Jeff 30 yrs at the same company and I can't take credit for the implementation as I was on the other side of the fence in a union role.

Our BBS is as much a part of our H&S management as process safety, human factors, permit systems etc. There are no incentives because, as an earlier contributor said, it drives the wrong behaviours.

The journey hasn't been without problems. The initial introduction was aimed at management and supervisors. It was only when the whole workforce had the opportunity to become observers that it really made an impact.

As said the process has evolved and is more focused on coaching in its current form but the principles still apply.

Btw. The statement that your employees won't understand the process or will think your better than them is absolute nonsense and, frankly, insulting to employees.

I agree. Who said that? Wasn't me.

This mirrors my journey John although across different companies and unions.
You have to take some credit because you recognised the benefit of the initiative when in the union and then sustained it for 20 years as an H&S bod. Agree on the incentives front, counterproductive and divisive.

I think Hilary mentioned semantics but semantics are important in that people say BBS but mean the range of things you describe or they say BBS and could mean an unsafe behaviour observation and counting initiative.

I still am not sure what people mean when they say "We do BBS" without asking them "What's that?" and having a long listen.

The term may be evolving but I take it to mean
1)an observation, recording and staff feedback system when unsafe behaviours are observed. A bit like Du Pont's STOP of yesteryear.
Or
2)Some form of group training where the idea of risk and how we all process info differently is openly discussed and the staff discover that; their attitude to risk may be different from their colleagues, effects of peer pressure on an individuals decision making, group think and other human factors. This hopefully ends with a much clearer understanding by everyone about what is acceptable safe behaviour and give them a 'relevant set of tools for understanding' (a heuristic) risk and unsafe behaviours that they otherwise would not have considered and may have fallen victim to. In other words saying wait instead of OK when faced with a choice that may have very negative consequences.

I usually think Type 1) when people say BBS and consider Type 2) not as BBS myself but just good awareness and risk training.

Type 3) is the felt visible leadership style of management having a set number of safety conversations with staff where the manager starts it off and then listen to the worker. I think of this as BBS when someone is selling the training to you and you go out and do it because your boss tells you too. When it happens naturally I just think of it as good management practice or being human.

Just my opinion and my reality from my experience. I like dogs and don't like cats doesn't make me right or wrong.

I hope the OP sees that there are different opinions on the effectiveness of BBS and how it is handled.

My personal opinion is that Observation and Feedback systems are ineffective because human behaviour is far too complex, non linear and predicated by too many extraneous factors beyond the employers control to be modified by a straightforward alert to the person that they did something wrong.
Safety conversations that delve deeper and foster respect by making the workers lot better are to be praised. But I don't think of that as BBS; it is just a well executed risk and ergonomics assessment because it includes user experiential knowledge to guarantee a result that works for company and staff.

Kind regards

Jeff

Now I'm confused.

If you said the term behaviour safety to a bunch of employees they would not not what that meant (specifically) without being told. Most would be able to understand with an explanation but an explanation would be required (which is what would happen on a training course).

Aaron,

Compliance culture is more about written systems, rules, regimes for equipment repair etc.

A more cultural approach is defined by employees taking responsibility for their own safety, and driving improvements themselves.

I consider behaviour as an output, and part of a broader framework of the culture of an organisation, with inputs such as leadership, employee engagement, as well as systems and work environment that will strongly influence the culture.

To develop the culture beyond rules and systems, then first check that the basics (systems, rules and environment) are OK and then cast your net wide, and consider leadership of safety and employee engagement in their broadest terms.

Some focussed work on assessing the safety climate might help,. as this will inform you where the gaps in culture might be, and this leads directly to the specific things that you can do to improve the culture, and that will then hopefully influence employee behaviour.

1 Professor Dominic Cooper states in his 2010 book ‘Behavioural Safety: A Framework for Success’: ‘The major underlying reason that 99 percent of all Behavioural Safety processes fail is a loss of credibility.’ A 1% success rate does not seem all that impressive.

2 In the HSE Martin Anderson’s (HSE Hazardous Installation Division) paper ‘Behavioural Safety and Major Accident Hazards: Magic Bullet or Shot in the Dark? He states:

‘The author [Mr Anderson] proposes that the causes of personal safety accidents may differ to the precursors to major accidents and therefore behavioural safety programmes may draw attention away from process safety. Furthermore, the tendency is to focus on individuals and fail to address management behaviour, thus excluding activities that have a significant impact on safety performance.’

It appears that process safety might need a different approach.

3 Speaking in his role of Director of Health and Safety for the Olympic Development Authority, Lawrence Waterman said at the 2009 Allen St John Memorial Lecture:

‘I am proud to be working on the construction programme for London 2012 [Olympic Games construction], and there is a huge health and safety challenge to be faced – major projects in recent years that have had deservedly lauded safety programmes were nevertheless responsible for people going to work in the morning and not returning to their families at the end of the day. Such workplace fatalities are not the result of people freely choosing to put themselves in harm’s way. It’s not mountaineers and Formula 1 drivers but ordinary workers who are put at risk by poor planning, inadequate procedures, limited training, cost-cutting maintenance and a host of other failures within organisations which were the responsibility of their directors and managers. The wholehearted embracing of behavioural programmes shouldn’t blind us to the fact that most accidents can be prevented by better management of work.’

4 From the publication of ‘Managing Safety’ by the HSE in 1981 to the present day, a series of their reports indicate that around 80% of accidents can be attributable to a failure in managerial control. Around 13% can be attributable to the injured party themselves.

5 Many unions are wary of BBS: UNITE has a specific initiative in opposition because they believe workers often get the blame for supposed ‘at risk behaviour’; it narrows the views of workers to only look at the obvious; and it distracts from rigorously applying the general principles of prevention that should be applied within the risk assessment process – it is the law after all. However BBS is an expensive way to get people wearing PPE – last resort in control hierarchy – and maintaining a tidy workplace.

Also the trade union officers get a bit upset over the widespread illegal activity of employers in relation to the rights employees have to be consulted over health and safety issues. The HSE estimate that 60% of the employees in the Britain are not consulted over health and safety issues that they are entitled to by law. Yet enforcing the law is not an option being considered by the HSE.

6 Trade unions have delivered the most effective worker ‘behaviour safety’ initiative ever undertaken in the history of the UK, in co-operation with employers. As noted in the HSE’s Strategy launched in 2009:

‘Workplace research provides evidence to suggest that involving workers has a positive effect on health and safety performance. Equally, there is strong evidence that unionised workplaces and those with health and safety representatives are safer and healthier as a result.’

In response to this the HSE has spent £2.5 million on trying to recreate the successful TUC/union safety representatives training for non-union reps and joint training for reps and managers. The materials of the pilot courses are now free to download from the HSE site by anyone with an internet connection.

7 Harvard Business Review ‘The Twelve Attributes of a Truly Great Place to Work’: 19th September 2011: More than 100 studies show ‘…. engaged employees …. are significantly more productive, drive higher customer satisfaction and outperform those who are less engaged.’

8 In Prof Löfstedt’s Report he referred to worker involvement:

‘Boosting the responsibility and involvement of employees has the potential to bring about significant improvements in health and safety in the workplace.’

Of course the review remit [identify H&S burdens only – not solutions] meant he could give no recommendations on how to achieve the potential for ‘significant improvements in health and safety’.

9 How many observations of ‘at risk behaviour’ will be needed to address the causes of the estimated 12,000 work related ill-health deaths?

10 As an alternative to Hienrich’s rather partisan analysis of insurance claims, why not read Dale Carnegie’s ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’. (October 1936) and reconnect with how to inspire people and motivate them to do good things by, for example, treating them with respect. [Note: Not the respect in the construction sector where 3,200 workers were illegally blacklisted for their trade union and health and safety activity.]

People Support What They Help Create.

Hello. Is anybody out there? Hello. Hello. Is anybody listening?

Nigel

Yes - the basics need to be in place first (easier then it sounds)

If your staff are complaining about the state of the rest-room, the lack of clear support and systems for work, the condition of work equipment or the quality of management communication then 'behavioural safety' is an aspiration for the future.

John J - the quote is on page 140 after: 'The above example shows how a well designed and executed Behavioural Safety process can be turned into a train wreck!'

Speaking of train wrecks ...

Invictus - not reading the detail is quite a common approach. Apparently Richard Branson was the only one to read the tendering documents for the West Coast rail franchise - now giving Virgin trains and First Group back £40 million of taxpayers money is just the start of a very costly reading failure.

Details - just to much of a hassle!!

Cheers.

Nigel