The Occupational Safety Leadership Podcast

Measuring Worker Fatigue with James Walsh of Hyperion Biotechnology - part 2

Fatigue contributes to accidents, now there's an accurate test.  This is part 2 of fatigue testing using non-invasive saliva chews with James Walsh. Hyperion Biotechnology developed a non‑invasive saliva‑based test that measures biological markers linked to fatigue, stress, and readiness for duty. The goal is to give employers an objective way to identify when workers may be too fatigued to perform safely — especially in high‑risk environments.

Guest information - James Walsh https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-walsh-675193129/ 

Hyperion Biotechnology - https://hyperionbiotechnology.com/ 

 

🔬 1. What the Test Measures

What is measured is a proprietary, patented biomarker for fatigue. It’s not cortisol. The peptide ratio I describe is the Fatigue Biomarker Index is a biomarker assay that is exclusive to Hyperion (that we developed with the Army and Air Force).

 

🧪 2. How the Test Works

• Employees provide a simple saliva sample (no needles, no medical staff required).

• The sample is analyzed using Hyperion’s proprietary assay.

• Results indicate whether the worker is:

  • Borderline fatigued

  • Significantly fatigued

This creates an objective fatigue score, rather than relying solely on self‑reporting or supervisor observation.

 

🛡️ 3. Why It Matters for Occupational Safety

Fatigue is a major contributor to:

• Reduced reaction time

• Poor decision‑making

• Increased error rates

• Higher injury risk

Hyperion’s test gives safety leaders a data‑driven tool to identify fatigue before it leads to incidents — especially in:

• Transportation

• Manufacturing

• Military operations

• Shift work

• High‑hazard environments

Employees receive a personalized report with strategies to help reduce their fatigue.  

📌 Key Takeaways for Safety Leaders

• Saliva testing provides objective fatigue data.

• Non‑invasive collection makes it practical for daily or periodic use.

• Results help guide fit‑for‑duty decisions.

• Supports a proactive approach to fatigue risk management.

Measuring Worker Fatigue with James Walsh of Hyperion Biotechnology-part1

Fatigue contributes to accidents, now there's an accurate test.  This is part 1 of fatigue testing using non-invasive saliva chews with James Walsh. Hyperion Biotechnology developed a non‑invasive saliva‑based test that measures biological markers linked to fatigue, stress, and readiness for duty. The goal is to give employers an objective way to identify when workers may be too fatigued to perform safely — especially in high‑risk environments.

Guest information - James Walsh https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-walsh-675193129/ 

Hyperion Biotechnology - https://hyperionbiotechnology.com/ 

 

🔬 1. What the Test Measures

What is measured is a proprietary, patented biomarker for fatigue. It’s not cortisol. The peptide ratio I describe is the Fatigue Biomarker Index is a biomarker assay that is exclusive to Hyperion (that we developed with the Army and Air Force).

 

🧪 2. How the Test Works

• Employees provide a simple saliva sample (no needles, no medical staff required).

• The sample is analyzed using Hyperion’s proprietary assay.

• Results indicate whether the worker is:

  • Borderline fatigued

  • Significantly fatigued

This creates an objective fatigue score, rather than relying solely on self‑reporting or supervisor observation.

 

🛡️ 3. Why It Matters for Occupational Safety

Fatigue is a major contributor to:

• Reduced reaction time

• Poor decision‑making

• Increased error rates

• Higher injury risk

Hyperion’s test gives safety leaders a data‑driven tool to identify fatigue before it leads to incidents — especially in:

• Transportation

• Manufacturing

• Military operations

• Shift work

• High‑hazard environments

Employees receive a personalized report with strategies to help reduce their fatigue.  

📌 Key Takeaways for Safety Leaders

• Saliva testing provides objective fatigue data.

• Non‑invasive collection makes it practical for daily or periodic use.

• Results help guide fit‑for‑duty decisions.

• Supports a proactive approach to fatigue risk management.

Ask Employees for Help with Hazard Reduction

Employees are the closest to the work, the hazards, and the real‑world conditions. When leaders actively ask employees for help with hazard reduction, safety improves faster, trust grows stronger, and reporting increases.

 

🔹 1. Employees See Hazards Leaders Don’t

Dr. Ayers emphasizes that frontline workers have the most accurate understanding of:

• Where hazards actually occur

• How work is really performed

• Which controls fail in real conditions

• What “work‑arounds” people use

Asking for their input uncovers risks leaders often miss.

 

🔹 2. Asking for Help Builds Trust and Engagement

When leaders invite employees into hazard‑reduction conversations, it sends powerful cultural signals:

• “Your voice matters.”

• “We want your expertise.”

• “We solve problems together.”

This increases reporting, participation, and ownership of safety.

 

🔹 3. Employees Provide Practical, Realistic Solutions

Frontline workers often suggest fixes that are:

• Simpler

• Cheaper

• Faster

• More effective

Their ideas are grounded in how work actually happens, not how procedures imagine it.

 

🔹 4. Leaders Must Respond and Close the Loop

The episode reinforces a key theme: If employees give input, leaders must follow up. Closing the loop shows respect and encourages future participation.

 

📌 Leadership Takeaways

• Ask employees directly for hazard‑reduction ideas

• Treat their input as expert knowledge

• Implement practical solutions quickly

• Communicate progress and close the loop

• Build a culture where employees feel safe speaking up

The Silent Signals Leaders send about Occupational Safety

In today's episode, Dr. Ayers discusses some of the silent signals that leaders end about occupational safety. 

This episode explores the unspoken ways leaders influence safety: body language, follow‑through, visibility, tone, response time, and consistency. These subtle behaviors often determine whether employees report hazards, trust leadership, or take safety seriously.

It ties directly into your recurring themes:

• Corrective action ownership

• Closure rates

• Hazard reporting

• Engagement as a multiplier

• Leadership credibility

 

🔍 Key Segments

• The Signals Leaders Don’t Realize They’re Sending How small behaviors — walking past hazards, delayed responses, inconsistent accountability — shape culture instantly.

• Why Employees Read Leadership Behavior More Than Policies Employees judge safety by what leaders do, not what they say.

• Interviews With Safety Pros Bring in a safety director or frontline supervisor to share real examples of silent signals that helped or hurt culture

Why Corrective Actions Fail - Unrealistic Timelines

Corrective actions don’t fail because they’re bad ideas — they fail because leaders assign timelines that were never realistic in the first place. When deadlines are impossible, corrective actions stall, credibility drops, and hazards remain uncontrolled.

 

🔹 1. Unrealistic Timelines Set Corrective Actions Up to Fail

Dr. Ayers emphasizes that many corrective actions collapse before they even begin because leaders:

• Pick dates without consulting the people doing the work

• Choose deadlines to “look good on paper”

• Underestimate the resources or approvals required

This creates a system where failure is predictable.

 

🔹 2. Employees Lose Trust When Deadlines Are Missed

Missed deadlines send a powerful cultural signal:

• “Safety isn’t really a priority.”

• “We don’t follow through.”

• “Reporting hazards doesn’t matter.”

This directly reduces engagement and future reporting — a theme consistent across the podcast.

 

🔹 3. Good Corrective Actions Need Realistic Planning

Effective timelines must consider:

• Workload

• Budget

• Parts and procurement

• Engineering involvement

• Scheduling constraints

• Supervisor capacity

A corrective action is only as strong as the plan behind it.

 

🔹 4. Verification Requires Time — and Leaders Must Account for It

Even after implementation, leaders must verify that the corrective action:

• Was completed

• Works as intended

• Is being used consistently

Rushing this step leads to repeat incidents.

 

📌 Leadership Takeaways

• Set timelines based on reality, not optimism

• Consult the people responsible before assigning deadlines

• Track progress and adjust timelines when needed

• Communicate delays transparently

• Treat verification as part of the timeline, not an afterthought

Another Reason Why Corrective Actions Stall - Lack of Follow Through

Even well‑written corrective actions fail when leaders don’t follow through. Lack of follow‑through sends a message that hazards aren’t urgent, accountability is optional, and safety improvements can wait.

 

🔹 1. Follow‑Through Is the Leadership Behavior That Finishes the Job

Corrective actions often start strong but fade because no one circles back to:

• Confirm the action was completed

• Verify it actually fixed the hazard

• Ensure the solution is being used consistently

Without follow‑through, corrective actions become paperwork, not protection.

 

🔹 2. Employees Notice When Leaders Don’t Close the Loop

Dr. Ayers emphasizes that employees watch what leaders reinforce. Lack of follow‑through leads to:

• Reduced trust

• Fewer hazard reports

• Lower engagement

• “Why bother?” attitudes

Closing the loop shows employees their concerns matter.

 

🔹 3. Follow‑Through Prevents Repeat Incidents

Many repeat incidents happen because corrective actions were:

• Never implemented

• Implemented incorrectly

• Implemented but not sustained

Verification is the only way to ensure the hazard is truly controlled.

 

🔹 4. Follow‑Through Must Be Built Into the Process

Strong safety systems include:

• A named owner

• A due date

• A verification step

• Documentation of completion

Follow‑through is not optional — it’s part of the corrective action itself.

 

📌 Leadership Takeaways

• Treat follow‑through as a required step, not an afterthought

• Close the loop with employees every time

• Verify that corrective actions work in real conditions

• Document completion and effectiveness

• Build routines that make follow‑through automatic

One of the Reasons Corrective Actions Stall - Unclear Ownership

Corrective actions don’t stall because people don’t care — they stall because no one clearly owns them. When ownership is vague, deadlines slip, hazards remain, and investigations lose their impact.

 

🔹 1. Corrective Actions Fail When No One Is Assigned as the Owner

Dr. Ayers emphasizes that if no one owns a corrective action, it will not get done. This aligns with broader podcast guidance that corrective actions must always include:

• A named owner

• A due date

• A clear expectation for follow‑up

Without these elements, corrective actions drift, stall, or disappear entirely.

 

🔹 2. Investigations Aren’t Complete Until Actions Are Implemented and Verified

The episode reinforces a recurring theme: Finding the root cause is only half the job. The real finish line is when corrective actions are:

• Implemented

• Verified

• Working as intended

Unclear ownership breaks this chain.

 

🔹 3. Lack of Ownership Creates Accountability Gaps

When multiple people “sort of” own an action, no one actually does. This leads to:

• Missed deadlines

• Incomplete fixes

• Repeat incidents

• Frustration among employees who reported the issue

Clear ownership creates clear accountability.

 

🔹 4. Quality Over Quantity

The episode warns against piling on weak corrective actions just to fill a list. Effective actions must be:

• Assigned

• Realistic

• Trackable

• Verified

Ownership ensures each action is meaningful and completed.

 

📌 Leadership Takeaways

• Assign one clear owner for every corrective action

• Set due dates and follow‑up expectations

• Track progress and verify completion

• Treat verification as the true end of the investigation

• Avoid “list padding” — focus on actions that matter

Closure Rate Metrics Create Culture

Closure rates aren’t just numbers — they are a visible signal to employees about how seriously leadership takes safety. High closure rates build trust and credibility; low closure rates quietly erode safety culture.

 

🔹 1. Closure Rates Shape Employee Perception

Dr. Ayers explains that employees watch how quickly and consistently the organization closes out hazards, whether they come from:

• Employee hazard reports

• Audits

• Inspections

• Near‑miss reviews

When closure rates are strong, employees see a company that acts on safety, not just talks about it.

 

🔹 2. Slow or Stalled Closure Sends the Wrong Message

A low closure rate communicates:

• “We don’t prioritize your concerns.”

• “Hazards can wait.”

• “Reporting doesn’t matter.”

This discourages future reporting and weakens engagement — a theme consistent across the podcast’s hazard‑reporting episodes.

 

🔹 3. Closure Rate = Commitment to Safety

The episode emphasizes that closure rate is one of the clearest indicators of a company’s true safety culture. A high closure rate shows:

• Responsiveness

• Accountability

• Follow‑through

• Respect for employee input

Employees judge culture by what leaders do, not what they say.

 

🔹 4. Closure Rates Must Be Measured and Communicated

Dr. Ayers highlights that closure rates should be:

• Tracked

• Reviewed

• Shared with employees

• Used to drive improvement

Visibility reinforces trust and encourages more reporting.

 

📌 Leadership Takeaways

• Closure rate is a cultural metric, not just a performance metric

• Fast, consistent closure builds trust and engagement

• Slow closure discourages reporting and weakens culture

• Communicating closure progress strengthens credibility

• Leaders must treat closure as a priority, not an afterthought