When Leaders Reject ICAM Recommendations: What It Reveals and How to Respond

In every ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) investigation, the ultimate goal is learning -not blame. We investigate to understand what happened, why it happened, and how to stop it from happening again. But even the most thorough, evidence-based investigation can hit a wall when leaders reject the recommendations.

When leaders say “no” to ICAM outcomes, it raises important questions about culture, priorities, and the organisation’s real appetite for change. This article explores why it happens, what it signals, and how investigators and safety professionals can respond constructively.

1. The Purpose of ICAM Recommendations

ICAM recommendations are designed to address absent or failed defences, organisational factors, and latent conditions that contributed to the event. They are not random wish lists -they are derived from structured causal analysis and are meant to strengthen the system.

Each recommendation connects back to:

• Specific causal factors identified in the analysis

• Systemic weaknesses that allowed the event to occur

• Barriers that must be built or restored to prevent recurrence

When developed properly, ICAM recommendations should be:

• Actionable (clear, specific steps)

• Evidence-based (linked to causal findings)

• Feasible (realistic within context)

• Risk-focused (targeting the highest leverage points)

So why, then, do leaders reject them?

2. Common Reasons Leaders Reject ICAM Recommendations

Rejecting recommendations isn’t always an act of defiance or ignorance. It often reflects conflicts between safety, strategy, and practicality. Let’s explore the most frequent reasons.

a) Cost and Resource Constraints

Many ICAM recommendations involve investment in equipment, redesign, staffing, or technology. Leaders balancing budgets may feel the proposal is too expensive, too disruptive, or not proportionate to the perceived risk.

“We can’t afford it this year.” “Let’s wait until the next budget cycle.” “That’s overkill for a low-risk task.”

While budget management is legitimate, the risk is that short-term cost savings mask long-term exposure.

b) Misalignment with Strategic Goals

Leaders may view a recommendation as misaligned with current business priorities -for example, a process change that slows production or conflicts with performance targets.

This is where incompatible goals, a key ICAM organisational factor, resurface: safety and productivity are seen as competing, rather than complementary.

c) Perception That the Root Cause Was Human Error

If leadership still holds a person-centric mindset, they may believe retraining or discipline is sufficient, dismissing system-level interventions.

This signals a “Just Culture” gap - a misunderstanding of how latent conditions shape behaviour.

d) Poorly Written or Unclear Recommendations

Sometimes, recommendations are too vague, ambitious, or disconnected from the findings. If they lack clarity, measurable outcomes, or cost justification, leaders may rightly hesitate.

Example of weak recommendation:

“Improve safety awareness across all teams.”

Example of strong recommendation:

“Introduce a 15-minute pre-start briefing template focusing on task-specific hazards for maintenance crews, to be piloted at Site A within 30 days.”

e) Fear of Accountability or Exposure

Some recommendations imply that leadership decisions, budget choices, or structural gaps contributed to the event. Accepting them can feel like admitting failure.

“If we accept this, it looks like we caused the problem.”

Defensive leadership reactions often reveal cultural immaturity and a fear-based approach to safety.

f) Cultural Resistance to Change

Even evidence-backed solutions can meet resistance in organisations where “we’ve always done it this way” dominates. Deep-rooted norms, traditions, or hierarchical barriers may block change.

g) Timing and Fatigue

When multiple investigations produce overlapping recommendations, leaders may experience change fatigue - too many actions, too little capacity. Without a prioritisation process, they may reject some to maintain focus.

3. What Rejection Signals About the Organisation

When leaders reject recommendations, it’s more than a decision - it’s a data point. It reveals something about organisational maturity and safety culture.

a) Decision-Making Culture

If safety recommendations are consistently overruled by cost or schedule pressures, the organisation likely values output over resilience. This signals a reactive culture rather than a proactive learning organisation.

b) Psychological Safety

When investigators or safety professionals feel afraid to challenge leadership rejections, psychological safety is low. People stay silent, and the same failures recur.

c) Governance Weakness

A mature governance system includes independent oversight, risk-based evaluation, and transparent decision-making. Frequent rejections without justification expose weak governance.

d) Disconnect Between Values and Actions

If leaders publicly state “safety is our number one priority” but reject corrective actions, credibility suffers. Frontline staff see the inconsistency, eroding trust.

4. Case Examples (Illustrative)

Case 1: The Deferred Guarding Upgrade

An ICAM investigation into a near-miss with a conveyor identified missing guarding as a failed defence. Recommendation: retrofit all similar conveyors. Leadership rejected it due to cost, opting for signage and toolbox talks instead.

Six months later, another near-miss occurred at a different site. The same causal pathway - same latent condition.

Lesson: Rejecting engineering controls often leads to repeat events.

Case 2: The Staffing Level Debate

An ICAM investigation into a maintenance error recommended adding a second technician for high-risk isolations. Leadership rejected it, citing “budget limits” and “individual responsibility.”

Later analysis showed technicians routinely worked 12-hour shifts with multiple concurrent isolations. The rejection masked a workload management failure.

Lesson: Organisational factors like resourcing can’t be solved by training alone.

5. The Consequences of Rejection

a) Recurrent Incidents

Rejected recommendations often target latent conditions. Leaving them unaddressed invites recurrence, sometimes with more severe outcomes.

b) Loss of Credibility

When teams see valid recommendations dismissed, they lose faith in the process. ICAM becomes a tick-the-box exercise, not a learning tool.

c) Regulatory Risk

In regulated industries, failure to act on identified system weaknesses can attract scrutiny, penalties, or findings of negligence.

d) Moral Hazard

If staff see leadership prioritising cost over safety, they internalise the same trade-offs in daily decisions.

6. Responding Constructively: Strategies for Investigators

Rejecting recommendations isn’t the end of the road. Investigators can take proactive steps to improve acceptance.

a) Strengthen the Link Between Findings and Recommendations

Show the logical chain:

• Contributing factor → failed defence → recommendation Use visual ICAM diagrams or tables to make the connection undeniable

b) Quantify Risk and Benefit

Leaders respond to data. Present risk in terms of potential loss:

• Estimated frequency of recurrence

• Consequence severity

• Cost of incident vs cost of control

This reframes the conversation from expense to investment.

c) Provide Options and Phasing

Instead of a single “yes/no” proposal, offer tiered solutions:

• Short-term mitigation

• Medium-term improvement

• Long-term elimination

This allows flexibility without abandoning the core objective.

d) Engage Leaders Early

Involve decision-makers during the recommendation development phase. Co-design builds ownership and reduces surprises.

e) Validate with SMEs and Peers

Peer-reviewed recommendations carry more credibility. Use cross-functional review panels to confirm feasibility and alignment.

f) Tie Recommendations to Business Objectives

Link actions to broader goals - productivity, quality, reputation, ESG. Safety doesn’t exist in isolation.

“This control not only reduces risk, but also improves uptime and customer confidence.”

g) Escalate Through Governance

If rejection persists, escalate through formal governance channels (Safety Committee, Risk Board). Ensure decisions are documented with rationale - this transparency protects both investigators and the organisation.

7. The Role of Leadership Coaching

Sometimes, rejection stems not from bad intent but from a limited understanding of ICAM’s purpose. Leaders may see it as compliance, not strategy.

Leadership coaching should cover:

• The ICAM model: how findings link to controls

• Organisational learning: shifting from blame to systems thinking

• Decision accountability: owning rejected recommendations and residual risk

Tools like a “Recommendation Acceptance Register” can help leaders track and justify decisions transparently.

8. Embedding a “Review Before Reject” Process

Organisations can formalise a process where:

1. Every recommendation is reviewed by a multi-disciplinary panel

2. Rejections require written justification referencing risk tolerance

3. Alternatives must be proposed if the original is declined

4. Decisions are logged and audited

This ensures rejection isn’t arbitrary - it’s a conscious, accountable choice.

9. Turning Rejections into Learning Opportunities

Every rejection is a chance to reflect:

• Was the recommendation realistic?

• Was the evidence strong?

• Was the presentation compelling?

• Were stakeholders engaged early enough?

Continuous improvement in recommendation quality is part of investigator growth.

10. Indicators of a Mature Organisation

In high-reliability organisations, recommendations are:

• Rarely rejected outright

• Modified collaboratively

• Tracked to closure

• Used to drive systemic learning

Leaders see investigations as business improvement tools, not compliance burdens.

When rejections do occur, they are:

• Justified with clear reasoning

• Supported by alternate risk controls

• Documented and monitored

This transparency builds trust across the workforce.

11. Linking Rejection to Governance Risk

Boards and executives are accountable for managing operational risk. If ICAM findings identify credible threats and leadership rejects mitigations, liability transfers to the governance level.

Auditors and regulators increasingly ask:

“What recommendations were made? Which were implemented? Why were any rejected?”

Failure to show due diligence can expose directors to legal and reputational risk.

12. Best Practice: The Acceptance Matrix

This matrix creates visibility and accountability.

13. The Investigator’s Role After Rejection

Once a recommendation is rejected:

• Document the decision and rationale

• Identify and log residual risk

• Communicate findings to stakeholders

• Offer alternative mitigations

• Continue monitoring for recurrence

The goal is not to “win” the argument, but to ensure the risk is known and managed.

14. Communicating Upwards: Framing the Conversation

Use strategic language that resonates with executives:

• Risk exposure rather than “safety issue”

• Business resilience rather than “compliance”

• Reputation protection rather than “regulatory requirement”

Bridge the gap between safety language and business language.

15. The Moral Imperative

At its core, rejecting an ICAM recommendation is a moral decision. Leaders must ask:

“If this event happened again, could I stand before the workforce, regulator, or community and justify that we chose not to act?”

Safety isn’t just a budget line - it’s a trust contract with every worker.

16. Conclusion: Rejection Is Data - Use It Wisely

When leaders reject ICAM recommendations, it tells a story:

• About organisational priorities

• About safety culture

• About governance maturity

The role of the investigator is to listen, learn, and influence - not to accept silence, but to elevate the conversation.

Every rejection should trigger reflection, dialogue, and documentation. Because in the end, what we choose not to fix becomes what we choose to risk.

Key Takeaways

• Rejection often reflects cost, misalignment, or misunderstanding.

• Each rejection is a signal of cultural maturity.

• Strong, evidence-based, risk-framed recommendations improve acceptance.

• Transparency and governance are critical for accountability.

• Leadership coaching can close the gap between analysis and action.