If you have been rubbing elbows recently with your counterparts in the mining industry, you may have heard the buzz term “IRS” being bandied about. No, they haven’t run afoul of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. What they are probably referring to is their company’s “internal responsibility system.” Today, mine management and unions, supported by the Safety and Health Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour, are jointly taking a hard look at the status of their companies’ IRS.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, the next obvious question is: “What the devil is the IRS?” Simply stated, it is the process of clearly defining the responsibilities, accountabilities and authority that workers require to perform their jobs safely and productively. The phrase is not that new. As far back as June 30, 1976, Dr. James Ham, who headed up a royal commission to investigate the safety and health of workers in the Ontario mining industry, coined the phrase. Among other major recommendations, the commission identified that the key to improving the health and safety of workers was for companies to recognize and strengthen their internal responsibility systems (The Ham Commission Report).
In April of 1981, a report issued by the joint federal and provincial commission into safety in mines and mining plants in Ontario, chaired by K.M. Burkett, referred once again to the IRS.
The Burkett Commission went a step further and clarified that there are two lines of responsibility that exist within the IRS — direct and contributive. The direct line of responsibility starts with the chief executive officer, goes through the various levels of management down to first-line supervisors and finally ends with workers. In support, there is a contributive line of responsibility, which is defined as individuals or groups who, though not directly responsible for the performance of work, are in a position to provide consultation with regard to safe production. Contributive responsibility in this context refers to health and safety committees, unions, company safety departments, the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario (mapao), and the Ontario Ministry of Labour.
Finally, as a result of an increase in mining fatalities in 1987, a tripartite committee was formed consisting of representatives from mine management, union and government (specifically MAPAO and the Ontario Ministry of Labour). One of the initiatives of the committee was to improve, formalize and promote the acceptance of the IRS within the Ontario mining industry.
When reference is made to a company’s IRS, a typical response you might expect from many of the executives and managers is: “We already have an internal responsibility system.” True, every organization has a responsibility system of sorts. The question one has to ask is: “How effective is it?” One measure which may provide an indication of how effective one’s IRS is, is to ask: “How much of my daily time is spent addressing activities or issues below the position I hold?” In other words, determine how much of your time is taken up doing those things or making those decisions that should be done by those people who are beneath the level of your position. Your answer will be influenced by where you fit into the organizational hierarchy and by the effectiveness of your company’s IRS.
Interestingly, of the senior executives and mid-managers we have had the opportunity to speak with, the majority stated that 40% to 60% of their time was taken up addressing functions below their positions of paid responsibility. If this is the case, then it is safe to assume that this anomaly carries itself down through the organization to the point where the employee typically responds: “I am only a number around here.”
When we take a look at the North American style of managing, both in the past and in the present (although things are changing), we can appreciate why committees such as the Ham and Burkett Commissions stress the need for companies to evaluate their IRS.
As managers, we have done reasonably well in defining job responsibilities. Through job descriptions, the lines of responsibility down to the worker level are fairly well defined. However, where we have fallen short is in clearly defining the accountabilities and authority specifically associated with those same job responsibilities. Accountability (or, more specifically the lack of accountability) in the workplace is an area of discussion on its own. However, we tend only to hold individuals accountable on those issues that are important in our terms (or if someone screws up badly).
For many managers and supervisors, having to hold people accountable is an uncomfortable part of the job — especially if the individual is well-liked. We are more than likely to look the other way. The word “accountability” in itself implies taking action. In our society this action is regarded as punitive, both by the manager and by the individual involved. Being “called up on the carpet” can be a traumatic experience for both parties.
Historically, we have not done well in either defining job accountabilities or actually holding people accountable for job performance. Within the IRS, there must be a supportive accountability system as well. Within this accountability system, job accountabilities must not only be clearly defined but, more important, they must be measurable. The importance of measurable accountabilities is not necessarily so managers or supervisors can determine if employees are fulfilling their job responsibilities, but more for the employees to be able to determine if they are meeting the job expectations. I think we can all agree that employees at all levels want to do a good job; all they need are clearly defined benchmarks for which to aim.
The final step in establishing the accountability system is that it must be portrayed as supportive rather than punitive. There is generally a good reason why an individual fails to meet a specific accountability, be it technical or personal. Within the present environment, the individual will more than likely attempt to cover up the real reason for what happened. On the other hand, a supportive environment will encourage the individual to identify what really happened if he or she has no fear of repercussions but will be supported so that a repeat incident will be avoided.
In our efforts to manage effectively, the one aspect where we have been quite remiss is in defining organizational authority, especially at the worker level. If we expect employees to accept the responsibilities of their jobs and to be accountable for safe production, then we must give them the authority to meet those same responsibilities and accountabilities. There is no question that most job descriptions vaguely imply some form of authority that goes with the job. However, it is doubtful if the average worker has ever seen a job description or knows what one is.
When we look at the authority system in most companies, we will find that the authority boundaries at the top echelon of the organization are fairly well defined. But as we move down the organization, the authority boundaries become grayer and grayer to the point where the worker is inclined to state “I don’t have any authority around here, I just do what I’m told.”
Again, as with the accountability system, the authority system must be supportive. Initially, exployees may not make the best decisions. They may make mistakes. In these cases, the action must be supportive to prevent the error from being repeated, the rule of thumb being not to make the same mistake twice.
Historically organizational responsibilities, accountabilities and authority are determined from the top down. They are established by management’s perception of who should have what and how much. In reality, the process or system and its associated technology determines what needs to be done, when and by whom.
Once we design a specific process or system and put it into place, the only control we have over it is within its design perimeters. If we are not satisfied, then we must make a technological change to the original design.
If the statement above can be accepted as valid, then in order to optimize the IRS, we must ask the process what needs to be done, what needs to be controlled, when, and what authority is needed to ensure that the system will perform as designed in a safe productive manner. Furthermore, if we determine the responsibilities, accountabilities and authority boundaries for each level of the organization starting from the bottom up, we more than ensure that people at all levels of the organization are in the position to willingly perform as expected.
For those companies that are seriously looking at optimizing their internal responsibility systems, there is one critical step that must be kept in mind during the definitive process, and that is participation. All parties concerned or affected must be part of the process. With the historical mistrust that exists between management and the employees and their union, confidence and trust can only be established with open and honest participation by all involved.
In the process of defining the accountability and authority boundaries requiied for each area of responsibility, it is not a case of just defining measurable accountabilities and delegating authority. There are a number of factors that will have to be taken into account and that will have a direct influence on the final results. What will have to be reviewed are:
* present job configuarations as related to the existing mine or plant design and the technology associated with that design;
* present managing style;
* information flow; and
* training.
Keeping in mind that the process and its related equipment determines what needs to be done, when and by whom, a review of current job configurations may be required. The main criterion is what needs to be controlled. On that basis, job responsibilities may need to be re-aligned or expanded. It should be pointed out that this phase, if properly conducted, is a primary step toward establishing the optimum crewing level for any particular operation. Consequently, it cannot be over-emphasized that full participation by all concerned is critical, with the prior understanding that any changes contemplated will only be implemented if there is mutual consent.
Surprisingly, employees have little difficulty accepting clearly defined responsibility, accountability and authority boundaries — providing the management style is such that they do not fear repercussion if things don’t go just right. Companies that practice an autocratic or directive managing style will not be successful in implementing an IRS. Within these companies, first-line supervisors and mid-managers will have difficulty allowing employees to exercise that decision-making authority which has historically been within the management realm.
Information flow and communication lines must be reviewed. If employees are to make ongoing decisions with respect to meeting those safety and production objectives directly related to their jobs, they will naturally require the proper information specific to making those decisions. Open, 2-way communication lines will also be required to ensure that there are no misunderstandings.
Perhaps the most critical element in optimizing the IRS, is training. It will not be enough just to train employees in job procedures and equipment operation. If we are going to expect workers to fulfil their responsibilities, meet their accountabilities and exercise their newly defined authority, then we are obligated to provide the proper training that will give the employee the confidence to make those logical day-to-day decisions with respect to safety and production.
With many of the employee training programs today, the training is limited to the dos and don’ts of the job. Many companies will have to re-assess their training contents and procedures to include the “whys” of the job. The whys will have to entail a more technical understanding of mining methods and processing technology along with the associated hazards in terms of what is controlled, why it is controlled and how it is controlled. Equipment training must expand to foster an employees’ comprehensive understanding of how and why the equipment functions as it does.
Putting it all together, the above appears to be an involved and lengthy process. It can be. Depending upon the historical management and employee relationship, an environment of mutual trust will have to be built. Depending upon the size of operation and the number of people involved, the participatory aspect will take time.
Be the first to comment on "Internal responsibility"