In his response to my recent series on behavior-based safety (BBS), Alan Quilley states that he disagrees with my "interpretation of Dan Petersen's views on behavior and motivation in the systems of safety management." While I’d like to thank Alan for responding, I want to clarify a couple of points that I believe he either mischaracterizes or misunderstands.

Dan Petersen and the Behaviorist View of Accidents

Let me be perfectly clear. I didn't "interpret" Dan Petersen's views on anything. I simply quoted a statement he made in an article in response to the famous assertion of W.H. Heinrich that 88% of accidents are the result of unsafe acts. Petersen’s quote, which I will now repeat, was that the 88% statement was Heinrich’s “first axiom and something that he just made up. There was no research behind it whatsoever.” (As I did in my original story, I’ll furnish a link to Petersen’s quote for anybody who wants to look it up:  http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/32659/Dan_Petersen_Why_Safety_is_a.aspx)

If Alan or any other SafetyXChange reader has evidence that the quote is wrong, please let us know. Likewise, if Alan or anybody else would care to interpret what Petersen meant by this remark, be my guest.

My SafetyXChange article wasn’t about Dan Petersen. I wrote the piece to compare BBS to the hierarchy of controls and to argue that the former is less effective in preventing accidents than the latter. The Petersen quote about the lack of research behind the Heinrich 88% principle was just one of several references I made to cast doubt on the theoretical soundness of BBS as an accident prevention method. I also cited the Hamm Commission and the ASSE. And I could have cited dozens of other references to make the point but chose to keep the story brief.

Likewise, Alan’s response says that "Wayne’s article misses some critical parts of Dan’s teachings." I repeat, I didn’t write the article to discuss “Dan’s teachings.” Dan Petersen doesn't need me to serve as his surrogate.

The Essential Elements of BBS

Based on the remainder of Alan's reply, I would respectfully suggest that Alan doesn’t understand BBS. Alan calls on us to "put away [our] consultant behavior observation cards and start to engage the people who are trying to behave safely." This might be a useful strategy but it’s not BBS. It sounds more like a selective behavioral approach that involves picking and choosing the aspects of BBS you agree with and dropping the rest, a kind of selective logic whereby you rationalize your own approach to a common, industry practice based on your beliefs or preferences.

Whether you like the “cards” or not BBS is a holistic approach consisting of four essential elements:

1. Identification of critical behaviors;
2. Gathering data upstream before accidents occur using peer-based observations, self-observations, etc.;
3. Provision of feedback; and
4. Using data to remove barriers. (Reference the BBS model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full_BBS_model.jpg).

The Link between BBS Programs and Accident Prevention

Even the title of Alan’s story, "The ABCs of Human Behavior Can’t Fail. . . They Just Are!," while it makes for a good headline, is highly susceptible to challenge as a matter of principle.

A study by R. Agraz-Boeneker, W.A. Groves and J.M. Haight defines BBS as "an approach designed to improve safety in the workplace by concentrating efforts in the behavior section of the safety pyramid” as defined by Earnest (Earnest 1985). The approach involves observing behavior and detecting “at-risk” or unsafe activities, followed by directing or modifying behavior to achieve safe operation (Geller 1996, 1997, 2001).

According to the study authors, BBS programs have often been defended by safety professionals, quality experts and psychologists. But they have “not been systematically evaluated to examine relationships between incidence occurrence and the implementation of the program." The Agraz-Boeneker, Groves and Haight study shows that the number of observations made per day wasn’t related to the number of incidents.

What would be valuable would be for Alan to offer commentary on are the findings of this study. But to simply state that “The ABCs of Human Behavior Can’t Fail. . . They Just Are,” is not only unsubstantiated but just plain wrong.

Conclusion

I stand by my point that BBS isn’t as theoretically sound or practically effective as its many defenders in our industry represent it to be. But don’t take it from me. Read the sources for yourself and form your own opinion. If you want information about alternatives to BBS, check out the following. And, remember, as with all things in life, when making up your mind, always consider the source:

• Tom Smith, Mocal  http://www.mocalinc.com/id31.html, http://www.mocalinc.com/id14.html;
• Frederick Herzberg and Donald Eckenfelder, The Antidote for Behavior-Based Safety: The Virtues and Vices Associated with BBS and The Cure;
• Alfie Kohn, http://www.mocalinc.com/id23.html, http://www.alfiekohn.org/managing/cbdmamam.htm;
• Roger Hild, http://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/behaviorism.html; and
• William R. Uttle, The war between mentalism and behaviorism.

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top