Practice meets perfect

A pragmatic approach to OSH should use multiple stakeholders and perspectives to provide practical solutions. So where does perfectionism fit in?

‘From my experience, people with a perfectionist approach are highly motivated individuals who always strive for excellence. They have always been perfectionists, setting high standards for themselves and expecting the same from their colleagues,’ says David Cant CFIOSH, founder of Veritas Consulting, a health and safety consultancy. ‘However, they soon begin to feel overwhelmed by the constant pressure to be perfect. I found they were spending so much time striving for perfection that they could not be productive, and their work was suffering.’

For the OSH profession – when evaluating and managing risks that might mean the difference between life and death – striving for excellence could be considered an absolute necessity.

However, Gerard Hand, founder and director of training provider and health and safety consultancy, GPH Safety, and past president of IOSH, believes perfectionism is only possible if there is no human intervention. He says the video assistant referee (VAR) introduced in football provides an example of this.

‘VAR was supposed to remove mistakes but over one weekend, on two separate occasions, the humans who were operating VAR made mistakes,’ he says. ‘If you can mitigate all your risks through engineering [humans] out [of processes], you may have a chance [at perfectionism]. But, like VAR, if at any stage you have to involve humans, it may not be achievable.’

In health and safety, Gerard says, ‘The perfectionist approach is always looking for the perfect solution. This can be very beneficial from a risk point of view; however, it can also take more time and effort to achieve, sometimes leading to frustration. Pragmatic approaches to OSH, in my experience, tend to be very much hands-on and inclusive of the workforce, always trying to find a practical solution to the problem while maintaining focus on the business needs.’

David adds that people taking a pragmatic approach to OSH can be more efficient. People with pragmatism adopt a more practical, real-life approach, focusing on getting things done rather than making them perfect, he adds. ‘They could also work more collaboratively with their colleagues, as they were not always trying to impose their perfectionist standards on others.’

But can a pragmatic approach create safety failings? ‘It could lead to complacency towards safety, as decision-makers may become overly focused on quick solutions and not take the necessary time to consider all potential risks and hazards,’ David says.

A philosophy, and a trait

Being a pragmatist is at the heart of the OSH profession, according to Duncan Spencer, head of advice and practice at IOSH. ‘It is rooted in the role requirement to deliver competent judgement. It relates to the need to apply reasonable foresight and reasonable practicability. These principles lie at the heart of the legal system in many countries – including the UK – and can be tested,’ he says.

With the hindsight following an accident, people can disagree with the judgements applied, which can lead to ‘the pursuit of perfectionism in the hope the likelihood of being subject to such criticism is reduced,’ he adds. ‘The pursuit of perfectionism can drive a disproportionate response to risk.’

Dr Christopher Davis, thought leadership manager at IOSH, says we are served better if we don’t consider the ideas to be two points on a sliding scale, where perfectionism is perceived to be a step on from pragmatism. ‘Such a perspective inevitably positions pragmatism as something “to be settled for”,’ he says.

In addition, perfectionism is not an ‘approach’ in the way pragmatism is. Pragmatism is a philosophy, according to Dr Paul Spector, an industrial and organisational psychologist, but perfectionism is more of a personality characteristic. ‘I see them as totally different things. Some people are very pragmatic – they’re looking at goals and results, and their efforts at work are in service of these goals,’ he says.

‘Other people are not so pragmatic, and maybe they see the world in a broader sense. Some people are perfectionistic, and some people are not so perfectionistic. If you’re a perfectionist, it doesn’t serve the pragmatic goal very well. The pragmatist is thinking: “We need a solution – it may not be perfect, but it’s good enough.” Whereas the perfectionist may just be spinning wheels over and over, trying to get it perfect. But you cannot eliminate 100% of risk.’

Striking a balance

Paul believes perfectionism is driven largely by insecurity and anxiety about not meeting high personal standards or the fear they won’t meet high external standards. Striving for good work is essential, nevertheless. ‘We need perfectionism in our lives in small doses,’ he says. ‘I think there’s a balance. You need to make things as good as you can, but know when you’re overdoing it.’

And with that can come mental health issues, anxiety, depression and stress. ‘In the extreme, perfectionism can become like compulsiveness, and it can be driven by anxiety,’ Paul says. ‘For most people it’s not clinical – they just have a hard time letting go [of a piece of work] but they eventually do. But sometimes you get people who are just paralysed by it.’

David says any organisation’s OSH approach should be tailored to the risk associated with the work environment. ‘For example, a perfectionist approach to safety processes and procedures is essential in high-risk environments such as construction. On the other hand, a more pragmatic approach may be appropriate in low-risk environments, such as an office.

‘Both pragmatism and perfectionism have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to safety outcomes within an organisation. The best approach is to strike a balance between the two, using a practical and flexible approach to quickly address safety issues while striving for the best possible outcome.’

How safe is enough?

Where do pragmatism and perfectionism fit around proportionality, safe systems of work, standard work approaches and working effectively?

According to Duncan, proportionality is a bedfellow of pragmatism. ‘Consider a warehouse environment where MHE [mechanised handling equipment] shares the same areas as pedestrians,’ he says. ‘The list of possible control actions is almost endless. But if this is a warehouse that only has MHE moving in it a handful of times a day, and just for a few minutes each time, then the context supports the conclusion that not every possible control on the list is needed. If you have constant pedestrian and MHE movement sharing the same space at all times of the day, is the list long enough? The pragmatist would give you an answer, while the perfectionist would insist on the full list for both scenarios.’

What is important to note is that if impractical controls are imposed that do not match the context of the risk, it can damage OSH culture. Duncan adds: ‘In the UK, the promotion of over-zealous control strategies has given the OSH profession a poor reputation in individual organisations, in the press and in society. It undermines the importance of what the profession is trying to achieve. In my experience, managers and workers are more inclined to ignore controls if they are perceived to be over-zealous.’

David adds that a perfectionist approach can mean the ‘idea of proportionality is often disregarded, as it focuses on eliminating all risk rather than balancing it with practical considerations’. And Christopher points out that it would be remiss of OSH professionals – or entirely unpragmatic – to always expect perfection from them. ‘In reality, it is reasonable to argue that workers do not share the same level of enthusiasm for safety and health as practitioners themselves,’ he says.

‘The choice facing practitioners is twofold. They can attempt single-handedly to manage every single risk in the workplace, taking any decision-making or autonomy out of workers’ hands. On the other hand, they can be pragmatic. In this second scenario, ongoing participation and buy-in from workers are necessary. In my experience, this is unlikely to happen if expectations are set unfeasibly high.’

Leading the way

Leaders will enable the effectiveness of an approach and its impact on an organisation, Gerard says. ‘If a business leader is aligned more to expecting perfection, then the OSH professional with the same style will achieve more positive results. Again, this would be demonstrated in positive statistics.’

Ultimate accountability lies with directors and, through good governance, they must set policy and strategy, and satisfy themselves that the right safety management systems are in place and properly resourced, Gerard says. He points out that directors cannot be everywhere at once and they can achieve their aims through inspiring others to apply resources effectively and report when the goals set cannot be achieved.

‘If, however, the leader is pragmatically driven, then a perfectionist approach would normally be challenged and deemed to be working against the business, and this could be deemed as less productive for others. Leadership aligned to the same way of thinking as their OSH professional is one of the biggest factors in success for the organisation,’ Gerard adds.

Paul explains that if leaders expect perfection, motivation and morale will be destroyed. ‘If people feel whatever they do isn’t good enough, they get afraid to do anything or get to the point where they say it doesn’t matter.’ David adds: ‘Perfectionist leaders can be highly demanding and critical, leading to high stress and burnout among employees.’

Ultimately, directors as organisational leaders are responsible for setting policy and a strategy for improving performance, Duncan says. ‘They must ask the right questions to check that the right safety management systems are in place and demonstrably working. How they do this is about providing resources and inspiring others to take the necessary actions so their goals can be achieved. That is leadership.’

This has a positive effect on OSH and, in turn, the OSH culture reflects the morale of the workforce. ‘The foundation of decisions concerning safety management systems is founded on the pragmatic identification and control of the organisation’s OSH risk profile,’ says Duncan. ‘This description is not about perfectionism. The concept is too simplistic. It’s about the pieces of the puzzle fitting neatly together.’

Image credit | iStock