Occupational safety behavior in workplace of production company in ha noi basic for accident prevention and reduction

ii The Dissertation of PHAM THI NINH entitled OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY BEHAVIOR IN WORKPLACE OF PRODUCTON COMPANY IN HANOI: BASIS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND REDUCTION Submitted in Partia

i

ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND REDUCTION

_

A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon, Philippines

in Collaboration with Thai Nguyen University, Socialist Republic of Vietnam

ii

The Dissertation of

PHAM THI NINH

entitled

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY BEHAVIOR IN WORKPLACE OF PRODUCTON

COMPANY IN HANOI: BASIS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION

AND REDUCTION

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

A program offered by Southern Luzon State University,

Republic of the Philippines in collaboration with

Thai Nguyen University, Socialist Republic of Vietnam

has been approved by Oral Examination Committee

CECILIA N GASCON, PhD

Chairman Endorsed by: Recommended by:

MELCHOR MELO O PLACINO, PhD APOLONIA A ESPINOSA, PhD

Accepted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Business Administration

Date Vice President for Academic Affairs

iii

This is to certify that the dissertation entitle “ OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY BEHAVIOR IN WORPLACE OF PRODUCTION COMPANY IN HANOI:

BASIS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION REDUCTION”, orally defended/

presented under the DBA Program jointly offered by Southern Luzon State University of the Republic of the Philippines and Thai Nguyen university of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, embodies the result of original and scholarly work carried out by the undersigned

This dissertation does not contain works or ideas taken from published sources or written works by other persons which have been accepted as basis for the award of any degree from other higher education institution, except where proper referencing and acknowledgement were made

Researcher/ Candidate Pham Thi Ninh

Date Orally Defended: October 2014

iv

I would like to express my most sincere thanks to the Management Board of the Southern Luzon State University, Thai Nguyen University, and the teachers in the said schools for helping me in the learning process throughout

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and profound appreciation to Professor Melchor Melo Placino, my enthusiastic teacher for his guidance and encouragement, and the time he spent for this research

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the Department of Employment - Ministry of Labor - Invalids and Social Affairs, the LILAMA 69-2 company that has helped me for my research material, through a questionnaire survey

I sincerely thank the Board of the University of Labor and Social affair (ULSA), colleagues in ULSA, and classmates in DBA1 who offered enthusiastic help and shared help complete the thesis

Finally, I would like to send my thanks from the heart, to my family for their enthusiasm and encouragement to complete my thesis

PTN

v

I wish to dedicate this dissertation to my family and friends

PTN

vi

PAGE

TITLE PAGE ……… i

APPROVAL SHEET ……… ii

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ……… iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… iv

DEDICATION ……… v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… vi

LIST OF TABLES ……… viii

LIST OF FIGURES ……… ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ……… x

ABSTRACT ……… xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ……… 1

Background of the Study ……… 1

Statement of the Problem ……… 3

Objectives of the Study ……… 4

Significance of the Study ……… 4

Scope and Limitations of the Study ……… 5

Definition of Terms ……… 5

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ……… 7

Conceptual Framework ……… 36

III METHODOLOGY Research Design ……….………… 37

Locale of the Study ……… … 39

Data Gathering Procedure ……… 40

Population, Sample and Sampling Technique ……… 40

Research Instrument ……… 41

Statistical Analysis……… 41

Statistical Treatment ……… 43

vii

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary ……….……… 69

Conclusions ……… 71

Recommendations ……… 72

REFERENCES ……… 73

APPENDICES ……… 75

CURRICULUM VITAE ……… 83

viii

2 Safety Behavior Marking from Workers’ Responses 44

4 Result Survey of Managers and Supervisors 45

7 The Causes that Lead to Accident in LILAMA 48

8 Summary Result of Area D, PATS, SATS, SATW 49

9 Summary of Result of Areas: D, PATS, SATS, HSE 51

11 The Example of BSV Checklist and Analysis 65

ix

1 Perception and it’s Important for Organizational Behavior 10

7 Comparison of the Responses of Managers-Supervisors

xi

Title of Research : OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY BEHAVIOR IN

WORKPLACE OF PRODUCTON COMPANY IN HANOI: BASIS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND REDUCTION

Researcher : PHAM THI NINH (SUE)

Degree Conferred : DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Name and Address

of Institution

: Southern Luzon State University Lucban, Quezon, Philippines and Thai Nguyen University, Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Adviser : Dr Melchor Melo O Placino

This descriptive cross- sectional study was carried out on workers/ managers in LILAMA 69-2 company A sample size of 394 was randomly selected The data collection tool was a researcher–made questionnaire Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel

xii

safety attitude and safety climate, workplace safety behaviors, the researcher believe to help the company management and also other local similar enterprises to improve safety program especially with launching Behavior Based Safety training program and finally to improve accident rate in workplace

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

Safety behavior presents a paradox to practitioners and researchers alike because contrary to the assumption that self-preservation overrides other motives (Maslow, 1970), careless behavior prevails during many routine jobs, making safe behavior an ongoing managerial challenge Studies in industrialized countries showed that about 90% of accidents occur because of unsafe behavior and human errors and only 10% of those belong to unsuitable workplace and equipment (Ghofranipour, 2009:125) Even if workers do not have the right knowledge, attitude and behavior toward safety measures in a safe workplace, all efforts for an accident-free workplace will be

in vain Clearly, therefore, safe behavior in routine work poses managerial challenges

Background of the Study

As stated in some previous study from various researchers, the causes that lead to accidents have been changing in time From higher rates of accident on engineering system, now human factor contributes mostly to accident causes Changing the behavior of employee is challenge of manager

In the case of Vietnam, occupational accident is a very important issue

in industries In recent years, the number of occupational accidents occurring more and more in industries is growing

Also, according to the report of the MOLISA (Ministry of labor, invalid and social affairs), the material damage caused by occupational accidents occurring in the first 6 months of 2011 (expenses relating to medicine, funeral, compensations for families of deaths and injury, ) was 143.331.800.000 vnd (2.62 times increase over the same period in 2010), damage to property was 17.609.900.000 vnd (7.89 times increase over the same period in 2010)

Accordingly, the causes of workplace accidents were due to no training

in occupational safety in Vietnam Industry on all of employees (7.8%), presence of unsafe equipment (3.15%), employees ill-equipped with personal protective gears (1.39%), and absence of procedures, safety measures (3.49%) Thus more then 80% of accidents that occur can be attributed to human factors – i.e - the attitude, knowledge, and behavior of workers toward safe work

This is why the author considered conducting a research on one typical local big company on the field of production and construction in Hanoi area The result of the study and recommendations could apply to others on the same field and area

The company selected was LILAMA 69-2 has more than 50 years of constant development It is known as one of the experienced companies for vessels, pipe manufacturing and is a known construction contractor in Vietnam

Being well aware of the strict requirements from clients on the high quality services, LILAMA 69-2 has been focusing on developing its

human resources including qualified technical employees and engineers who graduated from the prestigious universities in Vietnam to be good in both technical qualification and manufacturing experiences as well as investing more modernized facilities for manufacturing works at factory The number of employees by end of 2012 was 1,180 staff and 120 leaders and managers The company is 51% owned by the state, while 49% of the shares are owned by private shareholders with 57 BVND per capital

Despite the company’s safety policy of ensuring safety in production with the target of Zero accident by providing safety training and occupational health to 100% of its workers through daily supervision of safety and occupational health, safety and occupational health status was recorded to be

in not good condition This follows the report of LILAMA 692, in 2010, 2011,

2012, where there was only one (1) serious accident that led to death, but many accidents or incidents were not formally recorded The three years of incident and investigation data showed that most of the workplace incidents are triggered by unsafe behaviors and persistence of inherited traditional beliefs and overconfidence of workers

It is obvious that the safety management system in the company is top down with very “state-owned training style” The behavior based safety is something not yet familiar within companies

Statement of the Problem

In general, the study was aimed to determine the effectiveness of the safety program and recommend safety training program on the safety

behavior of workers and the reduction or prevention of accident in a production company in Hanoi, Vietnam

Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:

1 What is the profile of workers in LILAMA 69-2 company

2 What is the frequency and types/classification of work-related accidents in LILAMA 69-2 company?

3 What is the leading causes of work-related accident in LILAMA company?

4 What is attitude of workers on safety and the safety climate in LILAMA 69-2?

5 What is the behavior of the management of LILAMA 69-2 towards safety program in the company?

6 What safety program is appropriate to improve the safety behavior of workers and safety climate in LILAMA 69-2?

Significance of the Study

This research on the behavioral safety in the workplace of production a company in Hanoi area (LILAMA 69-2) establishes a behavior-based safety training program for the company

With research result about safety climate, culture and behaviors and by introduction of Behavior Based Safety with its training program to managers and employees, the study and training program arms to promote: (i) the

maintenance and promotion of workers’ health and working capacity; (ii) the improvement of working environment and work to become conducive to safety and health and (iii) development of work organizations and working cultures in

a direction which supports health and safety at work and in doing so also promotes a positive social climate and smooth operation and may enhance productivity of the undertakings

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The research study is carried out in Vietnam and focused on LILAMA 69-2 which is operating in Hanoi area This is the area where large amount of industrial companies have reported many accidents

With the fact that companies have different dimension about work character, knowledge of employees, scale of company, the author chose one typical local and big size company for the research The result of this research also could apply to other companies in the area and on the same field

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined conceptually and operationally:

BBS (Behavior Base Safety) BBS is a methodology to use scientific

psychology to understand why people behave to their way they do when it come to safety Typically it creates an attitude and awareness that will reduce the chance of injury BBS introduces systematic, ongoing approach or process that clearly defines how people can reduce the risk of injury to people in your work team

BBSO Behavioral safety visit

Benchmarking A measurement of the quality of an organization's policies,

products, programs, strategies, etc., and their comparison with standard measurements, or similar measurements of its peers

BSV Behavioral base safety observation

Experienced worker Any worker who has special skill, training, knowledge,

and (usually acquired) ability in their work

Educated worker A worker who has knowledge and has graduated from

technical school or higher

Fatal accident An accident which led to the death of one or more people

(temporary worker, trainee, contractor, client, patient, others, etc…)

Lost time accident Occupational injury which prevents the individual from

reporting to work on the next scheduled workday following the accident, or leads to a work interruption due to the accident some days after the accident

Non-lost time accident (also called “Other recordable accident“) An

accident of sufficient severity, as defined by local HSE regulations, that must be recorded as an accident but that does not result in time lost It includes accidents where the person is able to return to work the same day, or the day following the accident, following medical treatment

Training Training is the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies

as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies

Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Through extensive data gathering from different books and internet sites, this chapter serves as informative references of this research study particularly focusing on its objectives Different research studies have also been found which are precisely significant to the development of the study

Organizational Behavior

Organizational behavior is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward improving an organization’s effectiveness

Organizational behavior is concerned with the study of what people do

in an organization and how that behavior affects the performance of the organization Because organizational behavior is specifically concerned with employment related situations, then it emphasizes behavior as related to job, work, productivity, human performance, and management Organizational behavior includes motivation, leader behavior, interpersonal communication, group structure and processes, learning, attitude development and perception, change processes and work stress

Behavior generally is predictable if we know how the person perceived the situation and what is important to him or her While people’s behavior may not appear to be rational to an outsider, there is reason to believe it usually is intended to be rational and it is seen as rational by them An observer often

sees behavior as non-rational because the observer does not have access to the same information or does not perceive the environment in the same way

Certainly there are differences between individuals Placed in similar situations, all people do not act exactly alike However, there are certain fundamental consistencies underlying the behavior of all individuals that can

be identified and then modified to reflect individual differences These fundamental consistencies are very important because they allow predictability

Developing an Organizational Behavior Model

A model is an abstraction of reality, a simplified representation of some

real world phenomenon (Robbin, Stephen, Organizational Behavior, eight

editions, A Simon and Schuster Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458) Stephen Robbins in his book “Organizational behavior” set up the

model with three levels of analysis: Individual level; Group level; and Organizational system level The three basis levels are analogous to building blocks; each level is constructed upon the previous level Group concepts grow out of the foundation laid in the individual section, and then arrive at organizational behavior

The model of analysis of organizational behavior contents various dependent variables and independent variables Dependent variable is a response that is affected by an independent variable In this case productivity, absenteeism, turnover and job satisfaction are dependent variable The

independent variables can be clarified in individual – level variables, group – level variables, and organizational system variables

Individual – level variables: When individuals enter the organization,

they are a bit like use cars Each is different Some are “low- mileage” – they have been treated carefully and have had only limited exposure to the realities

of the elements Others are “well – worn” having been driven over some rough

road (Duncan, Jack, Organizational Behavior – 1978) This indicates that

people enter organizations with certain characteristics that will influence their behavior at work The more obvious of these are personal or biographical characteristics such as age, gender, and marital status; personality characteristics; values and attitudes; perception; learning; motivation; and basis ability levels These characteristics are essentially intact when an individual enters the workforce and have a very real impact on employee behavior

Group – level variables: The behavior of people in group is more than

the sum total of all the individuals acting in their own way The complexity of the model is increased when we acknowledge that people’s behavior when they are in group is different from their behavior when they are alone

Organizational systems level variables: Organizational behavior reaches

its highest level of sophistication when we add formal structure to our previous knowledge of individual and group behavior Just as groups are more than the sum of their individual members, so are organizations more than the sum of their member groups The design of the formal organization, work processes,

and jobs; the organization human resource policies and practices, and the

internal culture all have an impact on the dependent variables

Figure 1 Basis OB model

Source: (Robbin, Stephen –Organizational Behavior – 8th Ed.)

Perception and it’s important for organizational behavior

Perception can be defied as a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment However, what one perceives can be substantially difference from objective reality It need not be, but there is often disagreement Why is perception important in organizational behavior? Simply because people’s behavior is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself How do we explain that individuals may look at the same thing, yet perceive it differently? A number of factors operate to shape and sometimes distort perception These factors can reside in the perceiver, in the object or target being perceived, or in the context of the situation in which the perception is made

Perceiver: When an individual looks at a target and attempts to

interpret what he or she sees, that interpretation is heavily influenced by personal characteristics of the individual perceiver Among the more relevant personal characteristics affecting perception are attitudes, motives, interests, past experiences, and expectations

The Target: Characteristics of the target that is being observed can

affect what is perceived Relationship of a target to its background influences perception, as does our tendency to group lose things and similar things together

The Situation: The context in which we see objects or events is

important Elements in the surrounding environment influence our perceptions Those elements could be: time, work setting, social setting

The attribution theory suggests that when we observe an individual’s behavior, we attempt to determine whether it was internally or externally caused That determination, however, depends largely on three factors: Distinctiveness; Consensus; and Consistency

Internally caused behaviors are those that are believed to be under the personal control of the individual Externally caused behavior is seen as resulting from outside causes; that is, the person is seen as having been forced into the behavior by the situation

Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different situations If every one who is faced with a similar situation responds in the same way, we can say the behavior shows consensus Finally, an observer looks for consistency in a person’s actions Does the person respond the same way over time?

Figure 2 summarizes the key elements in attribution theory It would tell

us, for instance, that if your employee generally performs at about the same level on other related task (low distinctiveness), if other employees frequently perform differently (low consensus), and if his performance on this current task is consistent over time (high consistency)

Figure 2 Attribution Theory

(Stephen P.Robbins, Organization Behavior, 8th edition, A Simon and Schuster Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, pp 90-96)

Individuals behave in a given manner based not on the way their external environment actually is but, on what they see or believe it to be It is the employee’s perception of a situation that becomes the basis for his or her behavior The employee who perceives his or her supervisor as a hurdle

reducer who helps him or her do a better job and other employee who sees the same supervisor as “big brother, closely monitoring every motion, to ensure that I’m keep working” will defer in their behavioral responses to their supervisor The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive from their work situation will influence their productivity more than will the situation itself

Attitudes

Attitudes are evaluative statements – either favorable or unfavorable – concerning objects, people, or events They reflect how one feels about something The belief that “discrimination is wrong” is a value statement Such an opinion is the cognitive component of an attitude It sets the stage for the more critical part of an attitude – this affective component Affect is the emotional or feeling segment of an attitude and is reflected in the statement

“I’m not like him because he discriminates against minorities Finally affect can lead to behavioral outcomes The behavioral component of an attitude refers to an intention to behave in a certain way toward someone or something So, viewing attitudes as made up three components – cognition, affect, and behavior – is helpful to understand their complexity and

relationship between attitude and behavior

Attitudes are talents They are acquired from parents, teachers, and peer group member Attitudes, in contrast with values, are less stable but also difficult to change In organizations, attitudes are important because they affect job behavior, then it make sense to try to understand how these attitudes were formed, their relationship to actual job behavior, and how they

might be changed

An individual’s behavior can always be predicted if we know his or her attitude on a subject? The early research work on attitudes assumed that they were causally related to the behavior; that is, the attitudes that people hold determine what they do However, in the late 1960s, this assumed relationship between attitudes and behavior was challenged by a review of the research Based on an evaluation of a number of studies that investigated the attitudes – behaviors relationship, the reviewer concluded that attitudes were unrelated to behavior or, at best, only slightly related More recent research has demonstrated that the relationship attitude – behavior can be improved by taking moderating contingency variables into consideration Although most attitude – behavior relationship studies yield positive results – that attitudes do influence behavior – the relationship tends to be weak before adjustments are made for moderating variables Some researchers took other direction – to look at whether or not behavior influences attitudes, and they found out that the relationship behavior – attitude is quite strong So, in general, attitudes give warnings of potential problems and they influence behavior

Motivation

Motivation as the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need (Schermehorn, Hunt, Osborn, 1997) The three key elements

in the definition are effort, organizational goals, and needs

The effort element is a measure of intensity When someone is motivated, he or she tries hard But high levels of effort are unlikely to lead to favorable job-performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a

direction that benefits the organization Therefore we must consider the quality of the effort as well as intensity Effort that is directed toward, and consistent with, the organization’s goals is the kind of effort that we should be seeking

A need, in our terminology, means some internal state that makes certain outcomes appear attractive An unsatisfied need creates tension that stimulates drives within the individual These drives generate a search behavior to find particular goals that, if attained, will satisfy the need and lead

to the reduction of tension

Therefore, we can say that motivated employees are in a state of tension To relieve this tension, they exert effort The greater the tension, the higher the effort level If this effort successfully leads to the satisfaction of the need, tension is reduced But since we are interested in work behavior, this tension – reduction effort must also be directed toward organization goals Therefore, inherent in our definition of motivation is the requirement that the individual’s needs be compatible and consistent with the organization’s goals Where this does not occur, we can have individuals exerting high levels of effort that actually run counter to the interest of the organization

It is probably safe to say that the most well-known theory of motivation

is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs He hypothesized that within every human being, there exists a hierarchy of five needs, these are:

1 Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs

2 Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm

3 Social: Includes affection, belongings, acceptance, and friendship

4 Esteem: Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement; and external esteem factors such as status, recognition, and attention

5 Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes growth, achieving one’s potential and self fulfillment

As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant In terms of Exhibit 2 –3, the individual moves up the steps

of the hierarchy From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer mitigates, so if you want to motivate someone, accordingly to Maslow, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying those needs at or above level

Figure 3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers However, research does not generally validate the theory Maslow provided no empirical substantiation, and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it

Other theories such as Theory X and Theory Y; Motivation – hygiene theory are also well known but, unfortunately, have not held up well under close examination

There are a number of contemporary theories that have one thing in common – each has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation

Of course, this does not mean that they are unquestionable right They are: (1) ERG theory argues that there are three groups of core needs – existence, relatedness, and growth The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements Relatedness – the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal relationship Growth needs – an intrinsic desire for personal development (2) McClelland’s theory of needs focuses on three needs: achievement, power, and affiliation (3) Cognitive evaluation theory suggests that when extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as pay-offs for superior performance, the intrinsic rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are reduced In other words, when extrinsic rewards are given to someone for performing an interesting task, it causes intrinsic interest in the task itself to decline (4) Goal – setting theory considers that specific and difficult goals lead to higher performance (5) Reinforcement theory sees behavior as being environmentally caused (6) Equity theory focuses on that individuals compare their job inputs and outcomes with those of others and then respond so as to eliminate any

inequities (7) Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act

in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual

The fact that a number of these theories have been supported only complicates the matter Stephen Robbins in “Organizational Behavior” has integrated this theory into a model as shown in exhibit 2 –4, and begins by explicitly recognizing that opportunities can aid or hinder individual effort The individual effort box also has another arrow leading into it This arrow flows out of the person’s goals

Psychology of Behavioural Safety

According to Cooper (1998), many organizations spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to improve safety This may be by installing safety management systems that include regular line management audits of unsafe acts and unsafe conditions in the workplace, supported by some safety training and the creation of various types of safety committee Despite such efforts exerting significant downwards pressure on their lost-time accident rates, many still find that a base level of minor accidents remains that appears

to be stubbornly resistant to all efforts to remove it Although many of these accidents are attributed to people’s carelessness or poor safety attitudes, a perusal of their causes shows that the vast majority are actually triggered by deeply ingrained unsafe behaviors However, through proven management control techniques, formalized behavioral safety initiatives can be used to

address these unsafe behaviors by proactively focusing people’s attention on them A vast amount of research evidence shows that this almost always results in a positive step change in safety performance and safety attitudes One study conducted in a UK Cellophane manufacturing plant by the author and colleagues in 1992, for example, reduced the moving average number of accidents per 16 week period from 118 to 63 This 50% reduction saved an estimated £220,000 to £440,000 in associated accident costs inside 20 weeks Because behavioral safety initiatives are designed to bring about continual ongoing improvements, the initiative has continued ever since Four years on, by July 1996 the average number of accidents per 16 week period was 29

Often, however, a plateau of minor accidents remains that appears to

be stubbornly resistant to all efforts to remove them Although many of these are attributed to peoples' carelessness or poor safety attitudes, most of these are triggered by deeply ingrained unsafe behaviours Behavioural Safety addresses these by making use of proven management techniques which almost always results in a positive step change in safety performance and

safety attitudes (Cooper, M.D, (1998) Improving Safety Culture: A practical

Guide J Wiley and Sons, Chichester)

Why focus unsafe behavior?

Although difficult to control, 80% to 95% of all accidents are triggered by unsafe behaviors Consequently, it makes good commercial sense to target unsafe behaviors if the associated human and financial costs are to be reduced Very often, however, these behaviors interact with other negative

features (termed `resident pathogens’) inherent in workflow processes or present in the working environment In the same way as pathogens (e.g cancer-causing cells) are present in the human body, every organization has its fair share of accident-causing pathogens Often inadvertently introduced into organizations during the implementation of strategic plans, these pathogens lie dormant and are relatively harmless until such time as two or more combine and are triggered by an unsafe behavior to produce an accident This can be illustrated by a company which installed a new production process which entailed designing and building two new mezzanine floors in an existing plant Plant-based engineers had formulated plans that had been approved by a project team over a period of time Once the construction work was complete, it was found that a supporting girder had been erected at a height of five feet above the second step of a staircase on both floors This meant that two pathogens had inadvertently been introduced into the physical environment Meanwhile, during the commissioning of the new process equipment, product blockages were frequently found to occur in the related pipe work (a third pathogen) that could only be cleared by ascending to the mezzanine floors where an inspection hatch was situated

On their own these three pathogens were harmless However, due to production pressures and a lack of adequate manpower (two further pathogens), the blockage required the operator to isolate the equipment at a lower production floor (another pathogen), and ascend the stairs to the mezzanine floors to clear the pipe work At this point all these `harmless’ pathogens combined to trigger an accident when the operator rushed up the stairs (unsafe behavior) to clear the blockage and ran into the low girder,

fracturing his skull, inflicting whiplash effects on his neck and knocking himself unconscious This resulted in a reportable accident, lost production and

associated costs (Cooper, M.D, (1998) Improving Safety Culture, page 226,

Published 1998 by John Wiley and Sons Ltd)

Why do people behave unsafely?

People often behave unsafely because they have never yet been hurt while doing their job in an unsafe way: `I’ve always done the job this way’ being a familiar comment when asked why they behave in that way Although, this may well be true, the potential for an accident is never far away Heinrich’s triangle, for example, suggests that for every 330 unsafe acts, 29 will result in minor injuries and one in a major or lost-time incident

Why Do People behave Unsafely?

Over an extended period of time, therefore, the lack of any injuries for those who consistently engage in unsafe behaviors is actually reinforcing the very same behavior pattern that in all probability will eventually cause a serious injury The principle being illustrated here is that the consequences of behaving unsafely will nearly always determine future unsafe behavior, simply because reinforced behavior will nearly always tend to be repeated

The Effects of Different Reinforcers

The continuation of unsafe behaviors is often supported by more than one reinforcer, some exerting stronger effects on people’s behavior than others This is particularly true for reinforcers that are soon, certain and positive Smokers, for example, find it hard to give up because the consequences of smoking are soon (immediate), certain (every time) and

positive (a nicotine top up), whereas the negative consequences (e.g lung cancer) are late (some years away) and uncertain (not every smoker contracts

or dies from lung cancer) In exactly the same way, employees will find it hard

to follow certain safety rules and procedures if they are consistently (certain) rewarded by an immediate (soon) time saving that achieves extra production (positive) by behaving unsafely What would you do, for example, if you had to spend 10 to 15 minutes putting on the correct clothing and equipment to open

a manual valve that takes only 10 seconds?

Work-Related Reinforcers

In some instances the actual workflow process also reinforces people’s unsafe behavior, simply because it may be the only way to get a job done In one company, for example, where a particular fluid valve was continually malfunctioning, operators were forced to use a maintenance engineer’s fluid valve to wash out lines conveying raw material to ensure that the next product batch was not contaminated Unfortunately the maintenance valve was situated in an extremely awkward position, at a height of 10 feet above the floor level To reach this valve, operators were forced to stand on a handrail, with a 30 foot drop on one side, at least 12 times per day Because the operators’ behavior was always (certain) reinforced immediately (soon) by getting their job done (positive) to maintain production, this particular unsafe behavior soon became part of the group `norm’ This example implicitly illustrates that unsafe behavior is sometimes further reinforced by line managers turning a blind eye, or actively encouraging employees to take short cuts for the sake of production Unfortunately, this has negative knock-

on effects on other areas of work activity that are not always immediately apparent

Operators learn that unsafe behavior pays it wastes resources as the very behaviors that companies spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to eradicate are reinforced by condoning unsafe behavior, line managers are transmitting conflicting messages that undermine employees’ confidence in the whole of management’s commitment to improving safety This can seriously undermine employees’ loyalty and commitment to their organization,

as the company will be perceived to be unwilling to provide a safe working environment This can reduce the amount and quality of production and lead

to higher labor turnover and absenteeism In the above example, if line management had halted production until such time as the original fluid valve was replaced, or provided a safe means of access (e.g scaffolding), the establishment of an unsafe behavior pattern would never have occurred in the first place Possible injuries to operators, the associated accident costs and potential legal proceedings would also have been avoided In addition, the corporate commitment to safety would have been publicly reinforced by showing how seriously the company viewed safe working practices (Cooper, 2001)

How is unsafe behavior prevented?

Traditionally, efforts to change people’s unsafe behavior have taken the form of either altering the physical environment with engineering solutions

or changing people’s attitudes via safety information campaigns and safety training, or using disciplinary procedures to force them into compliance Each

of these approaches to stopping unsafe behavior is discussed below

Providing Engineering Solutions

Eliminating all known and potential hazards of workflow processes by engineering them out or introducing physical controls at the design stage can

be an effective way of limiting the potential for unsafe behavior Unfortunately, the opportunity to do this is usually limited to `greenfield’ sites, or when new plant and equipment is to be installed In practice, this means that much plant and equipment currently in use was manufactured and installed many years ago Where this is the case, rather than replacing existing plant, management often find it cheaper and easier to adapt it by, for example, installing physical guards or automatic cut-out safety devices While successful in many instances, it does not always work, simply because people have the capacity

to behave unsafely and override any engineering controls Familiar examples include the removal or disengaging of machine guards to speed up production A specific example involved an operator on a weekend shift who physically climbed a 10 foot high wire enclosure to reach parts of a production line that had become blocked by product bales Unfortunately, although the operator cleared the blockage, he forgot about a swivel arm that automatically swept the raw material bales onto the production line This swept him into the machinery, causing him to be fatally crushed between two receiving presses Clearly, despite the fenced off enclosure and numerous warning signs the operator felt that the consequences of behaving unsafely would be more than repaid by continued production In the same way, many people choose to ignore or override various alerting signals if they are thought to hinder production while presenting little visible risk for non- compliance These examples illustrate the point that because many engineering solutions are

reliant on people’s `rule following’ behavior, people still have the capacity to behave unsafely (Cooper, 2001 p 230)

Changing People’s Attitudes

It is very common to find comments on accident reports that say `Mr should take more care With better attitudes and safety awareness, this accident would not have happened’ This type of comment often reflects the fact that a `blame the victim’ culture exists within a company, with attempts to change unsafe behavior based on the belief that attitudes determine behavior Such companies tend to rely on information campaigns that publicise safety and/or provide safety training to bring about changes in people’s attitudes

Attitude and Behavior Link

Although positive attitudes towards safety are important and very desirable, the link from attitude change to behavior change is very weak This can be readily explained by the fact that one attitude consists of four components: a `thinking’ component, a `feeling’ component, an `evaluative’ component, and a `conative’ component, any of which may conflict with the others (e.g one may think and feel positively about safety but still not behave safely) Additionally, a single attitude is usually linked with a set of other related attitudes To ensure success, therefore, logic dictates that attempts at attitude change must target each individual component of each individual attitude, as well as addressing the remaining set of related attitudes, for each single employee Obviously, simultaneously identifying and addressing all these separate components is almost impossible, particularly when we consider that many people are not even sure of their own attitudes towards

many `topics’ Even if this were possible, when we recognize that people hold different attitudes about different `topics’ and that the perceived importance of one `topic’ will often override another in different situations we can begin to see why the link from attitude change to behavior change is so weak Behavior and Attitude Link Fortunately, the link from behavior change to attitude change is much stronger A prime example that demonstrates this is the use of seat belts in motor vehicles Over a period of time, various governments introduced informational safety campaigns in the media to get people to `Clunk click every trip’ Overall, these campaigns tended to have very little effect on people’s attitudes towards the use of seat belts Approximately 90% of drivers continued to ignore the message The government of the day finally decided to change people’s seat belt wearing behavior by introducing legislation to make the use of seat belts compulsory This was initially backed up by a vigorous police campaign of enforcement, until people got so used to wearing them that it became a non-issue Were the seat belt legislation to be repealed tomorrow, most people would probably continue to use them, indicating that the vast majority of people now hold positive attitudes towards seat belt use Why should this be? Psychologists have shown that if people consciously change their behavior for some reason, then they also tend to re-adjust their associated attitudes and belief systems

to fit the new behavior In general, this occurs because people try to protect Improving Behavioral Safety their psychological well being by avoiding the introduction of stressful psychological tension caused by conflicts between their behavior and attitudes Thus behavior change tends to lead to new belief and attitude systems which then buttress the new set of behaviors

(www.behavioral-safety.com/component/content/article/ 2-the psychology of behavior safety)

How Do We Stop People Behaving Unsafely? Why not engineer out hazards?

Eliminating hazards by engineering them out or introducing physical controls can be an effective way of limiting the potential for unsafe behaviour While successful in many instances, it does not always work, simply because people have the capacity to behave unsafely and override any engineering controls

For example, in attempts to reduce the number of fatalities associated with quarry transport, companies install belt conveyers to replace vehicles as the main haulage system for transporting extracted minerals To overcome major operational problems associated with these conveyance systems (e.g the spillage of minerals at transfer points from the belt), engineer’s design and install belt scrapers to minimize mineral build-ups at the pulleys to reduce belt distortion Despite these precautions, materials often build-up at the nip point between belt and pulley When this occurs, it is not unusual to find operators removing the guards while the belt is still in operation to clear the material build-up Others are known to attempt to clear the moving pulleys with iron bars or shovels In both cases there is a high risk of the tools becoming caught in the nip points of a pulley, and drawing the operator in with serious consequences

Clearly, despite the presence of the machine guards, operators often believe that the consequences of behaving unsafely will be more than repaid