Theorists have spent over a century searching for the cause of industrial accidents. In 1926, Herbert William Heinrich postulated that most accidents are the result of unsafe acts and conditions. The Heinrich theory ruled the roost for about five decades. But in 1976, the Ham Commission challenged Heinrich's ideas as too simplistic and suggested that accidents are caused by many different causes. Let's take a quick look at modern accident theory.

Barrie and Paulson

In Professional Construction Management, Donald S. Barrie and Boyd C. Paulson explore the role of occupational health and safety in the management of engineering and construction projects. They suggest that there are a number of motivators for improved safety performance in any business or construction project. Principal among them are:

• Humanitarian concerns;
• Economic costs and benefits;
• Legal and regulatory issues;
• Liability consequences; and
• Organizational image.

While there are many and varied ways to measure the effectiveness of safety performance, many still use disabling injuries as the prime indicator of health and safety. Barrie and Paulson suggest that behavioral approaches to health and safety be considered, as well. They cite studies showing that roughly "80 percent of all industrial accidents result from unsafe acts in the accident chain, and not just from unsafe conditions." (Interestingly enough, Barrie and Paulson don't cite those studies or refer to them by name.)

A Holistic Approach

Barrie and Paulson's idea of a behavioral approach to safety encompasses more than simply the behavior of the worker. They say safety performance measurement must also account for the behavior of management and supervisors.

Barrie and Paulson are essentially saying what many in the total quality management (TQM) movement have stated: that while unsafe acts of workers are the salient cause of accidents and injuries, they are merely symptomatic of other safety management system problems or dysfunctions. Or, to repeat the words of the Ham Commission that we cited last week:

"Workmen and their supervisors at every level may act unwisely, but they do so within a system for the performance of work whose responsibility it is to set clear and supervised standards of what is expected."

The implication of this thinking is that to change workers' behavior you must first address the systemic factors within which they occur. Stated differently, what Barrie and Paulson are saying is that a systemic approach that includes management and supervisors is the only way you can effect meaningful change in workers behavior.

Barrie and Paulson give an example of a more holistic approach to behavior-based safety based on research conducted at Stanford University's Graduate Program in Construction Engineering and Management. The Stanford approach considers the many different aspects of an effective safety management structure, not simply the behaviors of workers. In four distinct studies, the Stanford researchers focus on a behavioral approach centered on top management, superintendents, project management, foremen and workers.

Conclusion

So at the end of the day, I urge all of you SafetyXChange members to ask yourself the following question: What do you think causes industrial accidents. If you respond "unsafe behavior by workers," I respectfully submit that you're living in a 1926 world and need to broaden your perspective. Accidents are best understood as proceeding from an organizational context. And, while worker behavior is often a cause of accidents, to understand why workers act the way they do and take steps to change behavioral patterns, you must consider every person at your organization from CEO to the shop room custodian.

MEMBERS' REPLIES

"Accident" vs. "Incident"

SafetyXChange received the following note in response to Part 1 of Wayne's article last week:

I absolutely cringe everytime I see the word "accident" used to refer to a workplace incident. I don't like the use of the word "accident", because it seems to denote that nothing could be done to prevent it from happening. I have noticed many corporations with evolved safety cultures only use the word "incident" because they want their employees to know that 99.9% of bad events can be prevented. I completely understand "accident" is a generic term for the uniformed masses out there, but, (and here comes the rant)when I hear true safety professionals use the word "accident", it drives me crazy. I was agog this morning to see the article by Wayne Pardy, for whom I have lots of respect, because he has done so much to advance the safety profession. SafetyXchange has an opportunity to educate both regular and occasionals subscribers, let's do so! Thanks

Greg MacDonald

Calgary

(403) 691 2967

Okay, Greg. We accept your challenge. Let's go ahead and use this discussion to educate safety professionals about the difference between "accident" and "incident." And we'll let you and Wayne do the teaching. Next week, we'll publish the subsequent correspondence between Greg and Wayne debating "accident" vs. "incident."

Glenn Demby

Editor-in-Chief

SafetyXChange

Commercial fishing: America?s most deadly occupation in 2005

INJURY TRENDS

The 10 Most Fatal Occupations

By Glenn Demby

Question: Statistically speaking, workers in which occupation stand the best chance of getting killed on the job?

Answer: Fishers and fishing workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fatality rate for this group in 2005 was 118.4 per 100,000 workers (48 total fatalities), the highest for any occupation. Here's the entire Top 10 list:

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2005, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Click on the links more information on Safety Compliance or OSHA Compliance.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top