Why is it important to care about small HSE violations in manufacturing companies?
Shouldn't we only care about injuries & deaths?
Only if we want the company to fail and workers to die.
(thread)
2/ Yesterday, I pointed out that a famous automotive company has a lot of OSHA violations. The most common response I got is that those relate to meaningless violations.
Perhaps. But only in a theoretical ideal world, meaningless violations are unrelated to incidents.
3/ In the real world, incidents *approximately* follow a pyramid as the below one (image from my book gum.co/opexbook).
The more "meaningless violations" a company has, the more a big incident is waiting to happen.
4/ Moreover, the more lax is management in safety, the more lax it is in general.
Based on my experience as an operational excellence consultant, given an industry, the company with the most incidents is also likely to have the poorest quality.
5/ (A clarification: here, I only talk about manufacturing. I do not know whether this also applies to, say, software.)
6/ Even more important than Health, Safety & Environmental violations, are violations in HSE reporting protocols.
For three reasons:
- They show bad faith
- They show terrible management
- They hide a problem, making it grow larger and larger
7/ Safety, and even more "meaningless violations of safety," are one of the most effective leading indicators to estimate the direction of manufacturing capabilities of a company.
If you care about a company, you should also care about "meaningless HSE violations."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.
Here is an example of why.
There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.
3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)
The reason is that we do not seek survival, but what feels like survival.
Any action that produces the same neurochemicals that we associate to pro-survival actions produces changes in our brain that make us desire it.
For example,
(thread, 1/N)
2/ For example, sugar gives us energy, and we need energy to survive.
When we eat sugar, our brain feels like we are increasing our chances of survival, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS THE CASE.
When we slowly kill ourselves through metabolic diseases, it still feels like survival.
3/ Our ancestors whose genes made them produce behavioral-reinforcing chemicals when they did something that increased their survival also tended to survive more.
Hence those genes spread. We ended up desiring repeating the actions that produced those neurochemicals.
Natural selection is inevitable, but we can choose whether it acts on us (bad) or within us (good).
Up to a point, of course, but imagine a company:
If uncompetitive, the market's meritocracy bankrupts it
But the company can protect itself by letting meritocracy work inside it
2/ Natural Selection acts on any entity and within any population.
The monolithic only suffers from NS, whereas populations suffer but also benefit from it.
In fact, the monolithic is fragile whereas populations can be antifragile.
We can apply this insight by realizing that…
3/ if we consider ourselves a population (of habits & beliefs), we can let natural selection remove those that are bad for us, making us stronger. It acts within us
Instead if we consider ourselves a monolithic identity, we cannot grow. We become the victims of natural selection
Often, the best approach is not A or B, but an alternation of A and B.
For example, action and reflection. Or study and application.
It’s not about balance, but about making hypotheses and verifying them.
Thread (1/N)
For example, the human cortex 🧠 is based on the principle of *alternating* two operations: expansion and compression of information.
Only one operation would not be able to achieve any meaningful result.
Instead,
3/ Instead, the cortex alternates these two steps:
- It expands information across all possible hypotheses, relevant or irrelevant.
- It compresses information, by eliminating the hypotheses that are proved wrong by sensorial stimuli and/or experience.