As a safety professional with years of experience, I know that improving safety performance often means looking beyond traditional approaches. That’s where Human Organizational Performance (HOP) comes in. HOP focuses on understanding how systems and human factors contribute to success and failures, offering a more effective way to improve safety outcomes. Let me introduce you to the core principles of HOP and why they are so important in safety management.
Human Organizational Performance (HOP) is an approach that focuses on understanding how human errors and system weaknesses contribute to incidents. By shifting from a blame-centric culture to one that examines systems, HOP enables organizations to learn from mistakes, reduce risks, and improve overall safety. With the rise of resilience engineering, industries like oil and gas have begun to recognize that creating systems that can adapt to both expected and unexpected conditions is crucial for improving safety performance (França et al., 2023; Sarvari et al., 2024).
Traditional safety models often focus on compliance and eliminating human error. However, HOP recognizes that errors are inevitable, and systems should be designed to account for them. In this post, we’ll explore the key principles of HOP and how safety professionals can use them to create safer, more resilient work environments. Research from sectors such as nuclear power plants, air traffic control, and healthcare systems supports the need for proactive approaches like Safety-II (HOP) to manage system variability and improve outcomes (Ham et al., 2021).
What is Human Organizational Performance (HOP)?
Human Organizational Performance (HOP) is a systems-based approach to safety that recognizes human error not as the cause of incidents but as a symptom of deeper organizational weaknesses. Instead of focusing on eliminating human error, HOP aims to design systems that anticipate errors and minimize their impact. This shift from a blame-centric culture to a learning-based approach allows organizations to understand how their systems can be improved to prevent accidents (França & Hollnagel, 2020). Industries like offshore drilling and oil and gas have embraced this perspective by integrating human factors and resilience engineering principles into their safety strategies (França et al., 2020).
At its core, HOP is based on five key principles:
- People Make Mistakes
Human errors are a natural part of any work environment. HOP acknowledges that, rather than trying to eliminate errors, we should focus on designing systems that are resilient to errors. This aligns with findings from various high-risk industries where human factors are seen as essential for ensuring flexibility and system performance (Ham et al., 2021). - Blame Fixes Nothing
Blaming individuals for mistakes does not improve safety. Instead, HOP encourages organizations to look at the systemic causes that led to the error and focus on learning and improvement. This is evident in complex systems such as healthcare, where a combination of Safety-I and Safety-II methodologies is often necessary to address both immediate failures and long-term system resilience (Leistikow & Bal, 2020). - Context Influences Behavior
Workers’ actions are influenced by the environment and systems they operate within. HOP emphasizes the need to understand the context in which decisions are made and how systems can be improved to support better outcomes. This concept is supported by resilience engineering, which focuses on managing system variability to prevent failures (França et al., 2020). - Learning and Improvement are Key
Every incident provides an opportunity to learn. HOP promotes a culture of continuous learning, where organizations focus on understanding what went wrong and how they can prevent it from happening again. Resilience engineering, which has been increasingly adopted across industries, emphasizes learning from both failures and successes to create adaptable systems (Ham et al., 2021). - Response to Failure Matters
How an organization responds to incidents directly impacts its culture. A learning-based response that focuses on system improvements leads to better safety outcomes compared to punitive measures. By emphasizing resilience and adaptability, organizations can better prepare for both expected and unexpected disruptions (França et al., 2020).
Why HOP Matters for Safety Professionals
- Redefining How We Approach Incidents
Traditional safety models often focus on who made a mistake. In contrast, HOP encourages safety professionals to ask, “Why did this happen, and how can the system be improved?” This shift from blame to learning allows organizations to gain deeper insights into their operations and make more meaningful improvements (França et al., 2020; Leistikow & Bal, 2020). - Creating Resilient Systems
One of the key goals of HOP is to design systems that are resilient to errors. This means building processes and environments that account for human fallibility and minimize the consequences of mistakes. For example, resilience engineering in the oil and gas industry has shown that integrating fail-safe mechanisms and intuitive equipment design can significantly improve safety outcomes (França et al., 2023). - Improving Worker Engagement
Workers are often the best source of information about potential risks and system weaknesses. HOP encourages safety professionals to involve workers in identifying hazards and developing solutions. By engaging workers in the safety process, organizations can improve communication, increase trust, and develop more effective safety strategies (Ham et al., 2021). - Reducing Incident Rates Through Learning
When organizations focus on learning from every incident—no matter how minor—they create a culture of continuous improvement. HOP promotes the use of learning teams, where workers and managers collaborate to understand the causes of incidents and develop actionable solutions. This proactive approach leads to a reduction in incident rates and an overall improvement in safety performance (Leistikow & Bal, 2020).
Implementing HOP in Your Safety Program
- Start with Leadership Buy-In
For HOP to be successful, it must be embraced by leadership. Safety professionals should work to educate leaders on the benefits of HOP and how it can improve both safety and operational efficiency (França & Hollnagel, 2020; Ham et al., 2021). - Develop Learning Teams
Learning teams are an essential component of HOP. These teams are made up of workers, supervisors, and safety professionals who work together to analyze incidents and develop system improvements (Leistikow & Bal, 2020). - Focus on Systems, Not People
When incidents occur, resist the urge to blame individuals. Instead, use the incident as an opportunity to examine how the system allowed the error to occur. This shift in focus from blaming individuals to analyzing systems is at the heart of HOP and leads to more sustainable improvements (Ham et al., 2021). - Continuous Training and Improvement
HOP is not a one-time initiative; it requires ongoing training and improvement. Safety professionals should regularly review and update training programs to incorporate new insights gained from learning teams and incident investigations. Additionally, industries like oil and gas have found success in integrating modern technologies to support continuous improvement efforts (França et al., 2023).
Conclusion
Human Organizational Performance (HOP) offers a transformative approach to safety management by focusing on learning from incidents and designing resilient systems. For safety professionals, HOP provides the tools to shift from a blame-based culture to one of continuous improvement and system resilience. By embracing HOP principles, organizations can reduce incidents, improve safety outcomes, and foster a culture of openness and learning.
Reference
França, J. E. M., Hollnagel, E., & Santos, I. J. A. L. (2020). Safety-II approach in the O&G industry: Human factors and non-technical skills building safety. In Proceedings of the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference (pp. 1–12). IBP.
França, J. E. M., & Hollnagel, E. (2023). From unsafe acts to system resilience: How emerging technologies in the O&G industry reach new safety frontiers. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, 111, 735–742. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004080
Ham, D. H. (2021). Safety-II and resilience engineering in a nutshell: An introductory guide to their concepts and methods. Safety and Health at Work, 12, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2020.12.004
Hauck, D. K., MacArthur, D. W., Smith, M. K., Thron, J., & Budlong-Sylvester, K. (2010). Defining the questions: A research agenda for nontraditional authentication in arms control. Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Leistikow, I., & Bal, R. A. (2020). Resilience and regulation, an odd couple? Consequences of Safety-II on governmental regulation of healthcare quality. BMJ Quality & Safety, 29, 869–872. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010610
Sarvari, P. A., Nagy, Z., Fodor, Z., & Paller, K. (2024). Resilience through advanced technologies: Exploring the integration of Safety I and Safety II in complex socio-technical systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.108621
Wachter, J. K. (2011). Human factors in high-risk systems: An analysis of the role of human error in safety. Safety Science, 49, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.05.005
Yoon, J., Zhang, X., & Tan, K. (2021). Safety II as a pathway to resilience in complex industrial environments. Journal of Safety Research, 79, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.11.004
Provan, D. J., Rae, A. J., & Dekker, S. (2020). Safety-II in practice: Developing resilience in real-world safety management. Safety Science, 121, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.06.003
Editorial Board (2020). Editorial board of Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.06.001
