Are We Auditors or Autocrats?

How well a safety manager is received in an organization may depend on whether he makes himself out to be an auditor or an autocrat. The direction he takes often is determined by his basic attitude toward his mission. The end result can make or break a productive loss-prevention program.

The dictionary describes an autocrat as “an absolute sovereign; one who rules with undisputed sway in any company or relation.” Has not the safety field been filled with such species? What effect has this had down through the years on the attitude of managers toward “safety”? What supervisor, foreman or official-in-charge likes having someone, out of the chain of command, tell him how to run his operation? Yet, it has been the safety man—be he inspector or engineer—who has assumed the role of an independent or self-derived power, shouldering the burden of all employees; well being, and helping the line manager relinquish his inherent responsibility of accident prevention. Is it any wonder safety is not a fully supported household word?

But, consider what Mr. Webster stated as his definition of an auditor. Simply expressed, an auditor is “a hearer or listener.’ The common vision of an auditor is one who snoops around trying to find mistakes. How true; yet how valuable to an organization sincerely interested in running an efficient and economical operation. The modern-day safety manager should be an auditor who determines where systems weaknesses exist and suggests remedial action. He should be an advisor to management, a confidant who is recognized as a vital link in the decision-making process.

When safety managers assume the role of auditors and shed the cloak of autocrats, the profession will become recognized as a full members of the management team. Which are you?

(This editorial appeared in the July, 1971 issue of FOCUS.)

HOME
ABOUT
JOIN
EDUCATION
NEWSLETTER
LIBRARY
CONTACT
ISHM
UPDATE