We welcome guests Erik (former CEO at Aera Energy) and Ron (Former HSE Manager at Aera Energy) for a mini-series on what it was like to go through a HOP transformation both personally and as a business.

We finish the story of how Andy navigates her own frustration and blame when working with some leaders.

We take a listeners question on how to help people who have started practicing HOP but are struggling with blame shifting from those doing the work to supervisors/investigators. This quickly becomes Matt's favorite episode as we have a conversation with Andy while she is struggling with actively blaming a group of people.

We wrap up the story from episode 40 and discuss how you can bridge the gap from completing operational learning to implementing a solution that may take months to years.

We discuss different ways you can approach seeing someone break a rule and why going in the HOP direction can increase accountability.

Andy and Matt discuss what HOP means to them inside and outside of work. Also, do we feel it is really worth all the extra effort and energy? (spoiler alert - yes)

We use two (hopefully helpful) analogies to describe what we mean when we say "HOP is not a program". Andrea shares a personal story with her daughter about how she applies this change in thought process to resolving conflict.

Andy finishes her "glove story" and shares how she came to understand what "capacity to fail safely" meant.

Andy shares her personal story of understanding what it means to "design differently" in HOP and how we can build more resilient systems.

We break down how we explain what HOP is and what happens if we change the way we think.

The (thrilling) conclusion to Andy's list of behaviors she changed while working at a large organization after learning about HOP.

Andrea continues sharing her personal examples of when she individually "did HOP" while at a large organization.

We continue with Andrea's examples of behaviors she changed while working at a large organizations in a safety role.

Andrea shares how she started putting HOP intro action while in an individual contributor role.

The new generations of workers is not going anywhere, so we revisit the topic of episode 23 (based on listener questions) and add more to the discussion.

We discuss a recent question we were asked around how to move forward after the biggest (and likely most expensive) solution from your operational learning session is axed by Leadership.

Andrea shares a difficult situation she is navigating and how what she has learned from HOP influences her life outside of work.

We discuss the common push back that the internal requirements following any Operational Learning can feel like a burden, but there are ways we can push on those constraints. Also - Matt was able to use a very confusing (but maybe helpful) puppy analogy.

We start with a story around a rule of unknown origins. From there, we explore why after major incidents even "HOP" leaders want to go back to their prior ways.

We discuss the common objection around "rules" and the role they play in keeping people safe. As you might expect, it leads us back to the conversation around people problems vs. system problems.

Andy and (a sick) Matt discuss one of the most common places of tension when someone talks about HOP. What does it mean when we say "not all accidents are preventable"?

The workforce is getting younger and coming in with less experience. We discuss why it is so crucial to learn from the new workforce about their reality.

We tackle the next audience question centered around how HOP may run into conflict with both regulating bodies and internal legal teams.

We answer a listener's question around injury rates and the adoption of HOP.

We tackle a listen asked question on how to handle the pushback from leadership that the organization does not have "the time or the resources to make this change" by making a business case for HOP.

After wrapping up homework with our invented mitigation defense, we move on to share how we see HOP adopted by organizations. We'll spend time on what's worked well for some places and what challenges we hear most often.

Andy starts with a story around how we respond to an incident without considering what performance mode(s) the people executing the task are in. From there, we discuss why we should shift our energy and resources into adding mitigation defenses rather than something like "retraining" post-incident.

Let's talk about Performance Modes. What are they and how do they fit into our view of work?

We wrap up the operational learning mini-series by going over what happens after you define the problem statements.

We define the problems from episode 14's operational learning session and discuss what goes into properly crafting problem statements.

We talk through how we create the conditions for candor while we're working with different organizations. From there, Andy practices some operational learning on what it's like for Matt to book their travel.

We cover how the homework from last episode (being teachable) works with a 3.5 year old. Then it's all about creating the conditions for candor and psych safety.

We start by discussing the complexity of... you guessed it - baseball. From there, we start breaking down operational learning through the idea of "being teachable".

It's time for another mini-series, and this time we're looking at all things operational learning. We start the series by discussing one area that makes operational learning so crucial - complexity science.

Story Time! Andrea shares a story about giving agency to a group of workers and the changes that followed.

We wrap up the 3 part Accountability series by covering counterfactuals and how they impact our view of people or system problems, the role of a culpability matrix, and how to create a high accountability environment.

We answer the question "when should we use HR disciplinary action/punishment?" with some stories and examples. From there, we look at how counterfactuals impact our post-event learning.

So it begins! Part 1 of the multi-part Accountability discussion. We dive into Accountability and what it means to "hold someone accountable".

Let's wrap up Taylorism (for now) with some practical examples and ways you can identify it in the workplace. Then it's on to Accountability.

We'll go over some examples of where the parent-child dynamic happened in our week - from there it's all about Taylorism.

We discuss safety controls we defeat (or totally ignore) because they lack operational fidelity. Next it's onto audits / observations and the parent-child dynamic that is frequently present in our lives.

Matt discusses his (ex?) fear of flying and we drill deeper into the idea of risk normalization. From there, it's on to safety "controls" and the human condition. Do they always play nice?

We discuss real examples of fundamental attribution error inside and outside of the workplace. Then it's on to risk normalization - is it something we can change?