“You need to have redesign because familiarity breeds a kind of complacency.” — Timothy White
When a hazardous incident occurs, we often hear a single word offered as an explanation: “Complacency.” Maybe it’s true, but is it helpful?
You will never hear someone come to the defense of complacency. Complacency is universally regarded as undesirable. Not evil, but definitely not desired.
Before we can do anything about complacency, we must understand what it is and what causes it.
Complacency is an Error
I write about errors a lot. Operator errors, training, mental health. These are all topics where errors play a role. So, I may be repeating myself here, but before we can understand complacency, we must understand errors.
Trevor Kletz characterized errors as one of three types: violations, mistakes, or lapses. They all have different causes, and so have different resolutions.
Violations
Violations occur when a person decides not to follow the designed work process. It is tempting to assume that this is because they are evil—lazy, malicious, greedy, or any of the other human character flaws. While evilness or character flaws are possible, it is more likely that a person decides not to follow the designed work process with the best of intentions.
Does this explain complacency? Probably not. It is hard to imagine the circumstance where someone, even with evil intent, decides to pursue a course of complacency.
Mistakes
Mistakes occur despite a person’s best intentions. They want to do what they should do, but they don’t know what that is. Mistakes are the result of ignorance and inexperience. Training and practice will overcome ignorance and inexperience.
Is complacency the result of a mistake, of ignorance and inexperience? People who recognize their ignorance and inexperience are just the opposite of complacent. Instead, they tend to be very anxious about doing the job right.
Lapses
Lapses also occur despite a person’s best intentions. They know what they should do. They are able to do what they should do. They want to do what they should do. And yet, they do not do what they should do. Why? Many reasons are frequently cited; inattention, distraction, and competing priorities are just a few. What they have in common is that the person is highly trained and skilled, and is relying on that training and skill.
It is not wrong for someone to rely on their training and skill instead of relying on the heightened state of awareness that it takes to avoid inattention and distraction. It is exhausting to remain in a continual state of high alert. Any risk reduction strategy that calls for a permanent state of high alert cannot be sustained.
Alexander Pope said, “To err is human.” Lapses, like sneezes and hiccups, are involuntary features of the human condition. Lapses occur, not because operators are poorly trained, but because they are well trained. More training does not reduce the potential for lapses. Lapses occur despite wanting to do what should be done.
The only valid response to lapses is to change the system so that a lapse has less impact, or to accept the lapses.
Complacency is a lapse. More training will not reduce the potential for complacency. As with any other lapse, the only valid response to complacency is to change the system so that complacency has less impact, or to accept complacency as an inevitable component of human behavior.
Dagen H
On Sunday, September 3, 1967, Dagen H, Sweden switched from driving on the left side of the road to driving on the right side of the road. Admittedly, this was not about complacency, but to be consistent with the practice in the neighboring countries of Norway and Finland. Swedes hated the idea and experts anticipated that the switch would result in a massive spike in the number of car crashes and traffic-related fatalities.
It didn’t happen. Instead, there was a reduction in the number of accidents. Monday, September 4, drivers reported 125 traffic accidents. This compares to the range of 130 to 198 traffic accidents reported for Mondays prior to Dagen H. Reportedly, insurance claims dropped 40% in the period immediately following Dagen H. The complacency of drivers was defeated!
For a while. Within six weeks, car crashes were back to pre-Dagen H levels. Some wags suggested that to keep traffic accidents (and complacency) down, Sweden should switch traffic directions every three months.
That didn’t happen. But it illustrates the point.
Accept Complacency or Change the System
We can’t beat complacency out of people. We can’t train complacency out of people. So, our choices are to either accept complacency as a feature of the human condition or change the system. If complacency leads to catastrophic incidents, we cannot accept complacency which leaves changing the system.
One change to consider is to a more automated system. Automation is unlike human behavior in that automated systems are unceasing in their diligence and never become complacent. Automation can be a key tool in reducing the impact of complacency.
But not everything can be automated. There will be times when we have no choice but to rely on human behavior. How do we change that? Sometimes, we need to shake things up for no other purpose than to discourage complacency.
Is time to shake things up?
