Behavior vs. Attitudes: Achieving Lasting Improvement in Safety

Terry E. McSween, Ph.D.

Overview

Over the last few years behavioral psychologist have begun to work with cultural anthropologist to integrate the two disciplines in ways that better address the behavior of both individuals and groups. In particular, the works of the behavioral psychologist, Sigrid Glenn, and cultural anthropologist, Marvin Harris, represent initial attempts to integrate the two disciplines (Glenn, 1988). I would like to try to draw on the work of these two noted scientists, without using their scientific jargon, and discuss the implications of their work for those of use trying to promote safety in the workplace.

Both of these noted theorists draw on the work of B.F. Skinner and talk about the purpose of culture as promoting the survival and propagation of that culture. Cultures are defined as groups of people that sanction common sets of practices that are functional in supporting the survival of the group. One of the primary determinants of an individual’s behavior is the social interactions, or social contingencies, within the group.

Values are typically statements that describe practices, or sets of behavior, that are likely to be sanctioned or punished by other members of a group or culture. It is the cultural norms, or social contingencies, that establish values and value-based behavior within a culture. Thus to establish values, and to affect the individual behavior, within a culture we have to affect the social interactions between members of the culture. When we talk about values and value-based behavior, we are usually talking about behavior that is informally sanctioned by the organization. The social community within the culture usually supports such behavior, as opposed to the formal systems, which support compliance with policies and procedures. The distinction between these two types of behavior has been described elsewhere (McSween, 1995) and can be represented by the diagram in Figure 1.

Strong cultures achieve a high degree of alignment between the processes supported by the formal systems and value-based practices supported by the social community. Thus, a healthy organization may have both formal systems and cultural norms that support practices that promote safety, diversity, and other functional practices. Dysfunctional organizations, on the other hand, often have a disconnect between the practices supported by formal systems and those supported by the social norms. This may happen, for example, when an organization’s formal policies purport safety as a basic value, but the organization makes a hero out of an employee who takes risks in order to maintain production.

Another distinction between behavior supported by processes and behavior supported by values is the type of consequences that provide motivation for the behavior. The motivation for behavior supported by processes tends to be based on authority and the threat of punitive consequences. Values-based practices on the other hand tend to be supported by external social consequences and by internal personal consequences. Internal consequences are those we provide ourselves when we are complying with social norms. (Such internal consequences are a very complex process that is beyond the scope of this paper.) When behavioral systems are supported through the process, rather than through values, the processes generally do not maintain well and often become paperwork exercises that adds little value to the overall safety of the organization.

Figure 1. A simple model showing standard elements of organizational culture

How do we Influence the Culture?

To maximize the effectiveness of our organizations requires that we ensure alignment of formal and informal systems. The formal systems are typically easier to address. These include training (for all levels of employees and management), performance appraisal, discipline, policies and procedures, salary administration, incentive systems (including recognition and award programs), promotion, employee selection, planning systems that include personal and team objectives, etc.

For the last couple of decades, organizations have attempted to influence the informal systems through behavioral training and improvement efforts targeted primarily at front line managers and supervisors. The typical strategy involved increasing the interpersonal and performance management skills of front line supervisors and managers. Managers and supervisors learned more effective communication and listening skills which where then used to regularly review outcome measures and develop action plans with employees, directly observe employee work practices, and provide behavioral feedback based on their observations, often in conjunction with goal setting and some form of reinforcement. These practices were often very effective in organizations that sustained these efforts through integration with formal systems that ensured follow-up. Organizations that simply provided this type of training to supervisors and managers with out formal systems to support the new skills typically experienced only short-term improvements.

Addressing the Formal Process

Recently many organizations have adopted a new application of these same behavioral concepts. This technology increases active involvement of employees in managing safety within their work areas. The approach typically involves the employees in conducting formal safety observations of work practices within their areas. This approach works very effectively when both the formal processes and values are in alignment. Such a behavioral approach to safety is the only empirically validated process for producing and maintaining significant reductions in injury accidents (with the exception of a small number of studies that address ergonomics).

As with organizations that focused their efforts on front line managers, organizations that focus only on the formal elements of the process will often achieve short lived results. Unfortunately, many organizations that try to develop their own behavioral processes internally suffer from this problem. The reason for this is easily understood because the formal aspects of a behavioral safety process are fairly concrete and easy to address. The values, or cultural norms, are less tangible and more difficult for organizations to address without formal expertise in behavioral concepts.

Addressing the Informal Systems

To create a values-based safety culture requires three elements:

• Ownership by champions
• Voluntary participation
• Empowerment

Scott Geller talks about these as the person-based elements of an effective safety process. I prefer to consider them as key elements of any behavioral process because they can be operationally defined in behavioral terms.

Educating and involving employees in the design of a behavioral safety process creates ownership. By participating in the design of the new process, a small number of employees develop a detailed understanding of the new process and are more likely to champion the process with other employees and help keep the process alive. These champions often help sell the process, explain the process to others, and encourage their peers to participate and give the new process a chance.

Allowing employees the choice as to whether or not to participate in the process reduces resistance to the new process, helps build acceptance, and helps ensure the quality of participation. Employees who volunteer to participate are typically more conscientious in conducting observations, more accurate in recording observation data, and communicate their observations more effectively.

Empowerment involves creating a process that is truly managed by the employees themselves. That means a team of employees takes responsibility for overseeing the process, follow-up, problem solving and other aspects of maintaining the process. Real empowerment typically means that the team has a firm budget and manages expenses associated with maintaining the process as well.

Conclusion

The procedures required to create a behavioral safety process are relatively easy to develop. To create a lasting process requires a different level of ongoing support and active involvement by employees within the culture. The social interactions between employees are the critical factor in establishing and maintaining individual values that are consistent with the cultural norms of the organization. Addressing these issues is more difficult and requires a deliberate effort to create ownership, promote voluntary participation, and empower employees in a way that supports the implementation of a behavioral safety process that is designed in a manner consistent with those proven to be effective by empirical research.

Bibliography

Geller E. S. The Psychology of Safety: How to Improve Behaviors and Attitudes on the Job. Radnor, PA, Chilton Book Company, 1996.

Glenn, S. S. Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 1988, 161-179.

McSween, T. E. The Values-Based Safety Process: Improving Your Safety Culture with a Behavioral Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995

Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knoff, 1971.

Published in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Professional Development Conference, American Society of Safety Engineers, New Orleans, LA, 1997, p. 35-40