Lightning Rods This month I’m returning to one of my favorite topics, safety. However, this isn’t just about safety practices, procedures and personal protection equipment; it’s about people, especially those who just seem to have more accidents than others. If you’ve worked in the field very long, you’ve seen them—folks that seem to attract accidents like rig lights attract rattlesnakes when drilling at night. When I worked in the field, we called these guys lightning rods. What causes these people to be so accident-prone? There are several reasons:
Work on accident-proneness began in 1919 in a British munitions factory. A study by two psychologists, Major Greenwood and Hilda M. Woods, found that accidents were unevenly distributed among workers even though all of them had the same safety training, the same precautionary advice and the same safety equipment. A similar study in the 1920s by Karl Marbe indicated that people who have one accident are more likely to have another one than people who never had one before. Further work in the 1930s and 1940s confirmed these early studies. In a 1945 analysis of accident-prone people, they were described as impulsive, drawn to adventure and excitement, always in search of immediate pleasures with an inability to plan ahead and a general resentment toward authority. In several instances, everyone at the facility was provided with supplemental safety training. There was still a small group that accounted for most of the accidents. Not surprisingly, it was the same group as before the training. In much of this early work, it was assumed that the accident-prone workers were either hardheaded, self-destructive or not very intelligent. The solution to the problem back then was simply to fire the offending worker and rid the facility of the accident source. Of course, that worker then went to another facility carrying his accident-proneness with him. Several psychoanalysts joined the fray in the late 20th century and early 2000s. They found that accident-prone workers were subconsciously motivated by guilt and a self-punitive urge. The physical pain, psychic suffering and inconvenience of an accident are viewed as punishment that relieves guilt. Alternatively, the accident-prone person may be attempting to avoid responsibility or get “sympathy mileage” from an injury. F. David Pierce, a well known safety professional, studied 10,500 accidents for 25 employers between 1999 and 2003. Employees involved were interviewed and tested. Pierce found that the there were four definable social styles present in most workers: 1) Driver (risk-takers and deep-thinkers), 2) Analytical (risk-avoiders and deep-thinkers), 3) Amiable (risk-avoiders and feeling-reactors), and 4) Expressive (risk-takers and feeling-reactors). The members of this last group were more than twice as likely to be involved in an accident as others. Pierce and psychologist E. Scott Geller studied the safety programs of employers with a significant number of accidents. They found that many safety programs had incentives for staying injury-free. These programs focused on outcomes rather than the safety process. Clearly, the statistics show that personality plays a very big role in accident-proneness. To paraphrase Dr. Geller, incentives will be trumped by personality every time. Geller’s approach is to have all workers involved in planning safety programs and procedures for any job. This bottom-up approach puts the accident-prone individual on a team with his co-workers, all of them equally responsible for accident avoidance. Another suggestion has been to more closely supervise crews until safe work procedures and processes become second nature to all. “Boots on the floor” supervision means that someone else will have to answer the phone, send out emails and fill out forms in the company man’s office (we used to have clerks to do that work). Eventually, the accident-prone worker will figure out that all of this is for his/her benefit. Nobody deserves to be hurt on the job, not even the accident-prone.. Les Skinner, a Houston-based consultant and a chemical engineering graduate from Texas Tech University, has 35 years of experience in drilling and well control with major and independent operators.
|
- Using data to create new completion efficiencies (February 2024)
- Digital tool kit enhances real-time decision-making to improve drilling efficiency and performance (February 2024)
- E&P outside the U.S. maintains a disciplined pace (February 2024)
- Prices and governmental policies combine to stymie Canadian upstream growth (February 2024)
- U.S. operators reduce activity as crude prices plunge (February 2024)
- U.S. producing gas wells increase despite low prices (February 2024)