Actively caring influence

Attempting to Influence another person s behavior in desired direction (for example, rewarding or comecting feedback, demonstrating or teaching desirable behavior, actively caring coaching)... 

Imagine a workplace where everyone coaches each other about the safest way to perform a job. When workers depend on others in this way to improve safety, they understand teamwork. They appreciate how everyone s safe and at-risk behavior influences the safety of everyone else. With this interdependent attitude, they re willing to use behavior-based coaching to actively care for their coworkers. 

Section 4 of this Handbook addresses the need to increase actively caring behavior throughout a culture and to get the maximum safety and health benefits from this type of behavioral intervention. Psychologists have identified conditions and individual diarac-teristics (or person states) that influence people s willingness to actively care for the safety or health of others. I shall present these and link them to practical things we can do to increase the occurrence of active caring. 

I was able to support and to reward those who were already buckled up and to influence some drivers to buckle up. In other words, realizing the special value of behavior-based actively caring enabled me to get more benefit from an environment-focused strategy with very little extra effort. This behavior-based effort was particularly convenient and effortless because it was indirect. You can see how the system for categorizing actively caring behavior allows us to compare real and potential acts of kindness and then to consider ways to increase their impact. 

Daily events can elevate or depress our moods. Some events are controllable, some are not. Clearly, the nature of our interactions with others can have a dramatic impact on the mood of everyone involved. As depicted in Figure 14.12, even a telephone conversation can lift a person s spirits and increase his or her propensity to actively care. Perhaps, remembering the research on mood and its effect will motivate us to adjust om interpersonal conversations with coworkers (see Chapter 13). We should also interact in a way that could influence a person s beliefs or expectations in certain directions, as explained next. 

Beliefs and expectancies. Social psychologists have shown that certain personal characteristics or beliefs influence one s inclination to help a person in an emergency. Specifically, individuals who believe the world is fair and predictable, a world in which good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished, are more likely to help others in a crisis (Bierhoff et al., 1991). Also, people with a higher sense of social responsibility and the general expectancy that people control their own destiny showed greater willingness to actively care (Schwartz and Clausen, 1970 Staub, 1974). 

The influence of context in determining whether we actually care for another person s safety cannot be overemphasized. Context actually can influence each step of the Latane and Darley (1970) decision model described previously and summarized in Figure 14.13. The context in which behavior occurs can affect one s evaluation of the costs and benefits of helping vs. not helping a victim. In other words, the perceived consequences of actively caring depend to a significant extent on the environmental and social context in which the relevant behaviors occur. Let us look more closely at this context variable, and consider its impact on safety-related behavior. 

Metrics used to evaluate the safety performance of individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole have a powerful influence on context. Employee commitment, ownership, and involvement can increase or decrease depending on the evaluations employed. Injury statistics provide an overall estimate of the distance from a vision of "injury free," but they are not a diagnostic tool for proactive planning. If used as the only index of safety achievement (or failure), injury-related outcome numbers can do more harm than good, alienating people rather than empowering them to actively care for safety. 

Actively caring behavior is planned and purposeful. It can be direct or indirect and its focus is environment, person, or behavior. Actively caring that addresses the environment is usually easiest to perform because it does not involve interpersonal confrontation. Behavior-focused actively caring is often most proactive but is most difficult to carry out effectively because it attempts to influence ano er person s behavior in a nonemergency situation. Practically all of the research related to this concept has studied crisis situations in which a victim needs immediate assistance. This is essentially person-focused and reactive caring. 

Psychologists have determined factors that influence the probability of actively caring behavior in emergencies, and the results are relevant for both environment-focused and behavior-focused actively caring. Understanding the conditions that lead to an increase or decrease in reactive caring behavior can help us find ways to facilitate proactive caring for safety. 

In Qiapters 10 and 11,1 showed how direct manipulations of activators and consequences can influence behavior on a large scale. Now, let us see if changes in internal person factors can benefit behavior change. In particular, how do "inside" factors affect actively caring for safety ... 

Figure 153 Certain person states influence an individual s willingness to actively care for the safety and health of others.

You can treat actively caring behavior just like any other target behavior. Many interventions that increase the occmrence of safe work behaviors can be used to boost the frequency of actively caring behaviors. The four chapters in Section 4 covered principles and procedures for directly influencing behavior. You will recall that the techniques were classified as activators and consequences, with activators considered directive or instructional, and consequences being motivational. Let us take up that discussion again because it applies to actively caring behavior. 

Commitments are most effective, or influential, when they are visible, require some amount of effort, and are perceived to be volxmtary, not coerced (Cialdini, 1993). It makes sense, then, to have employees state a public rather than private commitment to actively care for safety and to have them sign their name to a promise card ratiier than merely raise their hand. It is critically important for those making a pledge to believe tiiey did it volim-tarily. In reality, decisions to make a public commitment are dramatically influenced by external activators and consequences, including peer pressure. However, if people sell themselves on the idea that they made a personal choice, consistency is likely to follow the commitment. 

The interpersonal influence principles of reciprocity and commitment-consistency were introduced as they apply to our everyday decisions and behaviors. The commitment and consistency principle is behind the success of safe behavior promise cards, the foot-in-the-door technique ("start small and build"), and throwing a curve ball ("raise the stakes later"). These principles and specific strategies can be applied to directly boost actively caring behaviors. 

It is critical to realize that social influence strategies can reduce respect or trust between people if they are applied within a context of win-lose or top-down control. On the other hand, when the purpose of the influence technique is clearly to increase actively caring behavior and improve the safety and health of everyone involved, a win-win climate is evident and mutual respect and trust is nurtured. 

In Chapter 16, for example, I discussed a number of ways to increase achvely caring behaviors directly, through applications of learning and social influence principles, and indirectly, through improving the five personal states that increase willingness to actively care. It is impractical and impossible to measure the impact of many of these interventions. Should we avoid doing so just because we cannot measure their occurrence and impact ... 

The psychology of safety requires us to consider both external behavior and internal person factors. Chapter 15 focused on the role of person states in influencing people to actively care for another person s safety and health. Chapter 16 showed how outside factors can be manipulated to influence these person states and, thus, increase actively caring behavior. A Total Safety Culture requires integrating both behavior-based and person-based psychology. The next several principles focus on understanding "inside" factors. 

As detailed in Chapter 16, the "foot-in-the-door" and "curve ball" techniques of social influence succeed because of the consistency norm (Principle 46). When an individual agrees with a relatively small request, for example, to serve on a safety committee, you have your foot in the door. To be consistent, the person is more likely to agree later witii a larger request, perhaps to give a safety presentation at a plant-wide meeting. Similarly, when people sign a petition or promise card that commits them to act in a certain way, say to actively care for the safety of others, they experience pressure from the consistency norm to follow through. 

The reciprocity norm is a powerful determinant of human behavior. Its influence is reflected in the popular expression—"one good turn deserves another" and the well-known Golden Rule—"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is another reason to actively care for safety. One good act will likely lead to another. 

---