Chief Officers in organizations always find difficulties when answering the question of how safe is safe enough; this is because of the effects of resultant reactions in organizations. The importance of the question is crucial in that failure to answer the question well may result in junior staff not excelling in their career. Organizational leaders should acknowledge various forms of risks that affect business units to ensure success.
In that case, organizations should develop more understanding of risks and how to minimize them to ensure safety. Understanding risk factors is the basis to win safety for all (Hagan, Montgomery, & O’Reilly, 2009). To view safety measures as safe, human skills and operational facilities ought to minimize risks, both personal and organizational. How safe is safe enough, considers accidents as avoidable and possible to eliminate.
Thus, benefits accruing from any activity must outweigh the risks involved. In addition, safety is part of operations and thus should be related to functional success or failure. Even though all parties should be responsible for safety, top management must bear the ultimate duty of care.
In most cases, a leader in personal or corporate level may get information regarding probable problems, but fail to act. The failure to act only demonstrates how safety is far from being achieved in organizations. Negligence on the part of management increases the risks of accidents (Hall, 2011).
This shows that the organization is not safe enough. Ensuring safety involves awareness of risks at hand, responsibilities to tackle them and the impact caused. Everybody has a duty to conduct personal analysis of the weaknesses in self or associates and work best to be safe enough.
Risks in business organizations are inflicted by both individual and corporate performances. This may be resulted by goal differential and market share risks. The Win against safety risks in organizations calls for stakeholders’ actions as well as corporate cultural loyalty in operations. Inadequate risk management programs promise injuries or deaths (Hagan et al., 2009).
This harms corporate goodwill and results to customer displeasure and eventually losses. In case of death, a corporation has to meet costs such as recruitment costs as well insurance and lost production. Low production would be caused by low morale and emotional grief resulted by death or severe injuries.
How safe is safe enough, depends on the willingness of people to fight hazards in the workplace. This is always intricate to most people since it involves a number of challenges in resources in terms of finances and time required.
This leaves the decision to determine the safety of all stakeholders at the hands of top leaders who control resources in an organization. The failure of these few members of a community results to unsafe functions and programs. Hence, safety requires teamwork and authority in order to employ resources in a bid to realize enough safety.
Enough safety protects life and valuable assets from hazardous risks of terrorism. Therefore, enough safety can only be achieved through the implementation of standard safety principles, and at the same time making sound risk management decisions. Environments involving high risks require stiffer programs and resources. Protection of human life, production goals, and equipment is vital in ensuring organizational success.
However, leaders’ behaviors are of the essence of controlling how subordinates react to organizational hazards and corrective measures taken afterwards (Hall, 2011). A company’s preparedness to crisis, financial or operational, reduces the adverse effects due to diverse results arising from harmful situations. To sum it up, maintaining a culture of risk management guarantees nonoccurrence of disasters and promotes enough safety.
References
Hagan, P. E., Montgomery, J. F., & O’Reilly, J. T. (2009). Accident prevention manual for business & industry: administration & programs (13th ed.). United States: National Safety Council.
Hall, J. (2011). How safe is safe enough? Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4(4), 271-272.