If you spend enough time in the safety world, you’ll notice something about the word “accountability”: everyone uses it and claims to value it. If you listen closely to safety-related conversations, you’ll also discover that accountability means different things to different people. For some, it’s a co-worker getting written up (i.e., identifying “who did it” and making sure there are consequences). The word essentially becomes a euphemism for “blame.” But while pointing fingers might feel satisfying in the moment, rarely does it lead to meaningful, positive change. Playing the blame game is short-sighted and potentially dangerous. True accountability, on the other hand – the kind that builds stronger crews and safer jobs – means taking ownership of incidents and the search for solutions. It’s not about punishment; it’s about seeing a problem through to its resolution and being part of what prevents its recurrence. A perfect example of the industry blame game has been playing out on social media. In a dramatic dashcam video, an employee works from a bucket truck parked just off the shoulder at an intersection. The bucket is positioned over the right lane, beneath a traffic signal. As a semitruck turns through the intersection, you see its trailer swing wide and slam into the bucket, causing the bucket to flip. The employee is ejected but saved by his harness. Not unexpectedly, online reactions to the video have been intense. Comments point fingers in every direction: “Where was the traffic control?” “Why was the bucket positioned like that?” “That driver wasn’t paying attention.” “Somebody should be fired.” The truth is that none of us knows all the details involved with that job – not the constraints the crew was working under, the pressures they faced nor the decisions that led to their roadside setup. What we do know is that when a situation goes awry, people can rush to place blame, an instinct that inhibits the continuous development of a healthy safety culture. Breaking the Habit To break the habit, we must change our definition of accountability. The book “Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win” by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin is one resource that has shaped my thinking in this area. Its premise is simple but powerful: a true leader owns everything in their world. They take full responsibility for good and bad outcomes, stepping up and saying, “I may not be able to control everything, but I will take ownership of how I lead and respond.” Any worker who is part of an organizational system can use this approach. That’s ideal because incidents rarely have one cause, meaning that real accountability can only exist where responsibility is integrated across an entire organization, from frontline workers and supervisors to planners and leadership. Too often, we try to assign each failure a singular cause (e.g., “That was human error,” “That was a system flaw,” “That was a leadership miss”), but failure almost always stems from a combination of factors, all of which must be addressed for a solution to stick. Pivoting From Fear to Solutions If used as a disciplinary tool, accountability typically creates fear in others. We begin to identify and develop solutions, however, when accountability is treated as a commitment to ownership and learning. Outputs include workers who speak up, teams who care, leaders who listen and safety cultures that continuously improve. Instead of outrage, the viral video I described above should prompt each of us to honestly assess ourselves and ask, which conversations do I continue to avoid? What shortcuts have become normalized on company worksites? Do I tolerate certain risks because I’ve become complacent? True accountability forces us to ask – and answer – better questions. On the day that viral video was recorded, for instance, what jobsite pressures existed? Who had the authority to pause work? Did everyone with authority feel safe to exercise it? Was the incident an anomaly or a symptom of something deeper? What will we do differently next time to avoid a recurrence? To create accountability that goes beyond paperwork and penalties, we must lead differently. Stay involved after incident reports are filed and invite the people closest to the work to help identify and implement solutions. Model what it looks and sounds like to say – implicitly and explicitly – “This happened on my watch, and I’m not walking away from it.” That’s the kind of safety accountability our industry needs more of. Not blame. Not silence. Ownership. About the Author: Jamie Conn, CLCP, is a safety professional with over 20 years of experience working as a lineman for electric cooperatives. He earned a theology degree and is passionate about people, purpose and driving cultural change rooted in real-world experience.

Recorded live from the IP Utility Safety Conference in Glendale, Arizona , this free-flowing conversation features Kate Wade of IP magazine , Billy Martin of Think Tank Project, LLC , and Brant Jeffries of Bierer Meters. The group discusses how conferences and networking change our perspectives , using analogies like Billy’s “fire corn” and Heraclitus’s river. They dive deep into the dangers of “reactiveness” , citing examples from Arizona’s freeway development to local city council decisions. The conversation emphasizes the need to move to “upstream thinking” and use the “space between stimulus and response” to build trust and make more rational, safer decisions.  

Key Takeaways

Learning requires discomfort. True growth at conferences comes not from seeking confirmation , but from being stretched and a “little bit uncomfortable”. Shift your perspective. The group uses the analogy, “You’re not stuck in traffic; you are the traffic” , to illustrate how we are the ones who apply negative emotion (the “suck”) to a situation , which blocks our ability to learn from it. Beware the “reactive” trap. Humans are programmed to be reactive. The speakers note that we often react to problems—like traffic or accidents—long after they began , rather than using “upstream thinking” to find the root decisions that caused them. Use the space between stimulus and response. Citing Viktor Frankl , the group stresses the importance of taking time before responding. This space allows our “thinking selves” to override an immediate reaction , de-escalate conflict , and choose a rational response. Modern media may be programming us for reactivity. The group discusses how modern movies and video games, with their “flash, flash, flash” editing , are rewiring our brains for shorter attention spans and making us more reactive. iPi Forum – https://ip-institute.com/ipi-forum/ You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine. Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/ Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/