Why Do People Take OSH Risks?

Accidents happen invariably because people takechange. The concepts of the self-serving bias,
risks. These risks either directly or indirectly causecognitive dissonance and social influence, as well as
the accident, along with other conditions present,some basic theory and discussion on the differences
setting up a domino effect. But, it isn't justbetween attitudes and behaviours will be beneficial
foreseeable OHS risks which are taken. Many of thetheories to teach employees.
risks taken have an indirect effect on theLearning theory is also important to promote so that
accident-but set up the environment for the accidentemployees can see how behaviours are learned, how
all the same.habits form, and more importantly how hard it is to
What are normally associated as 'conditions''un-learn' some behaviours.
supporting the 'acts' are themselves caused byPromoting an 'actively-caring' mentality as is also
indirect behaviours to the incident. For instance, animportant as it cuts to the core of how we can 'care
Engineer designs a piece of plant, its risks arefor each other', whilst achieving many other positive
assessed, and controls are included in design. But,spin-offs, with a truly interdependent work culture.
without consultation with those who will operate,Management can also use these principles to set up
clean and maintain the equipment, these controls mayan interdependent work environment. Employees at
be useless, and may actually introduce other,all levels can work cooperatively together with other
unforeseeable hazards.departments and other classes of employees to
What is being suggested here is that although manyachieve superordinate goals.
accidents and incidents causes are broken into actsThe ultimate point here is strategic OHS corporate
and conditions, the one common attribution to bothplans need to be established, which are well defined
types of causes is behaviour-behaviour at all levels ofand communicated, place emphasis on cooperation,
the corporation.and show a definite OHS strategy. The behaviour of
Organisations must begin to acknowledge thisthose driving the plan must also, obviously, be
risk-taking behaviour, which can occur at all levels,congruent with plan itself.
potentially affects their safety performance on aConcentrate on process rather than outcome
daily basis. Although it is common, especially in today'sToo often corporations focus on lost time injury
globally competitive environment, for enterprises to(LTI) frequency and medical treatment rates instead
have as a strategic objective to take risks, risks ofof putting their efforts into what they can
an OHS variety must be separated and removedcontrol-what happens at the process end. This is a
from the work setting.trap, most often initiated by focus on insurance
Understanding what directs and motivates behaviourpremiums and misplaced corporate pride.
Behaviour does not happen in a vacuum-the 'context'Focusing on 'process' or up stream measures means
both supports and explains any behaviour exhibited.monitoring the effectiveness of systems and the
Although some managers will harp on the salientbehaviour of people. The statistical relationship of
individual behavioural causes to accidents, it is not untiloutcome measures like LTIs will be cyclic unless there
we dig deeper and ask 'why did the behaviour occur'is a preventive culture where the work happens to
that we often find this cultural context providingreduce the OHS risks on a minute-by-minute basis.
clues and indeed answers.Besides, the normal everyday employee has even
This can be done simply by employing an analyticalless effect on LTIs than management does, and
tool like ABC (Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequences)therefore they are much more likely to want to
Analysis. ABC Analysis is used to identify andwork positively in reducing their own chances of
therefore understand the antecedents andinjury.
consequences for the behaviour in question.An indicator of a preventive culture would appear to
Antecedents (activators) direct behaviour, and arebe active reporting of near-misses. The study by
usually in the form of rules, procedures, safety signsFrank Bird in 1969 found that for every serious or
etc. Consequences motivate behaviour; this ismajor injury, there will be 600 incidents without
considered the most powerful determinant ofdamage or injury. At least by comparison, good
behaviour.reporting performance might be considered if a ratio
A simple example illustrates its use. If a safety sign60 near-misses were reported for every serious or
directs for use of hearing protection, but there aremajor injury. But, even this level of reporting is
no negative consequences for not wearing hearingatypical in many modern organisations. This is yet
protection ie. there is a lack of enforcement, thenfurther evidence of the lack of emphasis
chances are it won't be worn. This is due to themanagement typically place on learning before
positive consequences of not wearing themdamage is done-lack of corporate humility again.
out-weighing the negative ie. 'it saves me time notCapturing near-misses by observation to reduce risk
wearing them' or 'they're uncomfortable'.of accidents
Analysing further, consequences are most powerfulOne way of capturing these 'near-misses' is through
when they are happen soon, are certain to happen,the implementation of a peer safety observation
and are either very positive or very negative.system, which is the cornerstone of the
ABC Analysis in accident investigationbehaviour-based approach to safety management.
The use of ABC Analysis in determining the causesAn argument here is why would you do this;
of behaviour contributing to accidents is a relativelyemployees will only work safely when being
new concept. But, the findings from this method canobserved and revert back to bad habits later. But,
shed entirely different light on the outcome of thethis is the point isn't it! If an employee is observed
investigation.regularly, say weekly, he or she will work as safely
Whereas in the past this process has been seen as aas they can to avoid being exposed to negative
way of apportioning blame and looking at thefeedback. Failure is a strong negative consequence.
individual's behaviour in isolation, we are now startingTo have a capable system which captures loss
to find that the behaviour in question may well haveexposures on a daily basis requires buy-in from
been 'the' typical response, and the core of theemployees. The employees need to know it is an
failure lies deeper within the management systemactivity management values. It is most appropriate
itself-the culture of the organisation no less.for employees to drive this themselves because the
Attribution for contributory behaviour is criticalemployees know more intimately the type and
information in investigating an incident, at least wherefrequency of risks taken.
the correct preventive actions are sought.Knowing the problems very well, will with good
A U.S. NIOSH commissioned study into critical successfacilitation, assist in developing the best, most cost
factors for behaviour-based safety in 1996 howevereffective solutions, eliminating the at-risk behaviour.
showed that, although 80 percent of respondentsReducing accidents by removing barriers to behaving
saw behavioural safety approaches reducing at-risksafely
behaviour, only 26 percent of respondents saw it asA fundamental step in improving OHS is removing the
useful in investigating injuries.barriers to behaving safely. In other words, a key
Clearly then, there is a need for advisory andmeasure in the effectiveness of a behavioural
regulatory players to acknowledge and activelyapproach to safety is its ability in removing barriers.
promote this rationale within industry. The outputBST (Behavioural Science Technology) suggest there
should be for the establishment of standards,are eight generic barriers which must be recognised
guidance notes or codes of practice, which wouldand catered for. These are:
influence the management systems at the corporate1. Hazard recognition and response
level.2. Business systems
Corporate acceptance of behaviour as an indicator of3. Rewards and recognition
management system effectiveness4. Facility and equipment
A factor which needs to be manifested in modern5. Disagreement on safe practices
day management to achieve this is the acceptance6. Personal factors
of humility as a corporate and strategic value-from a7. Culture
human resource management (HRM) perspective.8. Personal choice
The lack of corporate humility has contributed asCorporations would do well to take these barriers
much to building OHS performance-related barriers asinto account, by conducting a thorough analysis of
has the influence of any other industrial relationsthe issues, when designing their safety systems.
party or technique.Conclusion - what to do?
But, for the CEO of the modern day enterprise toAccidents happen primarily because of the direct or
accept and strive for these values, will involve risksindirect behaviour of people. The behaviour is a salient
to the corporation. In demonstrating corporateindicator of the efficacy of the management system
humility, the enterprise will open itself up toto produce an acceptable level of OHS performance.
admissions of possible regulatory 'gaps' which presentThose implementing behavioural safety systems don't
not only moral, but also potential legal problems. Itappear, in the main, to be heeding all the advice of
may include a shift in focus, involving for a time,experts. At the root of the problem is a lack of
possibly less focus on the customer. There will almostcorporate humility; in this case the ability to
certainly be credibility issues with its own people;acknowledge others may know better and to keep
management are challenging and changing their ownan open corporate mind. The responsibility for this
paradigm of operation, after all.rests with the CEO.
Without taking such risks however, the fruits ofThe ongoing failure of industry to recognise people
success in terms of true culture change will bebehave at-risk because of the context in which they
severely limited. To effect this change wholly,are placed, is a major concern. Clearly there is a role
employees need to see some fervent conviction onfor regulators and advisory institutions to become
the part of management.involved by developing standards, guidance notes and
Moreover, once the shift has been achieved, how iscodes of practice to promote tools like ABC Analysis,
it to be maintained? One must surmise that toand facilitate maturation of culture.
continue this high level of OHS performance, oneAgain, the amount of pure involvement at shop-floor
would need to set up seamless monitoring regimes toemployee level is another indicator of OHS
remain aware at the corporate level, doing so in aperformance. Consultation is mandated in the OHS
transparent way, so that employees 'see'legislation, but it is far from delivered consistently in
management of culture as being a personableworkplaces today-at least the way behaviour-based
system.safety approaches suggest.
So, in theory the concept of this form of cultureTo coin a cliché, the definition of insanity is
change is very hard to implement and sustain.expecting vastly different results to come from doing
Management would be wise to include this vision ofthings the same way as they've always been done.
adversity in planning from the outset.Yet, one feels this cliché is reality for many
Using known psychological phenomenon to enhanceorganisations today as far as OHS management is
OHS culture changeconcerned.
Promotion of certain psychological phenomenon canCopyright © 2001, S. J. Wickham. All Rights
be employed to raise awareness of our humanReserved.
nature-especially when seeking positive OHS culture