What do you do when your saved LinkedIn posts, links and articles haven’t been cleaned out in many, many moon? Are they still relevant years later?
We’re going to find out…here we go!
Dumb, Dangerous, Different or Difficult.
If your job or task include these, perhaps you, or your crew, should take notice. I first heard these in a Todd Conklin podcast, but Jeff Lyth has expanded on these and provides us a great resource in the article and video.
Jeff Dalto reminds us of the neuroscience of “trust.” Discussed in the Harvard Business Review, the neuroscience of trust has been found to have validity. But how can we build that culture of trust in our organizations?A number of management behaviors that can foster trust:
- Recognize excellence.
- Induce “challenge stress.”
- Give people discretion in how they do their work.
- Enable job crafting.
- Share information broadly.
- Intentionally build relationships.
- Facilitate whole-person growth.
- Show vulnerability.
The payback of fostering and maintaining a culture of trust in your organization is not just in employee satisfaction and retention, but in the long-term economic viability of the organization. But, remember:
“Trust comes on foot, but leaves on horseback.” – Dutch proverb
Situational Awareness (SA) Includes Looking Out the Window
From Jill Russell, a Marine Pilot is SE Alaska and Maritime Consultant is a post discussing the study, “Correlation Evaluation of Pilots’ Situation Awareness in Bridge Simulations via Eye Tracking Technology.”
Capt. Russell notes, “Qualitative results for the pilots’ Situational Awareness (SA) in a bridge simulator test reveal that pilots in the high SA group focused on the [view] outside the window, whereas the low SA group members focused on the electronic chart.”
In other words, look out the window. Reminds me of a post we had several years ago:
Why do we blame?
From Ron Gantt, HSE Director – Americas at Yondr Group:
“When something horrible happens it is sometimes almost instinctual to want to treat harm with harm. “They broke a rule and therefore deserve to be punished.” This is especially true when the outcomes are catastrophic or tragic.
But if we move past that and start to think critically about what we want to create in the future, what we need to do to get better, we may find that meeting harm with harm isn’t that useful and may actually hurt us in the long run.
It’s ok to feel angry or hurt and to feel the need to blame. That’s just a reaction that you can’t change in the moment and is normal and human. But your response to that reaction and to the event is something you can control. You can choose to be constructive in the face of destruction.”
Maritime Casualty Reporting – Failure of the Casualty Investigation Code?
A number of articles from Lloyd’s List indicate that casualty investigations are not progressing as hoped and that flag states have rejected proposals for improvement:
09 October 2019 : Registry calls for review of IMO’s casualty investigation code
“Liberian registry’s chief operating officer Alfonso Castillero says blame should not be aimed squarely at flags or owners for failing to meet safety rules. It is up to all stakeholders to provide full and proper information to ensure safety, thereby helping to prevent future incidents, including reviewing the quality of training…”
“Despite repeated pledges from the IMO secretariat to require governments to transparently investigate serious shipping casualties, flag states have quietly shot down attempts to impose a time limit on publication of reports. This comes after Lloyd’s List revealed that governments were still failing to publish around 40% of casualty investigations three years after Lloyd’s List first revealed that well over half of all reports were not being completed…”
02 August 2022 : Flag states reject proposal to improve casualty reports
“Flag states have rejected a proposal to make root cause analysis mandatory, saying the existing frameworks were adequate…”
And there they are – 5 posts/links/articles from the wayback machine. Now, these are from only as far back as 10 months, but…trust, risk (the 4 D’s), accident investigations, Ron Gantt’s take on retributive culture and a recommendation for deck officers to look out the window? Is there a progression here? Good SA to trust to risk to accident investigations to retributive (or hopefully, just) culture? Hmmm…..
Let’s be safe out there.