Behavior-Based Safety News

Does Your Behavior-Based Safety Process Make the Grade?

2006-04-25T12:46:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have found myself doing many more sessions on the benefits of behavior pinpointing to increase the success of safety programs. This has been due, in part, as a response to some powerful industry safety leaders who have mistakenly equated measurement with behavior-based safety. Although measurement is a hallmark of a good behavior-based safety process, what is measured and how it is measured defines whether or not you are truly doing behavior-based safety. Put simply, if your behavior-based safety process focuses on tracking traditional outcome measures of safety such as lost-time accidents and recordable injuries, involves a “root cause” analysis of incidents or near-misses when they occur and banks on a pre-work discussion of safe operating procedures to address these issues, you are not doing behavior-based safety. So, please don’t call it that.

Behavior-based safety focuses on the measurement of behaviors—anything a person says or does. In contrast, injuries, near misses and property damage are the products of behaviors. They are things that people “leave behind.” To be successful in preventing injuries, we should pinpoint both outcomes (results) and behaviors, but place the focus on behaviors.

For example, we may pinpoint a decrease in eye injuries as a result we are striving to achieve. In order to ensure our success, we would then pinpoint the behaviors we need to increase that would prevent eye injuries, including the use of eye protection, positioning oneself out of the line of fire of debris, etc. Pinpointing both behaviors and results will most likely lead to success. This is especially true when we embark on an employee-driven behavior-observation and feedback process to measure the critical behaviors. Behavior observation, done by employees in the field, is another hallmark of behavior-based safety.

So, I urge you to be weary of programs that call themselves behavior-based that do not: a) explicitly pinpoint and measure behaviors, b) base decisions on observed levels of safety behaviors, and c) involve the workforce in making formal behavioral observations in the field. For example, programs such as PASS, observation processes focusing on conditions, or reward programs that do not let you quantify the frequency of safe versus at-risk behavior do not truly qualify as behavior-based safety. These programs are, indeed, better than doing nothing, but do not maximize the potential of a workforce’s involvement in safety.

Finally, we apologize for the delay since our last posting. Schedules have prevented monthly postings. However, we do pledge to put up at least one new article per quarter, including an article on the impact of “response effort” on safety. So, check back often. Also, please contact Dr. Boyce directly with article suggestions or for more information on the defining characteristics of behavior-based safety and for a discussion of how you can get a leading-edge customized Behavior-Based Safety process started in your organization.

Happy Holidays, Thank You, and Congratulations!

2005-12-23T08:25:00.000-08:00

The Center for Behavioral Safety would like to take this time to wish everyone who has taken the time to visit our website and read our on-line newsletter a Safe and Happy Holiday Season. We appreciate those clients with whom we've had the pleasure to work and look forward to continuing our relationship with you and your world-class safety efforts. We also look forward to working with the many new clients who have contacted us and for whom we will start our implementations of Behavior-Based Safety in 2006 and beyond. We are grateful to everyone who has entrusted us with a part of their safety efforts and look forward to producing many successes in the years to come. Put more simply, thank you for your business and commitment to safety.

Speaking of successes, congratualtions to Center for Behavioral Safety client, Newmont Mining Corporation's Lone Tree Complex for receiving the Nevada Mining Association's Award for Best Safety Record. We would also like to congratulate those individuals from Center for Behavioral Safety client's Barrick Goldstrike, Inc., Coeur Rochester, Inc., and Newmont Mining Corporation for the individual awards they received for outstanding contributions to safety. Keep up the great work and thanks for your support of safety in your respective organizations.

Finally, please continue to check our website throughout 2006 for the latest news and tips on Behavior-Based Safety. If you would like to suggest a topic for our newsletter or simply have a question or comment to make, please contact Dr. Boyce directly at ted.boyce@cbsafety.com

We wish you all much success and happiness in the New Year!

Communication is a Key Component of Safety Success

2005-10-28T07:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Valued Reader:

I apologize for the delay in this posting. Demand for our work has been tremendous and thus time has not allowed for insightful articles since our previous post. (Speaking of which, if you have not yet requested your free copy of the article on Supervisors' Role in Safety, please do so right away.) Regardless, it is real-world experiences, together with our systematic research of Behavior-Based Safety Principles, that allow us to share the knowledge that we do. So please stay tuned and check back regularly as I will document the experiences of myself and my clients as I am able and as they are applicable to helping you improve your safety efforts.

Recently, I was in Florida during the landfall of hurricane Wilma. I must say, that although there has been a lot of bad press regarding preparedness for hurricanes, I felt entirely safe in the hotel in which I "holed up." To the credit of the hotel staff, they were outstanding not in only in the plan they had, but also in the COMMUNICATION of that plan. Specifically, prior to the arrival of Wilma, a memo was placed in my room with all relevant instructions to stay safe and secure. This was followed by a phone call to be sure I had received and read the memo and an offer to answer additional questions. Throughout the storm they provided updates on all that had been communicated earlier and finally allowed us to know when the storm had passed and it was safe to leave our room. Moreover, during the storm they provided free in room movies to keep hotel guests entertained. This functioned as a positive reinforcer for staying the room, the safest place for us unless evacuation to a common area was necessary.

Granted, Florida has had a lot of practice in the past couple of years preparing for and dealing with hurricanes. However, this does not undermine the quality of the work done by the hotel staff and the IMPLEMENTATION of their plan. I was in safe and knowledgeable hands and thus it was easy to follow instructions. And, because of their effective communication the instructions were clear. In short, I trusted their intentions and their abilities. In my eyes, this type of trust is the definition of authority derived from respect. Thus, it should not surprise you that NIOSH research in which I was involved indicated that TRUST is the biggest predictor of a successful safety process!

The lessons for our industry-based safety processes are the following. We must learn from our experiences. And, we must communicate those experiences effectively. Effective communication is the key to successful implementation of any safety process and the creation of new more rewarding safety experiences. Multiple methods of communication will enhance the strength of any message. (In the case of my experience with this hotel they communicated both in written word and spoken word). Moreover, if we communicate with respect our message will be even stronger. Respect requires that people trust both our abilities and intention to use those abilities for a need beyond themselves. And, finally, we must make safe behavior worth while (reinforce it) because it often competes with other behaviors that may provide more positive, immediate, and certain consequences (see our previous posting on positive reinforcement). The reinforcement component in the current example is illustrated by the in room entertainment provided by the hotel to keep guests in their rooms (difficult for people who are often in resort communities to take advantage of what the area has to offer).

In my opinion, the key difference between my experience with this hotel and those who are less satisfied with how the hurricane situation is/was handled boils down to communication. Like others, I was inconvenienced by the storm, but I did not feel inconvenienced because of the experience created for me by the hotel staff. My situation was no different than the one in which employees feel inconvenienced by safety rules because of high production demands. Thus, you too can overcome this obstacle if you can effectively create new more rewarding safety experiences for those employees who seem inconvenienced by safety. Given the power of communication in doing this, I will be posting a future article on effective communication. So, please check back often.

To close, I'd like to thank the hotel and hotel staff for keeping me safe during hurricane Wilma. I would recommend their service to anyone who is interested in being treated with dignity and respect. Best wishes and safe days. Sincerely, TED BOYCE

Contact Dr. Boyce for Jul/Aug Article on Defining Supervisors' Role in Safety

2005-08-10T20:25:00.000-07:00

A Message from:
Thomas E. (Ted) Boyce, Ph.D.
President and Senior Consultant
Center for Behavioral Safety, LLC

Dear Reader:

I appreciate your loyalty and thank you for continuting to visit the Center for Behavioral Safety website. During my travels this summer, I wrote an exciting new article entitled: "Safety Involves Everyone; It's Just the Behaviors that Are Different." The article, which contains illustrations and is too lengthy to post here, is available upon request. For your FREE copy, please contact me through the Center for Behavioral Safety website on-line form at www.cbsafety.com or directly via e-mail at ted.boyce@cbsafety.com

I look forward to serving you and encourage you to visit our website often.
Sincerely, Ted Boyce

Just Because It’s Called a Duck Doesn’t Mean it is a Duck!

2005-06-06T06:04:00.000-07:00

A Brief Note from Dr. Boyce:

To make-up for not being able to post an article in May, this month's post is an extended article with several lessons. Although I will continue to make every effort to make monthly posts, I thank you for understanding how my travel schedule sometimes prevents an article from being posted. Happy Reading!

This Month's Article:

The Background
I recently taught a University Based Course for Industry professionals. I’m pleased to say that my initial inspection of the student evaluations of the course indicated that they thoroughly enjoyed the course content and my style of instruction. For most of the students, it was new information, for a couple of others “a good refresher.” Ironically, it is those for whom the course was described as a “refresher” for whom I think the course will be of the greatest benefit. Let me explain.

The principles of behavioral science are often taught by non-behavioral scientists. These are people who throw around terms and teach them imprecisely. For students of these non-behavioral scientists, Behavior-Based Safety will not likely produce the results that it could, and those with less than successful experiences will abandon the techniques as unsuccessful. Unfortunately, it is these students who will hold onto techniques for which there is no scientific basis simply because they “sound good.”

Consider the behavior of the Supervisor of one of the students who described the course as a “refresher.” Specifically, the Supervisor was anxious to get students’ feedback on their experiences in the course. He obtained feedback from precisely one student. And, consistent with what my mentor, Scott Geller, calls a “premature cognitive commitment,” I suspect that the Supervisor asked the student leading questions that just confirmed a prior expectation.

That is, before the course started, he had expressed to me “We here at XYZ company (not their real name) have been using Behavior-Based Safety for several years. I want to be sure that we’re not talking down to our employees and that they get some good information.” I assured him that we would provide value-added information for all participants in the class and that I would not “talk down” to anyone. I believe, for the students with experience in the techniques I teach, that the value-added information would include the correct use of and more technical understanding of the techniques they had be using for “several years.” And, by extension, the ability to use the techniques more effectively and to address a broader range of issues would likely result upon returning to the site.

The Lesson
There were several problems with how this Supervisor handled the gathering and giving of the feedback in this situation. First, he sampled exactly one student (there were 10 enrolled in the class along with an outside reviewer). Secondly, he sought information that confirmed his pre-existing beliefs. In psychology, we call this a “confirmation bias.” Thirdly, he did not send the feedback directly to me (nor did he copy me on the e-mail he sent to a larger group of people without my knowledge--I was forwarded the e-mail by a thoughtful colleague). Thus, he “criticized” publicly and didn’t even involve the target of the criticism! Fourth he used the most inappropriate feedback technique known to the behavioral sciences…the “feedback sandwich.” Specifically, he started with a general compliment (the student rated the instruction a 9 on a scale of 10 being excellent—this is consistent with data from the objective course evaluations). Next, he criticized the course content as simplistic, and course instruction as “over the top.” (I do have an energetic and entertaining presentation style. However, in more than a decade of instruction, I’ve never been accused of being over the top. Moreover, I’ve received awards for my instruction.) Finally, he ended the e-mail by complimenting the “great start to the program.” For the record, the problem with the “feedback sandwich” is that it sets up the initial compliment as an antecedent to punishment which is then weakened by the final compliment! Under these circumstances people work to avoid compliments because the expectation is that there will always be a “but.” And, having employees who work to avoid compliments is one of the most hazardous things that a supervisor of people can do.

To get to the point, anyone with a good understanding of Performance Management, (the course I was teaching) would not ever use this technique for the reasons just stated. Additionally, with the emphasis that Performance Management (and behavior-based safety) places on measurement, he would have never jumped to conclusions without first seeing the data obtained from ALL students’ in the course. Moreover, he would have sent the feedback directly to me and also not have sent it to a public forum.

With this being said, I’m pleased that this Supervisor’s employees attended my class and learned the right way to use Performance Management. Given that the Supervisor’s behavior is an indication of the skill at which his organization is using these techniques, it’s no wonder they keep looking for something “more sophisticated.” Put simply, they’re not achieving the success that they could with the techniques they claim to be using, because they’re likely NOT using the techniques correctly. And, in my opinion, “more sophisticated techniques” will just dig them deeper into the same hole. Put simply, without a fundamental understanding of the principles I taught in this course, his organization won’t use “more sophisticated” techniques correctly either!

The morale of this story is: just because it’s called a “duck” doesn’t mean that it is a “duck.” It must, of course, “walk like a duck, talk like a duck,” etc. This Sponsor’s behavior indicated to me that he has implemented the techniques of behavior-based safety only in name and not in true practice. In fact, his handling of this feedback only confirmed what I suspected in class, that the students he sent were the ones in most need of the course I taught. The unfortunate thing is that it is sometimes more difficult to “undo” something taught incorrectly than to teach it correctly the first time. I’m grateful to this Supervisor for making my point for me. And, I wish him and his organization the best of luck in getting on “the right track.” Please be careful to do it right the first time. Otherwise, in the long-run you will spend more time undoing the damage you create.

Industry Case Study: Applying Positive Reinforcement Effectively

2005-04-08T08:17:00.000-07:00

In our February article, I described the importance of focusing on the positives to get positive results. In essence, if you look for the good things people are doing and let them know that you like it when they do that, they will be more likely to continue doing it. So, if we want our employees to value safety, we must make it valuable by recognizing safe behavior when it occurs. If we ignore it as a condition of employment and praise production or some other aspect of our employees’ performance, then it will always take a back seat to that which we are praising.

Praise is a social consequence that is very powerful in settings where employees feel they are generally paid a fair wage for their work. When it produces and increase in the behaviors that produce it, praise can be said to be a reinforcer. This month I want to describe a successful application of positive reinforcement that builds on the basic concept of praise. It is a process that avoids the common errors of delivering positive reinforcement in that the consequence can be delivered immediately after the behavior occurs (or while it is occurring—recall we need to create a dependency between the behavior and the consequence), can be delivered with a high enough frequency to be relatively certain, and will have significance to the employees who earn it. Finally, it can be put in the hands of the front-line employees and managed at peer-on-peer level. The reinforcer to which I am referring is a Thank You Card, backed-up with a formal letter of appreciation placed in the employee file.

A large outdoor facility with whom I work had been making behavioral observations (see October and November newsletter articles for a review) for a few weeks and had identified safe driving as a target for performance improvement. The team of hourly employees steering the process decided to activate safe driving with an information and poster campaign and subsequently to reinforce safe driving (e.g., safe speed, use of turn-signals, use of appropriate horn-signals when driving on site, complete stops, use of day time running lights, and safety-belt use, etc.) when it was observed. The reinforcer selected was a “formal thank you,” a process I had researched and identified as effective when I was a graduate student at Virginia Tech (contact me if you would like a copy of the published research report documenting this early study).

The thank you card used at the facility being described was designed to include a list of each of the driving targets that could be checked-off. As a result, each recipient knew exactly what he or she had done to earn the thank you. Specifically, during the course of an observation, if safe driving was observed, the observer approached the driver as soon as possible and handed them the Thank You Card, noting the safe behaviors observed. (Please note, a lot of driving occurred at this facility. Observers did not pull drivers over when the car was in motion, but either signaled via radio to a guard shack at the gates where the vehicle would have to stop, or if they were following the safe driver in their own vehicle at another destination upon arrival—e.g., a parking lot. Thus, neither drivers nor observers were inconvenienced).

The unique characteristic of this “thank you” program was that receipt of 5 Thank You Cards resulted in a safe driver badge that the recipient could where on their uniform or display in their vehicle. Furthermore, 10 Thank You Cards triggered a formal letter of appreciation and a certificate signed by the facility general manager. The letter of appreciation was sent to the employees home and copied to the employee file. Finally, it was considered as “extra-credit” during regular performance reviews. In essence, it served as the positive counterpart to a formal written reprimand.

The Thank You Card process became known, in a playful way, as the “backseat driver program” and was generally embraced by employees. It was successful in getting employees talking more about safe driving, communicating to each other when things could be improved (immediate correction) and, as importantly, when safe driving was observed (immediate positive reinforcement). It increased the safe driving behaviors being targeted and as a result, during the course of the program, no driving related injuries occurred. Moreover, property damage costs in this fleet of light trucks were reduced by a factor of 10 (i.e., from approximately $2500 per month to less than $250 per month).

To summarize, positive reinforcement works when it can be applied frequently and immediately after the behavior you want to increase. Involving employees in creating a program that they can manage will make this possible. Moreover, positive reinforcement doesn’t have to cost much. In most facilities where employees are paid well, the social positives work best when they are applied correctly. The Thank You Card program described here is an artful application of this concept that capitalized on the positive counterpart to already existing formal policies. We will build on these concepts in our article next month. So, until next time, consider what you can do to make a positive out of some formal policy structure you may have that isn’t producing the results you want.

Back On-Line Next Month

2005-03-16T17:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Valued Reader:

Because of a hectic travel schedule, Dr. Boyce has been unable to finalize this month's post. We will be back on schedule during the first week in April. In the mean time, please feel free to e-mail Dr. Boyce directly at ted.boyce@cbsafety.com with your questions and comments. Also, please visit the Center for Behavioral Safety website at www.cbsafety.com for additional helpful information.

We appreciate your loyalty and interest in behavior-based safety. We look forward to continuing to serve you. Finally, we apologize for any inconvenience the delay in posting may have caused.

Focus on the Positives to Get Positive Results: Using Behavioral Science to Get Off the Safety Plateau

2005-02-03T07:51:00.000-08:00

In our December article, we described why people do what they do in terms of events that come before behavior (antecedents that direct) and events that come after behavior (consequences that motivate). The active ingredient is the consequence and people will behave either to avoid unpleasant consequences or to receive pleasant consequences. Given this analysis, enforcement can be seen as an antecedent-consequence relationship we call a threat (antecedent) of a penalty (consequence) given some behavior that we don’t want to occur. This will work, but generally produces only the minimum behavior necessary to avoid the penalty. We call this compliance.

Compliance is exemplified by the fact that the threat of a ticket for speeding does not motivate us to drive the speed limit, but rather just under the threshold for getting the ticket (often 9 mph above the speed limit!). So, although some control is produced, we don’t tap into what behavioral scientists call “discretionary behavior” (the potential for improvement represented by the 9 mph liberty we often take). Additionally, a characteristic of enforcement is that compliance often occurs only when the threat of the penalty is imminent (e.g., when we see the police officer parked on the side of the highway with a radar gun pointed in our direction). I believe an over-reliance on enforcement at the expense of recognizing good behaviors is a major contributor to the “safety plateau.” Additionally, if we don’t acknowledge the good things people do and always point out their failings, we create people who don’t feel good about themselves and who are less motivated in general.

To avoid these problems when managing people, we must learn to use positive-focused consequence management. That is, we need to create an antecedent-consequence relationship that is a promise (antecedent) of recognition (consequence) for good behavior (i.e., behavior we want to occur again). When the application of the positive consequence results in an increase in the behavior that produces it, we call the process positive reinforcement and the consequence a reinforcer. Reinforcers can be either social (e.g., a thank you) or material (tangible rewards, money, etc.).

To understand reinforcement you must realize that it is defined by its effect on increasing behavior. In contrast, rewards may be seen as pleasant, but may not necessarily produce the behavior change we are seeking. An advantage of positive reinforcement is that it helps us tap into the range of discretionary behavior that enforcement does not, and also produces more enduring behavior change (and behavior that occurs even when the “enforcer” or reinforcer is not present). Put simply, positive reinforcement helps people to feel better about themselves and jump starts the “internal motivation system”—the ability of people to self-reward. This is the core of building responsibility or self-accountability. Personal responsibility is the key to getting off the safety plateau.

The most common mistakes that people make when trying to reinforce behavior include failing to identify effective reinforcers. Also, if they have identified a consequence that will serve as a reinforcer, they likely don't use it often enough or soon enough after behavior. Finally, people fail to create a dependency between the behavior they want to increase and the positive consequence. So, to jump start personal responsibility in your organization, first identify reinforcers that can be used frequently and immediately. Also be sure to create a clear relationship between the behavior you want to reinforce and the positive consequence you use to reinforce it. Next month I will describe a successful application of reinforcement in industry that will help you to apply positive consequences more effectively. Until then, look for the good things people are doing and tell them right away that you appreciate it when they do that. They will perform those behaviors more often.

Happy New Year!

2005-01-09T19:37:00.000-08:00

Dear Valued Reader:

Due to the Holidays and a hectic travel schedule, this Month's post will appear as part of the February article. Please check back often as we'll resume a regular schedule next month.

Thank you for your patience. Happy New Year!

Using an Understanding of "Why People Do What They Do" to Promote Safety Improvements

2004-12-01T13:24:00.000-08:00

Last month I described the foundation of behavior-based safety, behavior-focused observation and feedback. Additionally, I provided some details on the essential characteristics of the observation card to be used by employees as part of a solid behavior-based safety process. If you will recall, the observations work not only to help employees look-out for one another and increase awareness, but as importantly, to produce the behavioral measures of safety. This month I will introduce the basic behavioral science understanding of “why people do what they do,” the foundation for promoting safety improvements in areas you’ve identified with your observations.

The ABCs of Safety Improvement

A major aspect of behavior-based approaches to safety focus on systematically studying the effects of various interventions on target behaviors by first defining the target behavior in a directly observable and recordable way and then observing and recording occurrences of these behavior in their natural setting. Interventions are implemented to change the behavior in beneficial directions once problem spots are identified. Interventions typically involve modifying or changing the importance of the antecedents and/or consequences of specified target behavior(s). The figure below depicts this arrangement and is often called the “ABC model” of behavior change.

Antecedent (Activator)-----Behavior-----Consequence

---------------------------Person---------------------------

Antecedents or activators, such as safety signs, education/training, rules and policies, come before behavior and are said to direct behavior. That is, they tell a person what to do. Activators are useful when it has been determined that safety problems are a result of workers not “knowing” what to do. Activators can get behavior started, but in most instances, are not sufficient to keep behavior going. Consequences, such as feedback, praise, rewards, and penalties come after behavior and are said to motivate behavior. That is, people generally behave to get pleasant consequences or to avoid unpleasant consequences. Consequence interventions are best when people know what to do, but don’t do it regularly. Finally, the “person” component represents experience. People will behave consistent with what their past experience has told them. That is, if in the past they have received positive consequences for a behavior, they will behave. On the other hand, if in the past that behavior has produced negative consequences (or no consequences) they will not behave. Thus, consequences provide the foundation for durable behavior change. And, we have the power to arrange the work environment to change people’s experiences with consequences. Consider that the most effective activators are reliably paired with the most effective consequences, those that are Positive, Immediate and Certain (PIC). We can create such an arrangement with our behavior-based safety process!

Let's consider an everyday example to understand the power of consequences in determining behavior. When the phone rings (activator), a person will be motivated to answer it (behavior), if on balance his/her experience suggests that someone he/she wants to talk with (positive consequence) is on the other end. He or she would be less inclined to answer if rarely someone they wanted to talk with was on the other end (uncertain consequence) or if he/she had to wait a significant time to speak with that person after the phone rings (delayed consequence) or if only people he/she didn’t want to talk with were calling (negative consequence).

One reason I don’t answer my phone between 6-8 p.m. is that my experience has told me that my friends and clients do not call at that time. Rather, it’s usually someone who wants to sell me something. And, I don’t like talking to sales people. This is a negative consequence of phone answering for me. Thus, you can see, even though the activator has not changed (i.e., my phone rings the same way between 6-8 p.m. as it does during other times), the consequence has (i.e., positive, immediate, and certain during most of the day and negative, immediate, and certain between 6-8 p.m.). Thus, as can be predicted by the consequence, a different behavior occurs. Specifically, I work to avoid the negative consequences typical between 6-8 p.m. (no phone answering) and work to get the positive consequences typical the rest of time (very consistent phone answering).

The same principle can be applied to safety-related behaviors. That is, just as I can predict my phone answering behavior during the majority of the day, we can create a system of positive consequences that will produce occurrences of safety-related behaviors that are just as reliable …once we’ve implemented the behavior-focused foundation of our process. In other words, behavior-based observation and feedback becomes the vehicle with which we can, not only identify areas in need of improvement, but also to apply positive consequences effectively so we can produce real and measurable behavior change. This is truly powerful stuff when done correctly.

Next month I’ll take up the issue of why enforcement is not sufficient to make your facility the best it can be in promoting safety success. I’ll also address common pitfalls to avoid when using positive consequences to motivate employees. Until then, jump start improvements in safety by informally applying the power of positive consequences in your facility by “catching people doing the safe thing” and thanking them for setting the safe example. If you’re sincere about your thanks, and you attach it to a specific behavior, provide it right away, and provide it often, you’ll likely see dramatic improvements in behavior by this time next month.

To close, all of us at CBS would like to wish you and yours a Safe and Happy Holiday season. See you next year.

Pinpointing Behaviors and Designing an Observation Card: A First Step in Cultivating the Human Side of Safety

2004-11-02T08:06:00.000-08:00

Last month we described the importance of focusing your safety efforts upstream from the traditional measures of safety typically used to evaluate safety success in industry. The suggestion, from the perspective of behavior-based safety, was to create a system in which you can measure on-going safety-related behaviors. Moreover, it was recommended that you involve employees in the process of measurement by having them make peer-on-peer behavioral observations.

This month, I’ll describe the common characteristics of a Critical Behavior Checklist that employees can use to make observations of one another, as well as the importance of each of these characteristics. I will also discuss the inherent benefits to safety at your facility of having employees regularly make behavioral observations.

The Critical Behavior Checklist (CBC) is the foundation of behavior-based safety. Each CBC should have, at a minimum, the following characteristic: 1) a list of the target behaviors, 2) a column to indicate observations of safe behaviors, 3) a column to indicate observations of at-risk behaviors, 4) a space for comments, and 5) some manner of tracking the date of the observation. In the beginning, we also recommend that you include the definition of each safe behavior to ensure that everyone knows not only what to look for, but also what they should be doing to stay safe. The definitions should be as specific as possible. (This may be a topic of future newsletter!)

The target behaviors are listed on the CBC as a guide. Listing the behaviors of interest makes the observation more manageable, given that your list of target behaviors is not too extensive. For this reason, it is important that you pinpoint target behaviors correctly if you expect to see results. Because making observations is likely a new activity for most employees, it is important that you keep the effort at a minimum. As employees become more comfortable with the process, we can require more effort because they have become more expert.

The columns for safe and at-risk observations provide the method by which a “percentage of safe” behavior can be easily quantified and placed on your feedback graph. As a result, an upstream picture of where you stand on certain safety issues can be obtained. And this allows you to concentrate your improvement efforts where they are needed most.

To score both safe and at-risk behaviors also provides an opportunity for employees to recognize safe behavior when it occurs, or alternatively, correct at-risk behavior when it is observed. The process of immediate feedback can be a powerful safety improvement tool that is built right into your measurement system. Thus, you are evaluating your current levels of safety from an “elevated” baseline, but this is OK, because improvement is what we’re after. So, we shouldn’t be concerned that the measurement system itself will work for us this way.

A space for comments is valuable because “recurring themes” can shed light on problems that can be resolved or may even point you in the direction of an appropriate intervention. For example, if an “at-risk” observation for proper tools and equipment use is accompanied by comments indicating that “the proper tool was not available,” one could look into re-distributing existing resources so that the tools are available where they’re needed. This type of action will enable the safe alternative. Any further evidence of problems in this area would suggest a motivation problem that could then be addressed with a fundamental understanding of how to effectively motivate employees (a topic for a future newsletter).

It is important to include a date on your CBC so you can track changes in behavior over time. After all, another major benefit to collecting data on safety-related behaviors is to know if your improvement strategies are creating the changes you seek. Otherwise, you can try something else to get that improvement. In other words, you don’t have to wait until an incident occurs to make adjustments that could have been made much earlier. This is, indeed, the definition of being proactive.

Finally, it is important to note that in most cases, CBCs DO NOT contain a space for the name of the people being observed. The tendency, when this information is collected, is to start pointing fingers. In behavior-based safety, we don’t want to fault find. We want to fact find. So, names are not important. We are interested in all factors that contribute safe versus at-risk behaviors and situations so we can make the necessary adjustments to prevent the event from happening again, regardless of the employees involved. Thus, behavior-based safety must be thought of as a systems approach to safety improvement.

Aside from the practical measurement oriented reasons for making behavioral observations, the CBC serves another important function. It serves to increase safety awareness among employees and stimulate conversations about safety. When we concentrate our efforts on day-to-day safety activities, we create a work environment in which safety becomes more important. Ironically, it becomes more important as a result of us talking more about it. And, we talk more about it because it has become more important. Thus, a major benefit of your employee-driven observation and feedback process will be to communicate the importance of safety more effectively by walking the talk. That is, what is often discussed in the board room, but lost in translation on front-lines, is now communicated visibly to the employees. This will go along way in showing your employees that you care. As a result, they will care more about themselves, each other, and their work.

Next month, I’ll introduce a model for understanding human motivation from the perspective of behavioral science. In the meantime, we welcome your feedback and suggestions for other topics of interest to include in our newsletter. Please click on the comments button below to post your comment or question or e-mail us directly at ted.boyce@cbsafety.com for more information. I’d be happy to send you copies of observation cards used in various industries. Until next time, pinpoint and define on-going safety behaviors that can be measured. Then, design a simple observation card around these issues using the characteristics described here. Next, have your employees test it out and give you feedback. Finally, revise accordingly. This will be a big first step in “cultivating the human side of safety” at your facility.

How You Can Be Proactive When it Comes to Injury Prevention

2004-10-04T11:31:00.000-07:00

A Brief Case Study in Behavior-Based Safety

Most traditional safety systems focus on tracking injury-related incidents (e.g., OSHA/MSHA recordables, lost-time accidents) as a means of evaluating safety success. Although it is important to track these events, the incidents themselves are most likely the result of actions taken by one or more people. Thus, they are outcomes of behavior or lagging indicators of safety.

To be most successful in preventing injuries, we recommend that you focus upstream when evaluating safety success. That is, although it is important to track incidents, you should also measure the potential for incidents to occur. This will allow your department or worksite to make adjustments prior to someone getting hurt or property being damaged.

The best way to be proactive is to define safety in terms of on-going behaviors and measure how often employees are doing the safe versus at-risk behaviors on day-to-day basis. Of course, this will work better when you select behaviors related to the types of incidents your archives suggest occur most often.

For example, one client identified through injury records that they had a problem with eye injuries occurring during the summer months. With the knowledge that appropriate use of eye protection should prevent those injuries, they used their behavior-based safety process to measure how often employees were using eye protection in situations where it was warranted. By observing occurrences of this safe behavior (i.e., use of eye protection during critical times), they determined that levels of safety glass use were lower than expected, but only under certain conditions. With this information, they made the adjustments necessary to increase the occurrence of the safe behavior (use of eye-protection) by ensuring that employees knew when they should be using safety glasses, making the safety glasses more available (the primary source of the problem), and recognizing the appropriate use of safety glasses with positive feedback when it was observed. The result was a decrease in eye injuries. In fact, this facility has experienced no eye injuries (and saved several thousand dollars) since making the simple changes to promote the use of safety glasses. All of this was made possible by first taking steps to implement a safety system that allowed them to measure behavior. Of course, the easiest way to jump start this kind of process is to involve employees in the process of observation and feedback.

Future safety tips at this site will provide information about the characteristics of an effective behavioral observation system and also how to effectively motivate employee involvement in safety, as well as increases in employee safety-related behavior. Please be aware that re-training alone will NOT solve many of the safety problems you encounter.

Finally, we welcome your feedback and suggestions for other topics of interest to include in our newsletter. Please click on the comments button below to post your comment or question or e-mail us directly at ted.boyce@cbsafety.com for more information. Until next time, be safe and place your focus on identifying and promoting actions that prevent injuries. The outcomes you are seeking will soon follow.

Congratulations!

2004-09-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Center for Behavioral Safety Clients, Cortez Gold Mines and Newmont Lone Tree Complex, respectively, for receiving the Nevada Mining Association's awards for #1 and #2 overall best safety record.

Congratulations to Center for Behavioral Safety Clients, Newmont Lone Tree Complex and Cortez Gold Mines, respectively, for receiving the Nevada Mining Association's awards for #1 and #3 most improved safety record.

Your accomplishments are truly worthy and deserving of this recognition. Thank you for letting the Center for Behavioral Safety be a part of your journey of continuous improvement.

Welcome

2004-08-30T20:07:00.000-07:00

Dear Valued Reader:

This is the future site of the Center for Behavioral Safety Newsletter and Tip Sheet. This weblog will be dedicated to providing you with the most current, relevant, and practical information to assist you in reducing the occurrence of injuries at your organization by managing the human side of safety.

Specifically, at the beginning of each month we will post a new item of interest. These items will range in content from tips for motivating employees, increasing participation in safety, and making training more effective to summaries of current research relevant to improving applications of behavior-based safety as well as colorful and meaningful anecdotes. All information will be presented in a straightforward and easy to understand manner with recommendations on how you can start using the tools at your facility almost immediately.

Please note that we also welcome your suggestions for topics that you would like to see covered in our newsletter and encourage you to respond to the original post and other comments. The Center for Behavioral Safety will also make reasonable efforts to participate in on-going discussions where appropriate. Finally, you can always visit our website at http://www.cbsafety.com/ for more information and contact Dr. Boyce directly from the contact page of our site for a private consultation.

We look forward to serving you.