for failure by looking at the job from the worker's perspective. For example, was the work package clear and have the appropriate level of detail; were the right questions asked at the pre-job brief; did the clearance order make sense; does the training that the workers get prepare them for the situation you are now observing - those types of questions. Break down the system highs and lows and report it in the database. If you see inappropriate behavior during the observation, coach and document that information, as well. This type of observation IMHO will drive buy-in both by leadership and workers. This type of Observation is done with them, not on or for them.

Cumulative effects

If you haven't heard this term lately, there is a good chance you're not in the commercial nuclear power industry. Over the years, we have found better ways of doing processes and general work around the stations, whether it's administrative, clerical, or physical work, and every time we come up with something new, it either replaces what we were doing, or adds to what we were doing. Since the years have been ticking by, the benefits to doing something a new way are reaching a tipping point. Unfortunately, just as the leadership and worker burden amount has reached the highest level it ever has been, this is the time in the industry that a large percentage of the experienced workers have already left or are leaving (aging workforce). This makes a bad combination when we are continuously trying to improve from where we are today. Efforts are being made in the industry to combat cumulative effects, but how does this translate into work observations?

Observation programs rely on observations to be documented, so they can be tracked and trended. Generally, leadership team members have procedure requirements for how many and possibly even which types of observations to perform to ensure they get accomplished throughout their busy weeks. What if we let leadership team members observe and report on whatever they wanted? This would be a reversion to the past. In the past if you didn't require it, it didn't get done, because of the burden of cumulative effects.

I think next to Licensed Reactor Operators, the hardest job at a nuclear power plant is the First Line Supervisor position. I have seen the stress it causes these brilliant men and women, and have a lot of respect them for fulfilling a role that gets beat on from both sides. Last year I shadowed a Maintenance Supervisor for 4 hours and was exhausted keeping up with the administrative tasks he was performing. I have watched some people (close friends) lose weight, gain weight, go gray, lose hair, smoke more, and generally become miserable. It takes a strong constitution and a lot of guts to be successful in these roles.

The last thing a First Line Supervisor needs is a Program Owner tracking how many observations they performed in a month - it might be what the organization needs, but not FLS'. So we train them, we act as a help desk when there are database issues, and we support them as best we can and try to show them that the data they collect is rolling up into focus items and legitimate trends that we need to improve as a station. The occasional reminder that Observations are a proactive way to prevent injuries and events is probably not enough of a morale boost to keep them engaged and motivated to perform them.

Conclusion

The answers lie in reduction of burden and adding of value, as perceived by the observer, the observee, and the organization. Make the process as robust as possible - not too simple where no value is gained by the organization, even if the worker and leadership team member had a great conversation and intrusive interaction. Simplifying requirements should help the process. The culture and changing climate of the different stations has the largest part of whether or not the Observation program has value, and maybe we're not ready to revert to the requirements of the past and track and trend whatever data comes in.

Questions that remain

Is the industry ready to persuade management to allow freedom of observation quantity and selection?

Can we really reduce burden, simplify the process and add more value than we currently get?

Thanks for the observation feedback and wisdom provided by James Loud, John Howard, Larry Kellog, Kyra Richter, Tony Donell, Lisa Clark, Ralph Reed, Bruce Hartsock, Howard Wilchins and Matt Bowen. I am grateful for your replies and thoughtful inquiry.