|
judge me by (some of) the |
|
A New Approach to Workplace Safety - Beyond Behavioural Based Safety
IntroductionThe concept of “Behavioural-Based Safety” (BBS) has become a loosely used term, to the extent that there are a host of practitioners who use the umbrella of BBS as a canopy for more generalised training and development initiatives that may not necessarily fall within the gambit of “true” BBS in the strictest definition of the concept.Let’s start by gaining a better understanding of the concept of BBS. Meet Dr Ted Boyce, of the University of Nevada, who also works in association with the Cambridge Centre for Behavioural Studies. He has done much work on the subject of BBS. Dr Boyce describes Behavioural Based Safety as being concerned with human behaviour and safe performance through proactive approaches to increasing safety in the workplace (and in the community). It focuses on the application of behavioural research on human performance in relation to the problems of safety in the workplace. Therefore, any safety program labelling itself as a BBS safety program must meet the standards of behaviour analytic research as practices are applied to the workplace. We believe however that better results are attainable if we look beyond safe behavioural practices, to the core motivations that a person brings to the work environment. Analysis of behaviour is, by necessity, analysis of the individual person and that person’s actions within a group. Motivations are the source and cause of those actions. Each and every person who walks into a company or work environment brings capabilities, as well as his or her "behavioural baggage." Behavioural baggage, such as self-punishment, is the cause of accidents and will continue to cause accidents until the underlying motivations are identified, removed, and replaced. Historical data supports this notion. We find support for our view globally. Dr Chuck Coker, recognized as America’s pacesetter in new approaches to personal and corporate development through behavioural, psychological, and motivational based training, is well published in the fields of behavioural safety intervention, personal development and individual accountability. He states that Motivation-Based Safety (MBS) is the “next step” in sustaining safe practices in the workplace. We agree. Working safely must have several components: a knowledge of safety rules and regulations (which is part of BBS), the ability to create a contextual background which allows a person to recognise, and assess the development of an unsafe situation which is not covered by the rules, and a willingness to comply to corrective action. We contend that the last two components are crucial – yet these issues are not addressed through BBS initiatives. Let’s view this from the perspective of a simple but powerful workplace example: a worker is warned of the possible occurrence of an unsafe event by the sounding of a bell (which is part of an automated safety system). Every time the bell rings, the worker is required to take specific action. In other words, we want the individual to consistently behave in a certain manner when a warning is sounded. The BBS approach to achieving this aim would proceed as follows:
There is little doubt that this process will result in a higher frequency of safe practices. For as long as the bell rings on time... and only until the worker is faced with an alternative choice which appears to hold a higher reward (like not acting out the script when the bell rings, or sleeping while the bell rings). We believe that the time has come for a shift from BBS thinking, to broader-based solutions. MBS is this solution. It is aimed at equipping the worker to make the correct decisions, and to take the appropriate actions required to prevent the bell from being triggered in the first place. But it also equips the worker to behave appropriately, should the bell ring. And to behave appropriately even when the bell is broken, and fails to sound a warning. Or when the bell rings in error. Or rings louder... or for longer than expected. MBS starts with workers and supervisors understanding each other’s frame of reference, to reduce miscommunication and mistrust. Next, it develops pro-active behaviours – through making people more self-aware. They start to accept responsibility for their own actions, don’t blame and accuse others when things go wrong, work continuously within their circle of influence; and change and develop themselves first in order to have greater influence with others. Attempting to change an organization or a management style without first changing the habits and behavioural patterns of the individuals is analogous to attempting to improve one’s golf game before developing the muscles that make better strokes possible. Some things necessarily precede other things. We cannot run before we can walk. And we cannot improve the safety-related behaviours of our people before we teach them how to take charge of, and manage (even control) their personal habits. Steven Covey attests to this in his widely acclaimed Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. People are the major component in most accident situations. People-caused accidents outnumber those from other causes four to one. Human causes are connected with deficiencies in the individual such as improper attitudes, carelessness, recklessness, daydreaming, alcoholism and the use of drugs. Some studies have shown accident repeaters to be impulsive and irresponsible people who are compelled toward accidents. Through the application of MBS we aim at the following:
Obviously there are certain aspects relating to safe practices which would be best served by BBS applications. We simply believe that in isolation, BBS initiatives address only a small fraction of the real issue at stake. In our view, a major concern regarding BBS is the fact that it addresses only “documented” safety behaviours – whereas MBS empowers the individual to make the right choice also in those situations where a “documented” behaviour does not exist. And it is our view that this cannot be achieved in isolation – we need to address the “whole person”, and not take a small snapshot of their behaviour in one isolated arena. It is for this very reason that we do not run BBS programmes. In fact, we do not run any programmes aimed exclusively at the improvement of safety. But we do offer holistic organisational and people development programmes with a track record proving that we deliver results. We help organisations to improve, and sustain, the frequency of safe practices in the workplace... whilst at the same time enhancing overall productivity, reducing wastage, controlling costs, and minimising absenteeism. And so on and so on... With the above as background, we now need to differentiate more clearly between BBS and MBS. So let’s take a closer look at both...
What is Behavioural-Based Safety?Dr Ted Boyce, mentioned earlier, has done much work on the subject of BBS. We’ve already looked at his definition of BBS: The application of proactive approaches to increasing safety in the workplace (and in the community). These approaches are based on sound, research-based, behavioural practices and are easy to use with minimal training. What makes the behavioural science approach to safety unique is (1) a reliance on information (data) gathering, (2) a focus on what people do for safety, (3) an emphasis on making decisions about safety successes and areas for improvement based on the data gathered, and (4) the inclusion of recognition for safety-related behaviours, instead of just penalties for at-risk behaviours. “Behaviour-based safety” also (5) involves employees in key aspects of the safety process.Thus, relative to traditional safety, BBS is an employee-driven continuous improvement process. More specifically, the behaviour-based approach to achieving safety improvements is a process of
This may be accomplished by a core group of “in-house” leaders who champion the process, or by each worker individually with minimal efforts and time requirements. The characteristics of each work culture determine which process will be most effective. Regardless, behavioural observations are the key to successful BBS and are necessary for sustained safety improvements. Research has shown the behaviour-based approach to be cost effective, primarily because behaviour-change techniques are straightforward and relatively easy to administer. In addition, safety improvements can be readily assessed by on-site personnel monitoring target behaviours.
Why all the interest in behavioural safety?In workplaces with troublesome rates of unsafe performance, BBS initiatives, properly implemented, produce significant improvements in safe performance and major reductions in workplace injuries and illnesses. Human suffering and financial costs are sharply reduced. Moreover, the costs of producing these gains in human performance are a good investment, paying for themselves many times over.
How does Behavioural Safety work?Behaviour analysis is the science of behaviour change. Applied behaviour analysis is the application of the science of behaviour change to real world problems, such as safety performance. As we do this, we are looking for functional or systematic relationships between environmental changes, i.e., the stimuli or cues that lead to the behaviour itself, such as specific areas of work performance, and the consequences of behaviour, such as the positive or negative responses that occur immediately after a person performs a particular work task.These relationships have been exhaustively studied in the laboratories. Applied behaviour analysis applies the lessons learned in laboratory research to the challenges of human behaviour in everyday life. In this case, to the challenge of building safe practices in the workplace. To do this, sound BBS programs include the following basic steps:
Behaviourally specify the desirable performanceIn an effort to improve safe practices in a certain workplace, we first specify as behaviourally possible, those practices which are desired. For example, correct forklift operation or lifting behaviour. Or, we may specify the outcomes that are achieved if safe practices are performed – such as a shop floor that is free of hazards like wires or oil slicks that could trip an employee and cause a fall. The process of specifying these criteria for good performance results in a measuring instrument that can be used to periodically sample safety performance in the workplace and measure human performance.
Measure safety performanceUsing the criteria for safe workplace performance, we periodically sample and measure safety performance against those criteria. These measurements are recorded and become part of a data base; a cumulative log of performance for each workplace.
Shape safe performance through feedback and other consequencesBehavioural research on learning teaches us powerful lessons about how to teach and build performance improvement. First among these lessons is the power of consequences.Consequences shape performance. One very powerful consequence is feedback on workplace performance. Properly designed and used, performance feedback will produce learning and positive performance changes - often very dramatically. As a practical matter, once measurement takes place, a sound behavioural safety program will provide timely, usually immediate, feedback on workplace safety behaviour to the employees whose workplace is being observed. It will not be delayed for lengthy periods of time. In addition, feedback will focus on positive gains in performance, not negative performance decrements. It will be predictable and certain. And, it will be delivered in ways that are meaningful to the people who are receiving it. The posting of graphs of the performance of work teams or departments in building safe performance over time is another form of feedback that sets the occasion for coaching and feedback on workplace safety performance. As teams and departments improve in their achieving high levels of safe practices in the workplace, celebrations are often held, further acknowledging and reinforcing safe performance. So far, we have made a very strong case for BBS. From all of the above, there can be very little doubt that a well-structured BBS initiative will have an immense impact on the safe practices in an organisation. Clearly, such outcomes are worth pursuing.
Our conclusions on BBSDuring the mid 1930s, the safety industry recognized that most accidents were caused by an individual’s behaviour. Industry realized the concept was sound and began a process of evolving to today’s more sophisticated level of observing behaviour; analysing that behaviour; and then formatting principles, policies, and procedures based on the analysis of that information (BBS methodology).Subsequently, for the past seventy years, the safety community has relied on engineering control; observation; quantitative information analysis; "broad brush" training; and, most recently, on BBS for the reduction of accidents and associated costs - all with acceptable success. We recognise that the BBS process provided progress - but not the total desired results. BBS addresses only improved safety – and then only in a behavioural context. We have found that as a result, BBS produces only partial results. The focus is only indirectly on an employee’s motivation through a four-tier approach:
It is inevitable that some positive results will be achieved, since the focus is (to whatever extent) on the person and the workplace. Unfortunately, observed behaviour is not sufficient to divine an employee’s motivation for mental and physical pleasure or pain. Observable behaviour alone does not identify the whole person who comes to work. Therefore, these initiatives still ignore the root of the issue – the fact that behaviour is not a force unto itself: it is merely the mirror of the motivational drives of the individual concerned. And to complicate things, each individual has a unique set of motivational drives. In addition, we have found that many safety programs also place a greater emphasis on the work environment than on the motivational drives of the individual (probably because workplace conditions are easier to monitor and control). And any programme that ignores these facts does so at its own peril. In conclusion, we believe that the continuing demand for increased performance and bottom-line emphasis will no longer allow industry to stick with and use only these older approaches in the future. And we believe that whilst safety is the cornerstone of your business, there are many other mission critical areas that need to be improved upon. Now let’s turn our attention to MBS...
Motivation-Based SafetyIn the past, safety and other organisational improvement initiatives addressed only “that part” of the individual which was employed by the company... and to make matters worse, often the focus would be only on the “behaviour aspect” of “that part” of the individual. This is true also of the BBS approach.This approach is flawed in two ways: to start, we now know that behaviour is only the manifestation of the individual’s self-esteem and attitude (therefore behaviour in itself is a symptom, rather than a cause in itself). And we now also know that the individual’s behaviour in the isolation of the workplace is only one aspect of an individual’s overall functioning. This confirms that any approach aimed solely at “behaviour as it relates to safety within the confines of the workplace” is a mere snapshot of a snapshot of the real issue at stake. We now understand that the employee’s contribution in the workplace is only one part of their “whole person” make-up. We advocate that attitude is more important than intelligence. The whole employee, not just the job description, walks through the door at the start of his shift. The real safety issue of why the person inflicts pain or loss on him/herself or other people is far more complex than earlier approaches would suggest. The largest component of motivation, self-esteem, must be considered – and, in addition, the “whole person” must be addressed. We are not alone in this view. The University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business now models their advanced post-graduate programmes on this principle. Says Mebs Loghdey, the school’s programmes director: “The management and leadership challenges of the future are characterised by complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity. In this context, there is a growing realisation that the future sustainability of organisations is going to depend on their ability to manage and grow their people at a faster rate than the rate of change in the environment. Growing the whole person will create success”. Industry will make quantum leaps with safety and other issues, as it becomes more adept at reaching the source of the individual’s behaviours – and we maintain that the answer lies MBS, which can only be sustained through in the “whole person” approach. Therefore, the starting point is to raise the levels of self actualisation and learning readiness of the individual. To achieve this, we need to help individuals to better understand their own functioning, which will require the following:
Next, we need to recognise that behaviour in the workplace is also driven by “group attitude” - the sum total of motivational drives and attitudes of the individuals who make up the group. This is commonly referred to as the “culture” of the group – or on a larger scale, what we know as organisational culture. And therein lies the challenge: how to deal with – and even manage – something as complex as organisational culture. The entire gambit of organisational culture is generally not well understood, and even where it is understood, its impact on the behaviour of the individual is underestimated. For a long time, the ability to understand, work with, and improve organisational culture remained a major stumbling block... That was until the relatively recent discovery of a powerful new concept...
Unwritten Ground Rules™Australian based Steve Simpson, international consultant, speaker and author, has conducted world-first research - funded by two universities - in the field of organisational culture. The findings are simple, but powerful: In most organisations there are clear policies and procedures detailing the prescribed manner in which employees are required to function... and then there is the way it really is – founded on personal motivational levels, individual values, and based on real day-to-day practices... we’ll call the latter the Unwritten Ground Rules™, or UGR’s™.Each and every decision made by employees in the workplace is a function of these two forces: clear policies and procedures on the one hand, as opposed to UGR’s™ on the other. And which one wins almost every time? The policies, or the UGR’s™? The answer is obviously apparent: UGR’s™ of course. The problem? Often, the UGR’s™ deviate from the required policies and procedures. And whilst the UGR’s™ govern the behaviours of our people at all levels (and therefore dictates workplace outcomes), they are rarely, if ever, talked about! People have to deduce them. Yet the UGR’s™ dictate our every behaviour in the workplace! No small wonder we have never managed to “manage” organizational culture, or that we battle to improve safety. But now we can: if we can clearly identify and understand the current UGR’s™, we will be able to influence them... then we can create a desired set of UGR’s™ and finally we can actually “manage” the shift towards them. It is exciting, and it works. The UGR’s™ process helps organisations to
ConclusionEffective safety training is on the threshold of becoming a corporation’s greatest asset at impacting the bottom line. Professionals in the field today need to refocus their energies in getting across to client organisations the notion that a safe work environment exists only if each individuals within that environment is an empowered self-actualiser. No matter how safe the work environment is, until the source of unsafe behaviour is isolated and removed - the employee is unsafe. And the source is none other than individual employee motivational levels that are below the ideal, which creates UGR’s™ that are not aligned with the achievement of stated strategic objectives.Employers can improve safety and raise productivity, directly impacting on the bottom line through the application of MBS methodology. This can be accomplished through a two-phased organisational development initiative:
Stef du Plessis and Associates, under the auspices of the Rand Afrikaans University, one of South Africa's leading educational institutions, have developed a range of whole person and leadership development programmes, designed to raise the levels self actualisation and learning readiness of employees at all levels. And through our close strategic alliance with Steve Simpson and Keystone Management Services in Australia, we are the sole providers of UGR’s™ programmes in Africa.
These initiatives achieve sustainable results. Industry is already headed in this direction – our programmes are not a radical departure from what is known.
|
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION - CLICK HERE