5 reasons why your organization's behavior-based safety process could soon collapse | FIRST, VERIFY

April 14, 2021

According to EHS Today typically 70 percent of safety-based initiatives undertaken by companies fail, resulting in the loss of money and productive man-hours. But what is a lot worse than the financial loss is the increased lack of confidence of both management and employees that follows – most frustratingly expressed as, "Our company is incapable of change."


Fortunately, today's companies, both national and international, have realized that antecedent and results-only safety programs cannot maximize safe performance. Safety processes that target the root cause of most accidents and incidents- human behavior, once ignored or rarely heard of, have now claimed the spotlight.


The new acceptance and implementation of behavior-based safety methods is a step in the right direction, but a few common missteps can prematurely cripple your organization's process.


The five biggest mistakes your company might make while implementing behavior-based safety are more on the lines of how and what they are trying to get people to do.


1. Believing that employee participation and observation are the core of behavior-based safety


The biggest risk a company's management can take is to assume that the organization has correctly implemented behavioral safety because the right observations are being performed by employees.


Behavior-based safety is about integrating behavioral technology into the management of safety in your company. Behavioral technology is the system and process for applying the laws and principles that govern human behavior. The objective of applying them is to achieve behavior change. Performing observations and allowing hourly employees to conduct those observations does not necessarily lead to changes in the way people behave at work. In most instances, it only changes the way they behave when they are being observed.


The primary objective of an effective behavior-based safety process is to make safe behavior a habit. Unsafe or risky behavior is usually habit-based. Most people aren’t conscious of their behavior having done things the same way much of their lives. The primary goal of behavior-based safety is to replace all the unconscious unsafe behavior with the unconscious, or automatic, safe behavior -- or safe habits.


To accomplish this objective, hourly employees, supervisors, and managers must understand and apply behavior change technology effectively.


2. Systematic positive reinforcement is key


As mentioned above changing organizational culture is not possible without a sufficient grounding in the basic principles of behavior. This deficiency is crucial when it comes to the culture of positive reinforcement.


Positive reinforcement is the key to substituting unsafe work habits with safe ones. If provisions have not been made in your safety initiative for training in the principles and application of positive reinforcement, then the natural reinforcement that is currently supporting unsafe work habits will continue to elicit that behavior.


In most cases, unsafe behavior or risk-taking happens because it has some natural positive reinforcers. For instance, a prankster gets away with his ‘funny’ pranks risking the safety of his fellow workers in most cases. Like hiding the ladder when his teammate is about to get down, or ‘accidentally spilling water so that someone can fall, etc. His whole life he must have received constant adulation and garnered the title of the ‘funny’ guy. And as such, this unsafe, risky behavior continues, out of a bad habit.


Risk-taking saves time, effort and sometimes can be seen as a shorter and quicker route to success. Unsafe behavior then is self-perpetuating because of the natural consequences that favor it.


With that concept in mind, it then follows that delivering regular positive reinforcement for safe behaviors is the key to replacing unsafe habits with safe habits. Managers, supervisors, and coworkers must deliver this reinforcement immediately, consistently, and appropriately or the safe behavior we are encouraging will never reach habit strength.


3. Expecting a change in only Temp employees


It needs to be understood that for a long-lasting change, every employee must make a behavioral change -- not just the temps. Management is integral to change, yet most initiatives target employee behavior alone.

Any behavior-based process should include mandatory support behaviors from both management and supervisors. This constitutes a measured self-inventory in the form of a checklist with points. A quantitative measurement feedback system helps form the basis of positively reinforcing managers and supervisors for specific behaviors related to supporting the behavior-based safety process.


This in turn helps temp employees increase the rate of safe behavior, while managers and supervisors are reinforced for their supportive behaviors.


4. Making behavior-based safety the responsibility of only the employees


Much too often, behavior-based processes are positioned and implemented as only employee-focused programs. This brings about the short-term, temporary changes visible in the form of specific bureaucratic activities which only focus on implementing change. Long term, however, these kinds of rules result in resentment in the employees related to the perception that are the only ones putting in all the effort to make the process work.



The side effect of such implementation of processes is that they die a slow death because employees get fed up with the additional work and responsibility without receiving the required positive recognition and reinforcement for their efforts.


5. Force fitting an itemized action plan to your organization


This mistake is accelerated by the belief that behavior-based safety is a sequence of actions, meetings, observations, and reviews, rather than a process that helps to change core safety behavior.


Most organizations assume that training, thorough paperwork, continued employee observations, and safety-related review meetings can ensure behavior-based safety. This cannot be guaranteed as monitoring or guiding a group of overworked, tired individuals can only lead to a loss in production, overtime, and time-off surge, and an absolute lack of motivation.


In contrast, implementing the basic principles and concepts of behavior-based safety processes provides you with an understanding of the rationales behind the activities and allows you to use your knowledge of behavioral technology to tailor and design a process that fits your requirements.


For example, an ideal behavior-based training should include the following elements:


  • Employee action should not be observed for more than five minutes.
  • Observe only two or three behaviors at a time.
  • Integrate observations into the work process so that there is no time off the job.
  • Design self-observations for employees who operate vehicles or work alone.


Many of the programs now implemented do not use the practices listed above. Those familiar with behavior technology know that the shorter list is not only more desirable but is impactful and quicker.


The five reasons or risks in successfully implementing a behavior-based process are centered around a core misunderstanding of what a behavior-based safety process is. The correct approach begins with an in-depth knowledge of how to change human behavior.


A well-designed and properly implemented program can be effective and is a great workplace safety solution. It  not only positively impacts a company’s profits and reputation, but it also has a profound impact on the lives of employees as poor decisions or unsafe behaviors can lead to loss of livelihood or even fatalities. 

You might also like

October 28, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/
October 21, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
October 13, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: