What Military Doctrine Taught Me About OSHA, Adaptation, and Operational Discipline
Recently, I participated in an Army professional development session built around a simple question:
How important is doctrine?
One side argued that doctrine is foundational. It gives the Army a common language, establishes expectations, influences training, and gives leaders a starting point for making decisions.
The other side argued that doctrine is overrated. Several people spoke from experience. They had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and found that conditions looked very different from the scenarios they had trained for. Missions changed. Conditions changed. Units adapted as they learned what actually worked.
Both sides had a point.
Doctrine matters because people need a shared foundation. But no document can predict every situation an organization will encounter. Leaders still have to understand the mission, recognize when conditions have changed, and adapt without losing the intent or crossing the boundaries the doctrine was meant to establish.
The longer the debate went, the more familiar it sounded. I realized it sounded like a problem manufacturing leadership faces everyday.
OSHA SETS THE BOUNDARY. LEADERSHIP BUILDS THE SYSTEM.
The comparison is not exact. OSHA is not military doctrine. Applicable OSHA and state-plan requirements are enforceable law. A facility cannot ignore a requirement because production is behind or because the standard is inconvenient.
Employers must comply with applicable standards and protect employees from serious recognized hazards.
But OSHA cannot operate a production line.
OSHA cannot tell a plant exactly how to manage every machine jam, product changeover, maintenance intervention, staffing shortage, contractor task, sensor failure, or material problem.
Some standards provide flexibility in how an employer achieves the required protection. Others prescribe specific methods. Either way, the facility still has to translate the requirement into equipment, responsibilities, procedures, training, and decisions that work in its actual operation.
That translation becomes the plant’s operating doctrine.
Written programs, standard operating procedures, machine-specific lockout procedures, job hazard analyses, control plans, escalation paths, and leadership routines are supposed to convert the legal obligation into a method the workforce can execute.
Compliance establishes the protection floor. It does not run the operation.
MANUFACTURING DOES NOT STAY UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS
Written procedures are usually built around expected conditions. The factory floor is full of unexpected conditions.
Machines wear. Materials vary. Sensors fail. People call in. Contractors arrive with incomplete information. Production schedules change. A product does not feed correctly. A machine jams in a way no one anticipated when the procedure was written.
When the approved method no longer fits the condition in front of them, employees adapt.
Leadership does not get to decide whether adaptation will occur. It only gets to decide whether that adaptation will be visible and disciplined or hidden and unsafe.
A mature operation anticipates that reality. It gives employees clear boundaries, stop-work authority, qualified support, practical escalation routes, and a way to capture what they are learning.
An immature operation writes a procedure for normal conditions, applies production pressure when conditions become abnormal, and leaves employees to resolve the conflict on their own.
DISCIPLINED ADAPTATION OR COMPENSATORY WORKAROUND?
Adaptation is not automatically good or bad. The question is what the adaptation preserves.
Disciplined adaptation preserves the protection objective. The employee recognizes that the approved method no longer fits, stops the task, communicates the changed condition, reassesses the hazard, and involves the right authority before continuing.
The operating method may change, but the required protection does not.
Compensatory adaptation keeps production moving by working around a deficient system. A guard is removed and left off. An interlock is defeated. A lockout step is skipped because the adjustment will only take a minute. An unofficial method becomes normal because it helps the line recover faster.
That may look like resourcefulness in the moment.
In reality, it is organizational debt disguised as employee ingenuity. The company is relying on people to compensate for a process, machine, or procedure that no longer matches the work.
A repeated workaround is not merely an employee behavior problem. It is a signal that the operating system needs attention.
TEACH THE INTENT AND THE BOUNDARIES
One of the most useful lessons military service teaches is that people need to understand both the intent and the limits of their authority.
If every decision must travel through several layers of leadership, the organization becomes too slow to respond. If everyone is free to improvise without limits, standards become optional.
The answer is disciplined freedom within clearly understood boundaries.
Manufacturing leaders should be able to answer five questions:
What controls can never be compromised?
Where do employees have authority to adjust the method?
What conditions require the work to stop?
Who is qualified to assess and approve a different approach?
How will a temporary adaptation be reviewed and incorporated into the system?
“Do whatever it takes to hit the number” is not useful intent.
It pushes the conflict between production and protection down to the employee standing beside a machine that is already down.
A better expectation is:
Accomplish the production mission within established safety, quality, and legal boundaries. When conditions exceed the approved method, stop, communicate, reassess, and adapt without surrendering the protection objective.
That expectation has to be supported.
Employees need the authority to stop. Supervisors need the skill to evaluate abnormal conditions. Maintenance and engineering need clear escalation responsibilities. Leaders need to respond to reported problems without punishing the person who made the issue visible.
OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs reinforce this approach through management leadership, worker participation, hazard identification, training, and program evaluation.
OSHA also recognizes that workers are often in the best position to identify emerging hazards and program shortcomings.
Worker participation should not be treated as a soft addition to a serious safety system. It is one of the ways the organization sees where its written methods no longer match reality.
TURN ADAPTATION INTO ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Military lessons learned have little value if they never change future training or operations.
Manufacturing is no different.
If the same jam is resolved through the same unofficial method on every shift, the organization is not learning. It is repeatedly accepting an uncontrolled condition.
Leaders need a practical learning loop:
Define the requirement and protection objective.
Observe how the work is actually performed.
Capture abnormal conditions, near misses, and recurring adaptations.
Determine why the approved method stopped fitting the work.
Correct the equipment, procedure, training, staffing, or production expectation.
Verify that the revised method works under actual operating conditions.
OSHA recommends periodically evaluating whether a safety and health program is operating as intended, correcting shortcomings, involving workers, and reassessing the program when equipment, materials, facilities, or work practices change.
Program evaluation and improvement are what keep the written system connected to the real operation.
This is where compliance becomes operational discipline.
THE LEADERSHIP LESSON
Manufacturing is not combat, and employees are not expendable resources. But the leadership challenge is familiar.
A framework matters. Preparation matters. Shared understanding matters.
Leaders also need people who can recognize changing conditions and respond without abandoning the objective or crossing a non-negotiable boundary.
Doctrine without judgment becomes rigidity.
Judgment without doctrine becomes inconsistency.
Strong organizations need both.
Before asking why someone did not follow a procedure, leaders should ask whether the procedure still matched the work being performed.
Before blaming a workaround, they should ask what condition made the workaround seem necessary.
Before adding another rule, they should ask whether the workforce understands the hazard and the protection the rule is intended to preserve.
Walk one production area this week and ask the people performing the work:
Where does the written method no longer match what the job requires?
The answer may reveal more about the strength of the safety system than another review of the procedure itself.
OSHA establishes the protection floor. Operational discipline determines whether that protection survives contact with production.
Adapt the operation, not the level of protection.
At SoIN Safety, this is the work I care most about: helping organizations close the gap between the safety program as written and the work as performed.
That gap is rarely solved by adding more paperwork. It is solved by building practical systems that help leaders and employees recognize change, adapt responsibly, and learn from what the floor is telling them.
Sources:
OSHA Laws and Regulations https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs
OSHA Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs https://www.osha.gov/safety-management
OSHA Worker Participation https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/worker-participation
OSHA Program Evaluation and Improvement https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/program-evaluation
Originally published July 12, 2026 in The All-In on Safety Brief — https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-military-doctrine-taught-me-osha-adaptation-nick-combs-csp-ma-fnkac.
Explore the SoIN Safety approach — https://www.soinsafety.com/our-approach · Request a Diagnostic Conversation — https://www.soinsafety.com/contact?SQF_SOURCE=insights-newsletter&SQF_OFFER=diagnostic
