Introduction - Human Factors Focus

Introduction for Leaders (Use Prior to Monday’s Toolbox Talk)

Purpose for Supervisors:
This month, our toolbox talks will focus on Human Factors—how people, systems, tools, environment, and organizational pressures interact to influence performance. The goal is not to fix people, but to better understand work as it’s done and improve the systems that support it.

Key Message to Set the Tone:
Human error is a symptom of a brittle system—not a root cause. Most incidents don’t happen because someone didn’t care or wasn’t trained. They happen when normal human behavior meets system weaknesses, pressure, or uncertainty.

How Leaders Should Frame These Toolbox Talks:

• This is a learning month, not an enforcement month
• The objective is to learn where the system is brittle so that we can begin to improve the system and improve safety performance —when we do this, we are not assigning fault – instead we are learning.
• Speaking up, slowing down, and raising concerns are signs of professionalism – encouraging your team members to do the same is another sign of professionalism.

What to Say to the Team:

“Throughout the month, we’re going to talk about human factors—the things that make work harder or easier. These conversations are about learning and improving how work is designed and supported, not about blaming individuals.” I hope that these toolbox talks will generate good discussion.

Monday - What Is the Illusion of Efficiency?

Key message: This week we will discuss how efficiency (or maybe short cuts) that look good on the surface can quietly increase risk.

Discussion:
The illusion of efficiency happens when shortcuts, workarounds, or “getting it done faster” seem productive—but introduce risk into the system. Skipping steps, multitasking, rushing, or relying on memory instead of tools can make work feel smoother today while setting us up for errors tomorrow. Humans are hardwired to be efficient.  All of us will look for ways to do things faster – the problem is risks are often not considered when we are skipping steps, multi-tasking and just trying to get the job done faster.

Here is a Real‑World Example:
A team member needs to clear a minor jam on a machine. Instead of completing the full lockout/tagout (LOTO) process, they shut the machine off at the control panel, assuming it’s safe because:

• “I’ll only be a minute”
• “I’ve done this a hundred times”
• “Production is waiting”

Why the Shortcut Happens:

• Time pressure to get the line running again
• Confidence based on experience and past success
• The task feels routine and low risk
• Full LOTO takes longer than the perceived need

Why It Feels Like the Right Choice:
The machine stops. Nothing bad happens most of the time. The shortcut appears efficient and effective, reinforcing the behavior.

The Hidden Risk:
Energy is not fully isolated. Stored or unexpected energy can cause unexpected movement, exposing the worker to serious injury.

Human Factors at Play:

• Illusion of efficiency (“This is faster”)
• Outcome bias (“It worked last time”)
• Experience-based confidence 
• Drift into failure (shortcut becomes normalized)

Ask the Group:

• Where do we feel pressure to be fast rather than thorough?
• What shortcuts have become “normal” around here?
• What is one thing we could change to make the job easier AND safer?

Takeaway:
If efficiency only works when everything goes perfectly, it’s probably fragile.

Tuesday – Why the Brain Loves the Illusion

Key Message:
Human’s seek the path of least resistance.  We naturally seek efficiency, even when it increases risk.

Discussion:
Our brains are wired to conserve effort and reduce workload. Under time pressure, fatigue, or production demands, we rely on habits, assumptions, and pattern recognition. That’s not a flaw, it’s a human factor.

The danger isn’t human behavior. The danger is systems that depend on perfect performance under pressure. People are not perfect, we are bound to make mistakes.  We need systems to be more resilient so that when we do make mistakes we don’t end up with catastrophic failures like serious injuries.

Real‑World Example:
An operator skips or rushes a required pre‑use inspection on equipment (forklift, scissor lift, truck, crane, or powered tool) so they can:

• Start work faster
• Avoid delaying production or shipments
• Meet daily output targets

The inspection card gets checked or not filled out at all without verifying the equipment’s condition.

Why the Shortcut Is Incentivized

This shortcut doesn’t happen because people don’t know better. It happens because the system quietly rewards speed and output:

• Production metrics outweigh safety metrics
• Operators are praised for “keeping things moving”
• Delays trigger scrutiny or frustration from supervisors
• No immediate consequence most of the time

Why It Feels Like the Right Decision

From the worker’s perspective:

• “I used this forklift yesterday, nothing’s changed”
• “The inspection takes longer than the job”
• “I’ll notice if something’s wrong”
• “Everyone does it when we’re busy

The shortcut feels efficient and is often socially reinforced. The Signal sent by the system: “Getting started quickly matters more than checking.”

The Hidden Safety Risk

Skipped inspections can miss:

• Faulty brakes or steering
• Worn forks or chains
• Hydraulic leaks
• Inoperable warning devices

When a failure finally occurs, it’s sudden—and often severe. 

Ask the Group:

• When we’re rushed or tired, what steps are most likely to be skipped?
• Where do hidden risks exist for us?

Takeaway:
If a task depends on people never slipping, the system needs improvement.

Wednesday – When Efficiency Creates Brittleness

Key Message:
Brittle systems often fail badly when conditions change.

Discussion:
Brittle systems work only under ideal conditions. They don’t handle variation, interruptions, or unexpected events well. The illusion of efficiency hides brittleness until something goes wrong—then failures cascade quickly. If a system depends on perfect timing, perfect memory, perfect communication, or perfect conditions, it’s fragile, even if it looks efficient on paper.

Brittle systems don’t usually fail suddenly. They fail after:

• Repeated success with hidden risks 
• Small adjustments to “make it work”
• Growing reliance on experience instead of design
• Pressure to maintain output

When conditions change, the system has nowhere to absorb the impact so people absorb it instead, often as a significant injury.

How Brittleness Shows Up at Work

Here are some recognizable cues that indicate the system might be brittle: 

• Work only flows if certain people are present
• A task works “as long as nothing unusual happens”
• There’s no backup when things go sideways
• Shortcuts feel necessary to keep up
• People say, “We don’t have time to do it the right way”

These are not signs of bad workers, they are signs of weak system resilience.

Real‑World Example:
A packaging line uses a small conveyor with a guarded pinch point. The OEM jam‑clearing tool is awkward and often missing. Over time, crews develop a faster workaround: “bump stop” the conveyor with the HMI, reach in with a gloved hand, and flick the carton back into place. It works, dozens of times, without incident.

The Day Things Change:

• Staffing: Short one mechanic; operator is covering two stations.
• Pressure: A rush order is due before shift end.
• Environment: Loud area; radio traffic is heavy.
• Equipment condition: The conveyor’s stop/start relay has begun to stick intermittently (unknown to the operator).

Event Sequence (how brittleness is exposed):

1. Operator sees a small jam at the guard edge.
2. Uses the familiar workaround: taps “STOP” on the HMI; the belt appears to stop.
3. Without the OEM tool available, reaches into the guarded zone to clear the carton.
4. The sticky relay releases and the belt unexpectedly bump forward.
5. The operator’s gloved fingers are pinched and crushed between the moving belt and guard.

Injury:
Crush injury to fingers resulting in fractures and lacerations; lost‑time case and surgery required.

Why This System Was Brittle (even though it looked efficient)

• Design relies on perfect stopping: No verified zero‑energy state for clearing jams; “STOP” is assumed sufficient.
• Tooling availability: OEM jam‑clearing tool is hard to use and often missing, team members just want to get the job done and placing hands in the line of fire to clear the jam makes sense.   
• Production pressure: On‑time output is consistently praised; “fast fixes” become part of normal work.
• Normalization of workaround: Success under risk (many people clear the jam this way and no one gets injured. This creates confidence and routine “efficiencies” or “short cut”.
• Single point of failure: A sticky relay turns a minor variation into a serious hazard; there’s no buffer (e.g., lockout/verify, secondary block).
• Communication load: Loud area and multitasking reduce attention and increase reliance on habit.

What Made the Unsafe Choice Make Sense in the Moment

• Stopping felt controlled (visual stop on the belt).
• The workaround had an excellent success history.
• The safer method (proper isolation/blocking + tool) was slower and harder.
• Social proof: “Everyone does it this way when we’re busy.”
• We just tap STOP, it’s fine.”
• “The tool’s never around; this is faster.”
• “We’re slammed; just clear it.”
• “The belt sometimes bumps after stop, just watch your hands.”
• Jams are common, but near misses aren’t captured because they’re seen as routine.

Learning, Not Blame - What to Change in the System

Eliminate the need for hands in:

• Redesign the guard to include tool‑access slots and visible jam‑clear zones.
• Standardize and stage OEM jam tools at every conveyor (shadow boards, checks).

Create a verified safe state:

• Add an interlocked guard that positively isolates motion when opened.
• Implement a jam‑clear routine: stop, verify zero movement, apply physical block (where applicable), use tool, no hands.

Reduce pressure‑driven drift:

• Align metrics: pair on‑time performance with safe process adherence (audit routine, not outcome).
• Encourage near miss reporting for conveyor bumps and sticky relays; treat as learning signals.

Strengthen detection and maintenance:

• Add weekly checks for relay function; tag out intermittent behavior immediately.
• Empower operators to pause without penalty when stop reliability is questionable.

There are lots of fixes for this brittle system.  Often time we only fix things after an injury.  If we take the time to learn where brittleness exists and build more resilience into the system we stand a greater chance of being injury free..

Ask the Group:

• Where does our work have no room for error or delay?
• What processes break down under pressure?
• “What parts of our work don’t handle surprises well?”
• “What happens when something unexpected shows up?”

Take Away:

“Strong systems flex. Weak systems fracture.”

Thursday – Redefining What “Good Work” Looks Like

Key Message:
Safe work includes adjustments, checks, and pauses, not just speed.

Discussion:
True performance balances efficiency and reliability. That means building in:

• Time to verify
• Space to ask questions
• Tools that support the worker
• Permission to slow down when conditions change

This isn’t about working slower, it’s about working smarter and safer.

Real‑World Example:
In the finished‑goods area, forklifts shuttle pallets from the wrapper to shipping. A stacked row of empties sits near a T‑intersection. Over time, the stack has crept higher to “save floor space,” partially blocking the view down the cross‑aisle. Traffic is heavy at shift change; pedestrians use the same path to reach the breakroom.

Hidden Risk Discovered:
A shipping associate (Ava) notices that drivers slow aggressively at the corner and sometimes “nose out” to see oncoming traffic. She observes two near misses in a week: one forklift vs forklift and one forklift vs pedestrian, as well as fresh scuff marks on the floor at the corner (evidence of hard braking). No incident has been reported because “nothing actually happened.”

What Ava Does:

• Brings it to the supervisor with specifics, not general complaints: 
  • Photos of the stacked empties blocking the sightline
  • Notes on time-of-day patterns (rush around 2:45–3:15)
  • A quick tally: 14 movements through the corner in 10 minutes
• Suggests simple fixes: convex mirror, stop line, and pallet stack relocation

Supervisor Response (Learning Over Blame)

1. Rapid check: Supervisor walks the area with Ava and a driver; confirms limited sight distance and shared pedestrian path.
2. Short Learning Huddle (15 minutes):
   • Who uses the corner? What’s the peak volume?
   • What makes slowing/seeing hard? (line of sight, pressure to keep flow moving)
   • What has already gone right? (drivers honking, slowing, informal hand signals)
3. Immediate Controls (same day):
   • Install a convex safety mirror
   • Paint a stop line and pedestrian crossing with clear right‑of‑way rules
   • Move empty pallets to a marked, low‑profile zone away from the corner
   • Add “Sound horn, stop, look” signage at driver eye level
4. Thanks Ava and Team publicly (same day)
   • Thanking Ava publicly for being proactive makes Ava feel heard and valued
   • Making praise public will encurage others to speak up and be proactive 
   • Thanking thse that helped solve the problem, builds trust within a team
5. System Follow‑Up (within two weeks):
   • Update traffic plan: one‑way forklift flow through the T‑intersection during peak periods
   • Add floor tape lanes for pedestrians; relocate the breakroom door’s path away from the corner
   • Brief all shifts; include in new‑hire orientation and pre‑shift reminders
   • Spot‑audit weekly for drift (stacks creeping back, mirror alignment, paint wear)

Result: Safer and More Efficient

• • Drivers report lower stress and fewer “hard stop” moments
  • Pedestrians have a dedicated, visible crossing
  • One‑way flow reduces deadlock and backing maneuvers
  • Average transit time through the zone drops (less hesitation, clearer rules)
  • Fewer micro‑stops and congestion → smoother, predictable throughput
  • Ava’s observation is praised publicly; more employees start reporting weak signals
  • The team sees that small, practical changes (visual controls, layout) can remove risk and improve performance

Ask the Group:

• What makes it hard to speak up or pause the work?

Takeaway:
Good workers don’t eliminate risk, they manage it and get help to reduce risk.

Friday – Turning Awareness Into Action

Key Message:
Learning beats blaming, especially when efficiency creates risk.

Discussion:
When incidents or near misses happen, instead of asking “Who messed up?” ask:

• What made the shortcut seem like the right choice?
• What pressure or constraint was present?
• What can we change in the system?

This is how we learn and improve without blame.

Real‑World Example:
A manufacturing site runs a high‑speed packaging line. Over several weeks, maintenance responds to multiple belt misalignments during changeovers. No one is injured, but operators report:

• Frequent “quick adjustments”
• Rushed restarts
• Minor jam clears just inside the guarded area

Historically, these would have been chalked up to “procedural noncompliance. “As part of the focus in March on Human Factors, the supervisor lead a toolbox talk on Drifting into Failure.

Instead of reminding everyone to “follow the procedure,” the supervisor said:

“This week we’re talking about how small changes can slowly move work into risk. I’m not here to figure out who’s doing something wrong. I want to understand where our system might be getting brittle.”

That sentence set the psychological safety needed for learning.

During the discussion, an operator decided to speak up: “The alignment check is supposed to take 12 minutes, but during changeovers we’re expected back up in under 8. When it doesn’t line up the first time, we just tweak it and restart.”

Another adds:

“We usually don’t shut all the way down for minor fixes because we’d never hit the schedule.”

No names. No blame. Just reality.

Instead of correcting the team members, the supervisor started asking learning‑oriented questions:

• “What makes the full alignment check hard to complete during changeovers?”
• “Where do we lose time in the process?”
• “What’s got to go perfectly for the procedure to work as written?”
• “When things go wrong, where’s the least forgiving step?”

These questions helped the supervisor reveal system brittleness, not human failure.

Through discussion, the team was able to identify:

• The alignment procedure assumes no interruptions
• Tools needed are stored across the aisle
• The guard design requires awkward access
• The schedule allows zero recovery time
• Restart authority is unclear, so people rush to avoid escalation

The process only works under ideal conditions, classic brittleness.

The team worked together to take Immediate Actions (Within Days)

• Alignment tools staged at point of use
• A two‑minute “verify before restart” pause added, formally approved
• Guard access modified so hands don’t need to approach the belt
• Clear rule: only one restart authority during changeover

Short‑Term System Changes (Within 30 Days)

• Changeover schedule adjusted to reflect real alignment time
• Alignment checks redesigned as two shorter steps built into the flow
• Visual indicator added to confirm true belt tracking before restart
• Near misses around changeovers are logged as learning signals, not write‑ups

The Results 

Safety

• Zero belt‑related near misses in the next quarter
• No hand‑in‑line jam clearing observed
• Increased early reporting of weak signals

Efficiency

• Fewer unplanned stops
• Faster overall changeovers (less rework and restart failures)
• Less stress during peak production windows

Culture

• Operators engage more actively in toolbox talks
• Supervisors are seen as problem‑solvers, not enforcers
• “Nothing happened” stops being the definition of success

What Made the Difference?

•  The toolbox talk wasn’t a lecture
• The supervisor assumed positive intent
• Questions targeted the system, not the person
• Actions followed learning, quickly and visibly

The talk didn’t end with “be careful. “It ended with system redesign.

Ask the Group:

• Where does this process break down when conditions change?” 
• “What are people compensating for to make this work?” 
• “If a new hire had to do this alone, where would they struggle most?
• “What’s one small change that would add margin?”

DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION 

Tags: safety topics , Safety Brief , efficiency , human factors ,