Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Brando
Looking for some help on behavioral safety systems.
Systems like STOP and others revolve around safety observations. You conduct an observation and correct unsafe behaviours. But you never mention the person you have corrected.
One of our Managers has said that you should mentions names. His logic being that as we have 800 people working different shifts the Managers might be correcting the same person over and over again but as a name is never mentioned they don't spot this ( they may only correct the person once ) and are therefore unable to offer the person more in-depth help and training.
Long shot but has anyone dealt with this?
Brando
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi Brando,
Yes, dealt with this type of issue before.
If line managers and others are observant any frequent issues with the same employee should be picked up.
If you zone areas of observation, you can see if certain issues arise, even if names aren't mentioned. You can then have a discussion with the line manager/supervisor who is responsible for H&S in that area.
No one ever said that it has to be blameless. You can go through the coaching, support, extra training etc. etc. but if someone won't follow the rules continually (which is normally a very small minority) then they can be disciplined as long as it is all applied fairly and as per your employment rules.
Remember that you could view persistent non-complaince as an indication that the rules are either too difficult to comply with or poor management, or indeed a mix of the two.
Happy to give ideas if you want to email me with any specifics.
All the best
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brando
Ian
Thanks for your comments.
I have worked with STOP and other systems for some years but always on sites with a well developed safety culture.
My new site is less well developed and to a certain degree has a "blame" culture which I am trying to move Managers away from ( agree, people must be disciplined etc but by blame culture I mean employees automatically getting hit with the big stick rather than corrected and encouraged to act safely ). Hence, I have argued that names should not be mentioned on safety observations.
I guess the real challenge is to increase the Managers awareness and this will only come with time.
Have you had to implement one of these systems from scratch into a company with a poor safety culture? How long did it take before you began to see some benefits?
The "claims culture" ( for want of a better term ) is also very strong here - basically along the lines of "have an injury = get some money". This has led the employees to taking the attitude that good safety is not their responsibility!!!
Brando
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
Normally, behavioural safety is implemented when the other two aspects have been "sorted" and are mature, i.e The hardware(equipment) and Software (HSE management systems)
It will be extremely difficult to get a "buy-in" from the employees unless the behavioural safety implementation is seen as a transparent/open system that aims to change at risk behaviours to safe behaviours by using feedback from observing both at risk AND particularly safe behaviours.
By naming the observed person, there is a huge risk of being seen to be assigning blame and that is just not on!
Yes, if there are safety concerns such that require formal line manangement/supervisory "corrective/disciplinary" type action need to be taken, it should not be dependent upon the behavioural safety observations!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
1. Who is supposed to do the "naming" ? H&S, supervision or any manager observing an unsafe act ? I hope it is not H&S (name the supervisor or the manager by all means. But not the PBI)
2. STOP used to start by "STOP for Managers" and later became, in addition to SfM, "STOP for Supervisors" So Supers and Managers (is that S&M ?)are Bound to be seeing who the Naughty Boys (or Grils) are and should be prepared to exercise appropriate Disciplinary measures, if called for. But you have to be Strict.
3. I hate STOP. Over the last 40 years I've had it done to me. I've translated it into a foreign language then done it to others. I advised the STOP revision/update team. I later had to flog it to others (no, we are not back to the S&M)
Sups and Managers in a STOP programme often have a target : two unsafe acts or unsafe situations identified per week. which means they have to identify at least two people to criticise every week. Totally negative.
More modern BBS programmes observe for specific SAFE BEHAVIOURS. Those individuals or teams seen to be improving their rates/frequencies of safe behaviours are recognised, rewarded and reinforced.
Much more user friendly and efficient.
Stop me and buy one.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brando
Merv
Agree with most of your comments.
The system here uses a checklist of common unsafe behaviours based on those observed here in the past - not a generic form like STOP.
I am also pushing the Managers into the positive re-enforcement frame of mind - not easy as most people seem to look for the bad before the good ( if they look for the good in anything at all ).
I don't hate STOP though - I have seen it work well. But I can understand how it can be used badly.
Brando
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Brando,
getting better if you are being specific rather than generic.
Do you have any specified end- or reward-points in your programme ? Or do you just hope to go on doing the same thing every week until you reach zero ?
I push for progressive improvement objectives. Which means you have to measure the baseline : how safe/unsafe are we now ? And then set the improvement objectives.
Say the baseline is 50% (safe or unsafe) then a decent objective would be 15 points better (65% safe (my way) or only 35% unsafe (the other way))
100% safe is often unrealistic. Particularly with STOP where the STOPpers have the objective of finding fault.
The really important point is to recognise and reward team efforts to build safety. (coffee substitute and fat/nut/gluten/sugar/dairy free dougnuts supplied by senior management, with congratulations)
End/Reward points are when the team meets it's objective. Then you change the objective : Onward and Upwards ! (or downwards)
STOP does work in certain cultures. But it cannot beat managers, supervisors and colleagues helping each other to be safe and healthy. RahRahRah ! (Recognition, Reward, Reinforcement)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Brando
With support from management I have seen behavioural approaches deliver good results within 12 months (such as 65% drop in injury rates). The difficult part is sustaining improvements once you get past the initial curve.
I think Merv is right in some ways; obviously somewhat bitten by past STOP experiences.
I have seen it used successfully, but only where there is an involved, committed and somewhat enlightened management team.
It is hard to give specific advice unless you understand the complete culture and nature of a business. I fervently believe that H&S performance is purely an outcome of many different business factors that come together, so in essence, treating safety performance alone is only treating the symptoms of business structure, systems and leadership ethos.
The observation tool should also act as an indicator of other factors that affect performance. I often find that you need to translate good H&S performance into something tangible for the business. For example: if we get X performance over the next 3 years it will save us £X cost of accidents which equates to 10 new excavators/ovens/lathes or whatever is relevant.
It is often a slow and frustrating task but it should come right over time.
Good luck
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brando
Merv, Ian
Thanks for your comments - very interesting.
The "rewards" issue for Managers is a big one and something which I have not fully considered as yet. I think they need some incentive to keep putting the effort into the observations but I always struggle in this area.
As for targets - I was going to run the programme for a month and then review the results setting a "target" for the end of the second month.
Thanks again
Brando
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Let's not forget to praise SAFE behaviour. Behavioural safety is NOT about unsafe behaviour - it's about managing behaviour, and a good system will emphasise the positive aspects at least as much as the negative aspects.
Getting back to the subject, when I have initially implemented such systems, I started with "anonymous" with the prospect of going onto naming later.
In addition, in my view safe and unsafe behaviours should be picked up routinely by all supervisors and managers - STOP, SUSA (etc) should not be the only way of managing behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
Brando
I have used STOP for supervisors, and I hear what Merv says and to some extent he is correct, but when observing look for safe behaviour, not just for at-risk. Praise the person for safe acts and then discuss what can be improved by then mentioning the at-risk behaviour.
We are now starting on STOP for each other for employees to observe their peers. Will let you know how we get on.
Important thing is no names. If someone is observed regularly breaking rules, then it may require disciplinary action, but do not link this with STOP. Must be kept separate. Quoting names on STOP cards, then does become blame.
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dominic Cooper Hi All There is a white paper on www.behavioural-safety.com that details the effects of differently designed behavioural safety processes. It is based on all the published research to date, and contains a few surprises (even to me!!) Merry xams Dominic
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.