A WORD ABOUT BEHAVIOR BASED SAFETY PROGRAMS
Many implemented behavior-based safety programs (BBS) have been rec- ognized as effective, both short- and long-term. Why?
BBS programs generally con- tain four critical elements. First, a deliberate effort is made to identify and categorize the critical behaviors necessary for safe work. Second, data is gathered regarding the frequency of unsafe behaviors through observation. This permits a focus on the high fre- quency, higher risk behaviors. Third, management encourages, though
direct communication and incentives of various kinds, two-way feedback on the causes of at-risk behaviors. Fourth, continuous improvement activities are promoted by management and imple- mented in the workplace to address the barriers to safe behaviors.
Properly conceived BBS programs do not cease their root cause investi- gations at the point of identifying the worker’s unsafe behavior. They instead see worker behavior as the springboard for a deeper investigation as to cause. So, BBS programs, while focused ini-
tially on worker behavior, are committed to tracing that behavior to sources in a properly safety engineered workplace or to a culture that either supports or erodes proper worker behavior. Effective BBS programs have sig- nificant management presence and look beyond the behavior and implement root cause corrective action. Where BBS programs fail to initiate long term improve- ment in safety performance is when they are aimed at behavioral modification only, either through peer pressure or other reward/punishment schemes.
people they employ, not just for their company reputations and their capital investments. If top management views safety perfor- mance as the one area where their actions are ultimately ineffective because it relies on the “ancestry and social environment” work- ers bring into the workplace ala Heinrich, then the most powerful change agent in the building has been effectively negated. When problems are not effec-
tively addressed by hard work and sincere effort, or when problems appear out of effective reach, a frustration and belief forms that not all injuries can be prevented. If a widespread belief is held that workers themselves are diligent and precise about their work or are careless and lazy, then it follows that the key attribute of safety performance depends on a charac- ter attribute that cannot be filtered by the hourly hiring process. Belief that some people are just “injury prone” leads to employment practices that tend to seek those individuals who have had frequent first aid or recordable injuries and remove them from the team. This is logical if one believes worker behavior can only be demonstrated in practice and that unsafe behav- ior results largely from the worker himself. These beliefs when wide-
spread harm a true evaluation of the root cause of injuries. They also lead to a focus on a “compliance to regulations” mentality that follows the law but goes no farther because results beyond that rely on worker attitudes rather than a cultural or structural element in the foundry environment. Heinrich’s idea that worker behaviors are part of the chain of cause and effect leading to work- place injuries was largely correct but did not go far enough and left safety practitioners with the notion that prevention of injury requires the right kind of worker. These ideas persist with harmful consequences for organizations and individuals in the metalcasting industry and in the manufacturing sector as a whole. As the foundry industry searches
for improvement in its safety per- formance going forward, it must look beyond behavior and the social and cultural backgrounds of its workers to the company cultural and environmental elements of the workplace. Management must lead the effort, authorizing it by personal presence and practical support, such that the root causes of unsafe behav- iors are addressed.
Figure 5. The diagram revises the why-why analysis based on Heinrich’s “Domino theory” and provides two alternatives for the root causes of unsafe acts.
This article is based on Paper 17-069 originally presented at the 121st Metalcasting Congress in Milwaukee in April 2017.
June 2017 MODERN CASTING | 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60