OEHS Professionals Assess “Performance” vs. “Performative” Metrics
By Abby Roberts
Occupational and environmental health and safety professionals use performance metrics “every day when we’re working through our industrial hygiene or other technical activities,” observed Alan Leibowitz, CIH, CSP, FAIHA. Performance metrics help OEHS professionals understand, manage, and improve organization and program functions and show that processes are in control. But they may be confused with what Leibowitz called “performative or vanity metrics” that look good on paper but don’t provide any real control over risks, hazards, and exposures. The AIHA Connect educational session “Performance vs. Performative Metrics,” co-presented by Leibowitz with Jennifer Holliday, CIH, and Steven Jahn, CIH, MBA, FAIHA, aimed to help attendees tell the difference.
Leibowitz opened with a discussion about the correct use of metrics and how to identify helpful metrics. Ideally, metrics have IMPACTS, an acronym standing for Important, Measurable, Predictive, Actionable, Clear, Transparent, and Standardized, Leibowitz explained. But common cognitive biases—for example, anchoring bias, confirmation bias, egocentric bias, the framing effect, and objectivity bias—can hinder OEHS professionals and other stakeholders from understanding what their metrics are telling them, he continued. Leibowitz ended his segment with a brief discussion of ethical use of metrics. He encouraged attendees to ask themselves, “Would it be OK if what you did was explained or exposed in a public forum?”
Holliday spoke on the importance of building long-lasting relationships with other individuals and groups within an organization, which helps OEHS professionals communicate data more effectively. When OEHS professionals bring these stakeholders into their discussions of hazards and controls and listen closely to their concerns, this can help establish trust, making others more likely to listen when OEHS professionals must deliver bad news. “Ultimately, data does speak,” she said. “But unless we’re speaking the language of our companies and our teams, it’s not going to make a lot of difference. Speaking the risk management language will help our teams understand what the risk metrics mean.”
Jahn discussed his experiences as a risk management consultant and contractor for the Department of Energy. Early in his career of nearly 40 years, Jahn joked that the only metric was whether an organization was making money. But as the 1980s and '90s became the 2000s, '10s, and '20s, organizational leadership wanted to know what they could do to avoid their mistakes being covered in the news. He advised OEHS professionals to “figure out which risks matter and figure out the manner of measuring things around that risk.” For example, if leaders don’t want to hear about risks, OEHS professionals should share the information with their direct reports and others who will listen. OEHS professionals’ willingness to share data establishes transparency, he explained: “Hide nothing.”
He ended with a recommendation of the book Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide for Assessing Operational Risks by Georgi Popov, Bruce K. Lyon, and Bruce D. Hollcroft, but he cautioned against adopting a metric solely because it was mentioned in a book. He urged OEHS professionals to only use metrics that relate to a hazard, risk, or exposure they know they must manage.
Finally, Leibowitz returned to close the session and take questions from audience members. “A metric in isolation is useless,” he concluded.
Abby Roberts is assistant editor of The Synergist.
