Generation Flux is a new distinction introduced in several recent Fast Company (FC) articles. This notion builds on terms, such as, Gen X, Gen Y, and Millennials, used broadly to describe generational characteristics. I learned about this evolving idea at the AIHA Fall Conference this past week in San Antonio.
This term, coined by FC’s editor, Robert Safian “is less a demographic designation than a psychographic one: What defines GenFlux is a mind-set that embraces instability, that tolerates – and even enjoys – recalibrating careers, business models, and assumptions.” Safian’s articles provide an overview on how numerous large traditional organizations (e.g. Nike, GE) and newer, smaller start-ups are embracing Generation Flux.
A recent survey of leading European companies, conducted by the Ashridge Business School and University of St. Gallen and reported in the MIT Sloan Management Review (Spring 2012), suggests that links between corporate functions and the CEO could be stronger.
Some of the reported consequences of these weak links include: mixed performance, more bureaucracy, a sense of C-Suite interference, lack of cooperation from operating managers, and a focus on transactional issues as opposed to value-added ones.
The value of building a “culture of assurance” was one of the key reflections shared by BP’s Vice President of HSSE Steve Flynn at the IOSH conference in Manchester, England, March 6–7, 2012.
Flynn examined the role of systems, engineering, and people in contributing to the incident, discussed key points relating to the “change journey” at BP, and shared some reflections/lessons learned that EHS professionals could take away from the event’s investigations.
The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill investigations impart many lessons regarding how to improve EHS management. At the IOSH Conference in Manchester, England, March 6–7, 2012, Steve Flynn, the vice president of health, safety, security, and environment (HSSE) at BP, discussed some of the lessons learned.
During the Q&A session following his presentation, Flynn was asked what “reflections” he had that could help the audience avoid catastrophic accidents. He responded with six items: Read More
EHS auditing is a dynamic process that requires stakeholder input for success. Speakers emphasized this point during a breakout session at the 19th Annual NAEM Forum, which focused on the innovative practices that several companies are using to deliver maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
The speakers presented highlights from the recent International Audit Protocol Consortium’s survey on EHS audit practices: roughly 60 percent of respondents indicated a high rating for detecting regulatory non-compliance; 50 percent for management system conformance; 50 percent for benefit of audit results to the audited operation; and less than 50 percent for benefit to external stakeholders.
I attended an excellent session this afternoon at the 19th Annual NAEM Forum on management of change (MOC), during which speakers presented sound advice and insights regarding EHS/S MOC management issues. Some highlights are below.
There are various types of management of change. These commonly include changes in processes, regulations, personnel, locations (M&A), and priorities and attitudes. Read More
As part of my research this summer on relationships between EHS/S and risk management, I interviewed a group of EHS/S and risk management executives about various aspects of their activities. Prior to the interviews, the interviewees were given the Redinger EHS white paper titled, “360 Vision for Environmental Health, and Sustainability: Anticipate and Avoid Black Swan Events.” A series of questions focused on the needs and challenges of EHS/S and risk management departments. Some of the responses included:
- “I need to know as much as I can about the risks my company faces. I wrestle with having confidence that my team and I have a good understanding about risks that will bite us. I am not sure we have a good understanding about our EHS risks.” Read More