“Three misconceptions about “strictness” – security professionals, take a look!

Thread Content

This post was last edited by yinkuilin6868 on 2016-5-29 at 10:56. Security management requires strictness, but many companies have a mistaken understanding of what \"strictness\" entails; there are typically three such misunderstandings. The first is equating strictness with an increasing stack of additional requirements； Second, strict equivalence equals verbosity ； Third, strict equivalence equals brutality. Firstly, it will be strictly equivalent to imposing increasingly stricter requirements. For example, a group may set the target for its subsidiary companies as zero death accidents; the subsidiary companies may set the target for the manufacturing units as zero serious injuries; the manufacturing units may set the target for their departments and workshops as zero minor injuries; and the departments and workshops may set the target for their teams as zero violations of regulations. If the assessment targets are not met, leaders at the corresponding levels will not be eligible for recognition or awards, and the bonuses of all employees will be affected. The reason why companies impose increasingly strict requirements is to enforce strict management and ensure the achievement of goals. On the surface, if there are no violations within a team, then there will be no minor injuries in the department or workshop, no serious injuries in the company, and no deaths in its subsidiary companies... Wait, that’s a bookworm’s way of thinking! ! ! It is extremely difficult for a work team to avoid committing any violations at all. Such unrealistic assessment methods do not motivate employees; instead, they lead to resistance among them, resulting in the concealment of unsafe behaviors, near-misses, and minor injuries, which hinders accident prevention. Secondly, strictness is equivalent to complexity. For example, an operational risk can be fully controlled in three steps, but now it requires five steps ； It could have been done with just one form, but now three forms are needed, and the number of fields in each form has increased to over 10. For the special-class hot work at a company reviewed by the author, 6 approval procedures are required. The first level is the team leader, and the last level is the general manager; however, the author found that tasks for which the fire safety conditions and measures did not meet the requirements were still approved at each level. Upon inquiry, the team leader said that the approvers at the later stages would handle it, the general manager said that those at the earlier stages had already done their part, and those in the intermediate stages claimed that there were approvers at both the early and late stages... As a result, a great deal of time and effort is spent on approvals and filling out forms, yet neither the approvers nor those who fill out the forms really think things through. Despite various layers of oversight, in actual implementation, thoroughness and precision were not maintained. Thirdly, strictness will be equated with brutality. For example, some security managers believe that scolding people with a stern expression constitutes strict requirements. But the employees do not agree to accept it. Being strict is done for the safety of employees; issues need to be addressed from the employees’ perspective ； And rudeness often stems from the manager’s own perspective, being an inappropriate outlet for their own negative emotions. It should be noted that even from the employees’ perspective, methods and approaches need to be considered. Currently, humanized management has become the trend, but some managers mistakenly equate it entirely with weakness and flexibility. It should be understood that strict management and humanized management are not contradictory; strict management is an integral part of humanized management. Humanized management should start from human nature, combining firmness with flexibility!