Behavior-Based Safety Programs: Survey Analysis & Implementation

Survey Instrument and Data Gathering Methods

Fifteen questions used to measure willingness to actively care (AC) were assembled into a questionnaire designed to examine personality measures and items regarding employee responses to various safety issues, the adequacy of safety training, and attitudes toward other safety-related concerns. 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.

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

The responses to these questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale and added together to attain an AC score. The Likert technique presents a set of attitude statements, and subjects are asked to express agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. Each degree of agreement is given a numerical value from one to five, allowing a total numerical value to be calculated from all responses. A space for respondent comments was included after every question, allowing workers to expand upon their particular answer or the issue in question.

The data-gathering method used was the survey questionnaire. 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, and Incentive.

The survey instrument used the following rating scale: 1 — Strongly Agree, 2 — Agree, 3 — Not Sure, 4 — Disagree, 5 — Strongly Disagree. The fifteen survey questions were:

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

2. Safety controls exist but they are not always enforced.

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

4. 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).

5. Accidents are a primary concern of management.

6. My working environment is as safe as is humanly possible.

7. I am willing to warn my peers about working unsafely.

8. 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.

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

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

11. Even confronting my peers about their unsafe acts.

12. I would personally be willing to encourage others to change an at-risk behavior that they do not want to change or will not change.

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

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

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

Database, Validity, and Limitations

The subjects were 65 hourly workers from one department of one division of a local manufacturing plant. The subjects ranged in age from their early twenties to their sixties, with an average job tenure of eight years. The plant operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and employs approximately 2,000 workers, most of whom are production workers. Most of the hourly workers in the plant (approximately 1,800) belong to the local union, which has been represented at the plant since it first opened.

The validity of the study was limited in the sense that the sample was not truly random and 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, the answers revealed some important findings.

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 yield 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 whether sampling bias may have been introduced. The supervisors were given the option of how to choose the subjects; therefore, it cannot be determined whether 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 had the effect of biasing their answers by creating a fear of retribution for unfavorable responses. The lack of demographic information makes it difficult to determine whether the survey encompassed a truly random sampling of subjects. It is also not known whether answers would have differed across various shifts or levels of longevity with the plant. Although demographic information can provide valuable insights, it was not used in this case for fear of introducing further bias to the results.

The questionnaire was designed to determine whether focusing on safety behavior through actively caring would bring about the desired changes. Research has shown that social approval and encouragement can produce positive changes in safety norms, and that employees are the best people to redefine those norms, as they control their own behavior. It follows 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 and Key Findings

A number of issues were made clearer through the surveys, drawing on both the Likert scale questions and the additional comments. These primarily related to training levels; consultation; management's level of interest in safe working practices versus productivity; level of understanding of occupational safety and health issues; and the level of employee input.

Question 1 asked whether the department had an active safety management program that included an active accident investigation program. Sixty-nine percent of respondents did not feel that they had an active safety management program. If one does indeed exist, the workers were unaware of it. It is clear that a safety program needs more visibility to be effective.

Question 2 asked whether safety controls exist but are not enforced. An overwhelming 75% of 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. Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported a need to improve in this area.

Question 4 reflects the social climate at the company. Fifty-four percent said they would not inform or remind a co-worker who was about to commit a hazardous act, and 35% were not sure whether they would. This question measures the social attitudes about safety at the plant and may be closely tied to Question 5, which asked whether workers felt that accidents were of primary concern for management. Eighty-eight percent of workers surveyed felt that safety was not a primary concern for management, suggesting that workers are being pushed to work faster, which creates an unsafe environment.

Question 6 indicated that the work environment was not as safe as it could be, with 84% of respondents agreeing that improvements were needed.

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

Question 8 indicated that workers were uncertain whether management would be able to meet briefly each week to oversee a behavioral safety process.

Question 9 shows an extreme lack of concern for personal safety, as most respondents felt 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 directed away from safety.

Question 10 is interesting in light of Question 9. Seventy-seven percent said they would do all they could to improve safety, yet 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 reiterated the social climate of the company, indicating that workers would be unwilling to confront their peers about a safety issue.

Questions 12 and 13 are particularly disturbing and indicate that social pressure may play a large part in the safety environment. Only 16% would encourage a co-worker to change an unsafe habit, and 73% said they would not report an injury in order to protect their chances of receiving a safety bonus. This reveals two serious concerns: first, a serious injury might go unattended or a minor injury might worsen due to lack of treatment; second, the safety incentive program is important to workers and could potentially be used as a tool to promote good safety practices if properly structured.

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

Sixty-one percent did not feel that their department's safety goals coincided with those of individual workers or groups of employees.

Conclusion

Workers do have ultimate control over their behaviors, meaning that with the proper experience, insight, and effective risk management, virtually every injury and death can be prevented. Safety is a mindset, and managers need to do everything in their power to increase workers' sense of responsibility for their own safety. Every worker must understand and internalize the risks and rewards of safe behaviors and learn to actively care for their co-workers as well.

However, owners, supervisors, and managers are responsible for equipping workers with the tools and knowledge to do what is right. Business and industry need to undergo a meaningful shift in thinking about safety-related issues — doing everything possible to prevent mistakes before they happen. This does not necessarily require more money, rules, or regulations, but can be achieved by building strong safety ethics into every job. It involves seeing workers not as statistics, but as human beings — the most important asset to any company.

There are numerous studies that support this conclusion, and a substantial body of research to build upon. Some progress is being made, but the results are not yet sufficient. A zero lost-time goal and the elimination of all hazardous, life-threatening occurrences are within reach, if attitudes toward safety can be improved. This can only be achieved, however, if employees are directly involved in the process of change.

In conclusion, this study has clearly demonstrated how vitally significant the psychological aspects of change and employee involvement in the safety administrative process are in relation to the introduction, implementation, and compliance with a behavior-based safety program. When employees are taught to accept responsibility for running their own safety program, the impact is far greater than when they are simply mandated to follow a prescribed set of rules for which they see little or no personal benefit. Therefore, employees must be convinced that the benefits of safety are genuinely valuable before any notable changes in behavior will take place.

Works Cited

Asfahl, C.R. (1999). Industrial safety and health management (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.

Curtis, S.L. (1995). Safety and total quality management. Professional Safety, Jan., pp. 18–20.

DiPadova, L.N., and Faerman, S.R. (1993). Using the competing values framework to facilitate managerial understanding across levels of organizational hierarchy. Human Resource Management, 32(1), 143–174.

Friedman, M. (1985). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In J. Des Jardins & J. McCall (Eds.), Contemporary issues in business ethics. Wadsworth, Belmont, pp. 21–25.

Geller, E.S., Berry, T.D., Ludwig, T.D., Evans, R.E., Gilmore, M.R., & Clarke, S.W. (1990). A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 5, 125–137.

Geller, E.S., Gilmore, M.R., & Roberts, D.S. (1992). Achieving total safety management through employee involvement. Newport, VA: Make-A-Difference, Inc.

Geller, E.S., & Roberts, D.S. (1993). Achieving a total safety culture through employee involvement. Newport, VA: Make-A-Difference, Inc.

Greenberg, J. (1996). Behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hart, S.L., and Quinn, R.E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human Relations.

Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917–947.

Isen, A.M. (1970). Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 294–301.

Isen, A.M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping: "Footprints in the sands of time." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 385–393.

Klubnick, J.P. (1995). Rewarding and recognizing employees: Ideas for individuals, teams, and managers. Chicago: Irwin.

Krause, T.R., Hidley, J.H., & Hodson, S.J. (1990). The behavior-based safety process. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Latane, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308–324.

LaBar, G. (1994). Making safety pay. Occupational Hazards, June, pp. 33–36.

Lawler, E. (1972). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers.

McClay, C.J. (1995). Achieving breakthroughs in safety via employee empowerment. Professional Safety, Dec., pp. 44–47.

McSween, T.E. (1995). The values-based safety process. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Michilini, R., Wilson, J., & Meese, L. (1975). The influence of psychological needs on helping behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 253–258.

National Safety Council. (1991). Accident facts. Washington, DC.

NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2001). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents. New York: Basic Books.

Quinn, R.E., and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(1), pp. 363–377.

Reason, J.R. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Rutkowski, G., Gruder, C., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 545–552.

Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.

SSA. (1993). System safety analysis handbook. System Safety Society.

Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behaviors and morality: Social and personal influence. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Stellman, J.M. (1998). The ILO encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety as quoted in A review of the ILO encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety: A multidisciplinary challenge. International Labor Review, 137(3).

Wheeless, L.R., Wheeless, V.E., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups. Small Group Behavior, 13, 373–384.

Zahlis, D.F. (1995). Caution: Beware of OSHA statistics. Professional Safety, Dec., pp. 41–43.