All too often documentation and management systems are overly complex and bureaucratic. A key root cause of this is that many systems and requirements are a legacy of pre-IT days, when organisations were structured differently, communicated directly, and were influenced by different values world views and priorities.

Organisations have evolved to require less hierarchical structures, and IT tools allow more direct and more immediate communication, however if no one has stood back and objectively reviewed systems from the perspective of intended outcomes, the purpose and priorities of those outcomes, and how best to deliver those outcomes, most systems will retain fundamental inefficiencies "because that is the way we have always done things".

An example that comes to mind is the common requirement for periodic refresher training, with little understanding of key principles of learning and development. Firstly, training is only an input; the key point is for people to be competent, not just 'trained'. When training hasn't been designed to deliver on carefully identified competency criteria (and my observation has been that this is the case more often than not), supported by meaningful and relevant assessment tools, and delivered using effective instructional design methodologies, a lot of resources are consumed perpetuating this illusion.

What if we identified key competency requirements and how to assess them, then just assess periodically to verify ongoing competency? If people remain competent, why waste their time and good will by requiring them to repeat training? A good assessment process would also deliver an inherent review anyway.

If a person isn't able to demonstrate ongoing competency, then you can do a learning needs analysis to determine whether they really don't know what they need to know (which indicates they need training), or whether they know but cannot perform (indicating that they either need more practice or need coaching to develop the confidence required to perform).

Most H&S training also suffers - possibly unconsciously - from too much focus on ensuring people pass the assessment (so the provider can get paid), rather than approaching competency requirements in holistic and sensible ways that draw from sound risk management principles and best practice learning and development methodologies.

And that is just one example!

Another important factor to consider is the impact of low levels of trust on how management systems are structured in many organisations, especially in safety and compliance disciplines, and the tendency of many managers and auditors to rely too much on the paperwork as 'proof' while failing to prioritise genuine human connection and interactions.

Great stuff Sheri, in the self imposed bureaucracy of health & safety, its so easy to make things complex but it takes analysis, experience and wisdom to make them simple and effective.

An example that comes to mind is the common requirement for periodic refresher training, with little understanding of key principles of learning and development. Firstly, training is only an input; the key point is for people to be competent, not just 'trained'. — Sheri Greenwell

Frequently, this is driven by Industry Training Organizations, in part for very laudable reasons, but hey if we get to clip the ticket over and over again, what a great business model.

But I agree with your assessment that we are locked into a paradigm of last century bureaucracy, in part this may be driven by the belief that "the bigger my book is, and the more boxes there are to tick" the better and more effectively I've done my job.

Does this tendency to adopt a 'MORE is more" approach perhaps hint at a kind of 'imposter syndrome', with managers feeling less confident about the value they add and less trusting of workers, so they feel the need to fill the void with more and more paperwork as if to justify their existence? Is the core issue a sense of needing to constantly / continuously prove their worth? Are they worried that their managers will think they are not doing enough?

One thing that comes to mind here as well is the significance of the change in mindset required to shift from Safety I to Safety II - i.e., changing from safety practitioners trying to manage everything themselves to LEADING others to enable and support them to take charge of their own safety initiatives and actions. Leading requires a complementary and much more intangible set of skills and perspectives than managing. Many people mistakenly use 'management' and 'leadership' interchangeably, when in fact they are distinctly different and complementary skills.

Not me. I detest paperwork and policy with a "passion". So work hard at reducing it at every opportunity.