Behavioural Safety Essay Fixed
There are three factors that influence personal safety choices: the ability to recognize hazards and evaluate risk, the motivation to be safe, and the ability to focus while performing the current task safely.
behavioural safety essay
Behavior Based Safety is a program designed to influence employee actions toward safer outcomes, ideally by preventing an accident or injury before it occurs. Implementing a behavior based safety program is the most comprehensive way for companies to promote safety, eliminate hazards and prevent injuries.
Works CitedAsfahl, C.R. (1999) Industrial safety and health management, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallCoopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.Curtis, S.L., (1995) "Safety and total quality management," Professional Safety, Jan., pp.18-20DiPadova, L.N., and Faerman, S.R. (1993). "Using the competing values framework to facilitate managerial understanding across levels of organizational hierarchy," Human Resource Management, 32(1), 143-174NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2001), Available on the World Wide Web at
7. Fenn, P., & Ashby, S., 2004. Workplace risk, establishment size, and union density. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42, 461 -- 480.8. Griffin, M.A., & Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347 -- 358.9. Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety
Safety Incentive ProgramsSafety should always be a main concern for employers. It is cost-effective to care about your employees. It is good employer-employee relations. It's also great public relations when employers and employees work together for the sake of safety.Give the horse a carrot. We've all heard this expression but have you ever really thought about how true it is? Basically, reward the worker and the work will get done.
There are many key facets to how to promote the efficient use of safety procedure within the workplace environment. Although employees need to be in charge of their own safety, management must use many different techniques to reinforce the procedures and methods by which employees can strengthen their approach to safety. One such method is through reporting hazards, in which employees are encouraged through rewards and gratitude to report any
Studies have found that workplace related disasters are a result of a breakdown in an organization's policies and procedures that were established to deal with safety, and that the breakdown flows from inadequate attention being paid to safety issues.
A good safety culture can be promoted by senior management commitment to safety, realistic practices for handling hazards, continuous organisational learning, and care and concern for hazards shared across the workforce. Beyond organisational learning, individual training forms the foundation from which to build a systemic safety culture.
"That assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance."
Since the 1980s there has been a large amount of research into safety culture. However the concept remains largely "ill defined". Within the literature there are a number of varying definitions of safety culture with arguments for and against the concept. Two of the most prominent and most-commonly used definitions are those given above from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and from the UK Health and Safety Commission (HSC). However, there are some common characteristics shared by other definitions. Some characteristics associated with safety culture include the incorporation of beliefs, values and attitudes. A critical feature of safety culture is that it is shared by a group.
When defining safety culture some authors focus on attitudes, where others see safety culture being expressed through behaviours and activities. The safety culture of an organization can be a critical influence on human performance in safety-related tasks and hence on the safety performance of the organization. Many proprietary and academic methods claim to assess safety culture, but few have been validated against actual safety performance. The vast majority of surveys examine key issues such as leadership, involvement, commitment, communication, and incident reporting. Some safety culture maturity tools are used in focus group exercises, though few of these (even the most popular) have been examined against company incident rates.
From public enquiries it has become evident that a broken safety culture is responsible for many of the major process safety disasters that have taken place around the world over the past 20 years or so. Typical features related to these disasters are where there had been a culture of:
"Tough guy" attributes like unwillingness to admit ignorance, admit mistakes, or ask for help can undermine safety culture and productivity by interfering with exchange of useful information. A Harvard Business School study found an intervention to improve the culture at Shell Oil during the construction of the Ursa tension leg platform contributed to increased productivity and an 84% lower accident rate. After a number of Korean Air crashes, and particularly after the Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509 crash, a December 1999 review found that a culture of overly strong hierarchy (influenced in general Korean culture by Confucianism) prevented subordinates from speaking up in safety-critical situations. The airline's safety record later improved considerably.
Several papers (e.g., for the UK offshore oil industry -Mearns et al. (2000)) have sought to identify specific safety management practices that predict (conventional) safety performance. Shannon (1998) gives details of many reported surveys in Canada and the US and reports the conclusions of Shannon et al. (1997). reviewing them. Variables consistently related to lower injury rates included both those specified by a safety management system and purely cultural factors.
Recently, some evidence showed that regional subculture has its own contribution to safety culture. Therefore, considering subculture values as predictors will be helpful to improve safety culture.
Control of major accident hazards requires a specific focus on process-safety management over and above conventional safety management, and Anderson (2004) has expressed concern at the implications for management of major hazards of the extension of the "safety culture" concept to justify behavioural safety initiatives to reduce injury (or lost-time accident) rates by improving safety culture. He argues that "loss of containment" rates on major hazard sites give a good indication of how well the major accident risks are managed; UK studies show no significant correlation with "lost time accident" rates. Furthermore, behavioural safety has come to be targeted[by whom?] on reducing the propensity for error of front line staff by getting them to be more careful; UK studies have shown that the vast majority of frontline errors are not free-standing, but are triggered by preceding errors by more senior grades. (In a study of over 700 loss-of-containment events in the 1990s - of 110 incidents due to maintenance, only 17 were due to a failure to ensure that planned maintenance procedures were followed: 93 were due to a failure by the organisation to provide adequate maintenance procedures. Under 6% of incidents were due to front-line personnel deliberately not following procedures.). There can be no objection to behavioural safety initiatives to reduce the rate of lost-time accidents, provided that they do not divert effort from the management of major hazards and that a low lost-time accident rate does not give rise to unwarranted complacency about the major hazard.
The tools used to assess safety culture are normally questionnaires. Due to differences of national and organizational cultures, as well as different approaches in studies and researches, many types of safety culture questionnaires have emerged. For example, in oil companies a safety culture questionnaire was developed in UK.
Risk assessment is central to BBS. Both managers and employees should understand any risks to health and safety and assign appropriate priority levels based on likelihood and impact. Mitigating actions that come from risk assessment should be built into BBS action plans and tracked in your quality management system.
As you can see, BBS can be a useful addition to any workplace. We recommend combining your BBS training program with a robust EHS system so you can easily identify, prioritize, track and mitigate health and safety risks.
Organisational psychologists, statisticians, engineers, sociologists, and researchers have developed keen interests in understanding how a team functions. Psychological safety, which refers to the common belief held by different team members that the team offers safety for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson 1999), is the focus of this research paper. The construct of psychological safety reflects the willingness of individual team members to contribute their ideas and actions to work collectively as a team. While there are various ways that a team can create psychological safety, this paper aims to demonstrate that one specific approach is the best to create a sense of psychological safety in a team environment.
In such environments, employees usually feel safe to share their ideas and collaborate on tasks. In this regard, the often taken-for-granted practices, such as seeking a second opinion, employee personal and professional development, promoting learning opportunities, team participation, and worker engagement among others, have been shown to create psychological safety in a team environment. In this research, promoting learning opportunities is presented as the most effective means of creating psychological safety in a team environment.