Behavior based safety principles and implementation

Fifteen questions used to measure willingness to AC were assembled into a questionnaire designed to examine the personality measures and items regarding employee response to various safety issues, adequacy of safety training, and attitudes toward other safety related issues. The most pertinent questions relating to AC were:

If I know a coworker is going to do a hazardous job, I am willing to remind him/her of the hazards (even if the employee is familiar with the job),

I am willing to warn my peers about working unsafely am willing to do whatever I can to improve safety, even confronting my peers about their unsafe acts.

The responses to these questions, measured on a 5-point Likert scale, were added to attain an AC score. The Likert technique presents a set of attitude statements. Subjects are asked to express agreement or disagreement of a five-point scale. Each degree of agreement is given a numerical value from one to five. Thus a total numerical value can be calculated from all the responses.

In addition, a space for respondent comments was included after every question, to allow the workers to expand upon the particular answer or issue in question.

Data Gathering Method

The method used was the survey questionnaire. The subjects were given the survey by their supervisors, and informed that it was a measure of the safety climate within their department. The questionnaire focused on these primary areas: Existing Safety Programs, Management and Employee Commitment, Technology and Data Sophistication, Organizational Alignment, and Feedback, Recognition, Incentive.

Database of the Study

The subjects were 65 hourly workers from one department of one division of a local manufacturing plant. The subjects ranged in age from early twenties to sixties with an average job tenure of 8 years. The plant operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and employs approximately 2000 workers, most of whom are production workers. Most of the hourly workers in the plant (approximately 1800) belong to the local union, which has been represented at the plant since it first opened.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

1-Strongly agree, 2- agree, 3-not sure, 4-disagree, 5-strongly disagree

My department has an active safety management program which includes an active accident investigation program

Circle One)

Comments:

Safety controls exist but they are not always enforced.

Circle One)

Comments:

Accidents and injuries are caused more by deficiencies in equipment and training than by careless work habits or poor safety attitudes

Circle One)

Comments:

If I know a coworker is going to do a hazardous job, I am willing to remind him/her of the hazards (even if the employee is familiar with the job),

Circle One)

Comments:

Accidents are a primary concern of management

Circle One)

Comments:

My working environment is as safe as is humanly possible.

Circle One)

Comments:

I am willing to warn my peers about working unsafely

Circle One)

Comments:

My company has the resources to devote an employee/management committee of at least six people to meet approximately two hours per week to oversee a behavioral safety process

Circle One)

Comments:

Every full-time employee should be allowed a minimum of 10 minutes per week to conduct observations

Circle One)

Comments:

10. I am willing to do whatever I can to improve safety.

Circle One)

Comments:

11. Even confronting my peers about their unsafe acts.

Circle One)

Comments:

12. I would personally be willing to encourage others to change an at- risk behavior that they don't want to change or won't change

Circle One)

Comments:

13. I would consider hiding an injury in order not to jeopardize my chances at a safety incentive bonus

Circle One)

Comments:

14. I believe that safety needs to be more adequately addressed in my department.

Circle One)

Comments:

My department's safety performance objectives for managers and supervisors coincide with the safety performance objectives for individual employees or groups of employees

Circle One)

Comments:

Validity and Limitations

The validity of the study was limited in the sense that the sample was not truly random in that it was likely biased toward the behavioral approach. In other words, most of those who took the time to answer the questions are probably more knowledgeable and confident about behavioral strategies than those who did not. Still, answers revealed some important findings.

In addition, the sampling pool represents only 3% of the hourly worker population. Due to time constraints and budget limitations, it was not feasible at the time of the survey to include a larger sampling pool. Due to the scope of this project, results are only valid for the shifts and department in which the subjects worked. It would be expected that results for different workers and different shifts would give different responses.

These results may be subject to certain sampling biases. As the supervisors were in control of administering the survey, it is not known if there may be sampling bias. The supervisors were given the option of how to choose the subjects, therefore it cannot be known if the supervisors either consciously or unconsciously chose subjects who would give positive results.

The subjects were not asked to provide demographic information as that may have the effect of biasing the answers. Demographic information may have created a fear of retribution for unfavorable answers. The lack of demographic information makes it difficult to determine if the survey encompassed a random sampling of subjects. It is also not known if answers would have been different for various shifts and longevity with the plant. Although demographic information can provide valuable information, it was not used in this case for fear of further bias to the results.

Summary of Chapter 3

The questionnaire was designed to determine whether focusing on safety behavior through actively caring will bring about the desired changes. The research has shown that social approval and encouragement can bring about positive changes in safety norms, and that the employees are the best people to redefine their safety norms, as they control their own behavior. It follows, therefore, that any safety improvement initiative which relies almost exclusively on management-dictated efforts, is less likely to be as successful as one that empowers and enables the workforce itself.

Data Analysis

Chapter 4

There were a number of issues that were made clearer from the surveys, both from the Likert scale questions and the additional comments. These primarily related to training levels; consultation; management's level of interest in safe working practices and standards vs. productivity; level of understanding of occupational safety and health issues; and level of employee input.

Analysis of Raw Data

Question number1 asked if the department had an active safety management program, which included an active accident investigation program. 69% of the respondents did not feel that they had an active safety management program, If one does indeed exist, the workers do not know about it. It is clear that a safety program in the plant needs more visibility to be effective.

Question number 2 asked if safety controls exist but are not enforced. An overwhelming 75% of the respondents answered yes. This indicates a clear need to enforce OSHA and NIOSH Safety rules at the worksite. Both education and enforcement are needed.

Question 3 pointed to a clear need to improve in the area of safe equipment. 79% of the respondent s reported a need to improve in this area.

Question number 4 reflects a felling for the social climate at the company. 54% said that they would not inform or remind a co-worker if they were going to be committing a hazardous act. 35% were not sure if they would or not, This question measures the social attitudes about safety at the plant. This question may be closely tied to number five, which asked if workers felt that accidents were of primary concern for management. 88% of the workers surveyed felt that safety was not a primary concern for management. This may indicate that the workers are being pushed to work faster, which creates an unsafe environment.

Question number 6 indicated that the environment was not as safe as it could be with 84% responding that they agree that the work environment was not as safe as it could be.

Question 7 again reiterated that workers were unwilling to warn their peers about working unsafely.

Question 8 indicated that workers were not sure if management would be able to meet for a short time each week to oversee a behavioral safety process.

Question 9 shows an extreme lack of concern for personal safety as most responded that they should not be allowed 10 minutes per week to conduct safety observations. It is not known what factors may have influenced these answers, but it is clear that priorities are elsewhere, other than on safety.

Question 10 is interesting in light of question 9. 77% said that they would do all that they can to improve safety, but according to questions 9 and 7, they are unwilling to take even a minimal amount of time from their day to accomplish this.

Question 11 again re-iterated the social climate of the company and indicated that workers would be unwilling to confront their peers about a safety issue.

Questions 12 and 13 are disturbing and indicate that social pressure may play a large part in the safety environment of the company. Only 16% would encourage a co-worker to change an unsafe habit and 73% said that they would not report an injury, in order to not jeopardize the chances of getting a safety bonus. This question reveals two things, the first is that a serious injury might go unattended or that a minor injury might turn severe due to lack of treatment. It also indicates that the safety incentive program is important to the workers and that it could be used as a tool to promote good safety practices.

An overwhelming percent felt that in safety did not need to be more adequately addressed within the department. 55% said that it did not need to be more adequately addressed. 28% were not sure.

61% did not feel that their department's safety goals coincided with those of individual groups or groups of employees.

After considering all data gathered, a number of key issues were identified. These issues were grouped under either Front Burner Issues, from which preventative strategies would be developed, or Back Burner Issues that warranted specific mention.

Front Burner Issues

1. Communication and interaction between management and employees

2. Safety Culture as reflected by behavior

3. Competency of those assigned to ensure and oversee compliance to safety standards

4. Provision and utilization of documented OSHA standards

5. Hazard identification and risk management;

6. Training and retraining

7. Role and function of the employee

Back Burner Issues

1. Technological advancements

2. Injury case management

3. Production pressure and incentive programs

4. Shift work and shift patterns.

The study showed that overall, there was sufficient evidence of a breakdown in the integration and implementation of safety systems and the deterioration of established safe working practices. While there were some positive reports, in which the safety and health management system was rated as effective at producing the desired result, there were many more examples, which demonstrated concern with safety management and ensuring compliance.

There was further evidence that risk-taking behavior, or adoption of unsafe practices, is sometimes encouraged both directly and indirectly within the work environment.

The trends revealed included the following:

The gap between training needs and resources is increasing.

Workers tend not to be adequately prepared for hazardous situations, partly because many of them are young and inexperienced. This includes managers who are green and may not have developed a safety culture.

Worker complacency towards safety has increased.

Injuries to young workers are high due to their lack of experience and their attitudes and behavior.

There is not always consistency in practices and attitudes towards safety.

The message about safety is inconsistent from one department to another and between groups. The standards of safety required of owners is high, but when owners' priorities are towards saving costs and meeting schedules, safety is seen as an expense. There is a gap between what is said at the top (by leadership) and what actually occurs in the workplace

Workers are often under high external or social pressures.

More effective communication and direct accountability for safety measures are emphatically needed.

The study found that overall, behavioral-based safety issues have not been adequately assessed or controlled, and management has been slow to implement the risk management principles required by both law and personal ethics. On the whole, work practices, the quality of supervision, the level of training and the degree to which consultation takes place were found to be inadequate. Standardized safety requirements and training were not adequately provided. Changes in management, demands of work, and a lack of appropriate planning meant that supervisors and management have less time in the field reinforcing safety.

Other barriers included a transient workforce, changing technology, no one assuming responsibility, a lack of money for safety and the worker not seeing the whole picture. Although there have been attempts to overcome these obstacles, these attempts are often thwarted by a resistance to change on the part of both employees and managers.

Summary

Chapter 5

The study's survey experiment and literature review evaluated the myths associated with behavior-based safety, and subsequently implement behavior-based safety as a tool for pervasive participation and widespread change. The study reviewed the relationship between attitudes, culture, systems and behavior clarified how behavior-based safety fits into the hierarchy of power within an organization.

The fundamental elements of performance management and analysis were also examined and applied to the comprehension of human behavior in relation to change. On the whole, the study provided a comprehensive perspective of how attitudes, cultures and systems influence or affect behavior, and how successful behavioral change efforts can make a substantial difference in the wide-ranging implementation of behavior-based safety programs.

The key components of a successful behavior-based safety program to be:

Management focus on behavior

Clearly communicated expectations

Employee support for the use and enforcement of safety rules.

Employees empowerment

Employee involvement in the key activities, including the ability to submit suggestions for improvements. This involvement leads to each employee having a vested interest in the change process, generating more favorable results.

An appropriately designed and administered recognition/award system to ensure uniformity and fairness. The same was determined not to encourage instances of under-reporting or hiding of injures.

Consistent application of the program elements by all managers and supervisors

Deficiencies reported are corrected in a timely manner.

In terms of cost, rewards/recognition, supervisory time, and employee involvement were found to be far less expensive than the dollars that could have be spent on a continuation of injuries, pain and suffering, and morale. The gain was improvement in morale, employee ownership in the safety program, and increased production. The same was accomplished solely by cultural change, and enforcement of established stated policy.

Discussion

The change process clearly requires time, and is often laden with conflict. Change requires leadership and risk taking as well as conflict management skills, and must be diligently pursued. All levels of an organization must be initially primed for change, and equally positioned for the change to commence. Change for the sake of change is not acceptable. Planning must always focus on the desired end result.

The process of evolving towards a BBS program requires passion and commitment. The need to take action and admit that the problem and solution starts from within are paramount for a successful safety record. Successful managers recognize that their own attitude toward safety has a very strong influence on human behavior. This influence can affect the physical condition, attitudes and behavior of the employees, both individually and as a whole.

There are many supervisors who exert pressure to maximize production to the detriment of safety. This pressure is obviously unacceptable and must therefore be eliminated because of the negative impact it has on safety performance and the safety culture of the organization.

The primary revelation of this study was that because managers often feel like they are being forced to choose between reduced production or increased safety risks, they often wind up straddling the middle and generally accomplishing nothing. When production is made top priority, the employees who are exposed to the risks ultimately feel this pressure, and become more careless in an effort to meet quotas.

It was additionally determined that there is a range of bonus, incentive or piecework remuneration schemes in place in which employees' pay rates relate to achievement of certain goals, including production outcomes.

While there is some evidence that those companies that pay more or offer intangible incentives for meeting quotas have more incidents of injury hiding, much more commonly it was reported that these types of arrangements can have the effect of rewarding and encouraging safe behavior. When programs are properly implemented and attitudes towards safety are improved, incentives can have a positive effect in terms of improving the safety culture, by rewarding safe behavior, penalizing unsafe practices and motivating employees to improve their safety performance. The key is that the incentives are offered for safety compliance rather than production.

The study also revealed that only where strong safety culture existed within organizations (i.e. where the commitment of senior management was clearly evident to all levels of management and the workforce and employees were involved in the decision-making promise), will safety and health performance follow a continuous improvement pattern.

Recommendations

Obviously, management and supervisors must act to eliminate the circumstances and practices that lead to unsafe or risk-taking behavior if the desired safety culture is to be sustained. Furthermore, a program must be implemented to improve the safety culture, as reflected by behavior, that focuses on management commitment and personal aspects of safety awareness at all levels of the workforce.

It is also recommended that relevant guidance materials be developed and distributed in-house, to assist implementation of the principles of risk management and to achieve stronger compliance with legislation. All levels of the workforce must understand their role and responsibilities in terms of the risk management process, including hazard identification, risk assessment and risk control.

As a result of the information gathered in this research project, the following recommendations are being made:

Steps are needed to meet the needs of younger and newer workers who lack practical and mechanical knowledge and a fundamental understanding of hazards and how to be safe. Pre-job education and safety training is needed for new workers.

A new and improved safety culture must be achieved in which consistent compliance is maintained via a shift in attitude towards the significance of proactive safety behaviors.

Attitudes towards safety need to change. Both employees and employers need to become more respectful and trusting of each other and to take personal accountability. The culture should be one that promotes everyone going home unharmed. Competition has to be replaced by collaboration where practices, procedures and information are shared. Workers need to recognize that routine jobs are not necessarily routine when it comes to safety.

More effective mentoring and monitoring processes must be established, utilizing the skills of seasoned workers. Not enough resources are currently being dedicated to this.

Overtime is on the increase, and with it, absenteeism and fatigue. Workers have little control over the hours they work. Consequently, there needs to be more monitoring of hours, and a better understanding of the connection between overwork and safety. Change has to go beyond the worksite into society, so that people in general are less tolerant of unsafe practices.

Reasons Why Behavior-Based Safety Programs Fail

Now that we know what elements comprise a successful Behavior-Based Safety program, let us look at some of the reasons why programs are not successful so that we may avoid them. It takes more than just talking and training to achieve a "Total safety culture" and many program have, in deed proved to be unsuccessful. It is important to examine the mistakes that were made in order to fully implement an effective plan the first time.

The first mistake to avoid is the failure to teach to principle to all potential participants. In order to be effective all of the employees must be trained and must know the rational behind the program. It is not sufficient to train only the managers, or certain employees and expect the information to filter down through the company. This often leads to misinterpretation and misunderstandings. Each and every employee must understand the reason why the program is important. If the trickle-down method of disseminating information is used, often the "how to" is conveyed, but not why it is important. To develop a Total Safety Culture it is imperative that the employees understand why the program is important.

The second pitfall is avoid is lack of perceived ownership. When employees learn the principles underlying a program and believe in those principles, they will willingly customize program procedures for their culture. They will give the program their own label, and work to keep the program relevant and evergreen. This results in perceptions of ownership and commitment, and helps to avoid other common pitfalls in safety programming. It is not sufficient to simply adopt a cookie cutter program. The employees must feel that it is uniquely theirs and designed for their particular needs.

The most common pitfall is lack of involvement from the workers. The line workers or operators are the true safety experts of a work setting. They know where the daily hazards are located, and they know what to do to avoid them. They also know who takes risks, and with proper training, they could be most effective at increasing these people's safe behavior and decreasing their at-risk behavior. The more people who implement program procedures (founded on the basic principle that behavior change requires interpersonal observation and feedback), the less remote is a Total Safety Culture. For example, a program will attract more participation when it is perceived as founded on the right principles, customized and owned by the workforce, and fueled by a proactive need to achieve rather than a reactive need to avoid failure. Regarding this last point, program participation should be encouraged with positive consequences (such as personal recognition, group celebrations, and trinket rewards), and never forced with threats of punishment (commonly referred to as "discipline").

The fourth pitfall is lack of management support, Often management does suppor thte program, but this support is behind the scenes and not visible to the worker. When an organization gets an opportunity to implement a new safety program, some management support is demonstrated. Management is covering the expense of program implementation, which includes giving employees resources and time off the job to learn principles and guidelines, customize procedures, and implement intervention strategies. However, it's critical that managers and supervisors show interpersonal support by verbalizing understanding and belief in the principles, and recognizing individuals and work teams for accomplishing program objectives.

The next pitfall is lack of leadership. A successful long-term program requires such leadership at all levels of the organization, especially at the operator level. When a few key individuals believe deeply in the principles and procedures of a safety program they will "walk the talk" and make sure the program continues. This person can taker the form a Safety Officer or Safety Director.

The next pitfall is the most common. It involves the lack of written concrete goals. To understand this we must first define the difference between a purpose and a goal. Purpose reflects the mission of a safety program, whereas a goal defines a specific outcome targeted with a particular program activity or process. For example, the purpose of a safety program might be to achieve a Total Safety Culture and experience no injuries. In contrast, goals define achievable process outcomes that can be recorded and tracked throughout a particular program. The achievement of program goals is celebrated because it reflects progress toward the ultimate purpose or mission of a safety program. Indeed program success is demonstrated by the number of program goals achieved. Mixing the meaning of program goals and purpose can be severely detrimental to a safety program.

The last pitfall is the lack of a means to measure success. In the safety arena because injury rate (total recordable and lost-time injuries) is the standard measure of safety success. In fact, for some companies these outcome measures are the only indices used to evaluate the success of a safety program. Company safety awards are based on these numbers, as well as the promotions and merit-pay increases of individual employees.

Basing safety success solely on injury rate has several drawbacks, including the fact that this measure can be readily manipulated for the purpose of "looking good." Employees can often hide an OSHA recordable (perhaps to assure receipt of a safety reward based on remaining injury free). Sometimes it's even possible to report that a lost-time injury happened off the job. Supervisors and safety directors might even encourage such cheating in order to influence the numbers on which their bonus depends. If employees learn of attempts to hide injuries they develop mistrust in the system and a belief that they cannot control the organization's injury rate. Obviously, this does little to support a safety program.

Knowing the pitfalls to avoid can help ensure the success of your plan from the very beginning. Just as it is important to know the key elements to a good plan, it si just as important to know the elements of a bad one.

Implementing A Pro-Active Safety Plan

Due to the nature and severity of the safety issues at the plant, it is imperative that positive and definitive action be taken as soon as possible. General policy changes are only effective if they take the form of action. Increasing awareness is necessary, however a successful goal must follow set course to be effective. This plan will include the hiring of a safety officer who will oversee the implementation of a company wide safety policy. This person will have a Minimum of a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Hygeine and Safety.

The first task of the Safety officer will be to set up a committee consisting of plant managers on all levels of management as well as several hourly workers to brainstorm ideas and get feed back in developing a definite plan of action. The Safety Committee will set tangible goals. Tangible goals have an action and definitive goal. For example, "to increase the overall safety of the plant" would not be a tangible goal. However, "To ensure that all workers wear safety harnesses when climbing to heights of over 5 feet high 100% of the time" would be a tangible goal. To set tangible goals would be the first task of the safety committee.

The safety committee will conduct a safety audit of each department to determine which safety inadequacies exist. They will then prioritize the inadequacies in order of most serious first. The most serious safety concerns will be those that pose a potential of loss of life or limb. The next group will be those concerns, which involve the highest amount of people exposed. A prioritized list will be developed department by department and also plant wide. The committee will then take action to correct these inadequacies.

The next task of the committee will be to ensure that these new safety policies and changes continue after the initial repair and set-up. A safety education program will be implemented in which regular safety meetings will be held which will address a separate topic each meeting. The Safety Officer will give an informative presentation on the topic.

A safety checklist will be developed for each department. The safety Officer will make regular inspections of each department to visually spot unsafe practices or hazards so that they may be addressed. These inspections will not be at the same time each week, so that, employees do not know when they will take place. This gives the Safety Officer a better chance to catch unsafe practices. The checklist will be used as a motivational tool to make everyone more aware of safety.

The department who gets the fewest number of violations will receive some type of incentive, so as to promote a better group cooperative feeling than currently exists. In addition, the Safety Officer will make a full report to at the safety meeting as to the number of violations and which departments showed improvement or decline.

These programs are intended to have the effect of promoting a better group awareness and cooperation in the area of safety. The safety officer will oversee the purchase of materials promoting safety to be placed at strategic locations around the plant.

The Safety Officer will perform random inspections and will give out small prizes to those caught doing something in a safe way, or someone who is thoughtful and goes beyond what is safe in an attempt to do something safer. These prizes will be small such as a coupon for a free meal or such. This program may seem expansive, however, will save much in the long-term due to lack of lost time due to accidents. The employees need to feel positive about the new safety program, not that they are being nagged more by management.

The Safety Officer will encourage positive feedback and suggestions from employees and management as well as to how to improve the program. Everyone needs to feel that they are an active participant in the program, not that if is being thrust upon them. In addition, an active program will be instituted which will reward those who spot a new safety hazard and make a suggestion as to how to solve it. This accomplishes two goals, first, it gives the Safety Officer many sets of eyes. It also makes each and every employee responsible for plant safety.

The Safety Program will include a minimum of one yearly meeting of the Safety Committee to assess the effectiveness of the program, address any new issues that may arise, and set new goals for the following year. More frequent assessment may be necessary in the beginning of the program. A program, which does not regularly reassess itself, soon becomes obsolete and ineffective.

In the event of an accident, even minor ones, it will be the duty of the Safety Officer to conduct a complete investigation of the incident in order to determine what caused to accident. An incident report will be written and any issues the need addressed will be put into a plan of action. These may include, but are not limited to, policy changes, procedure changes, equipment repair or purchase, employee training, or any other measure deemed necessary to ensure that the accident will be prevented in the future,

In the event that the accident was caused by the failure of an employee to follow safety procedures, a disciplinary procedure will be established. The disciplinary procedure will be formally written and adhered to in all circumstances. The severity of the punishment will reflect several factors. The severity of the violation will be considered in accordance to the severity of the potential injury, the number of people that it could effect, and the number of times this person has been reprimanded for safety violations. This policy shall be clearly posted on all bulletin boards.

As a part of the investigation process, interviews with other employees may e required. However, discipline will not be administered on the basis of other employee interviews alone. The purpose of this program is to promote cooperation among employees. It is not positive to encourage "tattle tale" activities as this serves to create separateness, defensiveness, and harms group cohesion. These employee interviews will be to gain constructive criticism and help promote a solution to the problem.

The Safety Program will be more effective if it is presented in a positive and constructive manner. Rule by authoritarian methods only serves to create resentment and will not help to achieve cooperation among employees and managers. It is easy to get caught up in the punishment aspect of teaching and often we forget to say the good things, which make people feel good about themselves. Managers must be reminded to compliment their employees when they see them doing something right, instead of just disciplining them when they do something wrong, Positive reinforcement is the key to the success of the program and this must come from all levels of management, not just the Safety Officer. Safety must become the mantra of both employees and management alike. The idea is to foster an atmosphere of enthusiastic cooperation, not resentment and fear, The employees must feel that it is their program, not just another thing thrust upon them by management to make their lives miserable.

The following is an example of some items which might be included on a departmental inspection sheet. It is only an example and it, by far, not complete in its scope or content.

All safety guards on equipment in place and working properly.

All electrical cords taped so as not to cause a tripping or strangulation hazard.

All ladders tied off securely.

Is anyone climbing wearing a proper safety harness?

All employees wearing steel-toed boots.

All employees wearing hard hats.

All electrical cords attached to a GFI appropriate to the load and environment.

All equipment properly locked and tagged out.