Denver – A Monday afternoon session on human and organizational performance (HOP) here at the National Safety Congress drew a standing room-only crowd, with some attendees sitting on the floor.

There’s nothing new about HOP, aka Safety Differently or Safety 2.0. Organizations, a select minority, have been practicing HOP for years. But judging from the craning necks, scribbled note-taking, cell phone photos of slides and audience questions at this packed sessions, many EHS pros are still in the questioning stage, not yet executing HOP. The desire to learn more about HOP is clearly evident.

One reason for the lack of widespread adoption of HOP is HOP asks more of organizations, in terms of time and resources, than traditional safety. After an incident happens, traditional safety focuses on who failed. Retraining or discipline is the action. Compliance is the outcome. And the employee’s role is being the subject of inquiry.

HOP focuses on what conditions existed at the time of the event. What happened, not who was involved, is the key. Strengthening controls and learning is the action. Systemic improvement is the outcome. The employee’s role is one of being a contributor to learning.

HOP prizes learning. Traditional safety prioritizes compliance. Compliance is step by step following the rules. Learning requires deep dives into organizational systems and culture. It’s easier to fix people than fix systems — and less expensive. Fixing blame on who did what offers fast resolution and quick manager satisfaction. These still are appeals of traditional safety.

But HOP continues to gain admirers due to its refreshing focus on what’s positive, what employees are doing right and how controls are working. Traditional safety’s focus on high frequency, low severity events misses the most significant events, the rarer low frequency, high severity serious injuries and fatalities (SIF). SIF is a major focus of HOP. HOP also emphasizes conversations, not rules and policing, and starting work when safe and essential controls are in place versus traditional safety’s reliance on “stop work” after a problem has been discovered. Proactive HOP versus reactive traditional safety. Positive versus negative. HOP is refreshing, especially to the new generation of EHS pros skeptical of old practices that have plateaued in terms of performance improvements. And case studies show HOP significantly reduces SIFs.