15d • The Mirror
Unknowing what you don't know...my 1st "Post" in RC3-LL
Before you read my first post in the "Community"...a point of personal humility: I am not particularly sure that I fully understand the "Assignment"...this is my first swing of the bat. I am hopeful that it is not a "Foul Ball".
When I meet with senior leaders — Presidents, CEOs, COOs, executive teams in both large and small construction companies (I have met with "hundreds") — I often start with one question:
“What formal knowledge or training do YOU have to manage and influence the safe performance of work?”
Not your Safety Director.
Not your field leadership.
Not your project executives.
Not your superintendents.
You.
I do not ask that question to embarrass anyone. I do not ask it as a challenge. I ask it as a mirror.
Because one of the most dangerous leadership conditions I have seen in high-risk work is not arrogance.
It is not apathy. (Although I see a lot of this due to leadership signal complexity)
It is not even ignorance. (They don't know what they don't know)
It is unknowing what you don’t know.
And when leaders do not know what they do not know, they often fill the gap with assumptions.
They assume the safety program is working because the reports look good.
They assume accountability exists because expectations have been spoken.
They assume people understand what “safe work” means because policies, orientations, toolbox talks, and procedures exist.
They assume “stop work authority” is real because the organization has said it is real.
They assume silence means alignment.
They assume the absence of bad news means the presence of good leadership.
That is where the danger lives.
The Accountability Dilemma
A lot of organizations speak the language of accountability.
“We need to hold people accountable.”
“We expect our leaders to own safety.”
“Everyone is responsible for safety.”
“We have empowered our people to stop work.”
Those statements may all sound reasonable.
But accountability cannot be reduced to a slogan.
Through my own experiential learning, field work, leadership relationships, and exposure to some very dynamic thinkers in this space — including Dr. Dan Petersen and David Marx, both widely published around these concepts — I have come to believe accountability requires three essential elements:
1. Clearly Defined Expectations
People cannot be meaningfully held accountable for expectations that are vague, assumed, inconsistent, or only understood by the person judging the outcome.
If the expectation is “work safely,” that is not enough.
What does that mean when schedule pressure is real?
What does that mean when the crew is behind?
What does that mean when the lift plan changes?
What does that mean when the superintendent walks by and says nothing?
What does that mean when the client is pushing, the milestone is slipping, and the work face is solving problems in real time?
Expectations have to be clear enough that people can recognize them under pressure.
2. Effective Training to Those Expectations
This is where many organizations expose a weakness they do not want to admit.
They define expectations, then assume communication equals training.
It does not.
A policy is not training.
A PowerPoint is not necessarily training.
A signed orientation sheet is not proof of understanding.
A slogan on a wall is not leadership capability.
If we expect leaders to manage and influence the safe performance of work, then we have to ask whether we have actually trained them to do that.
Have they been trained to recognize weak signals?
Have they been trained to read field conditions?
Have they been trained to challenge drift without humiliating people?
Have they been trained to distinguish between a worker problem and a system problem?
Have they been trained to understand how their silence, body language, urgency, pressure, and priorities influence the work?
Because whether they know it or not, they are influencing the work every day.
The only question is whether that influence is intentional, competent, and aligned with the standard.
3. A System to Assess Whether the Expectations Are Actually Being Met
This is where some people immediately say:
“That sounds complicated.”
I disagree.
Yes, it can be made complicated.
But it does not have to be.
Clearly defined expectations can be created conversationally.
Training can happen through coaching, repetition, field observation, and correction.
And assessment can happen through something leaders in construction already understand:
MBWA — Management by Walking Around.
Good construction superintendents and frontline supervisors do this every day.
They walk the work.
They observe conditions.
They test assumptions.
They read body language.
They listen for what is being said.
They pay attention to what is not being said.
They notice what is being normalized.
They watch how pressure is being translated at the work face.
They look for the difference between what the organization says it values and what the field believes it rewards.
That is not bureaucracy.
That is leadership.
The Gap
The gap appears when senior leaders demand accountability from the organization without first asking whether they have created the conditions required for accountability to be fair, functional, and real.
If expectations are not clear, accountability becomes opinion.
If training has not occurred, accountability becomes blame.
If assessment is weak, accountability becomes selective enforcement.
And in high-risk work, that is a dangerous leadership condition.
Because people can be disciplined for outcomes they were never properly equipped to prevent.
Leaders can believe they are managing safety when they are really managing lagging indicators.
Executives can believe they are holding the organization accountable when they are actually reinforcing fear, silence, compliance theater, or reporting distortion.
That is why the question matters:
“What formal knowledge or training do YOU have to manage and influence the safe performance of work?”
It is not a safety question.
It is a leadership question.
It asks the leader to pause and examine whether they are competent in the very domain they are holding others accountable to perform within.
My View
I do not see this as adding complexity to accountability.
I see it as making accountability more honest.
Leadership does not always need another system.
Sometimes it needs better questions.
Better conversations.
Better field presence.
Better listening.
Better observation.
Better correction.
Better understanding of how influence actually travels through an organization.
The President’s priorities influence the COO.
The COO’s pressure influences the Project Executive.
The Project Executive influences the Superintendent.
The Superintendent influences the Foreman.
The Foreman influences the crew.
And the crew performs the work inside the conditions leadership has either created, tolerated, ignored, or rewarded.
That is why safety is not merely managed in policies.
Safety is managed in leadership moments.
And one of the most important leadership moments is when a leader is willing to ask:
“What do I actually know?”
“What have I only assumed?”
“Where might my own lack of formal knowledge be affecting the people I expect to perform?”
That is not weakness.
That is leadership maturity.
Reflection Question for RC3 Community:
Where have you seen accountability used as a leadership strength — and where have you seen it become blame because expectations, training, or assessment were missing?
Foul ball or strike zone?
3
8 comments
Unknowing what you don't know...my 1st "Post" in RC3-LL
Suggested communities
Powered by