From change to changing
The NVVK Congress 2019 is titled: “What am I going to do differently?” The title brings to mind a cartoon in which the speaker asks the audience, “Who wants change?” Everyone raises their hand. Then the speaker asks, “Who wants to change?” All hands remain down. This cartoon succinctly reflects the most crucial issue in contemporary safety science. We are willing to work towards higher safety and understand that behavior is an approach. However, we lack a vision of how we can bring about a change by changing our own behavior.
The Roots of Safety Science
The Industrial Revolution brought about many changes. As a byproduct, new and significant hazards emerged that demanded a response. However, it wasn’t until shortly after World War II that safety science matured as a field. Since then, significant progress has been made, primarily attributed to new technology (such as crumple zones in cars) and stricter regulations (alcohol control).
Shift Toward Behavior
About 30 years ago, it became apparent that we also need to invest in safe behavior. However, behavior is much more resistant to change than technology or rules. The first approach that attempted to change behavior was Behavior-Based Safety. It is based on the economic learning theories of Skinner and uses feedback as a mechanism for change. The Behavior-Based approach views humans as black boxes and argues that the cause of behavior is irrelevant. It uses targeted rewards and punishments as a method of change. Behavior-Based works well for changing specific behavior patterns (e.g., always wearing safety goggles). However, the appreciation for this method diminishes as it is used more frequently. This approach has limited sustainability.
Safety Culture
A completely different approach focused on safety culture. This approach assumes that behavior stems from deeper values that are collectively shared within the organization. By changing these values, it is expected that different behavior will be encouraged. Unfortunately, the relationship between a value and behavior is weak. Many religious institutions today illustrate the significant gap between the words they preach and the actions they exhibit. Despite numerous cultural assessments, a connection between the outcomes of these assessments and future safety has never been established.
Reverting to the Existing
Due to a lack of compelling successes, many organizations have shifted their focus back to rules (Cardinal and Life Saving Rules). Even the final paragraph of an incident investigation mainly deals with adjusting rules or (re)communicating rules. This shift is directly related to the fact that changing behavior is so challenging. We can delegate technical changes to others. Specialists establish new rules. Changing behavior is something we must do ourselves. The biggest problem is that we have to change something of which we are barely aware.
Understanding Before Changing
The approach of Brain-Based Safety is that behavior can only be changed when we understand how it comes about. As long as we don’t understand why a mechanic puts their hand into a running packaging machine, we lack crucial information to dissuade them from doing so. The foundation of Brain-Based Safety is a framework that makes it understandable why employees are willing to seriously harm themselves, even though the rewards for risky behavior appear to be limited. Available research has been used for the implementation of this framework.
Where is the Button for Behavioral Change?
Zohar & Luria (2005) examined over 50 studies on how to influence an organization’s safety. Their conclusion is that employees behave more safely when their perception of their immediate supervisor changes. The more an employee believes that the supervisor prioritizes safety over other goals, the safer their behavior becomes. Hale and Guldenmund (2010) concluded that investing in supervisors seems much more effective than investing in employees. In other words, front-line supervisors act as the lever for behavioral change.
What helps the leader change?
However, leaders are also human beings. They, too, barely understand the unconscious source of their own behavior and often have an overly positive self-image when it comes to leading towards safe behavior. When asked, they find it difficult to identify their own behavior changes that could lead to safer behavior among their employees. Without such insight, change is challenging. Leaders benefit from gaining more knowledge about how behavior is formed in general and their influence in particular. It also helps to know where they stand personally. Good feedback helps determine a starting point for change.
What resources can be used for this?
From the perspective of Brain-Based Safety, a support package has been developed specifically for front-line leaders. This includes a theory about leadership and safe behavior. This theory forms the basis for the upcoming book (expected in mid-2018) that describes what leadership behaviors are effective in eliciting safe behavior from employees. Additionally, there are leadership training programs based on this theory. A 360-degree feedback can assist in creating a personal development plan. Finally, there are training programs for safety professionals to support and reinforce the acquired skills. Within a few years, we hope to scientifically demonstrate that this package adds value to the safety of organizations.
Juni Daalmans
September 2018
