【EHS英文】@你，来谈谈安全与卓越绩效 @你

今天分享的是EHS英文，主题是-@你，来谈谈安全与卓越绩效，作者是Terry Mathis，中文为本公号创建人浦亮元翻译，全文3001字，欢迎阅读与分享！

Albert Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it to a five-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.” Some take this as an insult, but I have always thought of it as the ultimate challenge.

阿尔伯特.爱因斯坦曾说过，“如果你无法向5岁的孩子解释清楚，那么，你自己也根本不明白。”有些人认为这简直就是侮辱，但我却一直认为这是终极的挑战。

Can you really dig down to the essence of a matter and explain it in simple, understandable terms? We humans often overcomplicate matters. We begin with a few basic principles then expand them into countless specific examples. This process has produced most organization’s safety rules, coupled with legal departments wanting to cover liability at every possible contingency.

你真的能理解事物的本质，并能使用通俗易懂的说法进行解释吗？我们往往把事情搞得过于复杂化。我们会从一些基本原则开始，然后把那些原则延伸到无数个具体的例子中。这一流程产生了大多数组织的安全方面规则，另外，还要再加上希望在所有可能出现的情况中承担责任的法律部门。

The problem with having too many rules is they don’t direct efforts or efficiently align decision-making. They tend to overwhelm rather than direct. Our clients who achieve the best results in safety are striving to simplify, rather than to multiply, safety directives and efforts. They are boiling safety down to principles rather than rules. Principles direct efforts in a variety of situations, whereas rules and procedures focus on a few or even a single situation.

拥有太多规则的问题是：这些规则并不能直接指引工作的方向，或者对决策进行有效地调整。这些规则倾向于覆盖而不是指引。我们的客户在安全上取得了最佳的成果，正在努力简化，而不是增加安全上的方针和工作。他们正将安全归结到原则，而不是规则上。原则，指导各种情况下的工作，而规则和程序则是侧重于少数甚至单一下情况的工作。

Are your safety programs teaching workers how to make safe decisions or are your programs trying to make every possible decision for workers?

你的安全制度是教授工人如何做出安全的决定，还是尝试为工人做出每一个可能的决定？

This neither is an endorsement nor a condemnation of safety rules and procedures. Rather, it is a challenge to get to the real essence of safety. Once we understand what it really is about, the specific applications of it are more apparent and the need to memorize a list of how to deal with each and every specific situation is less critical.

这既不是对安全规则和安全程序的认可，也不是对这两者的谴责。相反，要了解安全的本质，确实是一个挑战。一旦我们了解了安全的真正含义，它的具体应用就更加显而易见了，而记住如何处理每一种列出的具体情况，就没那么重要了。

Once we understand a principle of safety, we look for specific situations in which it applies and even expand our thinking into similar situations. Just as children were taught to look both ways before crossing the street, they soon realized it might apply to a sidewalk, train track or pathway.

一旦我们理解了安全的原则，我们就会去寻找其所适用的具体情况，我们甚至会把思维延伸到类似的情况中。就像我们教育小孩子在过马路之前要看看两边一样，他们很快就会意识到那可能也适用于过人行道、火车道，或者小路。

Definition of Safety

安全的定义

When we ask workers their definition of safety, we get several common answers. These suggest that workers try to determine the real essence of safety but miss the mark in one way or another. Each of these answers suggests ways in which safety could be simplified and focused on the real, core issues that would empower them to make safer decisions:

我们问工人安全的定义，得到了一些常见的答案。这些答案显示工人尝试去确定安全的本质，但却以某种或者另一种方式避开了标准。所有这些答案都表明了安全的方式可以简化，并专注于实际，核心问题能让工人们做出更加安全的决定。

Safety is taking your time and not rushing. This answer is indicative of workers who have developed a dichotomy between pace and safety. They think accidents happen because one rushes. There can be truth to this view, but it also can be indicative of the lack of planning or pre-job inspection.

安全需要时间，而不是匆忙。这个答案表明工人在节奏和安全之间制定了两分法。他们认为事故的发生是由于某一次的匆忙。这一观点可能是真实的，但也可以表明规划或者岗前检查的缺乏。

Fast is not necessarily less safe. There usually are other factors that make fast work more risky. It also is dangerous to perpetuate the myth that speed is your only danger. You can work slowly and deliberately and still fail to recognize risks and take precautions. Rushing often is listed as a contributing factor in accidents, but less often is the only factor. In fact, rushing usually results in another oversight or shortcut which is the immediate cause of the accident.

速度快并非一定不那么安全。通常，还有其他的一些因素，会让快节奏的工作变得更具有风险。让速度作为唯一危险的观念进行延续下去是很危险的。你可以慢条斯理、不慌不忙地工作，但依然无法识别风险，并采取预防性的措施。匆忙，经常被列为事故的一个促成因素，但是作为唯一的因素却几率很小。实际上，匆忙，往往会导致另一个疏忽或捷径，这是导致事故发生的直接原因。

Safety is paying attention and thinking before you act. This answer presupposes that workers, given the opportunity, will identify and address risks. W. Edwards Deming said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”

安全要在行动之前多加关注和思考。这个答案的意味着，工人有机会识别和处理风险。W.爱德华兹·戴明说：“仅仅尽最大的努力是不够的，你必须知道应该该做什么，然后，再尽最大的努力。”

Workers without the experience and/or training often are not aware of certain risks. Experience actually can diminish the sense of danger in cases where workers have taken low-probability risks and gotten away without injury.

没有经验或者没有受过培训的工人，往往是不会意识到特定的风险的。实际上，经验可以减少工人冒更低风险的危险感，并不受伤害。

Hazard/risk analysis is not just a matter of common sense or paying attention. It is a technology which few have studied thoroughly and on which few workers have been trained. Deming likely would have replied that you must need to know what to pay attention to and what to think about before you act. Only then would this approach be effective.

危害/风险分析，不仅仅是常识或者需要关注。危险/风险分析，是一项很少有人深入研究过的技术，很少有工人接受过这种培训。戴明可能已经回答，你必须知道应该注意什么，在行动之前，应该考虑什么。唯有如此，这种方法才会有效。

Safety is following the rules and procedures and wearing your personal protective equipment (PPE). This response has been conditioned into many workers through safety training and meetings. Organizations have relied on rules, procedures and PPE to provide what the safety hierarchy of controls labels “administrative controls.” This is secondary to addressing the hazard through conditional means such as removal or substitution of the hazard with something less hazardous or non-hazardous.

安全，是遵循规则和程序，并穿戴个人防护用品（PPE）。通过安全培训和安全会议，这种回答，已经被不少工人接受。组织依靠规则、程序和PPE，来提供称作“管理控制”的安全层次结构。这对于通过有条件的手段来处理危害是次要的，例如，用危险性较低或者没有危险的手段，去消除或取代危害。

At the root of this is the mindset that worker behavior either is another risk to be controlled or another tool to control risks. Interestingly, when you ask workers if they can obey all the rules, follow all the procedures, wear the prescribed PPE and still get injured on the job, they overwhelmingly answer, “Yes!”

这种心态的根源在于，员工的行为要么是另一种需要被控制的风险，要么是另一种控制风险的工具。有趣的是，当你问工人是否能遵守所有安全规则，遵循所有安全程序，穿上规定的个人防护用品，并仍然在工作中受伤时，他们会压倒性地回答道：“是的！”

The fact that workers readily admit their approach to safety is not complete or perfect suggests that safety still has some mystery or unknown factors for most workers. Most oversimplifications have obvious exceptions. True principles, on the other hand, do not. Principles are absolutes; they either are principles or they are not. When you try to get to the core of safety but can think of exceptions, you are not there yet!

实际上，工人们欣然承认他们的安全方法并不完整或者完美，这表明，对于大多数工人来讲，安全上仍然有一些难以理解的因素，或者未知的因素。而最通俗化的因素，显然是排除在外的！另一方面，真正的原则，是不能排除在外的。原则是绝对的；它们要么是原则，要么就不是。当你试图抓到安全的核心时，可以想到例外，但你还没有抓到安全的核心！

Simple definitions of what safety is, and is not, have proven to streamline and direct safety decisions for workers. Such definitions also can be principles which enhance a deep understanding of core issues. In five-year-old terms, we define safety as having three-parts: knowing what can hurt you, knowing how to keep it from hurting you and doing it every time without fail. In adult terms, we call it hazard recognition, taking those precautions every time. Accidents happen when workers either don’t know the risk, don’t know the proper precaution to take for that risk or fail to take the precaution.

简单的定义安全是什么，安全不是什么，已经证明可以简化和指导工人在安全上的决策。这些定义，也可以成为加深对核心问题进行深刻理解的原则。用5岁孩子的语言来说，我们把安全定义为拥有三个部分：知道什么能伤害到你，知道如何让你不受伤害，每次都要做到万无一失。按照成年人的说法，会将其称之为危害识别，每次都采取预防性的措施。事故发生时，工人们要么不知道风险，要么不知道采取什么样的预防性的措施，要么没能采取预防性的措施。

Avoid overcomplicating safety for workers. Give them the core definitions and clearly define how safety decisions should be made. Dispel the oversimplified definitions and focus on the true principles rather than the specific applications. Think of workers as the customers of your safety programs, not the problems to be controlled. Don’t try to govern workers. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

对工人而言，要避免过于复杂的安全。给他们安全的核心定义，明确定义如何做出安全的决定。消除过于简单的安全定义，专注于真正的安全原则，而不是具体的应用。将工人看作是安全方面的客户，而不是需要去加以控制的问题。不要尝试去管理工人。请教授他们正确的安全原则，让他们去管理自己。

The END