Posts tagged ‘EHS leadership’
Past Presidents Series: A Look Back at the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Mike McGuire
As I get older, the memories seem harder to come by, but I still remember very vividly attending what I think was the second EHS Management Forum in San Diego. Who could forget cocktails by the bay watching the sun go down? What was really memorable, though, was the information we shared, the ideas we generated and relationships we formed over those three days. It has only gotten better over the last 20 years. But much has changed.
For the better, environmental management is now more strategic and more visible in the organization. I remember my first meeting with the Chief Executive Officer — 20 years after I started with the company. We now meet with the Board of Directors annually.
I am also impressed with the quality of the younger environmental professionals that I work with and those that I interact with through NAEM. They are enthusiastic, dedicated and want to make a difference. They are smart, they have a global view and good business sense. I have no doubt they will continue to make improvements in the global environment.
Unfortunately, with the added visibility comes more stress and pressure to perform. Even as government enforcement has increased over the years, so too has the business pressure to do more with less. More challenging still, is that there are fewer black-and-white issues and more with shades of gray. We are not doing things because the government requires it, but because our shareholders expect it, NGOs are demanding it or the public thinks we should. But what is the impact on the bottom line? Sustainability provides an opportunity to be even more integrated with business processes and to become more strategic. But that requires environmental professionals to be more cognizant of business issues and to provide environmental leadership tempered by business reality.
As I look back, I am a little disappointed in my generation, despite the progress we’ve made. Yes, the environmental movement took hold and blossomed during our tenure, and the environment in the U.S. is cleaner today than it has been possibly since before the turn of the century. However, the choices still seemed to be framed as “black hats versus white hats” and many in the public believe the environment is dirtier than ever.
Having spent more than 35 years toiling for “big business” it is rather disheartening that there is little or no credit for everything business has accomplished through the years. Still, I’m an optimist. I think the environmental profession can continue to drive progress if we can develop a more nuanced understanding of environmental issues. What do you think?
How can we help people understand the true state of the environment? How can we better frame the environmental problems that do exist to develop better solutions? How can we educate the public better on environmental issues? And how do I get rid of this black hat?
Mike McGuire is Manager of Global Environmental Strategy for Deere & Co., where he is responsible for sustainability strategy development, environmental assurance, external reporting and supply management environmental assurance. He served as the President of the NAEM Board of Directors from 2003-2004.
From Strong Relationships Comes Healthy EHS Culture
Stephen Evanoff
At a February meeting of my company’s environment, health and safety (EHS) leaders, a guest speaker reminded the group how important relationships are in effective EHS management. The following day, I picked up the Feb. 20, 2012, issue of Time magazine that featured a cover article on the science of animal friendships.
I’m certainly not suggesting that animal friendships can teach us how to develop effective workplace EHS relationships, but these two incidents did remind me how the relationships we build as EHS managers directly impact the organization’s EHS culture. Here are a few of my observations on relationship-building principles that have worked to strengthen EHS culture in organizations:
- Emphasizing the team over the individual: This applies to EHS programs, projects involving cross-functional teams, safety committees, awards, and just about everything else within an EHS context except, perhaps,filling out regulatory agency required reports. The fact is that the EHS function can accomplish almost nothing on its own. Without interdepartmental relationships founded on trust, the EHS role can be lonely and frustrating.
- Acting as an enabler: Before approaching a person or team of people with an EHS issue, answer the questions: “What’s in it for each of them? And how can I help?” This exercise will start you down the path toward a consensus-based solution and help you develop an enabler’s mindset.
- Validating the other person’s perspective: When business leaders and core business process owners feel that the EHS people are cognizant of the demands of their jobs, understand the pressures they face and are aligned with the overall goals of the enterprise, they will be more receptive to EHS initiated projects, and more likely to include the EHS function in decision-making.
- Standing for what’s right: EHS managers who consistently act in the best, long-term interest of the organization (rather than doing what’s expedient, politically advantageous, or in the near-term interest of the EHS function) will, over time, build credibility and respect. These are characteristics of healthy EHS working relationships.
I am sure there are other important principles to relationship-building. What other principles or relationship-building experiences have had a significant impact on EHS culture in your organization?
Adding the Big “S” Doesn’t Always Make it Sustainable
Mark C. Coleman
Does it seem as if environmental, health, and safety (EHS) professionals are getting longer titles? In the past year I have participated in many conferences and workshops, including NAEM’s well-attended 2011 EHS Management Forum, “EHS & Sustainability Success in the New Economic Era” in Tucson last fall. Call it a qualitative trend, but more EHS professionals now have “Sustainability” as part of their professional title. This should come as no major surprise, particularly as companies, small and large, begin to formally address sustainability within their daily operations, strategic planning and management of their enterprise.
Sustainability is serious business and it is the new and in-vogue “big S” confronting stakeholder engagement, current affairs and future competitiveness of corporations. Understanding the business context of, and taking action on, sustainability, requires support and engagement from all corporate functions (i.e., C- suite, EHS, legal, marketing, HR, public affairs, finance, manufacturing, and so on). Corporations can gain or lose ground on the “big S” depending upon how they align internal resources and pursue sustainability as a business strategy.
While this is anecdotal, it seems as if more companies have added the “big S” of sustainability to their traditional EHS functions more rapidly in the past two years. This begs the questions: Are EHS organizations equipped and prepared to deliver upon the “big S”?, Is EHS the right corporate function to lead the “big S”?, Is the “big S” truly being addressed in the company, or is it simply an additional title to maintain appearances?
These questions are highly consequential, not only to the viability of addressing sustainability in a deliberate and strategic way, but also to the success of the EHS organization, and the long-term performance, reputation and impact of the corporation. Given the challenges of the global economic environment, and amid many internal-and-external stakeholder pressures, many organizations are facing resource and talent constraints in trying to address all issues or being all things to all people. And, another responsibility, albeit a very ambiguous one at that in the “big S”, can tax those already-constrained resources.
So what to do? The following questions provide a framework for initiating critical thinking behind whether the “big S” should be part of your EHS organization, and to what degree your organization is prepared to assume responsibility for sustainability within your traditional EHS framework.
- Strategic Orientation: Does your company have a sustainability strategy? How was the strategy initiated? Has the strategy been adopted? Who is responsible and accountable to ensuring the strategy is achieved? Have processes and metrics been established to monitor and measure the performance and impact of your strategy? How frequently is your sustainability performance reviewed? Is your sustainability strategy an integral part of your overall corporate strategy?
- Current State of Affairs: What stage of development are your sustainability efforts within your corporation? Are there formal strategies, programs, processes and people dedicated to your sustainability efforts?
- Accountability: Who is responsible and accountable for ensuring your sustainability strategy is enacted, measured and integrated throughout the company? What is the scope of influence of this individual? Do they have profit-and-loss responsibilities, or do they serve an enterprise service function? Is sustainability managed as a centralized, decentralized, or combination of both functions within your company?
- Leadership and Governance: Has your senior management embraced sustainability as a strategic priority? Has your sustainability effort been reactionary to market, shareholder, stakeholder, customer needs or issues? Has the corporate board discussed sustainability? Has sustainability been integrated into corporate governance procedures, policies or documentation?
- Engagement: Have people, policies and practices been aligned toward a sustainability strategy within your company? How has this evolution occurred? Who has led the evolution of sustainability within your company?
- Role of EHS: Is sustainability considered an extension or addition to the responsibilities within EHS? What role does or has EHS served in supporting sustainability within your company?
- Integration: Has your company defined sustainability goals and strategy within the context of its people, corporate culture, business, products, history and business strategy? What internal functional groups have participated in the sustainability dialogue and evolution? What is the role of these groups going forward?
- Enterprise Risk Management: Has your organization conducted risk mapping of emerging issues, internal and external stakeholder points-of-view and perceptions, and other factors that influence the sustainability context of your business?
- Customized Pursuit of Growth and Innovation: Are your sustainability strategy and goals customized to your business, products and corporate context? Or are they a “drop-down menu” of disparate programs, metrics and goals that “seem” to be what every other company uses? Is sustainability viewed and pursued as an opportunity for risk management, innovation and corporate growth? Or is sustainability the “extra thing” on your full plate?
EHS organizations have a great deal to offer to the sustainability agenda for business, and can serve as the center of excellence to help bring corporate functions together, facilitate discussion and support strategic planning for sustainability. Benchmarking what is being done in other companies, including assessing best practices on business sustainability, is another service EHS organizations can conduct to provide immediate value to the corporation. Corporate EHS and sustainability programs are currently, and will continue to be, compared against each other as much as your product portfolio and financial performance is evaluated by external organizations. Thus, benchmarking others programs can lead to greater understanding of how others are finding value in, and implementing sustainability, and can lead to a more strategic and purposeful advancement of the “big S” within your company.
Adding the “big S” to EHS titles needs to be a deliberate and strategic decision. And once that “S” is added, we need to be prepared to be accountable to the new title. What do you think the relative opportunities and risks are of adding sustainability to the EHS function? Should any one department have responsibility for the “big S” or should it be attached to everyone’s job title?
Mark C. Coleman manages the Clean Energy Incubator (CEI) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and is a Senior Program Manager for the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS) and the Golisano Institute for Sustainability (GIS). His first book, “The Sustainability Generation: The Politics of Change and Why Accountability is Essential NOW” will be published in September 2012.
Adding EHS Bench Strength
Alex Pollock
I was recently approached by an environment, health and safety (EHS) colleague to suggest people who could possibly fill a staff vacancy. My colleague had little experience in hiring, since budget reductions and “ranking and yanking” had been all that was demanded over the last decade or so. To this point, replenishing the “bench” had remained a dream. I’d like to share the points I asked my colleague to consider and get your reaction.
- Ensure you have support for the budget increase: Your leader and your key clients must support the expenditure and accept your assessment of the value added. A solid business case exists for improving the value-added services provided to clients.
- Ensure your new hire advances your functional vision: Resist hiring to cover one-of-a-kind projects or cover temporary increases in workload. Seek temporary help to get you through. Also don’t hire to cover the inadequacies of a poor performer. Resolve any performance issues you have and keep this need separate from your hiring decision. Fill a position which momentum has already created and resist “staffing for growth” that is just around the bend.
- Think paradigm shift: Don’t rush. Step back. Dream a little. Resist the like-for-like option. What is the competency mix that increases your bench strength and allows you to advance your service offerings and better meet client needs?
- Be patient: Now you have the green light make a wise hiring decision. Take all the steps necessary to ensure you feel good about your hiring decision three years from now. Do your homework. Ensure you have the character, chemistry and competency boxes ticked.
What do you think? Your input to these points are welcomed and appreciated.
Emerging Leaders Series: Setting the Next Generation of Sustainability Targets
Margo Mosher
As a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies my days are filled with classes, reading assignments and group projects. With all the school work, it’s not always easy to get out and learn directly from those who put the theory into practice every day. Fortunately, my Business and the Environment Consulting Clinic this semester has allowed me to do just that, taking me out of the classroom and into the corporate offices of Diageo, a leading premium drinks business.
As part of this course, Diageo’s Global Environmental Manager, Roberta Barbieri, has asked two colleagues and me to help research what the next generation of environmental sustainability goals for the industry might look like. Like many businesses, Diageo has set impressive 2015 environmental sustainability targets around carbon, water and waste, and has made great progress toward reaching them.
Most of these targets relate to the company’s direct operations. As stakeholders continue to demand greater transparency, however, leadership companies are beginning to establish targets for environmental issues from across the value chain. Diageo is one of these companies and wants to ensure that its programs aim to meet these expectations.
To support Diageo in this area, my colleagues and I are benchmarking Diageo’s current environmental targets and analyzing those of other companies in the food, beverage and retail sectors. To learn about other innovative ways to set targets and future sustainability trends we also spoke to corporate sustainability experts from NGOs, consulting firms and academia.
Our project deliverable will be an analysis of industry-leading environmental targets for the beverage supply chain. Throughout my research process I have wondered how other companies go about setting sustainability targets. After meeting some of NAEM’s members at the Forum in Tucson this past fall, I know that many of you are experts in corporate sustainability. You may also be responsible for setting your company’s environmental targets, so I thought I would pose some questions to you all that I’ve been thinking about:
- Do most companies conduct a risk assessment or materiality analysis to discern which environmental areas are most critical for target setting?
- What matters most when it comes to environmental sustainability targets: The feasibility of the target? The reputational benefit the target may bring? The environmental benefit the target spurs? The cost savings a target could help bring about?
- Does partnering with an NGO help a company develop stronger targets and metrics?
- Are absolute targets always better than relative ones?
Margo Mosher is a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, where she is pursuing a Masters of Environmental Management. She is focusing her studies on corporate sustainability and will be graduating in May 2012. Prior to attending Yale, she taught urban ecology field studies in Boston as part of the AmeriCorps VISTA program. She is a member of NAEM’s Emerging Leaders group.
What Tom Coughlin Can Teach Us about EHS Management
Megan Lum
Like millions of other football fans, I watched the Super Bowl earlier this month. Much was made of the story of Giants coach Tom Coughlin. Coughlin had been in the hot seat all season and it was widely perceived that his job was in jeopardy if the Giants didn’t make the playoffs. The story recounts how Coughlin did not waver in his coaching and management style throughout the season, despite the circumstances.
I think the real story about Coughlin’s management style happened a few years ago, after one of Coughlin’s initial years as Giants coach. He came to the Giants with a track record of success in both college and the pros. However, one of his first seasons with the Giants was not a good one and their season ended early. Instead of looking at his past achievements and pointing blame at others, Coughlin did just the opposite. He brought in players and asked them what worked and what did not work during the season.
He then took the input he received and adapted his management style to better reflect the team he was working with and his situation. He adapted his style to the situation – which is why he had the confidence to hold firm for this season. He knew his management style was the right one for his team. The results are clear: Two Super Bowl wins in the last five years.
Adaptive management is something that EHS professionals get quite proficient with throughout their careers. As service providers within our organizations, often times just as we start hitting equilibrium, then things change. We see new regulations, reorganizations or new interpretation of the rules. As companies and the general public become more sophisticated about environmental issues and sustainability, our role frequently changes from being an information source and reacting to situation to serving more of an advisory role and being proactive.
This lesson was brought home to me the following week during a meeting with my team. I had asked them during a breakout session to identify the greatest lessons learned during 2011. More than one group came back and shared that they had learned the necessity to interact and communicate with different internal and external clients in a more proactive way. They were learning to adapt their communication styles based on the information needs of the clients, and therefore, were able to address issues more clearly and efficiently. They consciously changed their style to communicate better and more fully to their clients.
To a certain degree, I think we all adapt our management style to changing conditions. But how many times do we examine our style and see if deeper changes are warranted?
Megan Lum, P.E. is the Director of Environmental Operations at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In this capacity she is privileged to lead a team of about 30 professionals, who provide environmental compliance support for the company’s gas and electric distribution, fleet, materials management and real estate operations. She is a member of NAEM’s Board of Regents.
Communication Lessons from a Global EHS Manager
By Jim Spahr
Global Environmental Manager
Solae LLC
As a college student in the early 90’s I thought I was in good shape as a communicator. I was pretty social for an engineer (nerd) and I wasn’t afraid to get up and speak in front of a large group. So, when I started my first job as an environmental engineer at a paper mill in the Deep South, I never expected communicating would be a problem. I was wrong. And I would learn some valuable lessons about cross-cultural communications.
First of all there was the language barrier. Yes they were speaking English but with that wonderful southern drawl. I love a southern accent but there’s a big difference between talking football and discussing a complex manufacturing process. I had to keep asking people to repeat themselves. Add to that the cultural differences and I was quickly developing a reputation as “that rude Yankee who don’t hear so well”. Luckily I gained a mentor who was both an engineer and a fellow northern transplant. Through him I learned the importance of learning the local culture, utilizing local resources and adapting for success.
My mentor explained the importance of small talk in the South. When you need data or information from someone you don’t dash off an email with: “Please provide x, y and z, by next Friday”. You walk down the hall to their office and you start off by asking them about their kid’s Little League team or how they hit the ball on the golf course last weekend. I was accustomed to the norms of the metro northeast; “Tell me what you need, tell me when you need it and I’ll get to you.” I could imagine how this new approach would have gone over when I was a co-op working in Pittsburgh.
Me: “Hi Bill, how’s your day going.”
Bill: “Peachy.”
Me: “How’s your son’s baseball team doing? Did they win on Saturday?”
Bill: “Why are you here and what the heck do you want?!?”
Yet it worked like a charm at the paper mill and although, as a Yankee, you can never be accepted as a true Southerner, at least I was considered a nice Yankee. I even starting using “y’all” every once in while.
Later in my career when I was tasked with supporting the construction and startup of a manufacturing plant in India this lesson in learning the culture would pay dividends. Before the project got underway I used the Internet to research Indian history, culture and business etiquette. I spoke with my Indian colleagues about the similarities and differences. I even boned up on the national sport, Cricket, and followed the performance of the local team. All of this paid off as I was able to develop good working relationships with the local staff and I avoided most of the pitfalls that tripped up some of my American colleagues on the project.
Now, as a Global Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) leader, I’m tasked with implementing corporate policies across multiple cultures. The lessons that I learned through my earlier experiences led me to three keys for success in working across cultures.
- Good translations: Google Translate might work well when you’re trying to decipher an email but don’t count on it for important documents. If you’re lucky, you may have an internal resource who is fluent in English and the local language but even this is risky. For important documents, always use a reputable translation service. They have multiple layers of verification to ensure your translations are accurate and complete. As an additional safeguard, even when I use a translation service, I always have an internal native speaker of the target language review the translated materials.
- Use local resources: While it’s important to do your homework, no amount of internet research can replace the insight to be gained from developing relationships within your business. Regions within a country and even business cultures from plant to plant can vary widely. Having a network of trusted colleagues across all locations will help you avoid mistakes. A good network can help you test ideas, develop local plans and facilitate projects.
- Adapt to the local culture: Different does not mean wrong. When working across cultures, a one-size-fits-all approach is a recipe for failure. Balancing the need for a consistent approach to EHS programs with the realities of local differences is critical to the success of your program. When developing global polices, standards and initiatives, I always try to leave as much flexibility as possible without compromising the imperatives of employee safety and environmental stewardship.
Utilizing these three keys to success is not always easy. This approach requires that you work with each region or site to develop their site-specific implementation plans. It also places greater importance on verification through internal auditing. But if you put in the effort the rewards will be many. Sites will take owner ship of their EHS systems. You will see faster adaptation to revised or new initiatives. Flexibility allows sites to develop creative best practices that can be shared across the organization. And in the long run you will see continuous improvement in your EHS performance.
At times it’s been difficult, but as I’ve gained experience and learned from my mistakes I‘ve come to treasure working in different cultures. It has enriched my personal life and has made me more effective as an EHS professional. I hope that when you encounter similar opportunities you will embrace them with open arms and an open mind.
Jim Spahr is an Operations EHS leader with 19 years of experience working across borders and across cultures to improve safety, health and environmental outcomes. His main areas of interest and expertise are Management Systems, Sustainability and International EHS Management. His passions are skiing, backpacking and spending time with his family (not necessarily in that order). You can reach him at jspahr@solae.com and connect with him at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jspahr
For more of Jim’s cross-cultural communication resources, please visit the Emerging Leaders group in NAEM’s online community.
Meet the NAEM Board of Directors: What are the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week celebration, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to talk about the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012. Featuring Michael Miller of Dean Foods; David Newman; Mark Hause of DuPont; and Verne Shortel of NRG Energy.
Bad Hiring Decisions Haunt Good People
Alex Pollock
Why do bad hiring decisions haunt good people? I’m involved in making an important leadership staffing decision as I write and I’ve researched some of the latest thinking to help minimize the potential for a poor staffing decision and thus prevent the long term damage that it causes.
I’ve been guided in the past by the timeless “3 C’s” of character, competency and chemistry, but I wonder if I can embellish this based on recent research. I found the work of Jeffrey Cohn and Jay Moran in the book, “Why are we Bad at Picking Good Leaders” (2011) most useful. They described what they feel are the essential attributes of effective leadership under the headings of:
- Integrity: the foundational attribute, honest, ethical
- Empathy: feel with people, social savvy, combined with integrity drives trust
- Emotional Intelligence: evident self mastery skills: “know yourself, control yourself, and improve yourself.”
- Vision: forward-thinking with a sense of possibility and wonder, innovative
- Judgment: focus on the important while seeing the “big picture”, take decisive action
- Courage: the ability to “act with grace under pressure”
- Passion: the drive to achieve, learn and master
In hiring decisions I’ve been encouraged to do my homework by the axiom “ You will get what someone has already gotten… no excuse for surprises.” I found the techniques that Cohn and Moran suggest, such as scenario discussions to be most useful for determining whether a candidate does indeed possess the desired attributes or not.
Help me out please. Have you ever made a poor hiring decision? What lessons can you share from the experience? What attributes do you view as important for leaders to possess and what techniques to you use to assess competency during the recruiting process?
Ergonomic Success Requires Leadership
Walt Rostykus
Over the years, I’ve met environment, health and safety (EHS) managers who are convinced that by driving safety and ergonomics through a grassroots approach, some day the initiative will catch on with supervisors, managers and company leaders as an infectious commitment.
“If you build it, he will come” may have worked for Ray Kinsella in the movie “Field of Dreams”, but let’s get real folks: This approach is a shot in the dark for quickly and effectively improving and sustaining safety and performance in the workplace.
Indeed, the key elements of leadership in maintaining an effective and sustainable ergonomic improvement process are no different than those of an EHS system, company culture, or any other aspect of a business. The bottom line is that leadership must occur from the top.
A wise person once noted, “What interests my manager motivates me.” This is the key to leading a safety and ergonomics process over time. Think about it: At work your priorities and activities are guided by how your manager tracks and measures your performance. It is our experience that when managers, engineers, supervisors and employees have a clear understanding of their involvement in the effort to improve workplace ergonomics (and they are held accountable to those expectations), effective workplace changes are made.
Yet leading an ergonomics process is not usually intuitive to many in top management roles. As an EHS manager, however, you are in a position to coach top management on the few things they need to do; simply put, they need to hold their direct reports accountable for ergonomics performance (see my prior blog on effective goals and metrics for ergonomics). The four most important things they can do to make sure this happens are:
- Set clear expectations (responsibilities, goals, roles, targets)
- Provide people with the resources, tools and training they need to meet their responsibilities
- Visibly and actively monitor and track progress
- Take action when expectations are not met
Fortunately this four-step approach is not foreign to managers and supervisors. They follow some form of these steps to complete work, build widgets and manage production. Leaders in safety should apply the same approach (accountability) to influence, guide and lead their organization to success. It’s all about planning, managing and following through.
Kurt, my climbing instructor from several decades ago, was a great illustration of how not to lead by example. His immortal words “Do as I say, not as I do” sent a mixed message. While he told us to wear the correct helmet and always climb while belayed, he climbed bare-headed and without a lifeline. He was technically knowledgeable, but clearly not a leader.
On the contrary, Dave Packard, Bill Hewlett and Bob Hall were true leaders, who set expectations for performance (including safety) and held people, including general managers, accountable for the quality and safety of their workplace.
Whether you base your company ergonomics program on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) models, the Safety Management System, lean manufacturing or continuous improvement, strong and visible leadership by people in top management is critical for ensuring that engineers design tools to fit the first time; employee teams reduce exposure to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) risk factors before injuries occur; and that employees adjust their own work stations to best fit them.
If improving ergonomics is a priority for your organization, does your top management team lead by example? Have they set performance expectations, goals, and clear roles? Do they track performance?
If not, what have you done to best prepare them to lead?
