Quality Safety Edge: leaders in Behavior Based Safety and other Behavioral Management strategies

News and events about behavior-based safety, Quality Safety Edge and its clients Quality Safety Edge offers Behavior Based Safety Services Quality Safety Edge helps build safety leadership Quality Safety Edge knows how to build a positive safety culture with the values based safety approach Safety Champions -- advocates of behavioral safety make a difference for Quality Safety Edge's clients Articles and Presentations (many at the Behavioral Safety Now conference) on behavior based solutions to safety and performance Books and software to support implementation of behavior-based safety and serious incident prevention Sign up for the Safety and Performance Edge newsletter Quality Safety Edge is a proud sponsor of the Behavioral Safety Now conference. QSE's Dr. Terry McSween serves as Conference Chair

Quality Safety Edge is proud of our fine team of professionals in behavior-based safety and performance management Quality Safety Edge's experience factor is illustrated by the list of clients who have benefitted from the Values Based Safety Approach. Read their success stories. Contact Quality Safety Edge today! We can help you realize your safety and performance opportunities

To find out how QSE can help your organization become a safer and more productive place, contact us by e-mail, or call us at (936) 588-1140, or toll free from within the U.S. at (877) 588-1140.

Comments or questions about the web site? Contact the webmaster.

Safety Leadership:
Challenges and Solutions
(ASSE Professional Development Conference
Orlando Florida
June, 2000)

The Empirical Findings

Terry E. McSween

Effective leaders differed from mediocre leaders in several important ways. Effective leaders spend more time monitoring performance. They either directly observed the performance of their followers, or they discussed the followers performance more frequently that mediocre leaders. Furthermore, their discussions prompt followers to talk about their own performance. In addition, the researcher found that effective leaders were more likely to engage in behaviors classified as antecedents or consequences after monitoring the performance of their followers. We should note that while the classification scheme used in this research classified such responses as antecedents or feedback, after monitoring, most practitioners would typically refer to both of these kinds of interactions as feedback. And, when interpreted in this way, the data were very clear, exemplary leaders provided much more feedback as compared with lack luster leaders.

The distribution of the types of consequences reported in this research was a surprise for most behavioral practitioners. Behavioral theorists would typically predict that positive consequences would be more effective. The current research suggests that leaders simply used more verbal consequences of all types. The distribution was roughly 25% positive, 50% neutral, and 25% negative. Again, the researchers used the term “consequences” in their classification scheme, while most practitioners would be more conformable calling these statements “feedback.”

In addition, the research suggested that feedback was important to the attitudes of employees. Monitoring alone often generated almost the same level of performance, but leaders who did not provide feedback generated significantly more negative statements among their followers. In our experience, employees often complain about leaders who monitor performance without feedback as “bird-dogging” their work.

The research also sheds light on the practices of less effective leaders. Mediocre leaders tended to engage in solitary activities that allow them to avoid interactions with their followers. They would, for example, work on administrative tasks that kept them in the office, rather than touring the work areas interacting with employees. When they did tour the work areas, they did not have as many interactions with employees. When they did interact with employees, the nature of interactions with followers also differed from exemplary leaders in other ways. Mediocre leaders would often talk with followers about work, but those conversations never turned to performance and what the follower was doing. In addition, less effective leaders spent more time providing antecedents, talking about expectations and telling subordinates what needs to be done, without first monitoring the activities. They act as if they know best, without regard for what the followers have actually done. Exemplary leaders provided significantly more feedback than mediocre leaders. The mediocre leaders seemed to rely more on mandates, rather than feedback and suggestions.

In addition, the research yielded a significant amount of detailed information on the sequence of the antecedent, monitoring and consequence statements in social interactions. A detailed description of these data goes beyond the scope of the present paper, except to emphasize the importance of monitoring occurring early in the social interactions with employees.

The existing body of research addresses the interactions of leaders and followers in maintaining performance in routine day-to-day operations with experienced performers. The current studies did not examine interactions in organization implementing new systems or procedures, training employees new to their positions, or special situations, such as conflict resolution. Certainly, leadership has many other crucial dimensions that need to be addressed empirically.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS NEXT SECTION


Paper presented at the American Society of Safety Engineers annual Professional Development Conference in Orlando, in June, 2000. Included in the conference Proceedings.