Behavior-based safety intervention

Du Pont STOP. One popular behavior-based safety intervention is Du Font s STOP (for Safety Training and Observation Program). Employees are given STOP cards to record the occurrence of at least one at-risk behavior or work condition each workday, along with their corrective action. At the end of the day the STOP cards are collected, compiled, and recorded in a data log. Sometimes the data are transferred to a display chart or graph for feedback. 

If we will enhance safety culture and standardize employee safety behavior, it cannot leave the application of behavior-based safety management tools. The behavior-based safety management tools are an important means that is to effectively promote the safety culture of enterprise. At present, in SINOPEC comprehensive apvplication of HSE observation tools, its core is to conduct field observation and analysis and communication, to interfere with the way or intervention, make people know the dangers of unsafe behavior, prevent and eliminate imsafe behavior. 

One of the tenets of behavior-based safety programs is that of intervention. If someone observes an unsafe condition, it is his or her responsibility to step up and point out the problem. (On the day that this was written your author had one of his colleagues intervene. There had just been an office move and she pointed out that the chaotic state of his furniture would make escape troublesome in the event of an emergency.)... 

Researchers have not yet conducted extensive research into the importance of the individual components of these studies, though Komaki s (1986) research suggests that the observation process may be the most critical element of the package. Conducting research into the effectiveness of each of the components of behavior-based safety is difficult because each component contributes to only a part of the effectiveness of the intervention package. The studies that have investigated the individual components of this approach are included below. 

Tom Krause is well known for his work in behavior-based safety. He documented the first long-term success of behavioral safety. His data showed that 73 companies were able to sustain and continue safety improvements for five years following implementation (Krause et ak, 1999). This work is particularly significant because many of the early interventions appeared to be short lived, lasting only for the duration of the research study. 

Behavior-based safety trainers and consultants teach the ABC model (or three-term contingency) as a fi amework to understand and anatyze behavior or to develop interventions for improving behavior. As given in Principle 3, the A stands for activators or antecedent events that precede behavior B, and C refers to the consequences following behavior and produced by it. Activators direct behavior consequences motivate behavior. 

Figure 5.1 illustrates a distinction between conscious competence/other-directed and conscious competence/self-directed. If a safe work practice is self-directed, the employee is considered responsible and self-management intervention is relevant. As detailed elsewhere (Watson and Tharp 1997), the methods and tools of effective self-management are derived from behavioral science research and are perfectly consistent with the principles of behavior-based safety. 

Every safety approach listed in Figure 1.2 requires that you consider the human element or the psychology of safety. Indeed, the most successful approaches, behavior-based safety and comprehensive ergonomics, directly address the human aspects of safety. The bottom line is illustrated in Figure 1.3. The three employees here are looking at a contributing factor in almost every injury—the human factor. TTius, any safety intervention that improves the safety-related behaviors of workers will prevent workplace injuries. 

Understanding, belief, or awareness is not sufficient, however, to implement a particular behavior-based safety process. People need to learn the specific behaviors or activities required for successful implementation. This requires training and should include behavior-based observation and feedback. In other words, participants need to practice the behaviors called for by the intervention process and then receive constructive behavior-focused feedback from objective and vigilant observers. 

Most people do not consistently avoid at-risk behavior. This calls for behavior-based safety (including the use of consequences) to bring people to the principle-centered, self-motivated stage. Recall the principle 1 have emphasized several times—people act themselves into new ways of fhinking. In other words, people become principle-centered and self-directed through their routine actions. As discussed in Chapter 9, behavior-based intervention (instruction, support, or motivation) is needed to make safe behavior the routine. Then principle-centered or value-based safety eventually follows. 

This chapter is about win-win teamwork. It builds on the principles of behavior-based safety presented in Section 3, tire intervention tools from behavior-based safety detailed in Section 4, and the concepts of group belonging and interdependence discussed in Section 5. 

Principle 17 Behavior-based safety is a continuous DO IT process with D = Define target behaviors, O = Observe target behaviors, I = Intervene to improve behaviors, and T = Test impact of intervention. 

Behavioral approaches are based on years of research in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis. Geller (2001, p. 21) notes, Behaviorism has effectively solved environmental, safety, and health problems in organizations and communities first, define the problem in terms of relevant observable behavior, then design and implement an intervention process to decrease behaviors causing the problem and/or increase behaviors that can alleviate the problem. The behavior-based approach is reflected in research and scholarship.. . . ... 

Do any of these psychological tactics sound famihar All these strategies are ineffective and run counter to the three behavior-based principles described above. Some of these techniques can actually do more harm than good to the human dynamics of industrial safety and health. Yet I m sure you ve seen, perhaps even e5q)erienced, some of these intervention approaches. Why Because they seemed like good common sense to someone. 

Behavior-based methods are especially cost effective for large-scale applications. Much community-based and organizational research has shown substantial improvements in environmental, transportation, production, and health-related problems as a direct result of this approach to intervention (e.g., see comprehensive research reviews by Elder et al., 1994 Geller et al., 1982 Goldstein and Krasner, 1987 Greene et al., 1987). And there is plenty of evidence that the behavior-based approach can dramatically improve an organization s safety performance (e.g., DePasquale and Geller, 1999 McSween, 1995 Petersen, 1989 Ward, 2000). 

Given the foundations of humanism and behaviorism, it is easy to build barriers between person-based and behavior-based perspectives and assume you must follow one or the other when designing an intervention process. In fact, many consultants in ttie safety management field market themselves as using one or the other approach, but not both. It is my firm belief that these approaches need to be integrated in order to truly imderstand the psychology of safety and build a Total Safety Culture. 

Heinrich s well-known Law of Safety implicates at-risk behavior as a root cause of most near hits and injuries (Heinrich et al., 1980). Over the past 20 years, various behavior-based research studies have verified this aspect of Heinrich s Law by systematically evaluating the impact of interventions designed to lower employees at-risk behaviors. Feedback from behavioral observations was a common ingredient in most of the successful intervention processes, whether the feedback was delivered verbally, graphically by tables and charts, or through corrective action. See, for example, the comprehensive review by Petersen, 1989, or individual research articles by Chhokar and Wallin, 1984 Geller et al., 1980 Komaki et al., 1980 and Sulzer-Azaroff and De Santamaria, 1980. 

Williams, J. H. and Geller, E. S., Behavior-based intervention for occupational safety critical impact of social comparison feedback, /. Saf. Res., 31(30), 135, 2000. 

Psychologists who use the behavior-based approach to solve human problems design activators (conditions or events preceding operant behavior) and consequences (conditions or events following operant behavior) to increase the probability that desired behaviors will occur and undesired behaviors will not. Activators precede and direct behavior. Consequences follow and motivate behavior. This chapter explains basic principles about activators to help you design interventions for increasing safe behavior and decreasing at-risk behavior. The next chapter focuses on the use of consequences to motivate safety achievement. 

Safety coaching is a critically important intervention approach, but keep in mind the many other ways you can contribute to the health and safety of a work culture, hi other words, safety coaching is one type of intervention for the "1" stage of the DO IT process. Any variety of activator and consequence strategies explained in Chapters 10 and 11, respectively, can be used as a behavior-based intervention. These steps require people to go beyond their normal routine to help another person. The next chapter shows how we can support and, thereby, improve safety with everyday interpersonal conversations and informal coaching. 

Specific projects or assignments may come and go, but safety teams need to work persistently on their general missions in order to achieve continuous safety improvement throughout a work culture. The membership of these teams will change periodically and team goals will vary, but the challenges of behavioral observation and fe back, incident analysis and corrective action, ergonomics analysis and intervention, and behavior-based... 

Social validity. We must consider one final type of validity when evaluating a safety intervention. It comes from researchers and practitioners in behavior-based psychology (Baer et al., 1968) and refers essentially to practical significance. It includes using rating scales, interviews, or focus-group discussions to assess... 

Behavior analysis" is the term used by researchers and scholars in this area of applied psychology. This implies that behavior is analyzed first (Chapter 9) and, if change is called for, an intervention process is developed with input from the clients (Chapters 11 to 13). Civen that "analysis" can sound cold or bring to mind Freud, I have recommended the label "behavior-based approach" for several years. This contrasts nicely with the "person-based approach" that focuses on attitudes, feelings, and expectancies. As I have repeatedly emphasized, a Total Safety Culture requires us to consider both behavior-based and person-based psychology. 

---