It’s Our Choice: “Us Versus Them” or an Integrated Approach

An old saying goes “To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail.” This saying seems particularly relevant when you read the writings coming from safety consultants with different backgrounds. The writings tend to emphasis the differences between approaches rather than the similarities. Indeed many such authors are not only vocal proponents of their particular perspective, but aggressively attack approaches not consistent with their personal perspective or philosophy (cf. Tom Smith, 1995).

Many authors have made a reputation for themselves by challenging assumptions that we make without question, or in the absence of data. Alfie Kohn is a notable example. Several years ago, Alfie Kohn (1992) gained notoriety by writing a book proclaiming that the competition inherent in education and business was all bad. Most people who think carefully about the topic would agree that competition can be counter productive and even harmful. In his more recent book, Kohn (1993) has again gained notoriety by claiming that our reliance on rewards and praise is all bad. While his perspective is extreme, certainly we have all seen cases where safety awards are mis-used and discourage employees from reporting minor injuries, thus reducing our ability to identify and correct potential hazards in the work place. In addition, he makes some just criticisms that many “pop-behaviorist” (his term) have gone beyond the data in promoting the use of praise, though his recommendations on feedback line up very closely with the actual techniques usually advocated by behavioral practitioners.

While taking an extreme point of view and emphasizing differences may be useful in gaining notoriety or in selling a particular approach, it does little to help safety professionals understand and integrate various initiatives to maximize the effectiveness of each.

Fortunately, many practitioners are taking a more pragmatic approach. Leaders in the field of safety will find ways to integrate the best of all approaches to safety improvement – and not get overly concerned that everyone talk about the world the same way. In many ways such an approach exemplifies our value for diversity. The question is whether we are tolerant of others with different ideas and strive for effective integration of those ideas, or do we build camps that maximize resistance to change.

Table 1 presents an oversimplified overview that illustrates some of similarities and differences between three current approaches to safety. Many companies first address safety through a traditional approach, then implement a TQM process, and then move into a behavioral approach. All three processes interact with synergy. An effective TQM processes uses data from the behavioral process as the basis for continuous improvement, often improving elements of traditional approaches (cf. Krause, 1995; McSween, 1995).

Table 1 - Simplified overview of key elements of different approaches to safety improvement.

In safety, as in life, few things in life are all-or-nothing. The secret is often continuing to learn and finding the right balance.

References

Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

Krause, T. R. Employee-Driven Systems for Safe Behavior. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995.

McSween, T. E. The Values-Based Safety^™: Using a Behavioral Approach to Enhance Your Safety Culture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995.

Smith, Thomas. Rebutting Behaviorism. Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, March, 1995, p. 40.