Watch the webinar here:
Check out the slides:
Most leaders who hear "zero harm" as an organizational goal default to the same response: zero isn't realistic.
Meghan Scanlon has been hearing that response her entire career. As a Principal at Value Capture with nearly two decades of experience leading transformational improvement in healthcare, she's argued the opposite position long enough to know the pattern. The reasons people give for why zero isn't possible -- our industry is dangerous, perfect is unattainable, you'll demoralize people by setting a target they can't hit -- are the same reasons people once gave for accepting workplace injury rates that we now consider unconscionable. The reasons aren't wrong. They're just describing what's true given current systems. The question is whether current systems are the right baseline.
Paul O'Neill, who ran Alcoa from 1987 to 2000, made the case more forcefully than anyone before or since. He took over a heavy-metals company and announced that no one should come to work and experience harm. By 2011, more than a decade after he left, 82 percent of Alcoa's 300-plus sites had zero lost workdays in a given year. Forty-four percent had zero recordable injuries. The trajectory survived his departure because the goal had stopped being his and started being the organization's. That survival is the real proof that zero works as a platform.
This webinar is Meghan's case for why zero harm isn't a slogan -- it's a True North that builds Lean capability, psychological safety, and organizational engagement in ways no other framing achieves. The session is grounded in Value Capture's healthcare work, including their support of the University of Virginia Health System's "Be Safe" transformation. The principles apply well beyond healthcare.
Meghan Scanlon is a Principal at Value Capture, LLC, and a certified Shingo Institute facilitator. She holds a BS in industrial and manufacturing engineering from Penn State and a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. The webinar was hosted by Mark Graban, who worked with Meghan at Johnson & Johnson's ValuMetrix Services beginning in 2005.
The argument against zero is usually some version of: humans are fallible, systems have variation, perfect can't be the standard. All true. None of those facts answer the question Meghan is actually asking.
Her reframe is sharper than the standard True North vocabulary. The systems that exist in any organization are perfectly designed to produce the results you're currently getting. That's not a criticism; it's a statement about cause and effect. If your current systems produce three serious injuries a year, your current systems are perfectly designed for three serious injuries a year. Setting an incremental target -- reduce injuries by 15 percent -- accepts the underlying design and asks you to be a little better at running it. Setting zero as the target rejects the design itself and forces a different question: what would need to be true in your organization for no harm to occur?
That question opens up possibilities the incremental version closes off. Incremental targets get bound by the constraints of the current system. Zero forces teams to think past those constraints. You can't get to zero falls by adding warning signs to a process that's structurally producing falls. You have to redesign the process. Which means you have to understand it differently, ask different questions about it, and engage different people in solving it.
Zero is also measurable in a way that other quality goals aren't. Improvement in qualitative measures often comes wrapped in the inherent good feeling of improvement without producing data you can actually act on. Harm is quantitative. You can count it. You can track the rate of progress toward eliminating it. The metric and the goal align without ambiguity.
This isn't to say organizations pursuing zero achieve perfection. Alcoa didn't. Healthcare systems pursuing zero don't. The point isn't that you arrive. The point is what the journey produces. Sites with zero lost workdays for a year. Capability built at the frontline that wouldn't have existed under a 15-percent-reduction target. A culture where harm is treated as the system failure it actually is rather than as the unavoidable cost of doing business.
Meghan returns several times to a framework Paul O'Neill used at Alcoa. He believed every person in an organization should be able to answer yes to three questions every day.
Am I treated with dignity and respect by every person I encounter, without regard to race, gender, educational attainment, rank, or any other distinguishing feature?
Am I given the tools, training, resources, and encouragement I need to make a contribution to the organization that adds meaning to my life?
Am I recognized for that contribution by someone whose opinion matters to me?
The third question has a deliberate phrasing worth holding onto. It doesn't say "by my supervisor" or "by my leader." Who matters to the person is the person's decision. Recognition that doesn't come from someone whose judgment the recipient respects doesn't count. That standard pushes the question of who gets to recognize whom much further than most organizational recognition programs are designed to handle.
If everyone in your organization can't answer yes to all three questions every day, the gap isn't just a cultural concern. It's a leading indicator that the system is producing conditions where harm becomes more likely. Disrespect, missing tools and resources, contributions that go unrecognized -- these are conditions in which people stop calling out problems, stop participating in improvement, and start covering for system failures rather than surfacing them.
The intuitive definition of safety is physical -- no one gets hurt, no one acquires an infection, no one trips on a cord. Meghan argues that limiting the definition this way misses two other types of safety that determine whether the physical kind can be achieved.
Emotional safety is about focusing on systems and processes when problems occur rather than on who to blame. The natural human impulse when something goes wrong is to find the person responsible -- and people inside organizations have a parallel impulse to accept blame for problems they may not have caused. Meghan flags both directions. The "I'm sorry, that was my bad, I just wasn't thinking" reflex is emotionally costly and analytically wrong; the system produced the conditions in which the mistake became possible. Building emotional safety means coaching people away from accepting personal blame and toward looking at what the system allowed to happen.
Professional safety is the ability to call out any issue observed or experienced without fear of repercussion or punitive action. Meghan's framing here is unusually practical. Communication about problems is hard, and it often feels personal even when it's about a process. If your team made a part that caused harm in a downstream department, you'll feel defensive even though the goal of the conversation is to learn. Recognizing that defensive reaction as a signal that professional safety is shaky -- rather than as a personal failing -- gives you a process-based way to handle it. The conversation can shift back to facts, away from individuals, and the work of problem detection can continue.
The connection between these and physical safety is direct. People who don't feel emotionally or professionally safe stop reporting problems. They cover for failures rather than surface them. Risks that would have been caught get missed. The physical harm rate doesn't move because the upstream conditions for detection have collapsed.
Most organizations rely on a small number of leaders to solve problems. Leaders get promoted because they're good at solving problems. Their problem-solving capability is the organizational asset that delivers results.
Meghan's challenge: in an organization of 10,000 people with 300 leaders, you're using three percent of your potential problem-solving capacity. The other 97 percent of the people see things the leaders don't see, work in processes the leaders don't run, and have insights into causes the leaders can't access from where they sit. Treating the leaders as the rockstars and everyone else as the audience accepts a structural ceiling on what the organization can improve.
Engaging everyone, every day, in problem-solving isn't a sentimental commitment. It's an arithmetic one. The people closest to the work are the people most equipped to identify what's wrong with it and most likely to design solutions that actually work in the operating context. Including them isn't just respectful. It's how you actually solve the volume of problems that exist.
This changes the leader's role. The leader who used to solve problems for the team becomes the leader who develops the team's capability to solve problems themselves. That shift is harder than it sounds, because solving problems is what got most leaders promoted in the first place. The development-and-coaching version of the role is less immediately satisfying than the hero version. It also produces dramatically more improvement over time.
Drawing on Steven Spear's The High-Velocity Edge, Meghan organizes the operational work of pursuing zero harm around four capabilities.
See problems as they occur. Human brains are wired to skip details. The classic "Paris in the spring" trick -- where readers gloss over the duplicated word -- illustrates a tendency that turns into a real organizational vulnerability when applied to hazard recognition. Most safety events involve some element of motion or interaction with the environment that someone could have noticed in advance if they'd been trained to see it. Developing safety eyes is a learnable skill, not an innate one. The most mature version of the capability is recognizing hazards before harm occurs, not learning from harm after the fact.
Swarm and solve problems in real time. Speed matters in problem-solving for the same reason it matters in crime investigation: the information you need to find the root cause degrades quickly. A harm event solved within hours produces deeper insight than the same event analyzed weeks later. Leaders showing up at the gemba when events occur, facilitating the analysis rather than directing it, is what makes real-time problem-solving actually work. Organizations doing this well reduce harm events by 50 percent year over year. That's a benchmark worth taking seriously when calibrating what improvement should look like.
Share new knowledge across the organization. Most organizations re-solve the same problems in parallel because what one team learned isn't visible to another team facing the same issue. Sharing has three levels: within the immediate area (a problem in the cafeteria gets resolved with the cafeteria staff), across the service line or facility (the same pinch-point issue exists in other doorways), and across the enterprise (a transparent data system that makes problems visible everywhere they could recur). The third level requires real infrastructure. A transparent data system with real-time information embedded in it isn't optional for organizations pursuing zero at scale.
Develop people to do all of the above. The fourth capability is the one that compounds the others. Leaders coach rather than implement. The instinct most improvement professionals carry into their careers -- "I'll go improve this for them" -- produces short-term wins and long-term dependence. The harder discipline is coaching the team through their own problem-solving, even when it's slower. As Meghan put it: improving on someone else's behalf is fishing for them. Building their capability to improve is teaching them to fish. The organization that learns to fish accelerates in ways the fished-for organization can't.
Meghan introduces the Swiss cheese model of incident prevention. Each layer of organizational defense has holes in it -- gaps, vulnerabilities, conditions that could produce harm. Most of the time, the holes don't align, and a near-miss occurs. Occasionally the holes line up and an adverse event happens.
Reactive organizations respond only when the holes align. They investigate the adverse event, address what they find, and miss the dozens or hundreds of near-misses that contained the same vulnerabilities but didn't happen to produce harm this time. Proactive organizations treat every hole as worth examining, every near-miss as worth learning from, and every fatality-and-serious-injury-potential as worth investigating with the same rigor as the events that actually produced fatalities.
The reframe that lands hardest in the session: incident prevention isn't the absence of injuries. It's the presence of defenses. An organization with no recent injuries that hasn't built defenses is lucky. An organization with intentionally designed defenses, observable hazard-recognition capability, and a transparent system for learning across teams is safe. The difference matters because the lucky organization eventually runs out of luck.
The capabilities Meghan describes -- see, solve, share, develop -- depend on infrastructure most organizations don't have by default.
Real-time problem-solving requires that frontline staff can capture observations in the moment, not at the end of a shift when most of the relevant detail has been lost. Sharing across the enterprise requires a system where solutions implemented in one area are searchable and visible to every area that could benefit. Coaching at scale requires that leaders can see what their teams are working on, where they're stuck, and where coaching attention would produce the most movement.
KaiNexus is built around exactly that set of needs. Every improvement -- including every safety event, near-miss, and proactive hazard call-out -- has an owner, a tracked status, and a visible path through to resolution. The platform makes the work of pursuing zero harm scalable beyond what any individual safety officer or improvement team can sustain manually. It also makes the cultural commitment visible: when employees see that issues they raise are captured, tracked, and acted on, the conditions for emotional and professional safety reinforce themselves.
The platform doesn't replace the leadership work Meghan describes. Coaching, presence at the gemba, real-time response to events, and the discipline of asking why -- none of that gets automated. But the system removes the operational friction that often kills good intentions in this space. A safety walk surfaces fifteen observations. Without infrastructure, twelve of those get forgotten by next week. With it, all fifteen get captured, prioritized, and worked through.
Meghan Scanlon is a Principal at Value Capture, LLC, where she has worked for five years, and a certified facilitator for the Shingo Institute. She holds a BS in industrial and manufacturing engineering from Penn State and a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. Meghan has nearly two decades of experience implementing and sustaining transformational improvement in healthcare organizations. Recently, she helped lead Value Capture's support of the University of Virginia Health System's "Be Safe" performance transformation effort. Previously she spent nine years as a Senior Lean Consultant with Johnson & Johnson's ValuMetrix Services, supporting hospitals and health systems across North America and Europe. She has worked with hospital staff from the frontline to the C-suite, developing Lean practitioners and change agents, identifying critical performance measures, and implementing the management tools needed to sustain change.
Is zero harm actually attainable?
The honest answer is no organization achieves perfect zero indefinitely. The honest answer is also that organizations using zero as their True North build capability, engagement, and improvement trajectories that incremental targets don't produce. Alcoa under Paul O'Neill is the most cited example: by 2011, 82 percent of Alcoa's 300-plus sites had zero lost workdays in a given year. The point isn't that they hit zero everywhere all the time. The point is what the goal produced -- a transformation that survived Paul's departure and continued building results for over a decade afterward.
Why is "zero is too aspirational" usually the wrong response?
Because incremental targets accept the design of the current system and ask you to be a little better at running it. The systems any organization currently has are perfectly designed to produce the results they're currently getting. If those results include harm, the system is the cause. Zero as a target forces redesign rather than tuning. It opens questions that "reduce by 15 percent" doesn't open. Setting an aspirational target isn't naive -- it's how organizations break through the constraints of their current design.
What's the difference between physical, emotional, and professional safety?
Physical safety is no one gets hurt -- no falls, no infections, no injuries. Emotional safety is focusing on systems and processes when things go wrong rather than blaming the person involved (or accepting blame oneself). Professional safety is the ability to raise any issue observed or experienced without fear of repercussion. All three are interdependent. People who don't feel emotionally or professionally safe stop calling out problems. When problems aren't called out, the system loses its ability to detect and address risks before they produce physical harm. The physical safety rate stays flat because the upstream conditions for detection have collapsed.
What does "everyone, every day" mean in practice?
It means engaging the full workforce in seeing, solving, and sharing problems rather than relying on a small number of leaders to do it. In an organization of 10,000 with 300 leaders, the leadership-only approach uses three percent of available problem-solving capacity. Engaging everyone changes the role of the leader from heroic problem-solver to coach -- a harder transition than it sounds, since leaders typically got promoted because they were good at solving problems themselves. The payoff is dramatically more improvement than the heroic model can produce, sustained over time.
What is "incident prevention as the presence of defenses"?
It's the recognition that low recent injury counts don't necessarily indicate a safe organization. They may indicate a lucky one. Real safety is built through intentionally designed defenses -- hazard recognition capability, transparent systems for sharing risks across the organization, processes that make the safe action the easy action. The Swiss cheese model captures this: every organizational defense has holes, and most of the time the holes don't align. Lucky organizations never see the holes. Safe organizations examine and reduce them deliberately.
How fast should harm events decrease in an organization pursuing zero?
Organizations doing this work well, with all four capabilities operating, can expect to reduce harm events by approximately 50 percent year over year. That's a benchmark worth taking seriously when calibrating your own progress. If the rate is much slower, the gap usually points to a capability that isn't yet operational -- often the development-of-coaches capability or the share-across-enterprise capability.
.svg)
Copyright © 2026
Privacy Policy