As we saw last week, there's been a long raging debate among proponents of behavioral-based safety between two approaches called cognitivism and behaviorism. Last week, I briefly described the cognitivist approach and view of safety. Now let's look at the behaviorist side.

The Behavioral View

The cognitivist believes that safety training should target safety-related attitudes, beliefs and values with the intention that persons will have an insight or discovery that will allow them to recognize the fallacy of their thinking and that this will eventually translate into safe behaviors. The behaviorist sees it as working the other way around. Teach behaviors first and attitudes and values will follow, they argue.

Accordingly, behavior-based training is designed to teach people a discrete set of behaviors to follow when carrying out particular tasks or functions. The goal is to make the correct or safe behavior a habit. Once the person develops the habit, the intent is that he/she will also develop a belief in the value of the behavior. At least that's the theory.

Behavior-Based Training

In practical terms, behavior-based training generally involves the observation of employee work behaviors by other employees. First, desired safety behaviors and practices are identified and then the person is trained in these behaviors. Once the observation process starts, behaviors are classified as safe or unsafe and constructive feedback is offered to the person being observed.

In some BBS processes, feedback isn't given on the job but the unsafe behaviors are later discussed anonymously in safety meetings with the hope that people will get the message. The problem with this is that it allows the employee to work unsafely until the meeting is held. What happens if the employee never gets the message?

Employees are expected to form new habits over numerous repetitions of safety practices observed, and, it's believed, the observations and feedback will cause people to become more aware and more safety-conscious and perform their tasks using prescribed procedures and personal protective equipment. In some BBS processes, specific safety issues and concerns will be uncovered and addressed.

Both parties tend to benefit from the observation process - the employee being observed and the observer. The observed employee may act more safely during the actual observation, and in the process discover or be reminded of how he/she should act. By observing the employee, the observer learns to recognize safe and unsafe behaviors and applies these lessons to his/her own job.

Safety Incentives

Some behaviorists advocate the use of safety incentive programs. Reward employees with a token gift, money and the like, and you'll get them to think more about safety and follow safe work procedures. In our view and based on the experience of many clients, these programs are, at best, a short-term solution. Although most people like "rewards," safety incentives generally provide only a temporary stimulus. They don't help employees develop safety-related values because most see the value in the "reward" rather than in the behavior and how it promotes the person's own safety. When the incentive stops, in most cases, so does the behavior.

There may also be negative side effects with offering incentives. For example, it might pressure individuals or groups to cover up or hide injuries to avoid loss of the reward.

Shortcomings of the Behavior-Based Approach

Another problem with the behavior-based strategy is that it's best suited to discrete countable behaviors; it doesn't work well with complex behaviors in which people can't rely on what they've observed and had reinforced to make decisions. In practical terms, this means that people don't necessarily generalize, that is, apply what they learned during training to new situations on the job or the performance of functions outside of work. Stated differently, they don't learn how to "think safely."

Next week, in Part 3, Mr. Topf proposes a resolution to the cognitivism/behaviorism controversy.

TRAINING BLOOPERS

True stories of experiences trainers wish they could forget.

THE PARTY CRASHER

By Phillip Wells

Several years ago, I was a safety supervisor at a steel foundry. We had just achieved a long-sought major goal: One-million hours worked without a lost time accident. We planned a major celebration.

The day of the celebration arrived. The president of the multi-million dollar corporation was present to thank everyone for their safe work practices. Three-thousand production employees, along with all other employees and city administrators, gathered around the flag pole in front of the administration building to receive thanks and a piece of cake to celebrate the accomplishment.

After the celebration ended, an employee fell while returning to his work station. In the process, he sustained a broken leg and had to miss work. Needless to say, this put quite the damper on our celebration.

Phillip Wells has over thirty years of safety experience in manufacturing organizations, growing up in the early days of OSHA when he says the primary concern seemed to center around clean restrooms and how high a fire extinguisher was mounted above the floor. Mr. Wells feels that both he and OSHA have come a long way.

SHARE YOUR BLOOPERS

If any of you have a war story you'd like to share with members of the SafetyXChange community, send it to me, Catherine Jones, at catherinej@bongarde.com. Let me know if you want us to use your name or preserve your anonymity.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top