Chương trình đào tạo hành vi an toàn nơi làm việc ở các công ty trong lĩnh vực sản xuất cơ sở đề phòng và giảm thiểu tai nạn

khóa luận, luận văn, thạc sĩ, tiến sĩ, cao học, đề tài

company in Hanoi: Basis for Accident prevention and Reduction

A Dissertation Presented To The Faculty of Graduate School

SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY LUCBAN, QUEZON, PHILIPPINES

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY S.R VIETNAM

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Pham Thi Ninh

August, 2013

Acknowledgments

I would like to express our most sincere thanks to the Management Board of the Southern Luzon State University, Thai Nguyen University, the teacher, the teacher

of the school has helped me facilitate the learning process throughout

I would like to express sincere gratitude and profound Professor Melchor Milo Placino , enthusiastic teacher who have dedicated guidance, encouragement,

spend time and exchange orientation for me during this research

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Department of Employment - Ministry of Labor - Invalids and Social Affairs, the LILAMA 69-2 company has helped

me research material, through a questionnaire survey

I sincerely thank the Board of the University of Labor and Social affair (ULSA), colleagues in ULSA, classmates DBA1 facilitated enthusiastic help and share my experience to help complete the thesis

Finally, I would like to send the gift to the heart of my family has passed enthusiasm and encouragement to complete my thesis

ii

Table of contents

Chapter I: Introduction

1.1 Background of the study……….1

1.2 Statement of the problem……… 5

1.3 Significance of the study……….6

1.4 Research Method……….6

1.5 Scope and limitation of the study………7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework 8

2.2 Review of related studies 33

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design and Location of the study……… 36

3.2 Description of respondents………38

3.3 Data collection Procedure and data analysis method……….38

3.4 Questionnaire design………39

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.1 Profile of Respondents……….45

4.2 Data Analysis ……… ………46

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION, BEHAVIOR BASED SAFETY training program Development 5.1 Findings ………53

5.2 Conclusions ……….54

5.3 Recommendations………55

REPERENCE ……… 79

APPENDIX A……….81 APPENDIX B……….83 APPENDIX C ……… 85

iv

Abstract

Safety issue in workplace is an urgent problem nowadays, because of unsafe conditions are occurring daily work in the company especially in the manufacturing sector Studies show that about 90% of accidents occur because of unsafe behavior and human errors 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 This study aims is to determine the effectiveness of current safety program and recommend to built up safety training program on behavioral safety, the basis for accident reduction in one typical local big company in manufacturing and erection sector

This descriptive cross- sectional study was carried out on workers/ managers in LILAMA 69-2 company A sample size of 394 was randomly selected Data collection tool was a researcher –made questionnaire Data was analyzed using Excel With the findings from the study about the causes leading to accident, 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

List of tables:

Page

Table 2.1: The cause of labor accidents……… 34

Table 3.1: Questionnaire for measuring safety climate and behavior along with Benchmarking………

39 Table 3.2: Safety Behavior Marking……… 43

Table 4.1: Worker survey……… 46

Table 4.2: T-test paired two sample for mean……… 48

Table 4.3: Managers and supervisor survey……… 48

Table 4.4: Worker personal profile……… 49

Table 4.5: Types of Accident ……… 50

Table 4.6: The cause lead to accident from LILAMA statistic……… 51

Table 4.7: Summary result of area: D, PATS, SATS, SATW………… 51

Table 4.8: Summary result of area: D, PATS, SATS, HSE……… 53

Table 5.1: The example of critical behaviors ……… 66

Table 5.2: The example of BSV check list and analysis……… 67

Table 5.3: How to do BBS observation……… 68

Exhibit 1-1: Conceptual framework of the Study……… 6

Exhibit 2-1: Basis OB model……… 10

Exhibit 2-2: Attribution theory……… 13

Exhibit 2-3: Maslow’s hierarchy of need……… 17

vi

List of figures

Page Figure 1.1: Rate accident and Time……… 1

Figure 4.1: Graph on responded result……… 47

Figure 4.2: Safety Attitude within Department – First question (worker

Figure 4.4: Graph- comparison the responded results from managers

and supervisor vs workers

50

Figure 5.1: Describes the BBS processes……… 63

1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background:

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 Industrial 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 (FGhofranipour, Iranian J Publ Health, Vol 38, No 2,2009,pp125) 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

Figure 1.1

From the graph, we can see that the causes lead to the accident has been changed follows the time, from high rate on engineering approach to system it’s self and now a day human factor is the most contribution to accident causes Changing the behavior

of employee is challenge of manager

In case of Vietnam, occupational accident is a very important issue in industries, especially in recent years the number of occupational accidents occurring more and more as Industry is growing

Also, according to the report of the MOLISA (Ministry of labor, invalid and social affair), 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)

Also, according this report the causes of workplace accidents due to no training in occupational safety for employees (7.8%), equipment is not safe (3.15%), not equipped with personal protective equipment for workers (1.39%), no procedures, safety measures (3.49%) Thus more then 80% of accidents occur which are attributable to human factors That is the attitude, knowledge, behavior of workers for safe work

With the purpose of this study, the author considers to have the research on one typical local big company on the field of production and erection in Hanoi area The result of the study and recommendations could apply to others on the same field and area

3

The company selected was LILAMA 69-2 who with more than 50 years of constant development, is known as one of the experienced for vessels, pipe manufacturer and erection contractor in Vietnam

Being well aware of the strict requirements from client on the high quality services, LILAMA 69-2 has been focusing on developing its human recourses including qualified technical employees and engineers 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 (More detail about company structure can find in chapter 3 of this thesis, but) The number of employees by end of 2012 was 1,180 staff and 120 leaders and managers The company is 51% owned by state owned Group LILAMA and 49% by private share holders with 57 BVND chapter capital Despite the company’s safety policy is “Ensure Safety in production with target Zero accident and by providing safety training and occupational health to 100% workers; daily supervision of safety and occupational health; 100% critical equipment to be maintained follow procedures etc ”, safety and occupational health status formally reported plus accidents/ incidents not formally recorded was on not good condition Follows report of LILAMA 692, in 2010, 2011,2012, 1 serious accident were happened lead to die and many accidents or incidents not formally recorded Thoroughly analyzed three years incident and investigation data and identified that most of the workplace incidents are triggered by unsafe behaviors, persistence of inherited traditional beliefs and overconfidence of workers

It is obviously 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 the companies

1.2 Problem statement

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 seeks 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 among 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?

1.3 Significance of the study:

The research studying about Behavioral Safety in Workplace of production company

in Hanoi area – The selected company is LILAMA 69-2 and establishes 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

5

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

1.4 Research Methodology:

1.4.1 Data collection method

The data needed for the research includes secondary data and primary data

Secondary data for the research is mostly collected via:

- The reports and statistic of accidents from Ministry of labour and invalid (MOLISA)

- Data from yearly Safety report of LILAMA 69-2

Primary data is collected by sending questionnaires to managers and employees of LILAMA 69-2 company and in-depth interviewing some managers and employees The questions are to ask the employees / managers about their views on Safety Attitude within the company, Personal Attitude to Safety, Working conditions at workplace, Supervisor Attitude to worker safety, Job Loyalty shown by the employee, Serious Attitude to Safety, Training needed, Management attitude

Questionnaires to be sent by mail and though direct contacts to employees (supervisor, managers, workers)

1.4.2 Data analysis

The analysis is mainly based on the outputs of data processing and the information collected from the survey The method’s analysis and assess use Benchmarking and Cornell selected Index

Encoding of data: data will clean (hand with outline and missing value) before entering into computer using Excel Data analysis and evaluation by using Excel program

1.5 The scope and limitation of research:

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

With the fact that companies have different dimension about work character, knowledge of employees, scale of company, that why the author choose 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

Conceptual framework of the study

Exhibit 1-1 Conceptual framework of the study

Problems findings

Alternative solutions

Development of training plan

Work Safe behaviors review

Literature

Analysis

7

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework

2.1.1 Definitions of 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 (Robbin, Stephen, Organizational Behavior, eight editions, A Simon and Schuster Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458)

Organizational behavior is concerned with the study of what people do in an organization and how that behavior affects the performance of the organization And 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

2.1 2 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

9

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

Exhibit 2 –1: Basis OB model (Robbin, Stephen –Organizational Behavior –

eight edition)

Human resource policies & practices

Organization structure & design

Organizational culture

Work design &

technology

Leadership

Work teams Group structure

Group decision making

Power and politics Conflict

Other Groups Communication

Personality

Biographical characteristics

Perception

Individual learning

Individual decision making Motivation

Ability Values & attitudes

Human output

Individual level

Group level Org system level

11

2.1.3 Perception, and why is it 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?

In exhibit 2-2 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)

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

Individual 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

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, J., Hunt, J., Osborn, R – 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 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

job-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

17

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

Exhibit 2 – 3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Physiological

Social

Esteem

Self actualiz ation

Safety

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

19

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 an other arrow leading into it This arrow flows out of the person’s goals

2.1.4 Psychology of Behavioural Safety

Follow Cooper, 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

21

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,

23

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

(Dr Cooper, (2001), Improving Behavioral Safety, pp 228-229, First publish 1998 by John and Sons Ltd))

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

25

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

(Dr Cooper, (2001), Improving Behavioral Safety: A practical Guide, pp 230, Published 1998 by John Wiley and Sons Ltd)

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

27

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 by continued production This illustrates the point that many engineering solutions tend to be reliant on peoples' 'rule following' behaviour (e.g stopping the machinery before removing guards) but people still have the capacity to ignore them and behave unsafely

Thus, although engineering solutions have a strong place in safety management, they cannot be relied upon

How Do We Stop People Behaving Unsafely? Why not change people’s attitudes?

Comments on accident reports often say 'So and So should take more care With better attitudes and safety awareness, this accident would not have happened' Where this occurs, attempts to change unsafe behaviour usually hinge upon the belief that attitudes determine behaviour (Indeed, this is a very common opinion amongst many safety professionals) Remedies tend to rely on publicity campaigns and safety training to bring about changes in people’s attitudes, which in turn is expected to change people’s behaviour Although positive safety attitudes are important and very desirable, the link from attitude change to behaviour change is very weak This can be explained by the fact that a single attitude comprises of at least three components: thinking (cognitive), feeling (emotional), and the intention to act on it (commitment) Additionally, a single attitude is usually linked with a set of other related attitudes Logic dictates, therefore, that attempts at attitude change must target each individual

(Cooper, MD & Phillips, RA.(2004) Exploratory Analysis of the Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour Relationship pp 497-512)

An additional factor that enhances attitude change by focusing on behaviour is the positive reinforcement brought about by peer pressure Psychologists have known for some time that group membership demands conformity to the groups' behavioural and attitudinal 'norms' If a workgroup adopts the 'norm' that 'thinking and behaving safely' is best for all concerned, the group as a whole will tend to apply social 'sanctions' to the individual who deviates from this norm and behaves unsafely If people wish to remain a part of the social fabric of the workgroup, they soon revert back to the safety norm and behave safely Importantly, this illustrates the point that workgroups will adopt a collective definition of those behaviours, work practices or tasks that are considered to be risky (Cooper, 1997) This fact lies at the very heart of

behavioural safety, simply because its essence is to help workgroups positively redefine their own safety related 'norms

How Do We Stop People Behaving Unsafely? Why not punish people until they behave safely?

Some approaches to safety management are heavily reliant on the use of authority, fear and punishment (i.e if you do not behave in a safe manner at work you could be reprimanded, fined or even dismissed) These approaches emphasize the use

of discipline and punishment to discourage unsafe behaviour, while safe behaviour is largely ignored This often results in the opposite of that intended (e.g accident or near-miss incidents are not reported for fear of sanctions) Although the judicious use

of discipline and punishment can have the intended effects, more often than not it doesn't The reason for this is quite simple: The effectiveness of punishment is dependent upon its consistency It only works if is given immediately, and every single time an unsafe behaviour occurs It is self-evident that punishing someone every time they behave unsafely is a very difficult thing to do, simply because they will not always be seen to do so by those in authority This means those soon, certain and positive reinforcers gained from behaving unsafely will tend to outweigh any uncertain, late, negative reinforcers received from inconsistent punishment

Thus, although punishing those who deliberately put other people at risk is a valid option, punishing people for everyday infractions of safety rules (e.g not wearing a hard hat) is a very difficult thing to do consistently and does not address the underlying problems (e.g the hard hat is uncomfortable or gets in the way of doing the job safely) In essence, therefore, punishment should be reserved: [1] to those who deliberately put other people at risk; and [2] only after the organization has done

31

everything in its power to create the safest working environment, provide the most comfortable protective equipment and a persons' unsafe behaviour is a consistent, willful act aimed at flouting authority

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

How can we stop unsafe behaviour? Why not praise people for behaving safely?

So how can line management ensure that the reinforcers for working safely outweigh those for working unsafely? It is a fact that most people tend to respond more to praise and social approval than any other factor Think if you will, of people smoking their first cigarette This normally occurs during the teenage years because it

is seen as the 'thing' to do Although the cigarette smoke may taste foul and cause severe coughing, people will continue to suffer the discomfort, if the cigarette smoking behaviour meets with their peer group's approval Likewise, some people may not use PPE or follow a procedure at work because of their colleague’s disapproval: e.g it goes against the workgroup's macho image

It makes sense, therefore, to make use of this phenomenon and praise people for behaving safely (something very rarely done) to bring about the required changes (Incentive and reward schemes reflect this principle) Crucially, the effect of this is to explicitly link the desired safe behaviour to the praise received Once the required behaviour pattern starts to become established, the timing and frequency of the praise and social approval can be reduced over a period of time: i.e it doesn't need to be given immediately and every single time that someone is seen to be behaving safely

Additional benefits include the strengthening of a positive safety culture due to increased trust and confidence between line managers and the workforce

Thus, positive praise coupled with constructive feedback, tends to eliminate unsafe behaviour

(Dr Dominic Cooper, (2001), Improving Behavioural Safety)

2.2.Some studies relevant for safety in workplace

1 Ethical climates and Workplace safety behavior: An empirical investigation

(K.Praveen Parboteeah Edward Andrew Kapp, Ph.D Washington State University)

In this article, the important but neglected link between workplace enhancing behavior and ethics is explored Using data from 237 employees from five manufacturing plants in the Midwest, we investigated how specific local ethical climate types are linked to incidences of injuries and two types of safety-enhancing behaviors: safety compliance and safety participation It was hypothesized that egoist climates are positively related to injuries and negatively related to safety-enhancing behaviors In contrast, it is proposed that both benevolent and principled climates have negative relationships with

safety-injuries and positive relationships with safety-enhancing behaviors Results provided support only for our principled climate types while benevolence has the desired negative relationship with injuries Egoism and benevolence are not related to safety-enhancing behaviors Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed