Leading Indicators That Should Trigger Investigations: Don’t Wait for the Boom

In many organisations, investigations only begin after something has gone seriously wrong. An injury. A fire. A catastrophic equipment failure. But what if we told you the signs of these events were visible long before they exploded into full-blown crises?

It’s time to shift the focus from reactive investigation to proactive learning by recognising and acting on leading indicators.

From Lagging to Leading

Traditionally, most organisations rely on lagging indicators like:

• Recordable injury rates

• Lost time incidents

• Equipment damage reports

• Environmental breaches

While these are useful for measuring outcomes, they tell us nothing about the conditions or behaviours that made them possible. Lagging indicators are rear-view mirrors – they show us where we’ve been, but not where we're heading.

In contrast, leading indicators are real-time signals that something may be going wrong or is likely to go wrong. They are early warning signs. And they can (and should) trigger investigations before someone is hurt or a system collapses.

Let’s explore what those indicators are—and why you need to investigate them.

1. High Frequency of Near Misses

A single near miss might be dismissed as luck. But a pattern of near misses is a red flag waving in your face.

Each near miss is a free lesson – a gift. It's a chance to understand what went wrong without the consequence of harm. Investigating near misses allows organisations to identify:

• Gaps in risk controls

• Shortcuts that are becoming normalized

• Human error patterns

• Latent conditions (like fatigue, distraction, or equipment degradation)

If you have three or more near misses in a short period in the same work area or activity, that’s not a coincidence. That’s a system whispering, “Help me before I break.”

2. Repeated Non-Conformances or Audit Findings

When an internal or external audit keeps highlighting the same issues—missing inspections, incomplete permits, or expired training—that’s not just a compliance problem. It’s a sign of a failing system or culture. On the flipside, I recall a talk I went to by Professor Andrew Hopkins in which he said, "Beware of the good news audits". An audit that never finds an issue is an issue in itself!

Audit findings should never just be boxed into a spreadsheet and forgotten. If non-conformance trends emerge, investigate them like you would a high-potential incident. Why?

Because repeat findings suggest:

• Risk is not being taken seriously

• Accountability may be unclear

• Risk controls may be theoretical, not practical

• Staff may be under pressure to “get the job done” over doing it safely

3. Decline in Safety Participation or Reporting

If your hazard reporting rate drops, or pre-start checklists are suddenly always “perfect,” this isn’t a sign that things are going well. It’s often a sign of fear, fatigue, or disengagement.

People report when they feel safe, heard, and believe action will follow. A drop in participation could reflect:

• Psychological safety issues

• Leadership change impacts

• Survey fatigue or excessive bureaucracy

• An emerging “just get on with it” culture

Don’t wait for a serious incident. Investigate what’s causing the silence.

4. Significant Organisational Change

Change is a leading indicator in itself. Restructures, new leadership, process overhauls, or rapid growth create uncertainty and break continuity.

During transitions, investigate the early impact of change, such as:

• Skill mismatches

• Communication breakdowns

• Erosion of informal risk management practices

• Reduced familiarity with “how things are done safely”

Proactively reviewing early signals during change can catch the small cracks before they become fault lines.

5. High Staff Turnover or Absenteeism

High turnover is rarely just about money. It’s often a reflection of deeper cultural or systemic issues like:

• Overwork or burnout

• Poor leadership

• Safety concerns not being addressed

• Toxic team dynamics

When teams start to churn, the risk of shortcuts, miscommunication, and gaps in competence increases. Investigate why people are leaving, and what their departures are telling you about your workplace systems and culture.

6. Unexpected Equipment Failures or Increased Maintenance

If assets start to break down more often or maintenance logs show a spike in unplanned repairs, it could indicate:

• Inadequate inspection regimes

• Supply chain shortcuts

• Operator misuse

• Design limitations not being communicated

Investigating these failures—even if they don’t cause harm—can prevent future incidents. It also strengthens your reliability and productivity metrics.

7. Workarounds and Informal Practices

“Yeah, we don’t really do it like that.” “Everyone just knows how to do it properly.” “That’s just the way we do things here.”

These kinds of statements are massive red flags. When people start to deviate from formal procedures, there’s often a reason – the task design may be impractical, the tools unsuitable, or the schedule unrealistic.

Rather than enforcing compliance blindly, investigate the gap between work as imagined (on paper) and work as done (on the ground).

This is the core of modern safety thinking—and one of the most powerful sources of risk intelligence.

8. Investigations That Stop at Human Error

If previous incident or near miss reviews concluded with “operator error,” “lack of attention,” or “failure to follow procedure,” they likely missed the point.

A surge in these kinds of conclusions is itself a leading indicator. It suggests your investigations may not be digging deep enough into organisational factors like:

• Inadequate training

• Time pressure

• Conflicting priorities

• Design and layout constraints

• Poor communication channels

This is a call to investigate the investigation process itself.

The Role of ICAM and Modern Investigation Methodologies

Frameworks like ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) are designed to do more than just assign cause – they help uncover latent conditions and organisational weaknesses.

Using ICAM proactively—before someone is hurt—allows leaders to:

• Learn from weak signals

• Build systemic resilience

• Make invisible risks visible

• Drive continuous improvement

A well-structured investigation doesn’t need a blood trail to be worth doing. It only needs curiosity, honesty, and action.

Creating a Culture That Investigates Early

For this approach to work, leaders must foster a culture that encourages speaking up, reporting, and exploring risk without fear of blame.

Here’s how to get started:

• Establish clear thresholds for when to investigate (e.g., 3+ near misses, repeat findings, spikes in absenteeism).

• Train leaders to spot and respond to soft signals, not just hard incidents.

• Promote learning, not punishment.

• Track and analyse leading indicators alongside traditional lagging ones.

• Review investigations regularly for depth and system focus, not just individual behaviour.

• Final Thought: Investigate to Learn, Not to Punish

Waiting for injury or disaster before investigating is like only checking your brakes after you’ve crashed.

If you want to build a safer, smarter, and more resilient workplace, start investigating early. Start investigating upstream. Use your leading indicators to ask, “What’s this really telling us?”

Because behind every headline-making incident were dozens of whispers we chose not to hear.