March 22, 2024 • 16 mins
Have you ever wondered how a sprinkle of positive reinforcement can ignite a rigorous safety culture in a laboratory? Prepare to be enlightened as your Lab Safety Gurus, Dan Scungio and Sean Kaufman, unveil the pivotal role of accountability and compliance in fostering a dynamic lab environment. In our latest episode, we dissect the art of encouraging positive safety behaviors, where observation meets opportunity for immediate course correction. With an intriguing look at how a 5 to 1 ratio of positive to negative feedback can revolutionize staff performance, we promise you'll walk away with actionable strategies to uplift and inspire your team to maintain the highest safety standards.
Step into the world of compliance as an attitude, not just a checklist, and grasp the profound power of trust in shaping a lab's ethos. We, along with our guests, delve into how a simple phrase, "we don't do that here," can cement a shared dedication to safety protocols. As we explore the nuanced dance between mentoring and disciplinary action, gain insights on how to deftly handle non-compliance. By emphasizing mentorship and positive reinforcement, we show you how to nurture a culture of safety that upholds integrity and excellence. Join us on this journey, and together let's pledge to a future where every lab is a bastion of safety and responsibility.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Lab Safety Guru's Podcast.
I'm Dan Scungio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And I'm Sean Coffin, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Together.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Okay, Dan, so I've got a couple questions for you.
Oh, I'm afraid, Sean, but yougo right ahead, Alright.
So we're talking about safety,but let's talk a little bit
about the behaviors of safetyand how do we motivate people to
actually behave.
And so here's my question youready?
I'm ready.
(00:40):
How do you hold somebodyaccountable to a safety
expectation?
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I would say that I hold somebody accountable by
observing and correcting when Isee something that's not correct
, when I see something that'snot safe.
That's part of my job.
I feel like I hold peopleaccountable as I do site visits,
(01:13):
as I go through laboratories,as I talk to them, when I see
something that puts them into asituation of immediate danger.
If you're pouring chemical andyou're not wearing any kind of
face protection or using a faceshield of some sort, I'm going
to talk to you about that rightaway.
I'm going to try to hold youaccountable for your safety's
sake.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Okay, let me ask you this, Dan If you see someone
following the rules and actuallyeven exceeding expectations, do
you hold them accountable?
Speaker 1 (01:46):
In a different way, but I do.
There's actual science behindthat.
So if you, the listener, havenot heard this, there's actual
science that will tell you thatit's better to give people
positive feedback, which isanother type of accountability,
than it is to give the negativefeedback.
So, in other words, the ratioshould be 5 to 1.
(02:08):
Yes, so there was a study donewith school children.
This was in Hampton, virginia,not too far from where I am in
Williamsburg, and they split afirst grade class like into two
groups.
In the first group they justkind of sort of criticized when
they got something wrong, didsomething wrong.
In the other group, theycomplimented, they gave props to
(02:32):
, they built them up all thetime.
What a great job you're doing.
This is great.
A 5 to 1 ratio of positives toany kind of a negative statement
.
And that group that got the 5to 1, their grades were so much
higher, the work they put outwas so much better.
It was an amazing difference.
And they teach that when you'retalking to people in laboratory
(02:54):
safety and I do it all the timeIf I see somebody wearing a lab
coat and maybe once in mycareer with them, I had to tell
them to put on a lab coat, Isaid oh my gosh, you look great
in white.
That is a good color on you.
And make sure I make positivecomments about what they're
doing and doing and some people.
You know one of my jobs, one ofthe things I do as a lab safety
(03:15):
officer, is I look for issuesand I'll take pictures of them,
because I always collect mysafety eyes pictures, as I call
them so people can look at themand identify the issue.
But when I see somebody doingsomething right, sometimes I'll
just take a picture and say, hey, can I get your picture?
This is the exact correct wayto do this.
You look great doing it and I'dlove to have your picture in.
My safety eyes count and theydo that.
(03:36):
So that's just another positiveyou give.
So definitely.
I don't know if I ever lookedat it as holding someone
accountable but in a way, youare.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
It is, dan, it is.
It's a positive way to do it,absolutely so the three types of
accountability, I reallypromote the very first one.
Like you said, you've got tohave positive accountability,
and that's one of the hardestthings to teach people Certainly
leaders is listen.
(04:05):
If we've set expectations, youshould actually be giving, like
you said, on a ratio of five toone, because that is exactly
what the science says.
For every five, or for everyone, what we call constructive
accountability, for every one,you should be giving five
positive accountabilities.
You know, supportive,affirmative accountability is
(04:28):
really what we call it.
Now, dan, when you giveaccountability and you're
talking about identifying abehavior that's not living up to
expectation, there are twotypes of accountability
associated with that.
One is constructive and one isdestructive.
How would you separate thosetwo?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
I think constructive accountability is something that
doesn't hit the person where ithurts, so to speak.
So a destructive comment wouldbe something like you know, I
wish you could be smarter aboutyour job and protect your eyes
while you're working with openspecimens or chemicals.
(05:12):
That's not a very helpfulcomment.
You're actually attacking theperson's.
You know intelligence.
It's just not the way to goabout it.
I think there are constructiveways to say it.
I think you have to be reallycareful when somebody's in the
middle of their work and you'retrying to talk to them about
safety, and you have to have theright tenor to what you're
(05:36):
saying in order to make itpositive and constructive.
You want them to remember theinteraction and you want them to
think that it was a positiveinteraction and constructive
means they understood why yousaid something, they understood
why you felt the need to saysomething and they remember it
(05:58):
and then, hopefully, they followthrough and continue with the
safer behavior that you'veintroduced to them.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
We're talking about that.
No, everything you said I like.
Look, constructiveaccountability has one goal, in
my opinion, dan.
First and foremost, I have totell you, sometimes constructive
accountability is going to belike throwing a grenade and
saying it's not going to hurt.
Even when it's done tactfully,it could still hurt because
(06:23):
people may take it in a way thatchallenges their credibility,
their competency, theirproficiency.
So, even when you do ittactfully, it may not be as
painless as you want it to be,but here's the goal.
This is the goal ofconstructive accountability.
You ready, dan, I'm ready.
The person leaves theconversation eager and motivated
(06:46):
to continue to try again.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yeah, I like that.
I like that a lot.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's got to be the goal, because destructive
accountability is when theyleave the exchange.
Giving up.
That's destructiveaccountability.
Yeah, that's it.
I have literally destroyedtheir motivation of even wanting
to try again.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
And I think people do that.
I think they do that with themode of approach that they have
in a situation.
It takes tact, it takes acertain personality to be able
to coach people regarding safetyand to walk away from that with
success and with the ability tocome back to that person again
(07:37):
at a later time.
It's not easy.
That's all relationship.
And putting money in their bank, that's part of that.
Five to one, but putting moneyin their bank so that they
remember that you're on theirside and not an enemy.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
That's so important.
Yeah, now let me tell you we'regoing to go to the phase two
part.
I wanted to talk aboutaccountability and compliance,
and a lot of people confusethose two and we've got to
separate them.
They are so it's so important.
Now we've talked about threeaspects of accountability
Affirmative accountability,where you should be doing that
(08:15):
more often than constructiveaccountability, and then what we
would consider destructiveaccountability.
So again, affirmative,constructive and destructive.
But here's my question to you,dan you ready?
Mm-hmm, what does compliancemean to you?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
I think, simply put, compliance is following the
rules.
Very good, it's following theprocedures and the rules.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
So what if I were to tell you that compliance, from a
psychological standpoint, isn'tan outcome of behavior.
It's not whether or not you'redoing the behavior or not.
That's accountability.
What if compliance is aattitude?
What if it's actually acommitment to actually
(09:07):
sacrificing self-autonomy forthe betterment of the
organization or the bettermentof the collective group?
That compliance isunderstanding the expectation
and saying I'm willing to followthat expectation.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
That makes me wonder doesn't there have to be an
element of trust in that?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Well, yes and no, if I'm paying you to do a job and
that's what I'm doing I'm payingyou to really truly sacrifice
personal autonomy.
That means that when you cometo this job, you are being asked
to participate according to aspecific set of guidelines, and
compliance is not whether or notyou do it, because then no
(09:53):
human being is going to beperfect.
We're never going to have ahuman being that does everything
perfectly.
That'll be a robot that'sprogrammed and then, even then
they may break down.
But here's my point If weseparate compliance and
accountability into twodifferent aspects, the person
who says I am willing to try isa person you hire.
(10:15):
It's the person you bring in,it's the person that you provide
both affirmative, constructivefeedback or accountability to.
But the one big concern I have,dan, in organizations
specifically that are working inhigh risk and high hazard
environments, is when theorganization doesn't ensure
compliance.
And what I mean by that is ifsomebody comes in and says I
(10:37):
don't care what the rules are,I'm going to do my own thing.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
When you talked about compliance that way, it made me
think about you're doing it,because it's the way it's done
here and I actually like thatstatement as a I'll call it a
power tool.
In the laboratory, if you'resomebody who's working alongside
somebody who isn't beingcompliant, you can use the
(11:06):
phrase we don't do that here asa powerful compliance tool.
I want you to do this behaviorbecause this is what's expected
here.
I guess that's why, through andtrust when you ask the question
, because the complianceguidelines or procedures and
policies you won't necessarilyall in a laboratory.
(11:27):
You may not learn that from oneperson.
You may be learning it fromseveral teammates and you sort
of have to trust that they'reall teaching you the correct
ways to do those things.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
And I see compliance as a promise, a promise that
you're going to do the best thatyou can to follow the rules.
That's compliance, and itdoesn't mean you're always going
to be able to do it, it doesn'tmean that you may succeed in it
.
But if you're going to flipwhat you said, so you say you
see someone who's not followingan SOP, you could say to them
(12:02):
remember, we promised, we'vemade.
And if you're in research, forexample, you've made a promise
to the humans and the plants andthe animals outside of the
containment walls that you'regoing to do everything you can
to keep what you're working withwithin your institution.
When you're working in aclinical lab, dan, you've made a
(12:22):
promise to a patient that we'regoing to do everything we can
to ensure the quality processingof your sample to get as
accurate of the.
We're not going to contaminate,we're going to get an accurate
result.
We've made a promise to followrules.
We're going to remain incompliance.
We made a promise and to me,compliance is an attitude.
(12:43):
Are you willing to sacrificeyour own risk perceptions, risk
appetite, risk tolerance, yourown, sometimes even, experiences
?
Because you know, dan,sometimes when we hire new staff
, staff are like well, I'venever done it this way, right,
this way, this way stupid.
I'm not doing it this way.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I actually like that, Sean.
I think it's more powerful, Ithink that when you get to the
point.
So I'm going back to my readingof Crucial Accountability, that
great book.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Oh, it is a good book , absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
But one of the things they teach in there is when you
get to the second level ofdisappointment or people
continuing to do the wrong thing, once you've had that first
conversation, you're asking fora promise to do it right next
time.
And the second conversation youhave about it to me seems like
a much more powerfulconversation, because now you
(13:36):
can talk to them about theirbroken promises.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
And so, and their broken commitment, and the same
thing with what you're justtalking about with compliance,
you've broken that commitment tothe patient.
You've broken that commitmentto the environment, to the
people outside your four walls.
That gives you a little morestrength in what you're trying
to say to them about compliance.
(13:59):
Yeah, that's good.
Well, yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I tell you I have heard of times where people have
been banned from the laboratoryand that breaks a lot of people
because they made a mistake orsomething.
The only time, dan, that Ihonestly think that people
should be completely banned, itdoesn't mean sometimes I think
people should be escorted ormentored additionally and
trained additionally, but anytime I think somebody should
(14:23):
ever be banned from thelaboratory environment, whether
it's diagnostics, public healthresearch, whatever is.
When the person says I don'tcare what the organization says,
I'm going to do what I want todo, that that to me is a huge
risk.
I don't know.
What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Yeah, I have to agree with that.
I think people always should begiven more than one chance when
something goes wrong withsafety.
But also, you need to look atthe system first before you look
at the person, Make sure thatthe system didn't fail them, and
if somebody's failing somethingon purpose, then then yeah,
(15:02):
it's time for them to go.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Yeah, yeah, and it's sad because that individual is
like cancer in the human body,because if you don't address it,
what happens?
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yeah, it's going to spread and you don't want that
in your laboratory.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
It will destroy your culture.
It's one of the worst thingsthat can happen.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
So, again.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
just to summarize absolutely before you get
somebody into the job, make surethat they know the promises
they're making and then, oncethey have made those promises,
remind them, when they keepthose promises, that they're
doing a great job.
That's affirmativeaccountability.
If they don't live up to thatpromise, hold them accountable
(15:45):
constructively and never, ever,destroy the motivation of trying
to get people to keep theirpromises.
We are the Lab Safety Gurus DanScungio and Sean Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Thank you for letting us do Lab Safety together.
Welcome to the Lab Safety Guru's Podcast.
I'm Dan Scungio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And I'm Sean Coffin, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Together.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Okay, Dan, so I've got a couple questions for you.
Oh, I'm afraid, Sean, but yougo right ahead, Alright.
So we're talking about safety,but let's talk a little bit
about the behaviors of safetyand how do we motivate people to
actually behave.
And so here's my question youready?
I'm ready.
(00:40):
How do you hold somebodyaccountable to a safety
expectation?
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I would say that I hold somebody accountable by
observing and correcting when Isee something that's not correct
, when I see something that'snot safe.
That's part of my job.
I feel like I hold peopleaccountable as I do site visits,
(01:13):
as I go through laboratories,as I talk to them, when I see
something that puts them into asituation of immediate danger.
If you're pouring chemical andyou're not wearing any kind of
face protection or using a faceshield of some sort, I'm going
to talk to you about that rightaway.
I'm going to try to hold youaccountable for your safety's
sake.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Okay, let me ask you this, Dan If you see someone
following the rules and actuallyeven exceeding expectations, do
you hold them accountable?
Speaker 1 (01:46):
In a different way, but I do.
There's actual science behindthat.
So if you, the listener, havenot heard this, there's actual
science that will tell you thatit's better to give people
positive feedback, which isanother type of accountability,
than it is to give the negativefeedback.
So, in other words, the ratioshould be 5 to 1.
(02:08):
Yes, so there was a study donewith school children.
This was in Hampton, virginia,not too far from where I am in
Williamsburg, and they split afirst grade class like into two
groups.
In the first group they justkind of sort of criticized when
they got something wrong, didsomething wrong.
In the other group, theycomplimented, they gave props to
(02:32):
, they built them up all thetime.
What a great job you're doing.
This is great.
A 5 to 1 ratio of positives toany kind of a negative statement
.
And that group that got the 5to 1, their grades were so much
higher, the work they put outwas so much better.
It was an amazing difference.
And they teach that when you'retalking to people in laboratory
(02:54):
safety and I do it all the timeIf I see somebody wearing a lab
coat and maybe once in mycareer with them, I had to tell
them to put on a lab coat, Isaid oh my gosh, you look great
in white.
That is a good color on you.
And make sure I make positivecomments about what they're
doing and doing and some people.
You know one of my jobs, one ofthe things I do as a lab safety
(03:15):
officer, is I look for issuesand I'll take pictures of them,
because I always collect mysafety eyes pictures, as I call
them so people can look at themand identify the issue.
But when I see somebody doingsomething right, sometimes I'll
just take a picture and say, hey, can I get your picture?
This is the exact correct wayto do this.
You look great doing it and I'dlove to have your picture in.
My safety eyes count and theydo that.
(03:36):
So that's just another positiveyou give.
So definitely.
I don't know if I ever lookedat it as holding someone
accountable but in a way, youare.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
It is, dan, it is.
It's a positive way to do it,absolutely so the three types of
accountability, I reallypromote the very first one.
Like you said, you've got tohave positive accountability,
and that's one of the hardestthings to teach people Certainly
leaders is listen.
(04:05):
If we've set expectations, youshould actually be giving, like
you said, on a ratio of five toone, because that is exactly
what the science says.
For every five, or for everyone, what we call constructive
accountability, for every one,you should be giving five
positive accountabilities.
You know, supportive,affirmative accountability is
(04:28):
really what we call it.
Now, dan, when you giveaccountability and you're
talking about identifying abehavior that's not living up to
expectation, there are twotypes of accountability
associated with that.
One is constructive and one isdestructive.
How would you separate thosetwo?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
I think constructive accountability is something that
doesn't hit the person where ithurts, so to speak.
So a destructive comment wouldbe something like you know, I
wish you could be smarter aboutyour job and protect your eyes
while you're working with openspecimens or chemicals.
(05:12):
That's not a very helpfulcomment.
You're actually attacking theperson's.
You know intelligence.
It's just not the way to goabout it.
I think there are constructiveways to say it.
I think you have to be reallycareful when somebody's in the
middle of their work and you'retrying to talk to them about
safety, and you have to have theright tenor to what you're
(05:36):
saying in order to make itpositive and constructive.
You want them to remember theinteraction and you want them to
think that it was a positiveinteraction and constructive
means they understood why yousaid something, they understood
why you felt the need to saysomething and they remember it
(05:58):
and then, hopefully, they followthrough and continue with the
safer behavior that you'veintroduced to them.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
We're talking about that.
No, everything you said I like.
Look, constructiveaccountability has one goal, in
my opinion, dan.
First and foremost, I have totell you, sometimes constructive
accountability is going to belike throwing a grenade and
saying it's not going to hurt.
Even when it's done tactfully,it could still hurt because
(06:23):
people may take it in a way thatchallenges their credibility,
their competency, theirproficiency.
So, even when you do ittactfully, it may not be as
painless as you want it to be,but here's the goal.
This is the goal ofconstructive accountability.
You ready, dan, I'm ready.
The person leaves theconversation eager and motivated
(06:46):
to continue to try again.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yeah, I like that.
I like that a lot.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's got to be the goal, because destructive
accountability is when theyleave the exchange.
Giving up.
That's destructiveaccountability.
Yeah, that's it.
I have literally destroyedtheir motivation of even wanting
to try again.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
And I think people do that.
I think they do that with themode of approach that they have
in a situation.
It takes tact, it takes acertain personality to be able
to coach people regarding safetyand to walk away from that with
success and with the ability tocome back to that person again
(07:37):
at a later time.
It's not easy.
That's all relationship.
And putting money in their bank, that's part of that.
Five to one, but putting moneyin their bank so that they
remember that you're on theirside and not an enemy.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
That's so important.
Yeah, now let me tell you we'regoing to go to the phase two
part.
I wanted to talk aboutaccountability and compliance,
and a lot of people confusethose two and we've got to
separate them.
They are so it's so important.
Now we've talked about threeaspects of accountability
Affirmative accountability,where you should be doing that
(08:15):
more often than constructiveaccountability, and then what we
would consider destructiveaccountability.
So again, affirmative,constructive and destructive.
But here's my question to you,dan you ready?
Mm-hmm, what does compliancemean to you?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
I think, simply put, compliance is following the
rules.
Very good, it's following theprocedures and the rules.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
So what if I were to tell you that compliance, from a
psychological standpoint, isn'tan outcome of behavior.
It's not whether or not you'redoing the behavior or not.
That's accountability.
What if compliance is aattitude?
What if it's actually acommitment to actually
(09:07):
sacrificing self-autonomy forthe betterment of the
organization or the bettermentof the collective group?
That compliance isunderstanding the expectation
and saying I'm willing to followthat expectation.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
That makes me wonder doesn't there have to be an
element of trust in that?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Well, yes and no, if I'm paying you to do a job and
that's what I'm doing I'm payingyou to really truly sacrifice
personal autonomy.
That means that when you cometo this job, you are being asked
to participate according to aspecific set of guidelines, and
compliance is not whether or notyou do it, because then no
(09:53):
human being is going to beperfect.
We're never going to have ahuman being that does everything
perfectly.
That'll be a robot that'sprogrammed and then, even then
they may break down.
But here's my point If weseparate compliance and
accountability into twodifferent aspects, the person
who says I am willing to try isa person you hire.
(10:15):
It's the person you bring in,it's the person that you provide
both affirmative, constructivefeedback or accountability to.
But the one big concern I have,dan, in organizations
specifically that are working inhigh risk and high hazard
environments, is when theorganization doesn't ensure
compliance.
And what I mean by that is ifsomebody comes in and says I
(10:37):
don't care what the rules are,I'm going to do my own thing.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
When you talked about compliance that way, it made me
think about you're doing it,because it's the way it's done
here and I actually like thatstatement as a I'll call it a
power tool.
In the laboratory, if you'resomebody who's working alongside
somebody who isn't beingcompliant, you can use the
(11:06):
phrase we don't do that here asa powerful compliance tool.
I want you to do this behaviorbecause this is what's expected
here.
I guess that's why, through andtrust when you ask the question
, because the complianceguidelines or procedures and
policies you won't necessarilyall in a laboratory.
(11:27):
You may not learn that from oneperson.
You may be learning it fromseveral teammates and you sort
of have to trust that they'reall teaching you the correct
ways to do those things.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
And I see compliance as a promise, a promise that
you're going to do the best thatyou can to follow the rules.
That's compliance, and itdoesn't mean you're always going
to be able to do it, it doesn'tmean that you may succeed in it
.
But if you're going to flipwhat you said, so you say you
see someone who's not followingan SOP, you could say to them
(12:02):
remember, we promised, we'vemade.
And if you're in research, forexample, you've made a promise
to the humans and the plants andthe animals outside of the
containment walls that you'regoing to do everything you can
to keep what you're working withwithin your institution.
When you're working in aclinical lab, dan, you've made a
(12:22):
promise to a patient that we'regoing to do everything we can
to ensure the quality processingof your sample to get as
accurate of the.
We're not going to contaminate,we're going to get an accurate
result.
We've made a promise to followrules.
We're going to remain incompliance.
We made a promise and to me,compliance is an attitude.
(12:43):
Are you willing to sacrificeyour own risk perceptions, risk
appetite, risk tolerance, yourown, sometimes even, experiences
?
Because you know, dan,sometimes when we hire new staff
, staff are like well, I'venever done it this way, right,
this way, this way stupid.
I'm not doing it this way.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I actually like that, Sean.
I think it's more powerful, Ithink that when you get to the
point.
So I'm going back to my readingof Crucial Accountability, that
great book.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Oh, it is a good book , absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
But one of the things they teach in there is when you
get to the second level ofdisappointment or people
continuing to do the wrong thing, once you've had that first
conversation, you're asking fora promise to do it right next
time.
And the second conversation youhave about it to me seems like
a much more powerfulconversation, because now you
(13:36):
can talk to them about theirbroken promises.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
And so, and their broken commitment, and the same
thing with what you're justtalking about with compliance,
you've broken that commitment tothe patient.
You've broken that commitmentto the environment, to the
people outside your four walls.
That gives you a little morestrength in what you're trying
to say to them about compliance.
(13:59):
Yeah, that's good.
Well, yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I tell you I have heard of times where people have
been banned from the laboratoryand that breaks a lot of people
because they made a mistake orsomething.
The only time, dan, that Ihonestly think that people
should be completely banned, itdoesn't mean sometimes I think
people should be escorted ormentored additionally and
trained additionally, but anytime I think somebody should
(14:23):
ever be banned from thelaboratory environment, whether
it's diagnostics, public healthresearch, whatever is.
When the person says I don'tcare what the organization says,
I'm going to do what I want todo, that that to me is a huge
risk.
I don't know.
What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Yeah, I have to agree with that.
I think people always should begiven more than one chance when
something goes wrong withsafety.
But also, you need to look atthe system first before you look
at the person, Make sure thatthe system didn't fail them, and
if somebody's failing somethingon purpose, then then yeah,
(15:02):
it's time for them to go.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Yeah, yeah, and it's sad because that individual is
like cancer in the human body,because if you don't address it,
what happens?
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yeah, it's going to spread and you don't want that
in your laboratory.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
It will destroy your culture.
It's one of the worst thingsthat can happen.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
So, again.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
just to summarize absolutely before you get
somebody into the job, make surethat they know the promises
they're making and then, oncethey have made those promises,
remind them, when they keepthose promises, that they're
doing a great job.
That's affirmativeaccountability.
If they don't live up to thatpromise, hold them accountable
(15:45):
constructively and never, ever,destroy the motivation of trying
to get people to keep theirpromises.
We are the Lab Safety Gurus DanScungio and Sean Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Thank you for letting us do Lab Safety together.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.