Posted By Robert K Lewis Simple - Its been badly done - the methodology commonly used utilises people making fixed observational judgement on correct or incorrect behaviours - It will only work so long before people rebel. Real cultural change is much more about motivating team and peer loyalty and mutual support in safe behaviour. Bob

Posted By Raymond Rapp Lumpy The TUs have been opposed to the concept of BBS mainly because it tends to transfer the blame from management to the individual(s) worker. There are many examples good, bad and indifferent. You might like to try the archives of Hazards Magazine, who did an interesting article on the subject a couple of years ago. Only this week I was talking to a chap who works for a large public utility and he described the process in his company where the company donate money to charity. The inital figure donated starts quite high, but drastically reduces for each and every accident reported. Clearly, the end result is not that which is pledged and is in my opinion immoral. It can also have the effect of driving underground the reporting of accidents and near misses. Ray

Posted By Allan St.John Holt To answer Lumpy's original question, the unions and others including myself have severe reservations about the ethics of setting people to 'spy' on other people. The other issue that has not been mentioned is that an behavioural programme needs to come after all the physical hazards have been properly controlled, and not as a substitute. Management too often fall into BS programmes with relief that someone has just confirmed their view that safety is only a people problem. What we need to achieve, of course, is people behaving safely in a safe environment. We don't need a situation where these are (even subconsciously) treated as alternatives. I am aware that BS programmes come in many forms, and the above objections may not be universally applicable to the newer programmes. Allan

Posted By Lumpy Thanks for your postings. My concern is that I have yet to find one TU that accepts that BS has anything positive about it. Every TU site seems to be opposed to the BS approach ... full stop. I believe that, like any initiative, there are pros / cons, my problem is that the TUs don't seem to recognise any pros. If you look at HAZARD magazine, as suggested by Ray, every article is very negative. We have seen a 55% reduction in our accident rate over the last four years, but we seem to have bottomed out. The HSE estimate 80-90% of accidents are due to unsafe acts (86% within my organisation), so I am looking at anything that may have an impact in this area, and that includes BS techniques. Trouble is I have very strong Unions and I very much doubt they will even enter into consultation. They will instead promote the negative amongst the workforce which will make implementation (if we go down this route) impossible.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Lumpy Your expanded version of the issue has more to do with 'management of change' than about Behavioural Safety as such. In this light, here are four suggestions to consider: a. explore the possibility of introducing behavioural safety into an area like preventing musculo-skeletal disorders, where few other methods can be as effective b. enlist an occupational health/safety psychologist who is interviewed jointly by you and trades unions to check his acceptability to both 'sides' c. Read a good guide to the psychological tripwires in management of change, e.g. chapter 5 of 'Change in Organisations' (P Clarkson, Whurr, 1995), which classifies the 4 forms of barriers to change. Using Clarkson's model, what you are talking about may not be the 'danger' barrier but those of confusion, conflict and lack of understanding; they each require different approaches. d. applying Clarkson's model or otherwise, enable the specific trade union people you have to work with to move beyond the beliefs which colour their perceptions, to agreement to testing out shared values in a pilot project with a few employees in an area where the manager is supportive. In this way, both management and trades unions share the risks involved in learning.

Posted By john fitzgibbon Sorry to be negative, but in my experience it is a waste of time and provides very little in terms of outcome (this includes "cultural shift" etc). It does however provide a rich new seam for the consultants devising the programme and an associated set of new buzz words for the H&S dictionary. It is like the Emperors new clothes,if he says they look fine....... That is my opinion, however on a more positive note HSE Contract Research Report 430/2002 entitled "Strategies to promote safe behaviour as part of a health and safety management system" prepared by the Keil Centre offers a more quantitative (and more balanced!) view - available as a pdf via the HSE website.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Well, Kiernan, you're not debating yourself, rather stating a position. I did put 'spy' in quotes, because that's what people have described it to me as feeling like, though I agree it's an emotive word which does not describe the process well. But I would argue that I have seen no evidence that BS practitioners are aware of some of the ethical concerns. I know personally at least six large employers who have taken to a BS approach precisely because their beliefs are confirmed that if only people were more careful and 'behaved properly' there wouldn't be any accidents. My intention was to supply an answer to Lumpy's question, which was to ask why unions in his experience are hostile to the concept. I wasn't attempting to debate the merits or otherwise of the BS approach, which of course has its plus points as well, but overall I think the acronym is quite apt... Personal views only, of course. Allan

Posted By Merv Newman I've just read the "hazards" article and am rather disappointed that the authors have taken such an odd position. They appear to believe that "BS" is being substituted for the "usual mission of the occupational safety professional - identifying and taking measures to remedy hazards by elimination, substitution, investment in new safety plant, introducing engineering controls, product modification, hiring of more staff, introducing better, more worker-friendly work organisation or other measures to make the job, the whole workplace, better and safer" If this were the case, then I would be more in agreement with them. However, in our experience, it is not so. As a consultant I started with Safety Management Systems (SMS) and my "usual mission" was defined exactly as above. The only BS I knew about at the time was the Dupont STOP programme. (more on that later) About 10 years ago I got interested in BS, studied up, got trained by one of the experts and, with his backing started offering BS as a "next step" to our SMS clients. Eventually after a successful 2-year SMS project one client started BS as an add-on to existing programs and systems. That is, I strongly believe, the only way to approach the subject. Research has shown (I can send you a copy of the paper) that there are three main areas involved in building a safety culture ; a) the phsical work environment, b) the management of safety, c) the human factor. The interactions between these three areas are so strong and frequent that no one or two of those areas can be treated separately. They should all be treated simultaneously preferably on the continuous improvement spiral. The "usual mission" defined above appears only to take into consideration the first two of these areas. The article takes time to denigrate the theory that 80-90% of accidents are caused by unsafe acts. Fine. I don't like that theory either. However I would be more inclined to say that a "human factor" can be found, amongst causes related to the work environment and to management failures, in 80 to 90% of accidents. BS programs generally work to alter the actual or perceived consequences of certain behaviours. Those consequences can be negative or positive (punishment is a negative consequence). Negative consequences for unsafe behaviour - a fine for speeding - are very inefficient unless their probability and importance are reinforced. Which is why we see so many speed cameras around and why the fines get higher and higher (and people still excede the limits) Ensuring positive consequences for good, safe behaviour is much more efficient and long lasting. People look for the smile or a few words of praise, confirmation that the way they are behaving is appreciated by their colleagues and by management. Unfortunately the average manager knows only how to criticise and to punish unsafe behaviour. They do not know how to praise and reward, and therefore reinforce, safe behaviour. A typical manager will walk straight past a "safe" worker in order to spend some of his valuable time with someone not wearing an item of PPE. And what happens when the manager turns his back ? Off comes the PPE. The worker who has made that little extra effort to be safe is ignored. Even people who are, say, 95% correct will find themselves jumped on because of the odd 5% and no mention will be made of the 95% Tell me, if your wife/husband/significant other/mother had made a real effort to prepare a pretty good meal, what would happen if all you could do was criticise it as not being up to the standards achieved by your previous wife/husband/significant other/mother Unions, when they hear the words BS, tend to think immediately of "spying and looking for someone to punish". Certainly in some of the older BS programs this is exactly the methodology. Supervisors are actually given a weekly quota of "tickets" to complete, reporting infractions or dangerous behaviours. In response to these BS programs people adopt pre-defined safe behaviours for fear of the negative consequences. Or else. Many other BS programs go the other way : Employees are involved in defining safe behaviours (see my previous posting on this thread). Positive consequences - praise, thanks, rewards are obtained by groups which meet their own improvement targets. The safe behaviours are adopted because people want to obtain praise thanks and rewards. (and I'm not talking cash here) The latter programs are more successful and user-friendly as there is an enormous difference between what we do as a minimum to avoid negative consequences and what we can do if we really want to. I could go on all day about this (and I do, quite often)

Posted By Merv Newman Ray, thankyou. I am delighted to see that you are in total agreement with my point of view. Merv

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In relation to the question initially posed by 'Lumpy', available evidence indicates that 'behavioural safety' can be very cost-effective to manage many kinds of hazard if, and only if, sufficient conditions are created to make it work. In relation to Raymond's observations, the development of the CIRAS programme at Strathclyde University was designed to address the problems he refers to, both by relevant research and by educating the managers to function more flexibly and get to grips with latent errors. While CIRAS works on the principle of confidentiality, the pragmatic methodology involved is evaluated in 'Safety Management: A Qualitative Systems Approach', J Davies et al., Taylor and Francis, 2003. As the critical difficulty appears to lie in creating conditions which make genuine behavioural safety possible, I wonder to what extent this discussion may indicate the value of a half-day workshop about constructing the basis for a pilot behavioural safety programme in the kind of environment 'Lumpy' and many others work in.

Posted By Merv Newman Ray, quite right, it's the vacation period - nothing to do until the end of august. I can agree with the hse assertion that 40% of accidents are directly linked to "design" problems. But there is never a sole unique cause of an accident. Latent errors such as design or management problems are quite often "triggered" by human behaviour. Thus the three main areas of accident causes ; design or work environment, systematic failures and human behaviours can be found to be implicated simultaneously in the great majority of accidents (80% anyone ?). Occasionally, I feel, only two of these factors may be implicated. Rarely, if never, I feel, is there a sole unique cause of an accident. So, as said above, we need to deal with all of the three areas of injury causes simultaneoulsy. And that includes BS. Now to mow the lawns.

Posted By Andy Petrie I attended a presentation last week on 'rule compliance' and attitude change. It is a research project that has been carried out by the RSSB (Rail Safety & Standards Board). It stressed that attitude change was vital in order to get people to comply with rules (wear your hard had, drive at the speed limit, follow the procedure etc.) It is a longer term process than BS but gives better results. The report is to be published on the RSSB website in the next few weeks so look out for it.

Posted By Patrick Connett Having carried out a quick review of the discusion, I have the following to offer based on my experience as a manager successfully implementing BS into a significant branch of a multi-national, and more recently as an independent consultant. Unfortunately, In my experience uninformed management often view Behavioural Safety programs as the universal panacea and want to short-cut the process to get results. Unless there are already active safety management systems and processes in place, behavioural safety will fall at the first hurdle, as BS is a progression of a continuum, not an alternative system. Before introducing BS, the company culture must be ready for it. As a minumum, there must be a culture of open and honest dialogue, a no-blame culture (failures are learning opportunities), and management must be prepared to spend money to correct those conditions which trigger bad behaviour. Unless these three basic conditions are met, failure is assured. When I initially introduced BS in 1999, I used a diagonal slice team of volunteers from across the organisation. I made it clear that I was just another member of that team and acted as more of a coach - the team made the big decisions. We engaged everyone in the organisation to ensure they knew what BS was all about and would be expected of people. We gave everyone a short seminar on the reason for feedback, and on how to receive feedback in a non-defensive manner. We trained observers to give feedback in a constructive and non-judgemental manner. Anyone who came onto the site was also given a short introduction. We went through the 'spy' scenario at first, but the way the interventions are made is the key. Fully engaging the other person and getting their point of view is essential. You don't have to be an expert in a process to be able to discuss the behaviours involved - you just need to be able to ask the right questions. By the time I left the organisation at the end of 2003, BS had taken on a life of its own, with everyone giving everyone else both positive and negative feedback on their behaviour. This happened at all levels, from shop floor upwards. We created a culture in which people felt they had a right, and were expected to give feedback (in effect a 'brother's keeper' culture). The consequence was undoubtably an improved safety performance. So where are the main pitfalls? BS is a high maintenance intervention - it has to be on the agenda at every meeting in the organisation. Metrics have to be published regularly - what gets measured is important to the organisation. Things which trigger negative behaviours must be identified and must get fixed (and they cost money)! Behaviour change does not happen overnight - constant coaching has to be performed until the desired results are met. As Safety Behavioural change measurement is a leading indicator it is hard to convince the sceptics that safety performance is improving as a direct result of the intervention.

Posted By Merv Newman Rules, good bad or indifferent, enforced, respected, understood or whatever form only one part of the "management" of safety, weaknesses in which are one of the three major sources of accidents. while we are on the subject of rules, and procedures, there are, again, three significant categories of rules and procedures : 1. Archeological - covered in layers of dust and dirt, haven't seen the light of day for years. Requests to consult them result in lengthy digging in remote unpopulated areas. (time team could be useful here) 2. Virgin - untouched by the hand of man. (with apologies to any male secretaries out there) - designed by a committee, typed, copied and distributed by a secretary, received and immediately filed unread by another secretary. 3. Time-worn - covered in dirty fingerprints and coffee stains, heavily creased, probably incomplete and out-of-date. These will be the only procedures known to employees and probably followed by them. Got the lawns cut yesterday. Had time for a glass of chilled rosé on the terrace. (it's the wrong season for G&T) Cheers, Merv

Posted By Merv Newman 4%, 4%, 92% ? No, No, No ! "in 80% of accidents causes are found which are linked to the work environment. In 80% of accidents causes are found which are linked to management failures. In 80% of accidents causes are found which are linked to human behaviour" Thus for the great majority of accidents there are multiple causes. "Change attitudes so as to change behaviours ?" No, no, no ! An article in the HSP some years (1998 ?) ago quoted a nationwide publicity campaign in the UK building industry to change attitudes to safety. Apparantly the injury rates after the campaign were higher than before. I understand (can't quote the sources) that research has shown that attitude change is an internal thing and is little influenced by outside influences. In any case attitudes are extremely difficult to measure reliably. However, behavioural changes can be changed by external influences and can be observed and measured. Also, when a person has changed their behavioural habits they find internal justification for having done that. That internal justification eventually results in an attitude change to the behaviour. There are none more assiduous than the recent convert.

Posted By Lumpy Wow ... who would have though that one posting would have prompted so much debate. For me the positives have won, and I will be investigating BS in more detail..... but to compliment our existing systems rather than the be all and end all. Lumpy

Posted By Robert K Lewis As I said the cake can be cut many ways, depending on where you start. My reasons for doing it the way I do is because they are essentially the functioning items of any culture People Laws and regulations and codes Tools and things used The final central hub around which they all revolve is the leadership, which is what tries to keep it all turning in the appropriate direction. As two items are inanimate it is left to the people who have a choice to try and "antagonise", in a technical sense, the whole system in order to challenge the accepted leaders path. As I say we all have to find our own approach based on the principles of change. What my cut says is that by concentrating on people I can bring about the largest benefit in accident reduction. Even with perfection in the other two areas 92% of accidents are theoretically likely to occur. There is some spillover however and attacking the other two will heighten awareness and bring some change in people, probably about a 30 - 50 % figure on previous experience, but not the 90%+ that we really need. Bob

Posted By Merv Newman Bob, Patrick, I think that we are all in pretty good agreement. No more arguments from me. El nino, I have previously met up with a BS organisation which "trains trainers". Often people straight out of university who can't get a proper job. (one of our ex prime ministers went to mckinsey on the same basis. Look what happened to him !) Obviously they only train them to present the BS part of safety and, as they have never lived in the real world they are going to take their employer's word for it that BS is the one and only way to do it. Did you actually get your money back ? If you are still looking at BS despite the negative comments, I have three books on my shelf which you might like to look at : Aubrey C Daniels "bringing out the best in people" Terry McSween, "The values based Safety Process" Dominic Cooper, " Improving Safety Culture" You can probably get them through amazon Merv