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, we'll look at a possible resolution to the cognitivism/behaviorism controversy.

GO FIGURE

College students & drunk driving is not funny

College Students and Alcohol

By Catherine Jones

Question: What does this figure represent?

2.1 MILLION

Answer: That's the approximate number of college students between the ages of 18 and 24 who drive under the influence of alcohol in a one-year period.

Here are some other drinking statistics for college students between the ages of 18 and 24*:

(*Source: US Federal government's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism)

14 PERSONAL SAFETY TIPS

For College Students

By Catherine Jones

The NIAAA statistics above are sobering - particularly for parents sending their child off to the first year at college. For many young people, this is the first time they've been solely responsible for their safety and security. And excessive alcohol consumption affects everyone, even those who are not drinking.

Many of us right now are helping our sons or daughters prepare for college. Sometime before they leave, share these 14 tips with them to help them stay safe on campus:

And here's what parents can do:

For more information on how to talk to your college-age sons and daughters about the consequences of college drinking, visit http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov. The site has many helpful resources, including facts about alcohol poisoning, an interactive diagram of how alcohol affects the human body and alcohol cost and calorie calculators.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top