What Are Your Workers Doing When Nobody's Looking?
A culture that promotes employee-driven safety changes
safety attitudes and performance.
When
workers are taking risks when nobody's looking, there's a problem with the
safety culture—one that can be cured with a shift to an employee-driven safety
system.
The
goal of an employee-driven safety is to change employees' perceptions,
attitudes, beliefs, and values about safety so that their behavior changes as
well.
Behavior
change is fundamental to the employee-driven safety process. When employees are
driving safety, you don't have to worry what they're doing when you're not
looking because their co-workers will be looking and watching for unsafe
behavior.
Behavior vs. Engineering Controls
Does
this mean that employee-driven safety, with its emphasis on behavior, runs
contrary to the hierarchy of controls?
No,
it does not suggest that behaviors are more important than engineering
controls. Organizations have to strive to engineer hazards out and eliminate dangers
for employees. But, as you know, it isn't possible to eliminate all hazards.
Employees are always going to have to make choices. There will always be
something that people can do wrong.
Engineering
controls still come first, but controls such as rules and procedures that
address behaviors are also extremely important.
Remember
that workers may not fully appreciate the risks of the work that they do
because it is so familiar to them and that is reflected in their behavior. They
may believe that they understand the job well and that they have everything
under control. But sometimes we overrate risks that we think are not in our
control and underrate risks we're familiar with—and that's dangerous.
Antecedents and Consequences
Employee-driven
safety systems incorporate some aspects of behavior-based safety. One important
concept from behavior-based safety is that we make choices about our behavior
based on two things:
- Antecedents, which are background beliefs that set up our beliefs about safety
- Consequences, whether positive or negative
For
example, why does someone not wear gloves when handling a toxic solvent? Look
at antecedents and consequences:
Antecedents might include:
- Low risk perception
- No training
- No one wears gloves
- No one gets hurt
- Not worried about long-term cancer risk
- Gloves not readily available
- Gloves uncomfortable or not convenient
Negative
consequences might include:
Injury/illness
Risk
of reprimand (but if that never occurs it won't convince them to wear gloves)
Positive
consequences might include:
- Injury/illness avoidance
- Avoiding discipline for noncompliance
- Recognition for wearing gloves, prompting conformity on the part of those who aren't wearing gloves
No comments:
Post a Comment