By Phil La Duke
Last week I spoke at the National Safety Council where the behemoths of safety gather. I saw some really cool new products—work pants with need pads sewn into them, the latest in ceramic cutting technology, and even an amazing device that prevents industrial vehicle and pedestrian accidents—but I also heard a lot of the same old drivel some repackaged but mostly unadulterated snake oil sold in largely the same package, and a fair amount of the same old hackneyed arguments. There isn’t much new under the sun, at least not in worker safety.
One of the supposed “tried and true” safety tactics is conducting behavior observations. Behavior observations lie at the heart of many safety management systems. Exactly how these practices are performed can vary widely from organization to organization and the efficacy of these practices similarly varies from location to location. I’ve remained largely silent (well as silent as I can ever be) on the practice, because I know many smart safety professionals for whom I have the utmost respect who value behavior observations as important components of their overall safety tactics and strategy.
The thinking that drives behavior observations is that a supervisor (or in some cases, another worker or a safety professional) watches a worker do his or her job after which the observer offers tips on how to do the work more safely. I’m over simplifying, but not a lot. Proponents of the behavior observation believe that the combination of intervention in cases of unsafe behavior and positive feedback for safe behavior reduce injuries. Those that support Behavior Based Safety proudly point to their love of scientific study and organizational psychology but in doing so they ignore one of the most important studies of the workplace in history, those at the Hawthorne Western Electric Company (and other research conducted by conducted by Fredrick Taylor and others.) For five years, researchers studied the effects of physical, social, psychological, and environmental factors would influence the productivity of workers. The most famous finding was the dubbed the Hawthorne effect — which referred to an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being made the focus of the study. One could easily extrapolate that workers too can be temporarily manipulated into working safely, but the results are neither lasting nor indicative of a lasting behavior change. If the Hawthorne Effect is true of safety, than it doesn’t matter whether the feedback is positive or negative, skilled or unskilled, well articulated or grunted out by a bonobo, the behavior of the worker will temporarily improve.
But there were other findings as well, researchers found lesser known phenomena, like the fact that research in and of itself alter the behaviors that are studied. This phenomenon has been replicated many times in many other studies.
But perhaps more germane to safety, researchers concluded:
- Productivity is a group activity. The Hawthorn researchers found that the relationship between the supervisors and the workers played an important role in workplace productivity. It should surprise no one that workers with good relationships with their supervisors will tend to report hazards more frequently. If the worker believes his or her supervisors care about their safety they are far more inclined to bring safety concerns to the attention of leadership.
- Team Norms Directly Influence Worker Productivity. Researchers have known for a hundred years that workers set the expectations for fair day’s work; but Hawthorn researchers were the first to demonstrate and describe this phenomenon. Similarly, work groups set the expectations of safety and safe work practices. This is the essential core of a corporate culture—that the work group set the rules, even those associated with worker safety.
- Worker skill is a poor predictors of his or her job performance. The Hawthorne study found that while worker capabilities provide some clues as to the future performance of a worker (in terms of the physical and mental potential of the worker), exactly how well the worker will perform (again this applies to safety) the real performance is strongly influenced by social factors; it’s less about whether or not the worker is observed, and more about how the worker interacts with his or her peers.
- The workplace is a social system. Fredrick Taylor and his colleagues viewed, the work place as a social construct; a system composed of many unpredictable and interdependent elements.
Beyond the Hawthorne Effect, proponents of behavior observations also ignore several key truths:
- Workers behave differently when they are being studied. From the Hawthorne Electric studies in workplace productivity to studies with animals, researchers now know that the behavior of a research subject is significantly changed simply by the act of observing them. The tale, it would seem, is tainted in the telling.
- Observations are essentially shoddy training needs assessments. In those cases where the worker is acting unsafely (or more likely less safely) the result is either that the worker is doing so because he or she needs to be trained in the correct procedures, or the worker has made an error. Since we know that human error cannot be prevented through behavior observations, the act of observing workers is akin to doing a slip shod training needs assessment.
Observations are expensive, pointless, and provide little information that could not be gathered more effectively through another method. It is an overblown, quasi-scientific reaction to a problem that can be readily addressed through an easier and cheaper approach.
 It’s important to note, that while the Hawthorne researchers were studying productivity, it’s not that far from safety. Safety is the product of a robust and efficient process; that is to say, a process cannot be considered efficient or productive if it produces poor quality or injures workers. For the purposes of this post, productivity = safety.