This Myth is not as straightforward as some of the others that I have previously presented and requires some discussion to explain the premise prior to defining the “Myth” quality.  In addition, this particular Myth may go both ways as I do believe there are hosts of reasons to believe in it.  However, as with all of these articles, the point isn’t always to debunk popular beliefs.  The point is often to present a discussion on a controversial topic and to illustrate points of view other than those that are popularly held. 

THE MYTH

In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of persons who have entered the safety profession deliberately.  In decades past, the role and function of safety was often delegated to supervisors, an hourly safety coordinator, or the human resources department. Starting in the 1960’s and 1970’s the Safety Professional became recognized as a valid career and vocation.  This occurred in large part because of the signing of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970 and 1971 respectively.  Domestic companies in the United States found themselves with an urgent need to take workplace safety seriously.  In order to feed the growing demand for capable safety practitioners, colleges and universities began developing curriculum in the OSH disciplines. 

For the first 20 or more years of their existence, these programs typically focused on the technical aspects of the safety profession.  Programs were usually centered on topics of engineering, industrial hygiene, and regulatory compliance.  The result was that a huge cadre of technically proficient and well-educated safety professionals entered the workplace and had profound effects on their workplaces.  As their crafts became the norm of workplace safety, the results achieved showed that this methodology was working.  The number of workplace fatalities dropped to 5,214 in 2008 (most recent available information) from 7,405 in 1980 (the earliest available statistics).  However, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), from 1980 through 1994, a total of 88,622 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day.  The continued presence of workplace accidents, injuries, and deaths, combined with a growing sense that safety professionals were continually left out of the upper layers of organizational management, lead to a change in the educational approach to Occupational Safety.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, and continuing into the new millennium, educational programs that focus on workplace safety and health have been shifting the focus from the technical aspects of safety to a greater emphasis on business management.  An excellent example of this academic foundational shift is the Master’s of Science in Safety Management program at Michigan’s own Oakland University.  The author completed this program in 2009 and found that it balanced a technical approach to safety with an even greater emphasis on management systems.  50% of the classes in the program were MBA core classes and 50% were safety classes.  In years past, it would be reasonable to expect that the curriculum for this program would be primarily engineering principles, safety program elements, or Industrial Hygiene.

Other graduate programs in OSH have taken a similar track and many now either present a balance of safety and management classes or focus even more on the management side of the program.  Intuitively, this approach makes a lot of sense, as safety professionals do need to have the ability to speak the language of business.  In order for safety practitioners to have ability to make the most significant impact on workplace safety and health, they must be able to relate information back to other critical business activities.  It is also likely that safety professionals develop greater credibility within their respective organizations when they are able to explain the fiduciary exposure that could result from uncontrolled losses and make the translation from risk, to loss, to eventual additional production that must be undertaken to pay for losses.  Some safety professionals have even created analyses that show how many days must be worked to pay for losses, how many widgets must be produced or customers serviced, and how much additional salary could be employed if losses were controlled.

There is no doubt that when safety professionals develop these abilities, it will likely serve their careers in a very positive and productive manner.  Dr. Aaron Bird, an associate professor at Oakland University was interviewed for this article. He expressed an additional set of reasons why an educational approach that favors a management heavy curriculum against an educational program of primarily technical safety content is the preferred model.   

Dr. Bird cited a number of examples of why a shift in post-secondary education is beginning to favor a shift from technical content to Safety Management Curriculum.  Primarily, regarding many topics covered by technical education, the risks have already been clearly defined and are understood.  Examples include Industrial Hygiene related exposure levels where the tolerances and appropriate exposure amounts are known and clearly defined.  Indeed, there has been a discernable shift from primarily hygiene related careers to careers in other areas of workplace safety and health as is evidenced by declines in membership in organizations such as the ACGIH or AIHA.  Other technical disciplines may also be experiencing similar reductions in membership, but this information was not attainable for this article. 

What is clear is that the number of students enrolling in post-secondary educational safety programs with an emphasis on Safety Management is continuing to increase.  One well-known local example is Oakland University, where enrollment in both the undergraduate and graduate programs has increased over the last few years.  It is a fair consideration echoed by Dr. Bird, that educational institutions will capitalize on opportunities to provide education and training where there is both a need and an interest.  

Dr. Bird states that most undergraduate programs offering Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) degrees are growing.  He also states that graduates are more coveted and that the field of safety is becoming more and more professional.  Even though educational programs are focusing more and more on management systems, many to most ensure they still cover the fundamentals of science and engineering.  The basic premise of workplace safety, prevention through design, is still a cornerstone tenet in reputable educational programs, such as those found at Oakland University. 

Dr. Bird stated that Safety has evolved beyond just problem solving and is much less likely to be associated with putting out fires.  The safety management focus now is more concerned with defining and managing risk within the larger context of the workplace; this can best be accomplished by understanding the operations of business rather than relying on the same old methodologies.   Dr. Bird is adamant that the loss of technical ability must be avoided and that it can be controlled if undergraduate students receive a well rounded education that exposes them to the empirical side of safety. 

Dr. Bird has taken this philosophy to a very high level by recently co-authoring a college text book titled Applied Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health (with Dr. Jan Wachter).  After the publication of this book, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Bird a second time to further clarify his thoughts on the need to ensure that OSH Practitioners have a solid background in the more technical side of the business.  I also was presented with the opportunity to review this text and after reading it found the entire content to be VERY well written and to provide the Safety Undergraduate at Oakland University with a rich background in Quantitative Methods.   A full discussion of the content of the book will be forthcoming in a future article.  At this time it is sufficient to state that all safety professionals could benefit from a reading of this text and that the content delivered within is logical, easy to understand, and completely germane to the field of Occupational Safety and Health.   

  Indeed, Dr. Bird is passionate to ensure that graduates of the Oakland University Program have the ability to understand and apply statistical analysis, quantified reviews of Industrial Hygiene related information, and financial calculations that are critical for being successful in any professional field.  During the follow-up interview, Dr. Bird also stated that the level of proficiency required for graduates to possess is directly proportional to the requirements of industry, and that Oakland University strives to ensure that all graduates from the Bachelor’s Program possess the needed technical skills in abundance. 

I agree with Dr. Bird’s conclusions.  I do believe it is incumbent upon the safety professional, who wants to be thoroughly effective in the field, to be able to “speak the language of business” and to understand the need for looking at most aspects from the profession in an empirical perspective.  Educationally, it does make sense to support this point of view.  Further, I can fully embrace and endorse the passion that Dr. Bird has to ensure that students at Oakland University are well versed in the technical, quantitative, and empirical aspect of the OSH Profession.  Finally, I do whole heartedly accept that the focus on ensuring that Safety and Health Practitioners have a solid general understanding of all aspects of the profession is driven by the demands of industry.  With regard to the paradigm shift in the higher educational process for OSH from technical specialties to a more generalist approach, Dr. Bird also provided some very good insight. 

Specifically, he stated that, given the fundamental premise of educational institutions to, either deliberately or naturally, craft their programs to meet the demands of industry, it is not too surprising that more and more educational programs are focusing on developing solid safety generalists.  Further, as Dr. Bird clearly, and emphatically pointed out, a general educational background in OSH can be technically very well rounded and supported with coursework that provides an excellent background in the quantitative side of the profession.  By ensuring the OSH Management approach to education allows students to understand data and interpret results, they are likely to be successful in the field. Specifically, as safety professionals, they will be able to identify when interventions beyond their individual abilities are needed, and will have the skill to find the technical expertise to remediate the problems identified. It is more important that most organizations employee safety professionals who can identify a wide range of opportunities for improvement, rather than having a greater number of safety engineers who can completely remediate a very narrow swath of risks or hazards. 

The resident safety professional needs to be able to identify hazards and must have the technical expertise to be able to interpret and understand a wide variety of variables within the workplace.  Once hazards are noted, the safety professional must then know where to go to find individuals with the specific technical expertise to control or eliminate the hazard. 

The last point that Dr. Bird made that I am also in agreement with is that if new industries arise that have new, and unidentified risks, it is likely that educational programs will quickly shift to provide graduates who have the specific technical skills necessary to address these new risks.  The ability to develop technical skills in a short period of time has become the hallmark of adaptive higher education,  and it  must strive to maintain this ability to appeal to potential students in a highly competitive educational marketplace.   

I want to be very clear.  Dr. Bird NEVER expressed that the dilution of technical talent within the safety field was beneficial.  Indeed he was very adamant that the place of technical expertise must remain foundational to the profession and that this must be continued to be supported within the higher educational process.  As mentioned earlier, he has co-authored a text-book, Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health – Applied Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health with Dr. Jan Wachter, or Indiana University of Pennsylvania.  This text very strongly supports the need for Safety Professionals to have technical knowledge in OSH and clearly demonstrates that not having these skills is detrimental to both the OSH Professional and their employer.  

My interview with Dr. Bird was an attempt to obtain the point of view of an educator who has experience in providing both the technical side of safety education as well as extensive experience practicing and educating on the side of safety management.   In an attempt to get an additional and diverse perspective, I interviewed Dr. Sarunas Mingela, Associate Professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences at Wayne State University.  

The safety program at Wayne State is well known for its industrial hygiene focus and emphasis on helping students develop the technical skills needed for safety.  Dr. Mingela made numerous points regarding the ongoing need for technical expertise and educational support; these needs and many of his views were very congruent with those expressed by Dr. Bird.  Dr. Mingela did acknowledge that many industrial hygiene related issues have been identified, addressed, and appropriate action levels have been identified.  He further agreed that under current standard requirements, much Industrial Hygiene work involves hanging pumps in areas where exposures are suspected or known as well as reading reports once results are obtained.  It is not necessary to have an extensive background or technical expertise in Industrial Hygiene for many of the activities required under this scenario. However, this does not mean that other situations still exist where technical expertise is not required.

According to Dr. Mingela, a number Industrial Hygiene concerns still remain to be defined.  Specifically, items with sub-clinical manifestations, items relating to nano-technologies, and items with long-term latencies all remain areas for intensive research and exploration.  It is likely that some exposures may reduce life expectancy by a short duration and will come to light as life expectancies continue to lengthen.  This means that there is still much work left to be done with, as yet, unknown exposures. It will require safety and health professionals with a high degree of knowledge and understanding of many aspects of the field including chemistry, biology, physiology, physics, math, statistics, and epidemiology, to name a few.

The need to address long-term safety and health exposures creates one of the most compelling arguments for the continuation of technical educational programs.  If employees experience negative effects from latent exposures or dormant conditions that do not manifest for many years, then it is incumbent on both industry and the safety community to ensure that all efforts possible are undertaken to identify and remediate these additional exposures.  This necessitates the continued availability of technical educational opportunities for practitioners and future practitioners of occupational safety and health.  Indeed, it is likely that with new industrial processes and new products entering the marketplace that new exposures to injury and health will arise continually.  This will require not only the continuation of technical education, but an expansion from the current offerings into fields which may not yet even be known.   Either way, Dr. Mingela is very clear in his belief that Safety Education must continue to emphasize technical knowledge and that a shift to a focus primarily on Safety Management Systems may not be as beneficial as some believe. 

I want to thank both Dr. Bird and Dr. Mingela for taking their time to answer questions about the current role of advanced safety education.  It was very kind of these professors to take time from their busy schedules to provide me with their thoughts about this very important topic.

OTHER EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

A review of other OSH curricula seems to support that a balanced approach is still being offered.  For example, the graduate program at Murray State, one of the most well-known Safety Programs in the country, has a Master of Science program in occupational safety and health with options in safety management, industrial hygiene, and environmental; with a technical minor in occupational safety and health.   This allows students the opportunity to select a management track or an Industrial Hygiene or Environmental concentration.  Likewise, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, also a renowned school in the field of Occupational Safety and Health has a Master’s Program in Safety Science that provides both technical offerings and safety management offerings which combine to form a well-rounded approach for an advanced OSH Degree.   

MY CONCLUSIONS

This article has become much larger than I originally envisioned.  At the outset, my objective was to give a large dose of personal opinion, supported only from one person’s experience.  Granted, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a Master’s of Safety Management Degree that was earned at Oakland University.  Personally, I found the program very enriching and extremely helpful from a practical standpoint.  The degree provided a heavy focus on management and the content related to safety systems was excellent.  I also found the business classes to be insightful, relevant, and very much grounded in reality.  The safety classes challenged even a seasoned veteran like myself and helped to broaden my horizons in a very significant manner.  I am very, very pleased with the Oakland Master of Safety Management Program and I give it my full endorsement.

My professional experience has left me with the feeling that many of the perspectives mentioned by both Dr. Bird and Dr. Mingela closely mirror my own.  I do see significant benefits to ensuring that a proportion of educational programs in OSH include a safety management track.  I also see the absolute need to ensure that all OSH Students receive the fundamentals about the technical side of safety management.

I also firmly believe that the field of occupational safety and health is being populated by persons who have a solid educational background in both safety theory and management practices; but that a deficit of those practitioners with technical skills is beginning to occur.  I have seen firsthand that the technical skills can be acquired after the formal educational process has been completed.  I have personal experience obtaining a very deep technical background in both individual and organizational psychology, of which only a small part was developed in academia, with the greater skills being self-taught.  I am not certain that this is the optimal paradigm for the safety profession.

However, the counter to this perspective was well described by Dr. Bird.  Specifically, that if an overt need for technical skills in the safety profession again arises, higher educational programs are well positioned to meet that need quickly and effectively.  Further, solid undergraduate safety programs, such as those at Oakland University, are already positioning their students to have a very solid background in technical skills and abilities that will make them both well rounded, and able to identify and respond to the vast majority of situations that they will experience.  

That said, I still believe that as fully-technical safety educational programs continue to become more and more infused with management curriculum, it seems likely that high-functioning technical skills will erode further within the safety profession.  It is quite true that higher-education programs are subject to the same pressures (fiscal/economic) as found in society in general.  At the moment, the educational trend is moving strongly toward programs that focus on developing general skills in the field of Occupational Safety, Health, and Environment, away from the more technical disciplines such as Ergnomics, Industrial Hygiene, or Engineering.

The most prominent safety organization in the United States, the American Society of Safety Engineers, was originally founded to be an association of engineers who focused on safety as the key component of their discipline.  Over the decades it has evolved into the entity it is today, a broad umbrella that accepts the membership and perspectives of many different specialties within the field of safety.  However, it is interesting to note that only 1,200 members are active in the current Engineering Practice Specialty of ASSE.  This is compared to over 3,000 in the Risk Management group. 

What does it really mean to the safety profession if there are many more persons who are versed in management systems versus having technical abilities relating to engineering, industrial hygiene, or ergonomics?  Ultimately, I believe the profession will be somewhat challenged to handle emerging risks or be able to address new or, as yet, unidentified loss causal factors.   The gradual loss of technical expertise will not create an immediately perceptible gap in the ability of the safety profession to respond, but over time this compromised ability may result in the creation of inordinate risk. 

One possibility that comes to mind is the recent entry of industry into the use of nano-materials.  Although I will admit there are some experts in the field of safety for nano-materials, I do postulate that the average safety practitioner, in the absence of a greater breadth of technical knowledge, may not be positioned to have enough appreciation for the risks to handle them effectively.  Another up and coming concern may be the aging of the workforce.  As American employees live longer lives and put off formal retirement later and later, a greater suite of ergonomic related risk factors that are specific to the elderly are likely to arise.  If the number of Ergonomists decreases as the need for their talents increases, a situation of increases injuries and illnesses is likely to result.  Finally, the propensity for some of the best and brightest upcoming minds in the field to Occupational Safety and Health to gravitate to safety management based education systems rather than fully technical educational programs, may further inhibit the ability of the safety profession to respond to new risks in as timely a manner as it might have.   

I believe that it behooves both educators and safety professionals both to ensure that enough emphasis continues to be placed on technical skills for both current and future safety related disciplines.  I also firmly believe that Oakland University has positioned itself to be at the forefront of this need for flexibility.  The commitment and involvement of educators like Dr. Bird, to ensure that students receive the background to understand fundamental quantified methods will help moderate the otherwise inevitable gap in the profession.  I am equally certain that programs like those found at Wayne State University will also make certain that some fully technical talent remains within the OSH field.   

For the safety profession and the safety professional, developing the ability to function within business is critical, but if the educational pendulum swings too to a general safety educational track, to the point of neglecting technical capability, then I believe that the profession will suffer a loss of credibility and may be in danger of sliding into mediocrity.   However, I could be wrong.

Behavioral Safety is a proven approach to enhancing the systems of safety in the workplace. The concept of managing safe working performance through the use of a behavioral approach is not new.  The formalized discipline dates back to the 1930’s when Heinrich first identified that behavior is the root cause for the majority of mishaps in the industrial setting.  A large body of work by such experts as Aubrey Daniels, E. Scott Geller, Terry McSween, and Tom Krause, has validated the effectiveness of using a behavioral approach to workplace safety. 

So what exactly is Behavioral Safety?  The fundamental premise of Behavioral Safety follows that human behavior occurs for one of four reasons; 1) people want to attain some desirable outcome; 2) people want avoid some undesirable event; 3) people want to maintain something positive; and 4) people want escape something negative.    In the traditional model of Safety Management, the primary motivator for employees is in the second category.  By working safely, employees either avoid getting hurt or they avoid getting in trouble.  Either way, the primary motivation for workers is to avoid something negative.   Research has shown that this is a poor motivator when compared to the strongest driving force for behaviors, attempting to attain something you want.   People are simply more motivated to try to achieve some positive result than to avoid something unpleasant.  This goal-oriented action creates a much stronger driving force than does a desire to avoid something unpleasant. Behavioral Safety attempts to capitalize on this fundamental motivator and create a workplace safety system that is inherently positive.

THE ABC’s OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Human behavior generally follows a three step process, a stimuli or antecedent occurs to prompt a behavior, the behavior takes place, and results in an outcome or consequence.  This model is known as the ABC’s of Human Behavior, for Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence.  All behaviors are prompted by something (Antecedent) that leads to some type of action or inaction (Behavior) that results in some type of outcome (Consequence).  If the outcome is what was anticipated or hoped-for, then the behavior is positively reinforced and is likely to occur again.  If the outcome, also called consequence in Behavioral Safety, was not wanted, then the behavior is less likely to occur again and may eventually be extinguished.

The role of the antecedent is generally to prompt a behavior.  However, some antecedents are deliberately developed to influence people’s behavior.  An excellent example of this, which also illustrates the ABC model of human behavior very nicely, occurs when we operate a motor vehicle. 

Speed limit signs are omnipresent on most roadways and function as deliberate antecedents.  They come prior to the behavior of driving on that given stretch of road, they communicate a clear expectation, are intended to influence subsequent behavior, and have a VERY LOW incidence of actually causing behavior change.  Studies have shown that on any given day, 95% of drivers will exceed a posted speed limit. 

The reasons that the vast majority of drivers ignore posted speed limit signs are due to the outcomes, or consequences, that typically occur after the behavior.  The normal results from speeding are 1) you get where you are going a little faster, 2) you inherently enjoy the experience of driving, and 3) it costs you more in fuel consumption and wear-and-tear on the vehicle.  Every once in a while, but very rarely, people will get a ticket, or will get into an accident.  However, these results are so uncommon compared to the number of times per day people exceed the speed limit, that they are almost meaningless.  Due to the generally positive consequences for the unsafe behavior of speeding, it is not too surprising that drivers generally exceed the posted speed limit. This same paradigm occurs in the workplace when employees engage in unsafe actions. 

WORKPLACE MOTIVATION

Employees often work unsafely because they are motivated by past experience of having only personally positive results from the unsafe act.  Generally, when employees engage in unsafe practice at work, they do not have injuries or accidents and they do not get in trouble.  Typically, when employees engage in unsafe acts at work they save some time, get a task completed more easily, and, generally, have a more enjoyable time.  Essentially, unsafe work practices get immediate and certain consequences that positively reinforce the behaviors.  Actions that are done safely do not usually receive any type of positive consequence.    Workplace safety takes time and requires significant effort on both the part of the organization and the individual.  Rarely do activities relating to safety receive any type of positive reinforcement.    

In the methodology of Behavioral Safety, as formulated around the ABC framework, states that if employees work safely and these efforts receive a consequence in the form of positive feedback, the employees will be more likely to repeat the safe behavior.  This use of positive reinforcement for safe behaviors represents a fundamental change in the approach to workplace safety when compared to a more traditional approach.  Essentially, when a safe behavior is more likely to receive positive reinforcement, it is more likely to recur.  Behavioral Safety ensures that positive reinforcement is presented for safe behaviors, and that this reinforcement process is formally incorporated in a strategic methodology. 

CONSEQUENCES IN THE WORKPLACE

Of all the consequences available for use in the workplace, directed and specific feedback is the easiest to administer and the most effective way to enhance behavior.  At times there may be a temptation to provide additional reinforcement in the form of a tangible reward for safe behavior.  Unfortunately, the use of tangibles (money, trinkets, gift cards, or other physical objects) as a reward creates an extremely slippery slope.  When tangibles are routinely presented as part of a reinforcement plan, the recipient often begins to EXPECT THEM as a normal part of the business and eventually fails to associate them with any specific behavior.  For example; when companies provide employees with a safety bonus, the bonus becomes viewed as an entitlement. If the bonus is ever removed, its removal will create resentment from the employees. The other concerns with tangibles involve their overall cost.  Organizations cannot afford to disseminate an unlimited supply of gifts, rewards and bonuses.  Furthermore, not everyone has access to handing out tangible rewards, unlike feedback, which anyone can provide and is hugely effective as a consequence.  If tangibles are used to reinforce certain specific behaviors, and are used sparingly, they can be somewhat effective at improving behavioral performance.  However, tangibles are always subordinate in their impact to specific and directed feedback, which is the most powerful reinforcer available in the workplace.   

POSITIVE FEEDBACK

The effectiveness of using positive feedback to motivate desired performance cannot be overstated.  The example that I often use to illustrate the importance of positive feedback is the job that involves welding on scaffolding at an elevation of over 30 feet.  Welding is a job that most facilities will undertake on a routine basis.  Welding at elevation occurs during construction activities and during building or process remodels.  When an employee welds at 30 feet in the air, a number of safe behaviors must be undertaken.  The employee must wear all of the regular welding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as welding chaps, a faceshield with a non-ionizing tint, a hard hat, steel-toed shoes, an apron, and any respiratory protection if welding is done on hardened steel, stainless steel, or on any other substance that will release potentially hazardous gasses.  After putting on all the required PPE the employee must then put on a harness, attach lifeline or lanyard, put out a fire blanket to catch sparks or slag, set up a welding curtain, and complete a hot work permit.  All this activity may take 30 to 45 minutes to complete, independent of the actual welding itself.  If the employee misses a step and forgets one of these safety components, he may receive some type of punishment in the form of a scolding or even a write-up.  If the employee completes the task in a completely safe manner, he will likely hear nothing at all, and certainly won’t receive any type of acknowledgment for doing the right thing. 

If, however, the employee was to receive some type of thank-you or acknowledgement when he takes the time and effort to engage in all of the behaviors needed to weld safely, the safe behaviors would continue and would become more automatic.  The more times an employee welds at elevation using the proper behaviors, the stronger the habit of working safely becomes.   Eventually, companies can establish the framework where working safely is the norm, and employees no longer need to do safety in order to work. They simply work safely.

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Even though the use of positive feedback to reinforce desired performance is the optimal condition, unsafe actions do require feedback as well.  The administration of this feedback, and the means used to deliver it are crucial for ensuring the successful application of the process.  Whenever an unsafe act is observed, the unsafe action must be stopped and the employee engaging in the action must receive corrective feedback.  This needs to be done in the manner of coaching and problem solving.  The coaching occurs when employees require a reminder to work safely or an encouragement to take the time necessary to do the right thing.  The problem solving occurs when employees present legitimate barriers that inhibit their ability to work safely. 

As described above, Behavioral Safety formally creates a means of observing how employees work, and providing them with feedback for their observed behaviors. Positive feedback is provided for observed safe behaviors and corrective feedback or coaching is provided for unsafe behaviors.  Interestingly enough, research has actually been done that demonstrated that there is an optimal ratio of appreciative feedback to constructive feedback; it is 4:1.  Although no Behavioral Safety process should ever strive to achieve a specific ratio of feedback, it is enlightening to know that the most effective means of improving performance is through a heavy emphasis on appreciative feedback. 

OTHER BENEFITS OF BEHAVIORAL SAFETY

Not surprisingly, there are other ancillary benefits from initiating a Behavioral Safety Process.  One of the first key activities that is known to improve quickly is the retention rate of employees.  Turnover, which is one of the largest expenses that companies can incur, decreases significantly when a behavioral approach is used in workplace safety.  In addition to reductions in turnover, the quality of work produced goes up and the overall level of productivity rises as well.  Employee morale is also seen to improve, and workplace communication is generally enhanced when a Behavioral Approach to safety is instituted. 

The reason for all of these improvements resides within the fundamental premise of behavioral safety. When performance is managed by focusing on providing employees with positive feedback if expected behavior is observed, then a dramatic shift in the traditional approach to workplace safety has occurred and a positive workplace has been created.

All people need feedback.  The need for validation and recognition of efforts for hard work and doing the right thing is a universal part of the human condition.  When employees do not receive feedback, they give it to themselves.  Often, this self-feedback will positively reinforce unsafe actions.  By using a specific and directed approach to recognize when employees do the right thing, profound changes to the workplace can be realized.

Part II 

This is the first in a two part series about a behavioral approach to workplace safety.  In this first installment, the science and philosophy of Behavioral Safety.  The second article will provide a discussion about how Behavioral Safety can be implemented in any workplace and what a successful process looks like.   

REFERENCES

Heinrich HW (1931). Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach: McGraw-Hill.

A Behavioral Approach to Safety…The Philosophy

WHAT IS BEHAVIORAL SAFETY

Behavioral Safety is a proven approach to enhancing the systems of safety in the workplace. The concept of managing safe working performance through the use of a behavioral approach is not new.  The formalized discipline dates back to the 1930’s when Heinrich first identified that behavior is the root cause for the majority of mishaps in the industrial setting.  A large body of work by such experts as Aubrey Daniels, E. Scott Geller, Terry McSween, and Tom Krause, has validated the effectiveness of using a behavioral approach to workplace safety. 

So what exactly is Behavioral Safety?  The fundamental premise of Behavioral Safety follows that human behavior occurs for one of four reasons; 1) people want to attain some desirable outcome; 2) people want avoid some undesirable event; 3) people want to maintain something positive; and 4) people want escape something negative.    In the traditional model of Safety Management, the primary motivator for employees is in the second category.  By working safely, employees either avoid getting hurt or they avoid getting in trouble.  Either way, the primary motivation for workers is to avoid something negative.   Research has shown that this is a poor motivator when compared to the strongest driving force for behaviors, attempting to attain something you want.   People are simply more motivated to try to achieve some positive result than to avoid something unpleasant.  This goal-oriented action creates a much stronger driving force than does a desire to avoid something unpleasant. Behavioral Safety attempts to capitalize on this fundamental motivator and create a workplace safety system that is inherently positive.

THE ABC’s OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Human behavior generally follows a three step process, a stimuli or antecedent occurs to prompt a behavior, the behavior takes place, and results in an outcome or consequence.  This model is known as the ABC’s of Human Behavior, for Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence.  All behaviors are prompted by something (Antecedent) that leads to some type of action or inaction (Behavior) that results in some type of outcome (Consequence).  If the outcome is what was anticipated or hoped-for, then the behavior is positively reinforced and is likely to occur again.  If the outcome, also called consequence in Behavioral Safety, was not wanted, then the behavior is less likely to occur again and may eventually be extinguished.

The role of the antecedent is generally to prompt a behavior.  However, some antecedents are deliberately developed to influence people’s behavior.  An excellent example of this, which also illustrates the ABC model of human behavior very nicely, occurs when we operate a motor vehicle. 

Speed limit signs are omnipresent on most roadways and function as deliberate antecedents.  They come prior to the behavior of driving on that given stretch of road, they communicate a clear expectation, are intended to influence subsequent behavior, and have a VERY LOW incidence of actually causing behavior change.  Studies have shown that on any given day, 95% of drivers will exceed a posted speed limit. 

The reasons that the vast majority of drivers ignore posted speed limit signs are due to the outcomes, or consequences, that typically occur after the behavior.  The normal results from speeding are 1) you get where you are going a little faster, 2) you inherently enjoy the experience of driving, and 3) it costs you more in fuel consumption and wear-and-tear on the vehicle.  Every once in a while, but very rarely, people will get a ticket, or will get into an accident.  However, these results are so uncommon compared to the number of times per day people exceed the speed limit, that they are almost meaningless.  Due to the generally positive consequences for the unsafe behavior of speeding, it is not too surprising that drivers generally exceed the posted speed limit. This same paradigm occurs in the workplace when employees engage in unsafe actions. 

WORKPLACE MOTIVATION

Employees often work unsafely because they are motivated by past experience of having only personally positive results from the unsafe act.  Generally, when employees engage in unsafe practice at work, they do not have injuries or accidents and they do not get in trouble.  Typically, when employees engage in unsafe acts at work they save some time, get a task completed more easily, and, generally, have a more enjoyable time.  Essentially, unsafe work practices get immediate and certain consequences that positively reinforce the behaviors.  Actions that are done safely do not usually receive any type of positive consequence.    Workplace safety takes time and requires significant effort on both the part of the organization and the individual.  Rarely do activities relating to safety receive any type of positive reinforcement.    

In the methodology of Behavioral Safety, as formulated around the ABC framework, states that if employees work safely and these efforts receive a consequence in the form of positive feedback, the employees will be more likely to repeat the safe behavior.  This use of positive reinforcement for safe behaviors represents a fundamental change in the approach to workplace safety when compared to a more traditional approach.  Essentially, when a safe behavior is more likely to receive positive reinforcement, it is more likely to recur.  Behavioral Safety ensures that positive reinforcement is presented for safe behaviors, and that this reinforcement process is formally incorporated in a strategic methodology. 

CONSEQUENCES IN THE WORKPLACE

Of all the consequences available for use in the workplace, directed and specific feedback is the easiest to administer and the most effective way to enhance behavior.  At times there may be a temptation to provide additional reinforcement in the form of a tangible reward for safe behavior.  Unfortunately, the use of tangibles (money, trinkets, gift cards, or other physical objects) as a reward creates an extremely slippery slope.  When tangibles are routinely presented as part of a reinforcement plan, the recipient often begins to EXPECT THEM as a normal part of the business and eventually fails to associate them with any specific behavior.  For example; when companies provide employees with a safety bonus, the bonus becomes viewed as an entitlement. If the bonus is ever removed, its removal will create resentment from the employees. The other concerns with tangibles involve their overall cost.  Organizations cannot afford to disseminate an unlimited supply of gifts, rewards and bonuses.  Furthermore, not everyone has access to handing out tangible rewards, unlike feedback, which anyone can provide and is hugely effective as a consequence.  If tangibles are used to reinforce certain specific behaviors, and are used sparingly, they can be somewhat effective at improving behavioral performance.  However, tangibles are always subordinate in their impact to specific and directed feedback, which is the most powerful reinforcer available in the workplace.   

POSITIVE FEEDBACK

The effectiveness of using positive feedback to motivate desired performance cannot be overstated.  The example that I often use to illustrate the importance of positive feedback is the job that involves welding on scaffolding at an elevation of over 30 feet.  Welding is a job that most facilities will undertake on a routine basis.  Welding at elevation occurs during construction activities and during building or process remodels.  When an employee welds at 30 feet in the air, a number of safe behaviors must be undertaken.  The employee must wear all of the regular welding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as welding chaps, a faceshield with a non-ionizing tint, a hard hat, steel-toed shoes, an apron, and any respiratory protection if welding is done on hardened steel, stainless steel, or on any other substance that will release potentially hazardous gasses.  After putting on all the required PPE the employee must then put on a harness, attach lifeline or lanyard, put out a fire blanket to catch sparks or slag, set up a welding curtain, and complete a hot work permit.  All this activity may take 30 to 45 minutes to complete, independent of the actual welding itself.  If the employee misses a step and forgets one of these safety components, he may receive some type of punishment in the form of a scolding or even a write-up.  If the employee completes the task in a completely safe manner, he will likely hear nothing at all, and certainly won’t receive any type of acknowledgment for doing the right thing. 

If, however, the employee was to receive some type of thank-you or acknowledgement when he takes the time and effort to engage in all of the behaviors needed to weld safely, the safe behaviors would continue and would become more automatic.  The more times an employee welds at elevation using the proper behaviors, the stronger the habit of working safely becomes.   Eventually, companies can establish the framework where working safely is the norm, and employees no longer need to do safety in order to work. They simply work safely.

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Even though the use of positive feedback to reinforce desired performance is the optimal condition, unsafe actions do require feedback as well.  The administration of this feedback, and the means used to deliver it are crucial for ensuring the successful application of the process.  Whenever an unsafe act is observed, the unsafe action must be stopped and the employee engaging in the action must receive corrective feedback.  This needs to be done in the manner of coaching and problem solving.  The coaching occurs when employees require a reminder to work safely or an encouragement to take the time necessary to do the right thing.  The problem solving occurs when employees present legitimate barriers that inhibit their ability to work safely. 

As described above, Behavioral Safety formally creates a means of observing how employees work, and providing them with feedback for their observed behaviors. Positive feedback is provided for observed safe behaviors and corrective feedback or coaching is provided for unsafe behaviors.  Interestingly enough, research has actually been done that demonstrated that there is an optimal ratio of appreciative feedback to constructive feedback; it is 4:1.  Although no Behavioral Safety process should ever strive to achieve a specific ratio of feedback, it is enlightening to know that the most effective means of improving performance is through a heavy emphasis on appreciative feedback. 

OTHER BENEFITS OF BEHAVIORAL SAFETY

Not surprisingly, there are other ancillary benefits from initiating a Behavioral Safety Process.  One of the first key activities that is known to improve quickly is the retention rate of employees.  Turnover, which is one of the largest expenses that companies can incur, decreases significantly when a behavioral approach is used in workplace safety.  In addition to reductions in turnover, the quality of work produced goes up and the overall level of productivity rises as well.  Employee morale is also seen to improve, and workplace communication is generally enhanced when a Behavioral Approach to safety is instituted. 

The reason for all of these improvements resides within the fundamental premise of behavioral safety. When performance is managed by focusing on providing employees with positive feedback if expected behavior is observed, then a dramatic shift in the traditional approach to workplace safety has occurred and a positive workplace has been created.

All people need feedback.  The need for validation and recognition of efforts for hard work and doing the right thing is a universal part of the human condition.  When employees do not receive feedback, they give it to themselves.  Often, this self-feedback will positively reinforce unsafe actions.  By using a specific and directed approach to recognize when employees do the right thing, profound changes to the workplace can be realized.

Part II 

This is the first in a two part series about a behavioral approach to workplace safety.  In this first installment, the science and philosophy of Behavioral Safety.  The second article will provide a discussion about how Behavioral Safety can be implemented in any workplace and what a successful process looks like.   

REFERENCES

Heinrich HW (1931). Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach: McGraw-Hill.

Mannering, Fred (2004) Traffic Psychology and Behavior: the Journal Transportation Research Part 

We frequently ask for contributors to the site. One of us most frequent has been Chris Goulart,  a Michigan safety professional who, like you, works to make a difference everyday. Here he shares some perspectives on Risk Assessment. More articles will follow.

GJ Risk Assessment

In 1939, with war raging in Europe, Japan was aggressively expanding its sphere of influence in Asia and the Pacific. The three primary axis powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan had reached an agreement in the Tripartite Pact to form an Axis of mutual protection.  In the United States, the public generally wanted to avoid war at all costs.  However, in mid 1941, it became apparent that Japan would be happy only with complete domination of the entire South Pacific Region, including holdings by Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States in the Philippines.  In July 1941, the US decided to stop exporting oil to the Empire of Japan.  Most experts of the time believed that Japan would view this as an overt act of aggression; indeed this event likely precipitated that attack on Pearl Harbor.  However, most military experts in the US did not believe that Japan was capable of mounting a large-scale attack so far from their primary supply bases.  This assessment proved incorrect.  After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US Pacific fleet was crippled, having lost 4 battleships, 188 aircraft, and 2,500 sailors.

On Monday, August 29, 2005, a former Category 5 Hurricane named “Katrina” slammed into the Louisiana/Mississippi Coast, just East of New Orleans.  Hurricanes along the Gulf Coast are not a rare event and numerous storms occur annually.  According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center Fact Check Group, on July 23, 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a hypothetical table-top drill called “Hurricane Pam”.  In this mock event, a category 3 hurricane would hit New Orleans directly.  The resulting damage was postulated to be widespread levee failure with most of the city of New Orleans flooded.  Further, most of the inhabitants were not expected to evacuate and would need to be rescued from rooftops.     

These events represented worst-case scenarios in their day.  All of them had some predictability and an in-depth evaluation of the likely worst-case outcome from each event had been analyzed before. Why then, did these events occur and result in such tragic and profound losses?  In the field of safety, this question is asked repeatedly: How likely is our organization to experience a loss and how bad will that loss be if it actually occurs.  The answers to these questions can be provided in a deliberate and quantified manner using the process of Risk Assessment.

What is Risk Assessment and what is its relationship to safety?

In the world of financial management, risk assessment is an evaluation that looks at a particular financial instruments ability to generate positive cash flow while insulating an investor from potential loss of principle.  Financial Market Risk Assessment is a concept that is over 100 years old, but began to have a major focus starting in the 1950s and 1960s with the rise of multi-indexed funds.  Over the last 40 to 50 years the formulas for financial management risk assessments have become more complex, detailed, and in some cases, very accurate in depicting the potential gains versus the potential loss for an investor.    Safety professionals began to look at risk assessment as a natural and direct linkage to the financial world.

Qualitative Risk Assessment

One of the first formal risk assessment methodologies was created by the US Military.  This standard, MIL-STD-882 was initially a fundamental matrix that combined the chance or opportunity for harm (probability) with the degree of possible harm (severity).  This matrix resulted in fundamental assignment of three levels of risk, high, medium, or low.   Over the years the military has refined the process making it more robust and easier to use.  The current manifestation (MIL-STD-882E) was released in 2005.  One of the strength’s of the MIL-STD-882 series is the combination of predictive assessments from the historical data with the possible severity.

In private industry, the ANSI B11 Machine Safety Series of Standards created a virtually identical form of risk assessment.  These safety standards were designed for use relating to the design, procurement, and use of machines in industrial environments.  However, the risk assessment methodology outlined in the ANSI Technical Report ANSI B11 TR3 (2000) also contains substantial information about creating risk reducing strategies that will impact the risk level until an acceptable residual risk is achieved.

In both approaches, probability of harm is a function of how often mishaps have happened in the past.  Unfortunately, there are a few weaknesses with both of these techniques associated with the reactive nature of the evaluations.  First, approaches like these do not look at how many persons may be exposed to injury, rather they look at how likely a given piece of equipment or system is to fail.  Second, they do not look specifically at how often a piece of equipment is used or how many times a system is utilized.  Third, these methods do not have a focused predictive function that is independent of historical data.

Because they are generally qualitative, these systems tend, inherently, to have low value ranges for the overall risk spectrum.  The MIL-STD-82E System has 20 distinct categories of risk and the ANSI B11 System has 16. As a result, the discernable differences in risk levels will appear flattened and may not represent enough precision for significant comparison of diverse activities.  The overall limited number of categories for the risks are often consolidated into even tighter groupings of categories.  Both the Military and ANSI Standards have “high”, “medium”, “low”, and “negligible” groupings.  The objective is to provide a matrix that is easy to use and quick to reference.  However, the unintended outcome is also a loss of good analytical detail.   Finally, interventions that may have an impact on the actual level of risk may not be noticed if they do not move the risk from one categorization to another.

Table 1) ANSI B11 Risk Assessment Matrix

Quantitative Risk Assessments

Recently, organizations have begun the process of refining risk assessment methodologies and using procedures that tend to be quantitative versus qualitative.  The value of a quantitative risk assessment methodology over qualitative is the ability to discern small differences in risk level.  Also, a well designed quantified risk assessment methodology provides perspective of how the different components of risk interact with one another.

Calibration & Synchronization

In order to have full application of a quantified risk assessment, it must be calibrated to determine what level of measures are most reasonable for the organization.  A manufacturing facility that runs products on a regular basis on machines which rarely need repair might be able to use a risk scale that evaluates frequency of exposure in terms of events per minute, per hour and per day.  A construction company that has very diverse activities which do not occur with as much regularity may consider a frequency of exposure scale based on days, or weeks.  After deliberate consideration to ensure the optimal scale for evaluating risk has been developed, the risk scale must be synchronized.

Synchronizing the risk scale means applying it broadly across the organization in a consistent and unified way.  As long as the risk assessment scale is used in a constant manner any one risk can be compared against any other.  The concept is very similar to using any other numeric measuring system. If temperature is measured using Fahrenheit in Alaska and in Arizona, the values can be compared.  Contrary to popular belief 22 degrees in Arizona is just as cold as 22 degrees in Alaska.

Advantages of a Quantified Risk Assessment versus a Qualitative Risk Assessment

With a quantified risk assessment that is calibrated and synchronized, risks can be easily empirically evaluated and compared against one another.  This allows for ranking the areas that create the greatest opportunity for improvement higher and allows for measured targets of improvement to be set and prioritized.

ORGANIZATIONAL RISK RANKING SCORES

Table 2) Risk Ranking Table

Quantitative risk assessment also allows organizations to predict the effect on the overall risk level of safety interventions.  This predictive ability is more prominent with quantitative risk assessment methodologies than it is with qualitative risk assessment.  This is due to the number of different factors used to quantify risk.  When a risk is evaluated using factors such as frequency of exposure, number of individuals exposed, number of times a day exposed etc.  It becomes much easier to posit how a particular intervention will affect one or more of the constituent components of risk.  This predictive value can be expressed as a forecasted reduction in risk.  Essentially, after enough risk remediating strategies have been put in place to reduce the residual risk level below the organization’s appetite for risk, a correlation between the risk reduction levels and the actual reductions in lagging indicators, such as OSHA Recordable Frequency and DART Frequency, will be reached.  This correlation will allow the organization to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall risk assessment strategy and will serve to determine if additional risk rating scale calibration is needed.

Completing a Quantitative Risk Assessment

One important consideration for conducting a quantified risk assessment is determining who should be involved in conducting the actual evaluation. It is generally advisable for a cross-functional group of three to six persons, who have intimate knowledge of the risk being evaluated, to be involved in conducting the risk assessment.  A group this size is beneficial for a number of reasons.  First, different and varied perspectives can be shared and multiple points of view brought up and expressed.  Second, after the group has shared different perspective, discussions are held to reinforce arguments or to disprove others.  Third, a general consensus can be reached through the discussions and, if need be, votes taken for determining majority opinions.  Fourth, the consensus that follows rigorous debate and insightful reflection will result in an impartial risk score with greatly reduced subjectivity.  Fifth, a cross-functional group of employees can act as ambassadors of the other workers and can contribute both their individual knowledge and the collective experience of their work group.  Sixth, a small group of three to six individuals is more likely to stay focused and not be distracted by external events.

The actual make-up of the team should involve individuals from divergent professional backgrounds within the organization.  It also makes sense to involve those closest to the risk with the actual evaluation.  If only safety professionals or management complete risk assessments, valuable information may be lost as the perspectives and experience of operators and line employees will be missed.  Risk assessments that are completed by facilitated employee teams are not only more likely to be valid, but they are also more likely to be accepted by the employees.  Because the numbers were generated by the peers of the workers and were not derived only by managers or safety professionals, workers will feel more confident that a real-world perspective was captured.

Other considerations that support using a facilitated cross-functional employee team are that the member of the risk assessment team will help drive risk reductions as they were personally involved with the risk survey and they have the responsibility for owning the process.  The employees involved will develop skills and abilities regarding critical thinking, problem solving, and the ability to conduct in-depth analysis of business process.   Organizations always welcome these talents as they form a very transferable skill set.  Therefore, a quantified risk assessment provides additional benefits to the organization by delivering a better product that has less subjectivity and has helped the professional development of those completing it.

In the next article a detailed description of two quantified risk assessment methodologies will be provided, along with a discussion of under what circumstances it is appropriate to conduct a risk assessment.

On September 29, 2002, Doug Kalinowski was appointed Director of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA).  In that role, he oversees the MIOSHA program, which is responsible for enforcing workplace safety and health standards and providing consultation, education and training, and outreach services.

As Director, Kalinowski is responsible for the overall administration and enforcement of the safety and health provisions of the MIOSH Act, Public Act 154 of 1974, as amended.  From February 1997 to October 2002, Kalinowski served as Deputy Director, with responsibilities for enforcement programs.

Kalinowski obtained his undergraduate degree in 1978, and an M.S. in Industrial Hygiene in 1979, both from the University of Michigan.  He is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and a member of the American Academy of Industrial Hygiene, The American Industrial Hygiene Association, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

MSN recently met with Doug to discuss the past and future of MIOSHA and workplace safety in Michigan.

MSN: “Doug, you have spent over 30 years in the safety and health field, all of it in Michigan. What do you think is the most profound change in our profession during that period?”

DK: “Culture in the workplace. You simply can’t separate safety, quality and productivity. We (MIOSHA) view every interaction as an educational opportunity and it is often welcomed. That wasn’t always to case in the beginning.”

MSN: “What was your proudest moment or best accomplishment that you can think of in your career?”

DK: ” When we combined the safety and health sides of MIOSHA in 1997. I worked in the Department of Public Health with around 80 others and 150 or so worked for the Department of Labor. We only dealt with Occupational Health standards and the DOL only worked on Occupational Safety standards.”

MSN: “What was your toughest moment?”

DK: “Believe it or not, the combination of the departments was probably one of the toughest things I experienced. It was worthwhile and the right thing to do, but still very stressful.”

MSN: ” Both you and your predecesser, Doug Earle, have been known for your openess, accessibility and participative style of leadership, which as you know is rare for government. Has it been difficult to manage this, particularly with political climates routinely changing?”

DK: “No. I don’t think this ever really presents unreasonable challenges when you do the right thing. It sounds simple, but we apply the same litmus tests, use the same standards and interpretations, etc. not matter what the political climate is. I am known because I give out my direct phone number openly, but I truly want pepole to call me if they have an issue.”

Ed’s Note: For the record, Doug’s direct office number is (517) 322-5050.

MSN: Hilda Solis was quoted as saying “WE’RE BACK““Make no mistake about it,” “the Department of Labor is back in the enforcement business. We are serious, very serious.” shortly after being appointed as Labor Secretary in the Obama Administration? How has this affected the MIOSHA program? Has this put additional pressure on State Plan States to follow this tone with employers?

DK: “We really haven’t directly felt this too much. State plan states have always used the ‘educate before you regulate’ philosophy. We are challenged to continually be “as effective as’ the Federal program and we face this challenge despite having flat funding for the last eight years. Being a state plan state allows us to remain consistent in our approach.”

MSN: What would like to see MIOSHA accomplish in the next five years?

DK: ” Number one is to help employers reduce serious injuries and fatalities. There were 120 workplace fatalities in Michigan in 1972 and 24 in 2009. Injuries and illnesses are going down too. But there are still too many. We need  to continue to work to improve and change safety culture. We need to make sure that our staff stay focused on these goals.”

MSN: What personal goals do you have for the future?

DK: “I want to keep running my 25 miles per week and stay healthy. I enjoy being with people and many outdoor activities.”

MSN: Thanks again Doug for spending some time with us. Please keep in touch and let us know if we can ever assist you and MIOSHA in any fashion.

DK: “Thanks Mike and thank you for creating Michigan Safety News.”

It is with great excitement and pride  that Michigan Safety News is reporting that two of our best friends and distinguished colleagues have received the State’s highest safety honors.

Joe Forgue, Director of Safety and Education Services for the Construction Association of Michigan, has been named Safety Professional of the Year and Joe Galusha, Managing Director with Marsh USA  has received the Distinguished Service to Safety Award.  They will formally presented with these awards at the President’s Reception at the Michigan Safety Conference in April. More information is available at http://michsafetyconference.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=11&Itemid=60. (While you are there, don’t forget to register for the conference!)

Your favorite webmaster is personal friends with both awardees and can tell you that they both epitomize the best in class in our profession. I can also assure you that NEITHER will receive similar awards for their golf games!

Please drop a note in the blog to publically join me in congratulating both of these PROFESSIONALS and long time mentors of yours truly. Nice job guys; well deserved. By no means are you “average joes.”

Myth #6- Safety Training… actually does some good.

Ok, I might be a little late getting to this myth.  Some safety people are beginning to realize that training, just for the sake of training, provides little benefit.  Some of the terms that I have heard include “the Training Trap” and “It’s Training Again” (sung to the tune of “It’s Raining Again”).  But for those of you who still think it is a good idea to conduct regular safety training, please read on. 

Anyone who is versed in education and the true communication of knowledge to adult learners scoffs at the notion of “training”.  Dr. E. Scott Geller puts it very well when he talks about the difference between training and education.  Think about your 15 year old daughter, if you have one.  If not, imagine this situation.  Your daughter comes home from school to tell you about a new class she will soon be taking.  It is part of the district’s new progressive curriculum.  How would you feel if she told you she was getting A. – Sex Education or B. – Sex Training???  

Training is defined according to Dictionary.com as: to make proficient by instruction and practice, as in some art, profession, or work: to train soldiers: ,  to make (a person) fit by proper exercise, diet, practice, etc., as for an athletic performance:,  or  to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

When you begin to look at training in this context, it doesn’t sound all that appealing.  No wonder employees never want to attend safety training. 

Also, consider this; if a knowledge gap exists, is that enough of a reason to spend time, energy, and resources on training?  Absolutely not.!!!!!   I am sure most of your employees don’t know the primary export from Mongolia is molybdenum and fluorspar.  I am also  sure there is no need for them to know this.  In order to initiate training you first need to establish not only that a knowledge gap exists, but that your organization will benefit if this gap is filled.  Essentially, there must be a discernable benefit that can be expected if employees receive some type of safety education. 

 So why is it that companies routinely train employees on topics that are completely irrelevant?  Is it because they think that the employee really wants to know all of the intricacies of donning and doffing a respirator that they will never use? Or is it because the employees are really interested in knowing all about the MSDS for Chloral Acetate?   Obviously, the topic of safety training needs further exploration.

There are a few fundamental reasons why companies use safety training. 

•1.   There is a legitimate reason

There will be numerous situations where an actual lack of knowledge exists for your employees.  Although companies may rationalize that whenever they use training it is justified; this is patently false.  That said, here are at least three conditions where conducting safety training actually makes sense.  There are probably a few more justifiable situations where training employees is an appropriate action, but these three are likely the most common.

One of the best examples where safety training makes good sense is also one of the most common and easily understood, new hire orientation.   Obviously, new employees are likely to have both general and specific gaps in knowledge that they will need to work safely.  Therefore, having a well designed plan for new hire training is more than appropriate.  Remember, you need to tell new employees three basic principles – 1) what hazards exist in your workplace;  2) what are your expectations for your employee’s behavior; and 3) what you will do to them if they fail to comply. 

Another good example is when an organization changes a process or when new hazards are discovered with an existing process.  This concept borrows heavily from OSHA’s primary training requirements, but in this instance, OSHA provides insightful regulatory requirements.  New hazards or newly discovered hazards (such as the realization that the industrial cleaning chemical your company has been allowing employees to use for skin moisturizer is actually a carcinogen) require that employees be educated about their specific hazards.  In this instance a true lack of knowledge exists and it is incumbent upon the organization to give whatever education is needed to help employees enhance their personal safety. 

A final reason for legitimately conducting safety training is when you are introducing yet another safety “flavor-of-the-month”.  Programs like incentives, new safety management protocols, or new risk assessment techniques all require training for employees.  The basic rule of thumb here is, if you are changing the maze, at least give the rats a fighting chance to find the cheese. 

•2.   It is required

This one is a very easy concept to understand.  OSHA requires training.  If you fail to train and provide documentation as OSHA requires you will be cited and fined.  If you train but don’t retain documentation you will be cited and fined.  If you train and document the training, but  you can’t find it you will be cited and fined.  If you train and document the training and you can find it, but you missed one employee signature, you will be cited and fined.  It is all well and good to do annual safety training (actually, it is pretty pointless and useless, but I digress) however, the documenting the training provisions are so subjective that even if your company undertakes due diligence to train everyone the way they are supposed to, you could still be cited, fined, and have your name placed in the OSHA Rogue’s Gallery.

I see little good with required annual training.  As a safety consultant who has met with way too many customers to do the annual Lockout/Tagout Refresher Training.  I can tell you that many employees would rather burn their eyes out with a live current feed than sit through another description of “lock, tag, and test… Isn’t this fun”.  Come to mention it, if I am ever asked to do another LO/TO training session I may very well grab both ends of a live circuit and try to become the Super Hero the Human Arc Flash!!!

 •3.   It is easy

Training really is the easiest safety intervention you can have.   Management is not required to confront any of their real problems.   If we have an accident involving forklifts damaging racking, we need to train the forklift drivers.  Never mind that the designated travel paths barely give the lift trucks enough room to maneuver or that the forklifts were new when dirt was young.  The real problem is lack of training for the 30 year veteran operators. 

Correcting the real problems is a much better solution.  Unfortunately, most companies never get to the first step in this process.  First, you have to identify the actual problem.  In his book, “Bringing Out the Best in People, the Amazing Power of Positive Reinforcement” Aubrey Daniels refers to this concept as Pinpointing.  Specifically, Pinpointing is the process of determining EXACTLY where the deficiencies exist by figuring out where the organization really is and where it wants to be.  This cannot be accomplished by finger pointing, scape-goating, or blaming employees for a lack of knowledge by using inappropriate training.  Until and unless organizations begin using a more exacting approach like pinpointing the coffers of training consultants will remain burgeoning and bloated.

 •4.   It is used as a CYA device

Ok, your employees finally brought in the union.  You hoped it wouldn’t happen but it did.  Now you need another, more creative way to get rid of those bad apples.  Wait a second, how about  you conduct a bunch of safety training, get everyone’s name on a sign in sheet for something you know they will never do safely, and fire them all when they don’t comply. 

The above scenario my sound farfetched, but it is scarily very close to an actual organization that I worked with many years ago.  The union was already in place and entrenched, but management really wanted to loosen their hold.  So, in an attempt to send a message they began disciplining workers for failing to follow PPE requirements of eye-protection and foot protection in areas where it had only recently begun to be required.  Worse, management would also “write-up” people who weren’t wearing hearing protection in designated areas… even if they walked through one of the designated rooms without ear plugs and were in it for no more than a few seconds.   Management always referred back to the training sign in sheet as documentation to cover their a$$ when they were challenged on these volatile and pointless actions.  Ultimately, the management changed and was replaced by a more progressive administration that actually started a behaviorally driven safety process and got rid of the useless training that had only served to hold the workforce hostage.

Using documented safety training as a way to be able to say “well our employees should have known better, they were trained” is an age old crutch.  It is management’s way of blaming employees for working unsafely when they have accidents, injuries, or do something else that the upper-crust finds offensive.  If an employee gets injured lifting something that is too heavy, all the average safety coordinator has to do is point to the sign in sheet that shows the employee received lifting/ergonomics training earlier that year, in order to get off the hook.  This relieves the safety department from doing any meaningful investigation and trying to find out why the employee had to look for help for 10 minutes and still couldn’t find anyone to assist with the lift.  With the continuous pressure to improve production in today’s workplace, the use of safety training as a tool to remove or alleviate problems is becoming more and more common.  Unfortunately, this “tool” allows the user to cover their true motivations and employ deceptive management practices. 

 •5.   Plausible Deniability

Safety training is also used as a tool for managers to say, “well we trained them to do X or Y task safely.  See here on the sign in sheet?  If they didn’t do it, that’s not our fault”.  Plausible deniability is a close cousin of CYA, but there is one key difference.  When organizations use Safety Training for a CYA tool it is intentionally applied to remove the unwanted in a manner that appears legitimate.  In the cause of plausible deniability, management doesn’t necessarily intend removal of the employee.  It is simply, when the employees don’t perform as expected, the employer can conveniently say “It’s not our fault, we trained them”. 

Essentially, it is plausibly deniable that the employer is at fault because, according to the sign in sheet, they did train the employee.  In reality, this is just another excuse for an organization to be lazy.  It is easier to blame the employee for poor performance if you can say they were “trained” to complete a task.  This relieves the organization from undertaking the much harder task of determining the true root cause for why unsafe acts and conditions exist in the facility.  Once a company has conducted safety training, all responsibility for safe work practices rests with the employee, and the company no longer needs to be involved.

 •6.   It makes people feel better

We care about our employees.  We want to see them go home in the condition they came to work.   We have some of the most well trained people in the industry.    All of these statements make management and safety persons feel good.  This is a key consideration for safety training.  If we do safety training, at least we are trying to make a difference and to make people safer.  Well intentioned managers and safety practitioners feel better about themselves and their respective companies when they have established and completed a safety training program.

Among the key sub-points to this argument are:

 •a.      Management gets the sense they are actually doing something positive. 

With safety training, management does give themselves the sense and satisfaction that, at least, they are doing something.  It may not be very effective, but if there is a problem, managers want to deal with it and be done with it.  Conducting safety training allows them to think that they have accomplished something worthwhile that will solve any safety related issues they may have.

•b.      Safety people have perfected this skill for decades.

Safety professionals have been conducting training for so long that they are very accomplished instructors.  In fact, many safety professionals are such good teachers that they can easily be classified not only as trainers, but as true educators.  Unfortunately, this also means that they are both proficient at training and very comfortable with it.

Intuitively, most safety professionals realize that conducting training session on top of training session won’t do any good.  However, they are personally so comfortable conducting training that they default to this mode of safety program enhancement.  Also, just like everyone else, safety professionals are looking for the simplest way to solve problems.  Safety training is certainly simple, and when you are good at it, it becomes the easiest solution of all.

•c.      Mom, Apple Pie, and Safety Training.

This is a term I came across in a paper a number of years ago.  I wish I could reference the source but several internet searches would not reveal the location.  That said, this statement has stuck with me for many years.  Safety training is the golden calf of our profession.  It is as wholesome as mom, apple pie, baseball, etc…  to say anything bad about safety training is to risk being labeled as an anarchist and a rabble-rouser (terms I wear with pride).  Safety training, and its attendant benefits, are almost always hailed as universal truths.  Speaking against safety training is akin to publicly declaring yourself a supporter of the “Society for the medical harvest of organs from living children for resale to the highest bidder”.   

We accept the omnipresent and benevolent existence of safety training because in our heart of hearts we know it is right, good, and just. 

When all is said and done, I am not totally against using safety training.  It has it place in the lexicon of safety, and safety professionals must be versed in its correct application.  However, under the current paradigm, safety training is a crutch and a closed gate that is keeping our profession from reaching its true potential and making the kind of profound organizational improvements that we are surely capable of.  If we can throw off the shackles of the tired dogma that safety training is the best solution all the time, we will indeed, have made progress.

Could I interest anyone in an OSHA 30 Hour General Industry Session?

Peace,

cg

Michigan Safety News is now on Facebook and Twitter! Users should take a moment and make us a “friend.” We’ll use these social networking sites to increase and enhance readership. Let us know your thoughts on how we can best use these or other social networking sites to improve our overall mission to keep safety conversation going in the State. Email us at help@michigansafetynews.com.

This myth is ubiquitous in the field of occupational safety and health.  Housekeeping standards and formal housekeeping programs like 5S are supposed to help workplaces improve both productivity and safety. The theory is that a clean workplace will create fewer slip, trip, and fall hazards.  Also, a clean and well organized workplace should required fewer motions by employees, thus aligning with Ergonomics and lowering the risks for employees to experience Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTDs).

Let us first try to look at the facts and see if there is more than just a feel good story here.  First, the vast majority of falls in the workplace are not the result of trips, they actually come from slips.  A number of studies have examined the anatomy of human beings while walking and have explored the causal factors relating to falls.  Based on the summaries of many of these studies I have read, the greatest single risk factor that leads persons to be more likely to slip and fall are compromised motor skills and compromised perceptive abilities. 

The highest risk group for experiencing slips, trips, and falls are those over 60.  Indeed, as persons age, both their propensity of experiencing a fall and the severity of that fall if it occurs increase exponentially.  It is not surprising that the elderly are among the most likely segment of the population to be injured in a fall.  Typically, older Americans will have both reduced motor functions and lower abilities to perceive changes in the environment.   An at risk group such as the elderly is more prone to falls than the general population. 

According to a Polish study of women, over 70% of all falls involved slips or trips on uneven surfaces.  In this study, no mention is made about the cause of the uneven surfaces, but it is implied that these are construction related surface deviations, not housekeeping related issues. Further, a 2007 CNA Insurance Study slips and falls are most likely to be caused by floor surfaces that are inherently slippery, not by trips over items left in travel paths.  However, this study does clearly implicate wet walking surfaces and their inherent decrease in the coefficient of friction as a cause of falls.  These surfaces are often wet during the cleaning process and are especially dangerous if they remain wet AFTER cleaning has concluded.  This would almost suggest that a focus on housekeeping contributes to the risk of falls.  This appears to be especially true if the housekeeping is undertaken in an incomplete manner.

Overall, the scientific literature is woefully incomplete regarding a well conducted and thoughtful survey of the causes of slips and falls.  However, when risks are identified and quantified as contributing to the chances of slipping and falling.  The risks are typically put in three broad categories.  1) Risks caused by impaired persons 2) Risks caused by poorly constructed surfaces and 3) Risks created environmental conditions.  No studies that were reviewed indicated any clear link between housekeeping standards and slips and falls. 

The second premise that suggests housekeeping may improve the level of safety is enhanced ergonomics.  If items and materials are placed in their proper location they will require fewer lifts, lowers, carries, and less handling.  Again, this may appear as a true statement until it is examined more closely.

Consider a basic situation, an employee returns a tool to a designated storage location after using it.  Shortly after that, another employee retrieves the tool for use in another work area and then returns it when they are finished.  After that, another employee procures the tool and uses it before returning it.  According to housekeeping standards, this is a solid practice.  In reality, if employees have to travel further and place the tool in remote or restricted locations, they may actually INCREASE the amount of times a tool or item is handled simply because they do return it to a designated location.  Leaving the tool or item out may reduce housekeeping, but it may also make the tool more accessible and available. 

In summary, it might make sense, anecdotally, that by raising housekeeping standards will inherently increase safe work standards, but no well conducted studies have been conducted to make that link. Until and unless a number of thoughtful studies are undertaken that quantify the specific results that housekeeping may, or may not, have on injury exposure, it is irresponsible to continue to repeat the mantra neatness equates to a safe workplace.  We just don’t know the facts.

This next myth should be easy to debunk.  All safety professionals that I have known over the years have praised the value of defensive driving as a great safe driving strategy.  Hogwash, I say. 

Just think of the classic defensive driver…, an older driver who drives very, very slowly and carefully.  A driver whose routine speed is 5 to 10 miles an hour below the speed limit.  A driver who slows down dramatically to make a turn into a parking lot.  A driver who comes to a complete stop when reaching the end of an access ramp that leads on to a highway.  A driver who drives so slowly and carefully that people will do anything to accelerate around or past him.  Is defensive driving really safe driving? NO!!!!

When well meaning safety professionals use the term “Defensive Driving” they are committing two wrongs.  First, they are showing that they believe whatever catchy phrases are out there for safety.  Things like “Safety is Job #1“; “Defensive Driving Saves Lives“; “Click-it or Ticket“, “Wear a hard had unless you’re hard headed” or “A funeral is more expensive than the cost of the right PPE“.  Few people even agree with these slogans and even fewer are motivated by them.  Ultimately, all you have is a catchy phrase that people repeat over and over for years, but gets no behavior change.  If you really wanted to get people to wear their seatbelts you would do more than going around and saying “click-it or ticket“.   Remember instead of saying “Safety is our most important value” you might as well say “Safety is our most important slogan”.  (Daniels) 

Second, the use of catchy slogans shows we don’t take our profession seriously.   By trying to use glib catch phrases, especially ones that are incorrect like “Defensive Driving” we are demonstrating that we do not care enough to create something meaningful.   

So back to this specific myth; defensive driving = safe driving.  What is it that makes a good driver?  If you have experience with the Smith SystemTM or Liberty Mutual’s Decision DrivingTM  then you have a pretty good idea about the answer.  Safe drivers have the knowledge to drive safely and exhibit the proper behaviors. 

The good driver uses a well honed sense of sight, sound and feeling to get input about their driving environment.  The driver then combines this input with a combination of knowledge, experience, and attitudes to create an output…driving behavior.  The only important aspect of how people drive is the behavior they exhibit while operating a motor vehicle. 

In the previous paragraph I mentioned that the behavior people exhibit when driving is a function of their knowledge, experience, and attitudes, when combined with the input from the driving environment.  The knowledge and experience components are the factors where most companies place their focus.  Attitude generally gets overlooked, and to the detriment of the overall process results.  

For example, driver training is a multi-million dollar industry.  A wealth of organizations exist that will help you train your drivers to operate safely.  These driver trainers are often very accomplished in both training techniques and the intricacies of their particular methodology.   There are also many materials available for the informal driver trainer.  Between pamphlets, training videos, and computer based training, much effort is expanded to improve the knowledge of drivers.  The real question regarding driver training is… do most drivers lack the knowledge to operate a motor vehicle safely?  The answer to that my friends is, no.  Rarely do professional drivers or employees who drive regularly have a knowledge gap in the rules and requirements to drive safely.  

Also, many companies look extensively and exhaustively at driver experience.  Trucking companies will not usually hire drivers without two years of experience operating a vehicle over 10,000 pounds, GVW.  The common question is how do you get experience if no one will hire you without experience.  Also, most companies will review a driver’s MVA to determine if he has a history of safe driving or not.  All of this is important, but it misses on the critical aspect… attitude. 

The role of attitude is often overlooked.  Indeed, the concept of attitude is very difficult to define and even harder to quantify.  It is well known that when a driver is in a situation where he has just been cut-off.  He is more likely to engage in an aggressive act towards another driver.  Conversely, a driver who has just been allowed to merge onto a busy freeway is much more likely to extend the same courtesy to another driver. 

Attitude has a very important function in the role of behavior exhibited by drivers.  Certainly it is every bit as important as knowledge and experience.  As safety professionals we need to encourage our drivers to exhibit good behaviors when driving.  How do we do this?  By presenting them with feedback about their driving behaviors.  This can best be accomplished by in-person observation.  The use of electronic data monitors can augment this, but by far and away, the best means to accomplish improving the behavior of drivers is through the use of focused feedback. 

Feedback has been shown to clearly change and improve behavior.  Providing feedback to drivers in person in a timely manner will reinforce safe behaviors and help to minimize unsafe actions.  This is the only true way to help improve the safety on our roads.  Feedback and behavior management will work where slogans and tired training practices won’t.

The take away from this myth is two fold.  First, safety professionals need to avoid catchy slogans that sound good but only serve to trivialize our profession.  Second, if the goal is to improve performance, understanding what motivates people to exhibit certain behaviors must be understood before unsafe behavior is changed to safe behavior.

So remember… “Arrive Alive… Don’t Drink and Come Up with Stupid Safety Slogans”.

Editor’s Note: Chris’ articles are bringing nice reaction from you all. Please keep the comments, good/bad, agreeable/disagreeable and all else coming. Your opinion matters!

OHS, EH&S, SH&E… why do we always find Safety and Health so closely linked.  (I won’t touch environmental because the differences are so obvious that most Safety Professionals will only grudgingly take on environmental responsibilities.)  However, the linkage with Occupational Health is indelible and inescapable.

Before I proceed to explore this Myth, it might be germane to discuss the origins of how Safety and Health become linked at so many organizations.  During the height of manufacturing prowess of the United States (1900-1970) an interesting benefit was added to many large workplaces, the Occupational Nurse. 

Originally, the nurse was responsible for providing a first line of treatment for injured workers.  It was not unusual for a factory nurse to help try to staunch bleeding from massive wounds or to begin the process of removing items that became embedded in employees as a result of some industrial accident or the other.  Over time, and as safety standards within the United States began to improve, the role of the Occupational Nurse became to have functions on both the prevention side of injuries as well as the treatment of injuries once they occurred. 

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Occupational Nurses have the following functions¹:

• Have special knowledge of workplace hazards and the relationship to the employee health status.
• Understand industrial hygiene principles of engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.
• Have knowledge of toxicology and epidemiology as related to the employee and the work site.

Occupational nurses are also routinely help injured employees return to work, participate in drug testing, ergonomic reviews, job hardening, employee wellness, and a variety of other tasks as well. 

Unfortunately, with the decline of major manufacturing facilities in the United States, the existence of the Occupational Nurse has contracted significantly.  This is especially true over the last 20 years.  The resulting reduction in the numbers of Occupational Health Nurses has necessitated that their responsibilities be delegated to another member of the business support services.  This person has typically been the safety coordinator or safety manager.

In the traditional model the safety coordinator was usually educationally trained as an engineer or industrial sciences manager.  Rarely would the safety manager have a background in Biology, Medicine, or any other clinical specialty.   As a result, they relied heavily on the nurses for health related items. 

Today, safety managers are often as likely to be trained in management systems as in any other technical specialty.  However, the case remains that they typically have little formal training in health related fields. Some educational institutions with designated safety programs do include classes on Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics.  Some of the more sophisticated programs will also include classes in Biochemistry, Toxicology, Anatomy and Physiology.  Unfortunately, this training is still not as in depth as is typically provided in a two year nursing program. 

Fast forward to 2009 and we find that a true definition of the responsibility for Occupational Health is generally lacking.  Many organizations still expect occupational health to include all of the responsibilities undertaken previously as well as prevention of occupational illnesses, the rehabilitation of injured employees, the administration of claims, and the return to work of previously injured workers.

Upon close inspection, the functions of Occupational Safety and Occupational Health are very different.  Safety managers must be concerned with safety training, administration of PPE programs, compliance with OSHA Standards, and Accident Investigation.  The few areas of overlap, including risk assessment, workplace safety/health evaluations, and industrial hygiene do not forge as close a bond as might be popularly thought. 

It is difficult to expect a safety manager to know the intricacies of blood borne pathogens, Legionnaire’s Disease, Pandemic Flu Management, and other true Occupational Health Issues as well as someone who is a Certified Occupational Health Nurse (COHN). 

The COHN designation is one of the few professional certifications with a declining number of persons applying for and earning it.  This continues to create additional pressure for safety persons to accept more responsibility for workplace health issues.   With an ever increasing demand by companies to abandon traditional workplace safety models and adopt more sophisticated safety management approaches like Behavior Based Safety, TapRoot, System’s Driven Safety, and Integrated Safety Management, it is incumbent upon organizations to explore whether the common addition of Occupational Health into the bailiwick of Safety really makes sense.  In the opinion of this author these two disciplines are much better when handled separate, but equal.