Rank: Forum user 
|
As I think I’ve said before on here – I’m relatively new to the field of Health and Safety. I recently attended a workshop by Dr Tim Marsh on the subject of Behavioural Safety, which fired my enthusiasm. We are pretty good (or getting there) with the procedural side of things but now I’d like to tackle the “hearts & minds” side of things (or make a start anyway!) I would like to put a programme to the Board and wondered if anyone else had any experience/pointers they could share in putting together such a thing on a minimal (if not zero budget). Also if anyone has any figures that they could share with me relating to improved efficiency/lower costs/better profit after implementing a programme that would be fabulous!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have a bit of experience in running behavioural safety schemes in house at close to zero cot Madib. PM me in the new year for a chat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Same here, PM me and I can forward on the material that I use. Empathy is the most direct route to getting a positive behavioural change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would also be interested in participating in this if someone can help. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Madib,
I've recently started on this particular journey too. A couple of things strike me, firstly there is a lot of science behind this with lots of figures about how better engagement and leadership can improve safety by XX%, secondly there are a lot of knowledgeable (and expensive) consultants and costly seminars about the topic.
I have on my desk an invitation to one in Spain in February that looks great, but at £2,500 for a day its a big ask.
PM me and I'll happily send you some of the references I've accumulated.
If any people are interested in networking on the topic, especially those who have learnt by hard and bitter experience, I'll happily lay on a meeting room in London and some tea & sandwiches.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am now on version 3 of Behavioural safety so to speak, i have found that when coupled with a management system that gets the managers on the shop floor and a system that adresses Human factors it can work really well, 60% reduction in accidents in 10 months 50% reduction in Reportable accidents I suggest that you read HSG48 and some of the books by Tim Marsh- PM me if you would like to chat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi folks
I suppose that I'm one of those expensive consultants referred to in an earlier post.
Whilst I don't have the credentials of Tim March - very knowledgeable, effectyive and actually a nice bloke - I always try to get clients to start thinking of behavioural safety with this question:-
Will the [new, apprentice, or experienced] employee [differing categories have different beliefs] genuinely believe [not just say it with a wink] that the employer [manager etc] will back their refusal to break the rules and identify the wrong-doing to those who do break the rules?
If the employee perception is that this essential support is not forthcoming, no amount of schemes, training etc will ever produce the goods; no matter how it looks on paper. Management integrity in supporting the correct decision to not break the rules is essential 'cos without it you're going no-where.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Frank,
You, of course, are correct. My plan of attack (?) is management first and then roll out to the general populous. I just have to plant the seed with the Board and make them think it was their idea!!
Madi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Madib
A powerful simple exercise directly relevant to the shift in thinking associated with accident reduction is explained in an experimental research report involving about 500 workers', published by Ford, O'Hare and Henderson in the 'Human Factors' journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in June 2013.
While very simple, it's based on streams of rigorous, peer-reviewed research since 1949 and can be used at all levels of an organisation, to alert those involved about their responsibilities for protecting others (and themselves) from harm at work, that's possible but whose incidence can't be predicted precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
PL53/Johnmc,
I would be very interested also in any info you could share with me thankyou.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The question posed by Frank Hallett summarises a dilemma associated with all kinds of organisational change, not simply 'behavioural safety', when he writes:
Will the [new, apprentice, or experienced] employee [differing categories have different beliefs] genuinely believe [not just say it with a wink] that the employer [manager etc] will back their refusal to break the rules and identify the wrong-doing to those who do break the rules?
Regrettably, neither he nor anyone else mentions an appropriate corrective answer: Yes, when at least one competent team leader uses group/team meetings consistently to remind all involved of their responsibilities for safety of each other and of customers.
This simple technique, known as social identity priming, has been shown by rigorous, peer-reviewed research to reduce fatalities in civil aviation accidents (Ford and others, Human Factors, 599 - 608, June 2013).
'Behavioural safety', it should be remembered essentially means stimulating and supporting employees and workers to control risks associated with identified patterns of behaviour. The US-dominated research has dwelled far, far too much on the military top-down model of leadership implied in Frank's question. Why not develop and use fruitful approaches to promoting control of risks associated with behaviour than those blessed by Yanks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thank you Kieran - knew I could depend on you to put it far better than I.
The "top-down" approach for behavioural safety is still the predominant [but failed] approach and that was why I pointed out that my approach starts with the perceptions of the bottom of the heap.
My view of your point about "an appropriate corrective answer" is rather more blunt than yours Kieran - depending on your choice of metaphors, it's basically "Do what you say AND Say what you do"; or "Talk the talk AND Walk the walk" at all levels of the organisation.
As I'm feeling just a touch inflammatory today - I have a view that pretty much any violation has a supervisory failure behind it - discuss!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Frank Hallett wrote:Thank you Kieran - knew I could depend on you to put it far better than I.
The "top-down" approach for behavioural safety is still the predominant [but failed] approach and that was why I pointed out that my approach starts with the perceptions of the bottom of the heap.
My view of your point about "an appropriate corrective answer" is rather more blunt than yours Kieran - depending on your choice of metaphors, it's basically "Do what you say AND Say what you do"; or "Talk the talk AND Walk the walk" at all levels of the organisation.
As I'm feeling just a touch inflammatory today - I have a view that pretty much any violation has a supervisory failure behind it - discuss!
Frank Hallett Arguably, any violation has a supervisory, managerial and leadership failure behind it, that said, could it be that there are some people who are very hard to influence regardless? Even then I know we should identify these people beforehand. Certainly within some highly regulated areas where there is known good selection, training, supervision and leadership, such as the rail sector, the frequency of a SPAD (red light violation) is so rare (say one in a million) that I would argue that sometimes an employee will sometimes get it wrong all by themselves.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A very practical way in which safety practitioners can contribute to sustainable control of risks associated with behaviour is to contribute to the design of appraisal systems for managers which include their management of safety. After all, when you think about it, where a manager's safety leadership is not included in his performance appraisal, why should she 'walk the walk as well as talk the talk'? Where the organisation's system for appraising her performance is actually in conflict, it's no wonder that so-called 'behavioural safety' fails when in reality, it has been merely confusedly talked about, with or without consultants, expensive or otherwise.
While competent HR professionals commonly take a lead in this matter, they need informed support from OSH practitioners to design the dimensions of appraisal validly in reasonably simple, straightforward ways.
It's reasonable to predict that by 2017 arguments about effectiveness of badly designed 'behavioural safety' will look back at much of what's been going on in this area in the same light as arguments about operating systems for desktop computers in the 1980s, when Ms Dos began to supercede CPM systems. They were useful in the pre-GUI (graphical user interface) days, but now only of interest in introductory courses on ergonomics of human-computer-interaction.
Likewise, militaristic 'top-down' styles of 'behavioural safety' are likely to be viewed as 'sad' as much as 'bad', accordingly as the upheaval in 'safety competency systems' being cultivated by Jan Chmiel begin to surface for debate later this year. At the London Met meeting on 14.1.2014, he repeatedly compared this change to the one introduced into the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in 2009/10 and is now transforming the HR profession, for good and forever. In Chmiel's language, the safety profession's dilemmas are often about the focus on being 'safety police' rather than 'business enablers', and blaming the media is not a sustainable remedy.
These developments can provide the platform for enhanced status that so many OSH practitioners desire yet they'll also require upgrading in skills of statistical design and analysis, necessary for conflict handling and negotiation, than are commonly on show in the OSH professional magazines at present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A substantial method of reducing difficulties associated with developing systems of managing risks associated with behaviour is the process of 360-degree appraisal. In essence it involved managers receiving feedback, mainly on their communication and decision-making behaviour, by people in a position to observe them regularly. This includes those senior to them, peers and reports who are well-placed to rate them on the extent to which they do or don't 'walk their own talk'. As ratings are anonymous and confidential, and administered online, fears of reprisals for valid feedback are avoided.
There are several well-validated examples of 360-degree appraisal, of which that offered by Psychological Consultancy Ltd. is one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Some good points KD - I think good top level leadership is a pre-requisite, behavioural safety will not work unless the CEO or MD agrees - that doesnt mean its top down but will make sure the path is smoother.
My thoughts are that our models of leadership across business with regard to safety are often outdated. The leading developments in the HR community are about developing transformational leadership skills, but if you consider the recent joint HSE/IoD guidance on safety, or even many of the directors safety courses available they are very transactional in nature.
Directors 'do' because it is what is expected, but without knowing 'why'. With no understanding of the safety paradox, impact of communication or the need to allign words and deeds they will forever just be going through the motions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yep, Corfield
Going beyond the 'motions' entails understanding shared social identity.
Chmiel may well have what it takes to raise the game of the safety profession beyond expectations, no kidding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.