the PeoPle - OPERC - Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research ...

However, what is a more complex
problem to solve is why fully trained
and competent operators still knowingly
undertake unsafe behaviour on site.
There are a variety of factors which
may explain such intentional violations.
In some instances, as seen in case
study no 3, the individual may pursue
the classic “I’ve always done the
job this way” approach, where the
unsafe behaviour has become the
normal way of working to achieve
a task and the perception of the
associated risks has diminished.
Workers will also find it hard to follow
certain rules and procedures when
their deliberate avoidance is rewarded
by time saving and achieving extra
production. This is a real issue at
present under the current economic
climate. In reality many of us are
guilty to some extent of bending the
rules, skipping procedure or lapses
in concentration. For example,
consider a worker that is faced with
a 10 to 15 minute period to put on
the correct clothing and equipment
to enter a mandatory PPE area
to read a gauge that takes 10
seconds? Whilst adopting the unsafe
behaviour cannot be condoned, this
does illustrate how the temptation
can arise at an individual level.
Weak, or ineffective, management can
significantly nurture bad behaviour.
This could include: sometimes turning
a blind eye to unsafe behaviour
for the sake of production; actively
encouraging employees to take
short cuts; transmitting conflicting
messages that undermine employee
confidence in the safety system; and
giving an impression that unsafe
behaviour pays. However, more often
than not, it is simply the issue of
management being ignorant of safe
machine operation on site (including
site set-up, operating and so on) that
can play a large role in the existent (or
non-existent!) safety culture on site.
how do we stop
unsafe behaviour?
One way of reducing incidents is to
eliminate hazards by engineering them
out or introducing physical controls.
Such engineering solutions have a
strong place in safety management,
particularly for skill-based errors
such as slips or lapses, where the
operative makes a mistake and
does not do what he meant to do,
particularly prevalent in maintenance
and repair tasks. However such
solutions cannot be relied upon and
the real key is knowledge, skill and
competence within the workforce
and management team – the safety
knowledge and capability factor.
There also has to be a willingness
to engage in best practice and this
may involve changing the attitudes
and culture of both operators and
managers on site. Campaigns and
targeted training can be implemented
in an attempt to change attitudes
to the health and safety culture
but in practical terms how far is
this possible and furthermore do
attitudes determine behaviour?
Punishment for bad behaviour may be
viewed as an option and ultimately,
in gross misconduct cases, one has
very little option but to pursue such.
Special reports, Latest news, Worldwide distribution & Expert opinions
SPECIAL REPORT
However, do we want to produce a
culture of relying on authority, fear
and punishment which may anyway
lead to accidents and near misses not
being reported for fear of sanctions.
In the majority of cases individuals
respond far better to praise than
punishment – praise for: reporting an
incident that could save a colleague’s
life; contributing to best practice on site;
supporting others implement a safety
strategy; effectively communicating key
safety messages via taught courses;
and acknowledging the team effort
when reporting upon good practice
via formal recognition schemes –
prizes, awards and gala events.
Building a safe team requires trust and
confidence between line managers and
the workforce. Employees themselves
are best placed to re-define safety
norms on site as they control their own
behaviour but line management are
best placed to facilitate the process in
a blame free proactive safety culture.
So in summary, can behavioural
safety be improved - overwhelmingly,
the answer is, YES.
April 2011
19