Safety coaching behavior observation

The acronym "SOON" depicted in Figure 8.8 reviews the key aspects of developing adequate definitions of critical behaviors to target for a DO IT process. You are ready for the observation phase when you have a checklist of critical behaviors with definitions that are Specific, Observable, Objective, and Naturalistic. We have already considered most of the characteristics of behavioral definitions implied by these key words, and examples of behavioral checklists are provided later in this chapter, as well as in Chapter 12 on "safety coaching."... 

The CBC examples described previously illustrate two basic ways of implementing the Define and Observe stages of DO IT. The driving CBC I developed with my daughter illustrates the observation and feedback process recommended by a number of successful behavior-based safety consultants (Krause, 1995 Krause et al., 1996 McSween, 1995). I refer to this approach as one-to-one safety coaching because it involves an observer using a CBC to provide instructive behavioral feedback to another person (Geller, 1995,1998). 

Coaching is essentially a process of one-on-one observation and feedback. The coach systematically observes the behaviors of another person and provides behavioral feedback on the basis of the observations. Safety coaches recognize and support the safe behaviors they observe and offer constructive feedback to reduce the occurrence of any at-risk behaviors. This chapter specifies the steps of safety coaching, points out trainable skills needed to accomplish the process, and illustrates tools and support mechanisms for increasing effectiveness. 

The term "coach" is very familiar to us in an athletic context. In fact, winning coaches practice the basic observation and feedback processes needed for effective safety coaching. They follow most of the guidelines reviewed here. As illustrated in Figure 12.4, the most effective team coaches observe the ongoing behaviors of individual players and record their observations in systematic fashion, using a team roster, behavioral checklist, or videotape. 

Many people accept a collective or team attitude when it comes to work productivity and quality. Coaching for production or quality is part of the job, but coaching for personal safety is often perceived as meddling. People need to imderstand that safety-related behaviors require as much, if not more, interpersonal observation and feedback as any other job activity. 

Safety coaches observe the behavior of others objectively and systematically, with an eye for supporting safe behavior and correcting at-risk behavior. Behavior that illustrates going... 

The CBC in Figure 12.10 allows for recording two or more one-on-one coaching observations. A "1" would be placed in either the "safe" or "at-risk" column for each behavioral observation of Person 1, and a "2" would be used to indicate specific safe and at-risk behaviors for Person 2. Note that only the name of the observer is included on the data sheet. When people realize that safety coaching is only to increase safe behavior and decrease at-risk behavior, not to identify rmsafe workers, volimtary participation will increase, along with trust. 

The Exxon procedure is markedly different from the "planned 60-second actively caring review" implemented at a Hoechst Celanese plant. For this one-on-one coaching process, all employees attempt to complete a one-minute observation of another employee s work practices in five general categories body position, personal apparel, housekeeping, tools/equipment, and operating procedures. The initial plant goal was for each of the 800 employees to complete one 60-second behavioral observation every day. Results were entered into a computer file for a behavioral safety analysis of the work culture. 

This undersfanding is critical if safety coaching is to be a "fact-finding" rather than "fault-finding" process. It also leads to an objective and constructive analysis of the situations observed. This is how people discover the reasons behind at-risk behaviors and design interventions to decrease them. 

Obviously, many factors contributed to this extraordinary performance, but there is little doubt their safety coaching process played a critical role. At the end of 1994, for example, 98 percent of the workforce had participated as observers to complete a total of 3350 documented safety coaching sessions. They identified 51,048 behaviors, of which 46,659... 

Each month, employees schedule a behavioral observation and feedback session with two other employees, who are safety observers. They select the task, day, and time for the coaching session, as well as two individuals to observe them. Employees choose their observers—and coaches—from anyone in the plant. At the start of their process, the number of volxmteer safety coaches was limited to about 30 percent of the workforce, but today everyone is a potential coach. 

The basic components of effective safety coaching were presented in Chapter 12, with each letter of COACH signifying a label for the sequence of events in the process. The coaching process should start with an atmosphere of interpersonal Caring and an agreement that the coach can Observe an individual s performance, preferably wifh a behavioral checklist. Then, the coach Analyzes the observations from a fact-finding, system-level perspective. Subsequently, the results are Communicated in one-to-one... 

For example, when a behavioral observation of an employee is performed and the employee is performing the task under at-risk conditions, this observation would count as one observation. Under a typical behavioral safety process, if an employee is trying to clear a jam from a piece of equipment in an at-risk manner, that observation counts as one at-risk events and the employee would be coached about what should do differently and shown the safe method. 

Many companies have implemented a system to have peers observe and try to correct the behavior of peers by coaching or other means. This is part of a behavior based safety management system. This system should operate in the nonincident portion of the error pyramid. Include examples in a listing, such as Table 5-1, to illustrate the differences. 

The second approach to the Define and Observe stages of DO IT involves a limited CBC (perhaps targeting only one behavior) and does not necessarily involve one-to-one coaching. This is the approach used in most of the published studies of the behavior-based approach to safety (for example, see reviews by Petersen, 1989, and Sulzer-Azaroff, 1982, 1987). This was the approach used by my students years ago when they observed, recorded, and graphed my safety-belt use as my vehicle entered and departed the... 

An ExxonMobil Chemical facility in Texas has demonstrated exemplary success with a coaching process based on the principles and procedures described in this chapter. By the end of two years, they had almost 100 percent participation and have reaped extraordinary benefits. From an outcome perspective, they started with a baseline of 13 OSHA recordable injuries in 1992 (TRIR = 4.11), and progressed to 5 OSHA recordables in 1993 (TRIR = 1.70). They sustained only one OSHA recordable in 1994 (TRIR = 0.30) and reached their target of zero OSHA recordables in 1997 and 1999. At the time of this writing (mid-2000), they are still injury free for the year. Figure 12.18 depicts the total recordable injury rate (TRIR) for this plant from 1991 to mid-2000. They had received behavior-based coaching training in the latter half of 1992, implemented their observations and feedback process plantwide in 1993, and by 1994 everyone was on board as a behavior-focused coach. They have continued this process ever since and have had numerous occasions to celebrate their phenomenal safety success. 

For example, a correlation of 0.30 between the results of a safety perception survey and other measures of safety, such as employees frequency of coaching sessions completed or percentages of at-risk behavior per observation period, sounds good until you realize that only 9 percent of the variance in one measurement device could be accounted for by the other (0.30 = 0.09 or 9 percent). In this case, 91 percent of the variance in people s safety perception scores could not be explained by the other estimate of a person s safety. 

What are at-risk events How are they different from observations of employees in the safety system Under the enhanced safety, each employee should be observed and/or coached until a behavior has changed. In both cases, observation data is collected to ensure that the behavior is either changed or an action plan is developed to target specific behaviors. So, the question is. If you do not see this behavior again, has it actually been changed Or did the employee stop that behavior when an observation was conducted ... 

---