Fully agree that management has a responsibility to consider how they shape norms and goal priorities in staff. As organisations already tend do and formalise a lot in top-down space (e.g. toolbox talks, safety posters, performance reports, safety culture campaigns, etc), I think most organisations forget about supporting local or horizontal discussions.

Single study of course doesn't settle the debate on Take 5, and the idea of subsequent studies get us excited (academics can be a weird bunch), whether it is by us or others. Especially with something as ubiquitous and diverse as Take 5, there will always more to study and consider. If organisations want to do (and fund) subsequent studies, we are always keen. Since the study, people have reached out to us about Take 5(-like) practice that definitely went beyond the scope of our study. There will be functions that we have not considered, like the idea of it being a dialog opener. Do you have any observations around how Take 5-like practices change the way people talk about risks?

What experiences have taught you that a process is needed for workers to understand risk assessment and that such processes increase safety in an organisation?

As 'safety' is an elusive target, I am always keen to learn about additional aspects to consider.

There's no doubt people discussion work challenges, hazards, or safety norms can make a big difference. Where I have some doubts is whether management should try and lead or take over the process all the time. It's quite natural for people to discuss hazards and challenges, just as people look for hazards regardless of whether there is a Take 5 policy. In that regard, providing shared crib rooms, break times, having project timelines or maps available, making it easier for workers to talk to each other, might do more to foster discussions than formalised forums.

It's always exciting to hear people are experimenting with Take 5's. Since we have published the article, people have reached out to us to discuss interesting versions, and some that definitely went beyond what we have studied. What is the main purpose of the new Take 5 version?

It's certainly true that Take 5's and the like can take on different shapes and roles, which can make our study results less relevant. However, if the purpose is kept at making people look for or think about hazards, I do not think it makes much of a difference. Our data suggested that workers look for hazards equally, with or without Take5 policy. Considering that many workers were contractors, it's hard to link this to a kind of organisational maturity argument. What did you make of our argument against attempting to fix the Take 5?

It's certainly true many things can get in the way of decluttering efforts. We do hope that the study helps making an argument to push back against Take 5 requirements.

The full study can be found here for free.

When looking for an alternative, the first question would be an alternative to do what? As there are different ideas about what Take 5 ought to do, this is not a straight forward question.