What you don’t know can hurt you: why choosing your own coach is a bad idea
.png)
In recent years, the coaching market has continued to make major advancements in how to scale coaching for the many. It is commonplace to see small-group coaching, learning circles, peer to peer coaching, bot coaching, self-paced coaching, asynchronized coaching, and even instant coaching, with a live person at your fingertips. It’s easy to believe that innovation in the science of mindset and behavior change knows no borders.
So, what’s the problem here? With such advancement, what could possibly jeopardize the quality and integrity of coaching today? It might be different than what you think. Yes, much comes down to the coach themselves, their experience, and how they are resourced to do their work; but with more qualified and well-equipped coaches out there than ever before, this is less of an issue. The problem lies in the pivot towards selecting your own coach, and the challenge is ensuring you make an unbiased choice.
Swipe left to reinforce your bias
Today, choosing your coach is as simple as swiping left. Aided by apps modelled after unregulated dating platforms, employees can select their coach by scrolling or swiping through a list of options. These dating apps appeal to some of humanity’s most rudimentary motivators, such as physical attraction and affinity bias (defined below). Instead of matching with the best fit, Coach selection processes are becoming riddled with the same biases towards race, gender, and sexual orientations that most organizations are working hard to eliminate.
There are two main biases emerging in this approach to coach selection:
- Affinity Bias: Affinity bias, also known as similarity bias, is the tendency for people to connect with others who share similar interests, experiences, and backgrounds.
- Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is the inclination to draw conclusions about a situation or person based on your personal desires, beliefs, and prejudices, rather than on unbiased merit.
These biases lead to two common coaching traps:
Coaching Trap #1: Many scaled coaching organizations today use dating algorithms (think swiping left or right) to assist in coach selection. At first, an employee will only see a coach’s photo and would need to click on their image to see further details. While this is a fun and inventive way of enabling the employee’s speed to coach selection, as exposure to someone’s face only further reinforces basic biases; based on psychology, employees are more likely to choose the person that looks like them.
Coaching Trap #2: Across the globe, there is a strong bias towards both a specific set of educational institutions (the Ivy League) and certain levels of academic achievement (graduate degrees, whether in medicine, law, or other fields). Thus, graduates from lesser-known institutions and bachelor’s degree-holders may be considered less valuable. When selecting a coach, this bias frequently plays out with the perception that coaches with rarefied educational backgrounds will deliver better results.
By enabling coach selection in this way, employees are almost encouraged to reinforce their own biases, which include ageism, sexism, racism, name bias, beauty bias, cultural bias, and more. These biases are the ones that companies are working hard to disrupt via policies on rewards, hiring, employee lifecycle, and in society. Despite this, recent studies show alarming trends, even in early careers:
One study of high school students found that females considered to be attractive earned eight percent more than those who were not considered attractive, and men of below-average attractiveness made 13 percent less than other men who were considered attractive.1
In another study, White-sounding names received 50 percent more call backs for interviews than Black-sounding names. Even with a higher quality resume, there is still a strong bias towards White-sounding names, which elicit 30 percent more call-backs. For Black-sounding names, the increase is much smaller. Applicants living in better neighborhoods also receive more call-backs, but this effect is not impacted by race.2
So, here’s the problem: the coach you think you need could not be the one you actually need. Just because you feel comfortable with a person or “see yourself” in them doesn’t necessarily correspond to effective change. Many people reflect on their coaching experiences and find that the coaches or people in their life that they’ve learned the most from are very different from themselves.
In a time when everyone is working together to eliminate bias and encourage equity, this is one more area where we need to lead change.
What’s the alternative?
To ensure quality coach selection, you need to follow a few key principles in your approach:
- Make sure your coaching approach and initiative are aligned to strategic outcomes, a change agenda, and your organization values. This can be used to simplify and focus your pool of coaches based on experience, industry knowledge, specialties, and organizational or individual need.
- Ahead of time, ask your employees to reflect on what they believe is important to them in a coach. This will normally result in them naming some of the higher order needs based on past experiences, current needs, and context.
- Your coaching partner should have a “Coach Talent Director” role or similar. This person should know all there is to know about how to maximize their coaches’ talent and match it to yours. Invest in this relationship, carefully scoping out how this person can you be your guide on the side in getting the fit right for your organization.
- Allocate a coach to each employee based on their stated needs. Take pulse checks along the way from both parties to check in on how the match is going.
- If the coaching match isn’t working, or the chemistry isn’t there, make it easy for people to change without judgement or impediment.
- If choice is a key requirement, introduce the coach selection only after working with the Coach Talent Director to select the information that is critical for employees to know. This information should be designed to help employees make an unbiased choice – qualities such as coaching style, approach, experience, and industry background are appropriate, but photographs and names should be avoided.
So much effort to reduce bias has been implemented into hiring, promotion, succession, and performance management processes that it would be a mistake to ignore biases in coach selection. To continue moving the needle on equity and inclusion – which not only delivers business results, but also makes our society better as a whole – it’s essential to take a critical look at your coach selection process. You just might be accidently helping to reinforce bias by encouraging employees to swipe left on a coach in an app.
References
- Gordon, R. A., & Crosnoe, R. (2013, December 10). In school, good looks help and good looks hurt (but they mostly help). Council on Contemporary Families. https://contemporaryfamilies.org/good-looks-help-report/.
- Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003, July 28). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor Market Discrimination. NBER. https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.
Related content
Last night I started reading a book by Irvin Yalom, a psychiatrist who has written several novels that I’ve loved. But right now I’m reading something different—a book of short lessons he’s learned from many years of working with patients.
Early in his career, Yalom was inspired by something he read. The gist of it was that all people have a natural tendency to want to grow and become fulfilled—just an acorn will grow up to become an oak—as long as there are no obstacles in the way. So the job of the psychotherapist was to eliminate the obstacles to growth.
This was a eureka moment for Yalom. At the time, he was treating a young widow. Suffering through grief for a long while, she wanted help because she had a “failed heart”—an inability ever to love again.
Yalom had felt overwhelmed. How could he possibly change someone’s inability to love? But now he looked at it differently. He could dedicate himself to identifying and eliminating the obstacles that kept her from loving.
So they worked on that—her feelings of disloyalty to her late husband, her sense that she was somehow responsible for his death, and the fear of loss that falling in love again would mean. Eventually they eliminated all of the obstacles. Then her natural ability to love—and grow—returned. She remarried.
Reading this story made me think of the responsibility of leaders toward the people they need to develop—and for the growth and learning that leaders themselves require to be the best that they can be.
Many leadership development challenges seem overwhelming—even impossible. The leaders that we coach usually have a list of areas where they want to get better, but how? How do you “build better relationships with your peers and direct reports”? How are you supposed to “get out of the weeds and demonstrate enterprise-wide thinking” or “build executive presence”? All of these goals are as abstract as they are huge.
So the best approach is to not focus on the huge and fuzzy goal. What we try to do is to break these goals down into concrete actions through working on real-time business problems. To put it simply, though, we do just as Yalom does: We identify the obstacles and work toward knocking them off, one at a time.
Leadership development is not usually a quick fix. You’re not going to develop executive presence through a half-day workshop or a one-time meeting. If you’re interested in meaningful, lasting growth—whether for yourself or for those who work for you—it’s a commitment.
But don’t ever forget that we’re all capable of growth throughout life and our careers. The trick is to find the right coach or mentor who will guide you through that obstacle course.
Across industries, leaders agree: critical roles, those with outsized impact on organizational success on business success, deserve focused attention. And yet, most organizations still struggle to define them clearly, identify the right talent, and build the readiness needed to execute when it matters most. Despite years of investment in succession planning and high-potential pipelines, most organizations still lack the clarity and consistency needed to execute critical role strategy with confidence.
What are critical roles, really?
We define critical roles as those that disproportionately impact business outcomes and are hard to fill, often cross-functional, and deeply tied to strategic execution. They aren’t always the most senior roles, but they’re the ones that, if left vacant or poorly filled, slow down growth, innovation, or transformation. These roles often require capabilities that go beyond technical expertise like influence across silos, decision-making without full control, and the ability to navigate ambiguity.
Many organizations assume they know their critical roles, but often these definitions are inherited, outdated, or driven by hierarchy, not business value. We encourage clients to pressure-test role criticality by asking: How does the law of supply and demand apply when the demand for this critical role is high, but the supply is limited due to how difficult it is to find, train, and develop ready leaders?
The maturity challenge: what the data shows
Despite prioritizing critical roles, most organizations are not where they want to be:
- Only 21% say successors for critical roles are truly ready1
- Just 25% have clear development plans for people in these roles2
- 50% are starting to expand beyond executive roles, but definitions are still narrow3
This results in a rise of business risk. Transitions stall. Significant business moments like product launches, market expansions, or leadership shifts get delayed or derailed. Even when roles are named and successors are listed, too often it’s the same few people rotating through stretch assignments without real role-level clarity or successor variety.
Three distinct talent needs we see
At BTS, we see three pivotal talent needs organizations must design for:
- The role has evolved, but the leader hasn’t. The strategy has shifted, but expectations haven’t been redefined.
- The pipeline is unclear. It hasn’t been clearly identified who belongs on the bench or whether the right people are even in it. Without visibility and targeted development, readiness remains more of a guess than a strategy.
- A decision needs to be made now, and it must be right. The risk of getting it wrong is high, and factual, objective evidence is needed.
Readiness isn’t a one-time conversation; instead, it’s a continuous discipline. The most advanced organizations are building systems, not just lists.
Seven enablers of a critical role strategy
In our work across industries, the most effective organizations are building discipline around critical roles, not just process. We’ve identified seven drivers that consistently separate high-performing strategies from reactive ones. These show up in different ways depending on where an organization is at on their journey:
- Strategic alignment: Roles are clearly tied to business goals and future priorities.
- Role definition: Roles are defined by impact, not hierarchy.
- Building profiles: The definition of success in role is based on the future, not the past.
- Wide-ranging talent pipelines: Bench strength reflects diversity of experience, geography, background, and perspective.
- Immersive development: Successors build real readiness through stretch roles, simulations, and job previews. Coaching enhances these experiences by helping leaders process feedback, build self-awareness, and apply learning to their context.
- Retention strategy: Incumbents are supported with personalized development and visible investment.
- Continuity planning: Institutional knowledge is captured and transitioned before it walks out the door.
What great looks like in practice
Most organizations rely on role titles, tenure, and intuition. But that’s not enough for roles that carry real risk. Organizations that are closing the readiness gap are doing more than refreshing succession charts. They’re investing in: custom success profiles, assessment-backed talent decisions, and development experiences that reflect the real demands of the role. Great organizations don’t just offer development; they also create role-specific experiences that build the judgment, fluency, and resilience required for the real pressures of the job. It’s not just about knowledge; it’s about role conditioning.
How future-ready is your approach? A quick checklist
Use this checklist to pressure-test the strength of your critical role strategy:
- Have you defined critical roles based on future business impact, not just titles?
- Are success profiles aligned with what the business will require tomorrow?
- Do you know who’s in your bench and how ready they are?
- Are your placement decisions based on structured assessment, not gut feel?
- Are your successors learning through stretch experiences and role previews?
- Are incumbents receiving targeted support that drives their retention and growth?
- Do you have a plan for knowledge transfer if someone in a critical role left today?
What you can do now
- Clarify what roles are truly critical by future impact, not just past precedent
- Be honest about readiness and measure it before placing someone in role
- Invest intentionally and build immersive, real-world development to match role demands
- Don’t confuse visibility with readiness; make decisions based on data, not familiarity
- Prepare leaders before they transition into a critical role so they’re ready to thrive from day one
Critical roles don’t just need names next to them. They need clarity, intention, and investment. Organizations that treat critical role strategy as a leadership capability, not just a process, are the ones driving growth and resilience in today’s market. This isn’t just about building a bench. It’s about building belief, from the front line to the C-suite, that the right people are leading in the moments that matter most.
1Gartner, 2023 report
2The Talent Strategy Group, Critical Roles Report, Apr 2025
3Korn Ferry, Revamping Succession Planning, Nov2023 report
Feedback is one of the most powerful tools a leader has, shaping both individual and organizational culture. Yet, despite its value, it’s often met with apprehension—seen as judgment rather than an opportunity. Instead of fueling growth, it can create tension, leaving recipients feeling exposed and defensive.
This reaction is natural. Feedback touches on identity, competence, and self-worth. When framed as a verdict rather than an insight, it sparks defensiveness instead of openness. But what if feedback wasn’t about judgment? What if it was a tool for gathering better data—both for the recipient and the leader?
When leaders make feedback a habit, not a performance review, they gain sharper insights, model continuous improvement, and create a culture where learning thrives. The shift from evaluation to empowerment turns feedback into fuel for growth. And at the heart of this shift? Curiosity.
Leading in a MESSY world: Why feedback matters more than ever
Leaders today operate in constant disruption and complexity. They must move beyond assumptions and seek new perspectives. At BTS, we call this operating in a MESSY world:
- M – Making sense of the broader ecosystem
- E – Establishing emotional connections to build trust
- S – Seizing momentum to stay ahead
- S – Sensing the future amid uncertainty
- Y – Yielding ego to create space for others to grow
Feedback is critical in helping leaders navigate these challenges. It’s not just a tool for correction but a catalyst for innovation and collaboration. But without structure, feedback can fall flat. That’s where the AFIRM Model comes in.
Reframing feedback: From evaluation to exploration
Great feedback moves beyond transaction into mutual discovery. When leaders model effective feedback, they foster deeper connections and unlock insights that drive performance.
Curiosity plays a crucial role in this transformation. When leaders approach feedback with genuine curiosity—asking open-ended questions and actively listening—they shift conversations from critique to shared learning. Curiosity also provides leaders with better data on how they show up, helping them refine their approach and model the kind of feedback culture they want to create.
Balancing feedback with efficiency is essential. The AFIRM Model provides a structured approach that makes feedback actionable and constructive while keeping curiosity at the center.
Structure feedback for impact with the AFIRM model
AFIRM enables structured yet flexible conversations—ensuring feedback drives results. It provides a roadmap for leaders to create meaningful, productive discussions that foster growth and accountability. Here’s how it works:
A – Agenda
Set clear intentions. Define the purpose and desired outcomes upfront. A prepared conversation leads to honest, productive dialogue and signals that feedback is a shared responsibility rather than a one-sided critique.
F – Facts, Observations, Evidence
Keep it objective. Base feedback on data and observations to minimize bias. Stay neutral and constructive. Providing fact-based feedback ensures conversations remain focused and prevents emotional reactions that derail progress.
Curiosity fosters deeper dialogue—ask questions, seek perspectives, and pave the way for growth. Instead of assuming why something happened, ask “What led to this?” or “What challenges were you facing?” to create space for honest reflection.
I – Impact
Clarify effects. Who was affected? What were the consequences? Centering feedback on impact builds trust and accountability. Highlighting the broader implications helps individuals understand why feedback matters and how their actions contribute to team success.
R – Request
Co-create a path forward. Define actionable, SMART next steps (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound). Encourage collaboration by asking “How do you think we can move forward?” or “What support do you need?” Keeping the dialogue open ensures accountability while fostering autonomy.
M – Mutuality
Feedback is a partnership. Success requires shared ownership and commitment to growth. A strong feedback culture thrives when both parties see feedback as a two-way street—leaders should also invite input on how they can better support and enable success. Take time to ask “What feedback do you have for me?” to reinforce that feedback is a mutual learning process.
Creating feedback-driven growth
Imagine an organization where feedback fuels engagement and connection. When framed as a tool for growth rather than judgment, conversations shift from evaluation to exploration. Everyone is on the same team, with the same goals.
Great leaders don’t just give feedback—they seek it, reflect on it, and use it to sharpen their approach. By modeling curiosity and making feedback a daily habit, they foster a culture where feedback is normal, constructive, and empowering.
Feedback isn’t about fixing. It’s about discovering what’s possible. By approaching it as a shared learning opportunity, we move from judgment to collaboration, growth, and transformation.
What’s one question you could ask today to spark a meaningful feedback conversation?
Related content
¿Se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización?
Hoy en día, hay pocas organizaciones que no se encuentren inmersas en uno (o varios) procesos de transformación cultural. Nuevas formas de trabajar en organizaciones más planas y adaptativas, mejoras en la cultura de seguridad, orientar la organización hacia sus clientes, transformaciones de las áreas comerciales, mejora de la excelencia operativa, por citar algunas.
Y es aquí donde viene una de las grandes preguntas:
¿se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización? Y, si es así, ¿cómo se hace?
Para ayudar a responder a estas preguntas, que a menudo nos hacen nuestros clientes y sobre las que hay mucho escrito, me gustaría compartir lo que en BTS hemos aprendido en los últimos 38 años sobre qué funciona y qué no (hasta ahora, que en esto de los cambios culturales uno nunca deja de aprender).
La buena noticia es que la respuesta a la pregunta de si se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización es sí.
La dificultad viene al responder a la segunda: ¿cómo se hace?
¿Un proyecto? ¿Una iniciativa?
Un punto importante a considerar es que los procesos de cambio o transformación cultural no son un proyecto con un inicio y un fin; es un proceso en constante evolución. Y esto es algo que en ocasiones genera tensión en las organizaciones, a menudo acostumbradas a un enfoque basado en proyectos.
¿Qué es crítico y a menudo se suele ignorar?
Hay una serie de elementos que, si se tienen en cuenta y se utilizan adecuadamente, harán que los esfuerzos de transformación sean mucho más eficaces. Desafortunadamente, muchas veces se ignoran.
Estos elementos críticos son:
- Involucrar a la gente. Cuanto más se hace partícipes de la transformación a las personas (a todos los niveles), más altas son las probabilidades de que implementen los cambios requeridos.
- Para entender el cambio hay que tangibilizarlo y experimentarlo. Consiste en conectar el marco teórico con acciones del día a día. Explicar la foto completa con transparencia es clave.
- Todos los cambios traen consigo cosas positivas, pero también tienen impactos negativos. Explicar la foto completa con transparencia es clave.
- Cambiar la cultura implica tiempo y requiere identificar y cambiar los “mindsets” y las estructuras diarias (símbolos) que definen cómo se hacen las cosas en la organización.
- La cultura debe estar fuertemente conectada con la estrategia.
¿Cómo recomendamos estructurar los procesos de cambio cultural?
Nuestro enfoque se compone de cuatro etapas: establecer resultados, crear líderes de cambio, incrustar cambios clave y sostener las nuevas formas de trabajo.
1. Establecer resultados
El primer paso en cualquier proceso de transformación es establecer resultados claros. Es crucial identificar los impulsores de la transformación y definir los resultados deseados de manera que se logre un verdadero alineamiento a nivel ejecutivo. A medida que se avanza, hay que conectar los puntos entre el propósito y la visión, entendiendo de dónde se viene, dónde se está y hacia dónde se quiere avanzar. Además, es esencial conectar la transformación con los objetivos organizacionales.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Recopilación de información (entrevistas, focus groups, visitas a operaciones,…)
- Diagnósticos culturales
- Definición de expectativas (Leadership Profiles
2. Crear líderes de cambio
En BTS creemos que todos los líderes son también líderes de cambio. Adoptar una mentalidad de “líder de cambio” requiere que los líderes experimenten y vean lo que se espera de ellos. Desde el inicio, es vital impulsar a la acción con ‘trabajo real’, como establecer nuevas prioridades y comunicar de forma transparente y eficaz.
Hay que comprometer (emocional y racionalmente) a los líderes con el cambio y hacerles ver cómo pueden impactar en la cultura a través de acciones concretas en el día a día.
Por último, es necesario proporcionar apoyo continuo para los cambios de mentalidad y comportamiento más difíciles y recoger retroalimentación sobre lo que funciona y lo que no en esta etapa.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Elaboración de Playbooks para roles críticos
- Despliegue de programas de liderazgo y cambio
- Feedback loops con los niveles ejecutivos
3. Incrustar cambios clave
Para lograr un cambio significativo, es esencial identificar los modelos mentales actuales y ofrecer nuevos que apoyen el estado deseado. Crear rutinas y símbolos que refuercen el cambio, así como identificar procesos, prácticas, eventos o normas ancladas en las viejas formas de trabajar, es crucial.
Cocrear nuevas formas de trabajo para su activación inmediata ayuda a cimentar estos cambios. A medida que se avanza, cambiar los sistemas y procesos que soportan y refuerzan los cambios cruciales es fundamental para el éxito a largo plazo.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Coaching a líderes
- Montar Sprints culturales
- Cascadear el cambio al resto de la organización
- Assessments para medir cambios de comportamientos
4. Sostener las nuevas formas de trabajo
El cambio no es solo un esfuerzo individual, sino también un fenómeno social. Por ello hay que proveer de las redes sociales necesarias para apoyar los cambios de mentalidad y comportamiento. Intervenir con apoyo individual para roles críticos y períodos específicos, así como incorporar nuevas formas de trabajo, asegura la continuidad del cambio.
Por último, hay que utilizar datos para analizar lo que funciona y lo que no, permitiendo crear el siguiente conjunto de intervenciones y apoyo necesarios.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Integración de los Playbooks en el ciclo de talento de la organización
- Practica de los nuevos comportamientos en el día a día con bots potenciados por IA
- Diseño de una oficina para monitorizar el cambio y definir nuevas acciones
- Diseño y lanzamiento de Comunidades de Práctica (CoP)
La importancia de ser paciente e impaciente a la vez
Los procesos de transformación cultural son uno de los elementos más retadores, ya que nunca existe una receta única.
Ser estratégicamente paciente (teniendo claros esos resultados deseados y evitando dar bandazos), pero tácticamente impaciente (realizando acciones en las fases expuestas anteriormente y viendo qué funciona y qué no, para pivotar y corregir) es clave en los procesos de transformación.
El enfoque de las 4 fases ayuda a ello, posibilitando que estos viajes se conviertan en una experiencia enriquecedora para la organización, y no en un dolor de los que dejan cicatriz en la memoria colectiva.
Este es solo un resumen.
Si quieres profundizar en el enfoque completo, ejemplos y claves prácticas:
Descarga el PDF completo y accede a todo el contenido.
En todos los sectores, la seguridad está experimentando un cambio estructural. Lo que antes se gestionaba principalmente como una función de cumplimiento o una métrica de desempeño se entiende cada vez más como un reflejo de cómo las organizaciones están diseñadas, lideradas y mejoradas de forma continua.
En entornos complejos y de alto riesgo, la seguridad no se logra únicamente mediante un mayor control o programas adicionales. Surge de la interacción entre el comportamiento del liderazgo, el diseño operativo, los entornos de decisión y la capacidad de la organización para aprender y adaptarse.
Basándonos en la ciencia global de la seguridad, el enfoque de Human & Organizational Performance (HOP), la investigación sobre seguridad psicológica y nuestra experiencia en transformación en múltiples industrias, identificamos ocho cambios clave que están definiendo la próxima evolución de la cultura de seguridad.
1. La seguridad como valor organizacional central
La seguridad está dejando de tratarse como una prioridad cambiante. Las prioridades compiten. Los valores guían.
Cuando la seguridad se convierte en un valor central, influye en la toma de decisiones, en los compromisos bajo presión, en la planificación operativa y en la asignación de recursos. La seguridad pasa a ser una consecuencia natural de cómo funciona el sistema, en lugar de una iniciativa añadida a la producción.
Este cambio también redefine el rol de las funciones de seguridad: de supervisar el cumplimiento a habilitar un desempeño seguro y sostenible.
2. El aprendizaje como disciplina operativa
Las organizaciones están integrando el aprendizaje continuo en las operaciones diarias. En lugar de centrarse solo en lo que falló, exploran señales débiles, casi accidentes, fricciones operativas y adaptaciones exitosas.
El aprendizaje se convierte en una capacidad clave que acelera la generación de insights, fortalece la resiliencia y mejora la calidad de las decisiones.
3. Responsabilidad del liderazgo en todos los niveles
La cultura de seguridad se reconoce cada vez más como una capacidad de liderazgo, no solo como responsabilidad del área de HSE.
- Los directivos marcan la dirección y el tono.
- Los mandos intermedios traducen las expectativas en decisiones operativas.
- Los supervisores configuran el entorno de decisiones del día a día.
Las organizaciones exitosas convierten las expectativas de seguridad en comportamientos concretos de liderazgo y rutinas diarias, generando claridad y alineación entre niveles.
4. La seguridad psicológica como infraestructura
Una cultura de seguridad sólida depende de entornos donde las personas se sientan seguras para hablar.
Cuando los empleados perciben seguridad psicológica, las señales débiles emergen antes, los riesgos se discuten abiertamente y el aprendizaje se acelera.
La seguridad psicológica es una infraestructura operativa, no un tema “blando”.
5. Amplificar lo que funciona
Existe un reconocimiento creciente de que la mayor parte del trabajo se realiza de forma segura, a menudo en condiciones variables.
Estudiar el éxito revela la capacidad adaptativa y fortalece la resiliencia. Esto complementa el análisis tradicional de incidentes al reforzar la experiencia y la confianza.
6. Alinear el trabajo “imaginado” con el trabajo “real”
Los procedimientos y planes rara vez capturan perfectamente la complejidad operativa.
Las organizaciones líderes reducen la brecha entre políticas y realidad operativa incorporando la perspectiva del personal de primera línea y empoderando la autoridad para detener el trabajo.
El objetivo es una mejor alineación entre diseño y ejecución.
7. Diseñar para la toma de decisiones humana
Los incidentes suelen derivarse de sesgos cognitivos predecibles como la normalización de la desviación, el sesgo hacia la producción, el exceso de confianza y el sesgo retrospectivo.
Reconocer estas trampas en la toma de decisiones desplaza el enfoque de culpar a las personas hacia fortalecer los entornos de decisión.
8. La evolución cultural como capacidad a largo plazo
Una cultura de seguridad sostenible requiere integración en lugar de reinvención, desarrollo estructurado de capacidades en lugar de programas puntuales y medición del impacto conductual en lugar de métricas de actividad.
Las organizaciones que tienen éxito:
- Integran la seguridad en los sistemas existentes de liderazgo y operación
- Diseñan itinerarios de aprendizaje que apoyan la aplicación en el día a día
- Miden el cambio de comportamiento y los resultados operativos
- Refuerzan el progreso de manera consistente en el tiempo
La evolución cultural es un compromiso sostenido con la alineación del sistema y el desarrollo de capacidades.
Conclusión
La evolución de la cultura de seguridad trata menos de añadir controles y más de fortalecer sistemas.
La seguridad es algo que las organizaciones producen: a través de la claridad del liderazgo, el diseño operativo, la seguridad psicológica y el aprendizaje continuo.
Quienes integren estas capacidades de forma consistente no solo reducirán riesgos. Construirán organizaciones más resilientes, sostenibles y de alto desempeño.
Sources & references:
- WorldSteel Association. Safety Culture & Leadership Fundamentals.
- Norsk Industri (2025). Safety Leadership and Learning: A Practical Guide to HOP.
- D. Parker et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006). Development of Organisational Safety Culture
- Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management.
- Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials.
- Conklin, T. (2012). Pre-Accident Investigations: An Introduction to Organizational Safety.
- Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organizations
- Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
- Resilience Engineering research (Hollnagel,Woods, Leveson and others).
Across industries, safety is undergoing a structural shift. What was once managed primarily as a compliance function or performance metricis increasingly understood as a reflection of how organizations are designed, led and continuously improved.
In complex and high-risk environments, safety is notachieved through stronger enforcement or additional programs alone. It emerges from the interaction between leadership behavior, operational design, decision environments and the organization’s capacity to learn and adapt.
Drawing on global safety science, Human & Organizational Performance (HOP), research on psychological safety, and our cross-industry transformation experience, eight key shifts are shaping the next evolution of safety culture.
1. Safety as a Core Organizational Value
Safety is moving beyond being treated as a shifting priority. Priorities compete. Values guide.
When safety becomes a core organizational value, it shapes decision-making, trade-offs under pressure, operational planning and resourceallocation. Safety becomes the natural consequence of how the system operates,rather than a campaign layered on top of production.
This shift also redefines the role of safety functions, from compliance policing to enabling safe and sustainable performance.
2. Learning as an Operating Discipline
Organizations are embedding continuous learning into everyday operations. Rather than focusing only on what failed, they exploreweak signals, near misses, operational friction and successful adaptations.
Learning becomes a core capability, accelerating insight, strengthening resilience and improving decision quality.
3. Leadership Ownership at All Levels
Safety culture is increasingly recognized as a leadership capability, not solely an HSE responsibility.
Executives define direction and tone.
Middle managers translate expectations into operational decisions.
Supervisors shape the daily decision environment.
Successful organizations translate safety expectations into concrete leadership behaviors and daily routines, creating clarity and alignment across levels.
4. Psychological Safety as Infrastructure
A strong safety culture depends on speaking-up environments.
When employees feel psychologically safe, weak signals surface earlier, risk trade-offs are openly discussed and learning accelerates.
Psychological safety is operational infrastructure , not a soft topic.
5. Amplifying What Works
There is growing recognition that most work is completed safely, often under variable conditions.
Studying success reveals adaptive capacity and strengthens resilience. This complements traditional incident analysis by reinforcing expertise and confidence.
6. Aligning Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done
Procedures and plans rarely capture operational complexity perfectly.
Leading organizations reduce the gap between policies and operational reality by inviting front line input and empowering stop-work authority.
The goal is better alignment between design and execution.
7. Designing for Human Decision-Making
Incidents often stem from predictable cognitive biases such as normalization of deviance, production bias, overconfidence and hindsight bias.
Recognizing these decision traps shifts focus from blaming individuals to strengthening decision environments.
8. Cultural Evolution as a Long-Term Capability
Sustainable safety culture requires integration rather than reinvention, structured capability journeys rather than one-off programs, and measurable behavioral impact rather than activity metrics.
Organizations that succeed:
- Integrate safety into existing leadership and operational systems
- Design earning journeys that support day-to-day application
- Measure behavioral change and operational outcomes
- Reinforce progress consistently over time
Cultural evolution is a sustained commitment to system alignment and capability building.
Conclusion
The evolution of safety culture is less about adding controls and more about strengthening systems.
Safety is something organizations produce — through leadership clarity, operational design, psychological safety and continuous learning.
Those who embed these capabilities consistently will not only reduce risk. They will build more resilient, sustainable and high-performing organizations.
Sources & references:
- WorldSteel Association. Safety Culture & Leadership Fundamentals.
- Norsk Industri (2025). Safety Leadership and Learning: A Practical Guide to HOP.
- D. Parker et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006). Development of Organisational Safety Culture
- Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management.
- Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials.
- Conklin, T. (2012). Pre-Accident Investigations: An Introduction to Organizational Safety.
- Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organizations
- Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
- Resilience Engineering research (Hollnagel,Woods, Leveson and others).