The NVVK Conference 2019 carried the title: “What am I going to do differently?” The title brings to mind a cartoon in which the speaker asks the audience, “Who wants change?” Everyone raises a hand. Then the speaker asks, “Who wants to change?” All hands stay down. In a nutshell, this cartoon reflects the most crucial issue in contemporary safety science. We are willing to work toward higher safety and we recognize behavior as a key perspective. What we lack, however, is a clear picture of how to bring about change by changing our own behavior.
The roots of safety science
The Industrial Revolution brought many changes. As a by-product, it also introduced new and significant hazards that demanded a response. It was not until shortly after World War II that safety science matured as a discipline. Since then, major progress has been achieved—largely attributable to new technology (such as crumple zones in cars) and stricter rules (such as alcohol controls).
The shift toward behavior
About 30 years ago, it became clear that we also needed to invest in safe behavior. Behavior, however, is far more resistant to change than technology or rules. The first approach aimed at changing behavior was Behavior Based Safety, rooted in the learning theory of B.F. Skinner, using feedback as the mechanism for change. This approach treats the human as a black box and assumes the cause of behavior is irrelevant. Targeted rewards and punishments are used as change instruments. Behavior Based approaches work well for changing a specific behavior pattern (for example, always wearing safety glasses). However, appreciation for the method declines the more often it is applied—the approach has limited durability.
Safety culture
A very different approach focused on safety culture. The assumption here is that behavior stems from deeper, collectively shared values within the organization. By changing these values, different behavior is expected to emerge. Unfortunately, the relationship between values and behavior is weak. Many religious institutions today illustrate how large the gap can be between proclaimed values and actual behavior. Despite numerous culture measurements, no reliable link has ever been established between those results and future safety performance.
Falling back on the familiar
In the absence of convincing successes, many organizations have shifted the emphasis back to rules (Cardinal Rules and Life-Saving Rules). Even the final paragraph of incident investigations often focuses on adjusting rules or communicating them—again. This movement is directly related to the difficulty of changing behavior. Technical changes can be delegated to specialists. New rules can be drafted by experts. Changing behavior, however, is something we must do ourselves. The greatest challenge is that we need to change something we are barely aware of.
First understand, then change
The premise of Brain Based Safety is that behavior can only be changed once we understand how it arises. As long as we do not understand why a mechanic puts his hand into a running packaging machine, we miss crucial information needed to prevent that behavior. The foundation of Brain Based Safety is a reference framework that explains why employees are willing to seriously injure themselves while the apparent gains of risky behavior are limited. Available research has been used to implement this framework.
Where is the lever for behavioral change?
Zohar and Luria (2005) reviewed more than 50 studies examining how organizational safety can be influenced. Their conclusion: employees behave more safely when their perception of their direct supervisor changes. The more employees believe their supervisor prioritizes safety over other goals, the safer their behavior becomes. Andrew Hale and Frank Guldenmund (2010) concluded that investing in supervisors appears far more effective than investing directly in employees. In other words, the first-line supervisor is the key lever for behavioral change.
What helps supervisors change?
Supervisors are only human. They, too, have limited awareness of the unconscious sources of their own behavior and often hold an overly positive self-image regarding leading for safe behavior. When asked, they struggle to identify which changes in their own behavior would lead to safer behavior among employees. Without such insight, change is difficult. Supervisors benefit from deeper knowledge about how behavior is formed in general and about their own influence in particular. Knowing one’s current position also helps—good feedback provides a starting point for change.
Which tools can be used?
Brain Based Safety has developed a support package specifically for first-line supervisors. This includes a theory of leadership for safe behavior. The theory forms the basis for a subsequent book (mid-2018) describing which leadership behaviors effectively elicit safe behavior among employees. In addition, leadership trainings are built on this theory. A 360-degree feedback can support the creation of a personal development plan. Finally, there are trainings for safety professionals focused on supporting and embedding the learned skills. Within a few years, we hope to scientifically demonstrate that this package contributes to safer organizations.
Juni Daalmans
September 2018