Models of People Behaving Unsafely at Work - Essay Example

Behavior based safety: Safety is a major concern at work places nowadays. Ignorant managers have borne severe financial losses because of work-site hazards and incurred bad public relations. Much research, public pressure and past accidents have caused the managers to focus upon ensuring the availability of a safe work environment to their workers. This has not been easy for businessmen whose prime concern was to make profit out of their business. Investing in safety tends to reduce the profit since managers take it as an extra expenditure that would not earn them profit. Also, accidents are considered by managers as a naturally occurring phenomenon and they think that investing in purchasing equipments or taking measures would not serve much to reduce the number or severity of accidents. “OSHA defines an accident as an unplanned event that interrupts the completion of an activity, and that may (or may not) include injury or property damage.” (Whyte, 2010). A large number of accidents have occurred in the past because of the personal carelessness of the workers who tend to take risks and in an attempt to prove their abilities, end up being caught in accidents. Besides, several other reasons of workers indulging in unsafe style of work can be mentioned. One reason why workers adopt an unsafe approach toward doing site work is their attempt to achieve more in less time in order to impress their managers or prove their efficiency through an increased output. After careful analysis of the past accidents made the managers realize that a lot of accidents occurred because of workers’ own unsafe attitude toward doing site work. Hence, the need for techniques that would improve workers’ behavior was felt. This is where the concept of behavior based safety surfaced. Behavior based safety is a means of ensuring site safety by making the workers realize their own mistakes. When managers intend to employ behavior based safety in their system, they appoint a person who would observe the workers working on the site. The observer does not spy on the workers and instead, observes the workers openly. The workers a watched closely to judge where they go unsafe in their work. The observer, after carefully observing them, discusses the unsafely done portions of work with the workers. Behavior based safety checking is different from the traditional style of checking in that the workers are not penalized for their actions. Instead, the reasons of their unsafe attitude are analyzed and they are suggested on how to improve their style of work so that they would be at lesser risk. The workers are convinced in a manner that they do not find it offensive, and acknowledge the managers’ approach as a positive step toward ensuring site safety. This not only serves to improve their behavior toward maintaining site safety but also remove the barriers between the worker-managers interaction. Models of people behaving unsafely: Workers involved in site-works vary in nature, preferences and age. Their behaviors are influenced by their inherent qualities, there own nature and the nature of their work. Besides, experience is gained through age, and a worker’s behavior can be predicted to some extent by his age. It, therefore becomes extremely essential for the managers to realize what potential risks might workers of a certain age or doing a certain work may encounter. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) records the types of accidents some of which are “fall from different level, struck by nail, caught in or between, electrical shock” and many others. (www.osha.gov, 2007).Understanding the reasons might help managers find effective ways to prevent the accidents from occurring. Studies have shown various reasons why people indulge in unsafe behavior. Some of the reasons have been discussed above. Depending upon the sort of nature people maintain toward site safety, they can be said to resemble certain models in their characteristics. Workers belonging to a certain model can be predicted to adopt a certain kind of behavior. Generally, people indulging in unsafe acts during site-works can be divided into the following categories: 1. The actor (dramaturgical)(or the cultural dope). 2. The flawed computer (robot). 3. The Rat (skinner Box). 4. The amoeba. The particular characteristic features of these models are described below: The actor model - (Goffman) or the cultural dope(Gardinkle): People living in a society have to mould themselves according to the trends prevailing in the society. Many times, it does not conform to their nature and psychology. Their actions and methodologies are decided by the society. Very often, a person would go against his nature to satisfy his fellows. In a society, every individual is given a role and he has to do all remaining within the boundaries laid by the society for that role in order to maintain his social relations. People who belong to this model remain quite successful in Military where they would obey their seniors and gain appreciation for maintaining a “yes boss” attitude. Many of the Military personnel are technical experts. The soldiers are supposed to answer to an authority, but in the heat of battle the authority can often convert to the team of experts. In the end of the crisis the authority reverts back to the senior officer. Military personnel are high trained in “automated actions”. On the contrary, Construction, Oil and Gas and Mining Industry require workers to come up with their true personalities that would justify their suitability to particular areas of work in the Construction Industry. The flawed computer(robot) – Kahneman & early Reason: This model is to much extent, a product of the first model. In the daily life, everybody comes across various such situations frequently where he has to make a decision. It is a matter of routine. But many times, it so happens that the person realizes that he did not make the right decision in a particular matter. This happens principally because the decision maker was not equipped with complete knowledge about the matter, or even if he was, he adopted a biased approach toward using that knowledge to make the decision, mostly because doing so would earn him some sort of social benefits one way or the other. Hence, satisfying society remains the decision makers’ prime concern. Again, this model fits good in the Military system where social contacts earn the soldiers high ranks, but can prove ineligible for other industries. The Rat ( in a skinner Box) – Skinner: People indulge in certain activities based on their basic needs. Their behavior is influenced by these basic needs. Such people, in a way, resemble smart and wise rats. “Goals-freedom-alertness-theory essentially states that management should let workers have well-defined goals and the freedom to pursue those goals”. (Rojas, 2009, p. 184). The workers are more likely to be caught in accidents if they do not feel free to do their work the way they like. But this theory has got certain limitations. There obviously has to be drawn a line which the workers should be forbidden to cross in order to maintain site safety. The amoeba – Buss, Dawkins: The genetic features of a person influence his behavior more than any other factor would do. The way a person deals, communicates, acts and reacts is largely a function of his personality that is governed by his genes. It is the genetic differences, because of which one notices a variation in the way different people behave in a particular scenario. Many people are caught in accidents simply because they are preoccupied with the thoughts of their family, illness or else. The level of importance that a person gives to any matter is influenced by his genetic features. The psychological research workers suggested the “accident proneness theory” in 1926 according to which, “certain individuals are always more likely than others to sustain accidents, even though exposed to equal risk”. (Froggatt and Smiley, 1964). This happens because of an inherent characteristic of being injured in some workers that can be put in the model of amoeba. The influence shifts from social to genetic in the chronological order in which the models are mentioned above. Various theories, as discussed above, have been put forward in the past that relate to these particular models of people. How can the four models of workers be made to work safely? In order to “get” people to act more safely, it is imperative that the managers analyze the psychology involved in the four models, that governs the workers’ approach toward working safely. Besides, safety advisors need to devise ways in which the odds associated with the four models can be eradicated. The mood of several industries, specifically the construction industry, is such that in the hustle and bustle of work, managers think of their workers as all-rounders and therefore, keep shifting them from one trade to another in an attempt to accelerate the work without having to pause it to search for the right person to do a job. This can prove at times to be a good idea, but generally there are a lot of risks associated with such exchange of workers and trades. However, if such practices are inevitable, managers should make sure that all of their workers are sufficiently trained in operating various kinds of equipments including cranes, boom-loaders, shovels, excavators and concrete cutting machines. “Construction worker training programs cover basic construction skills, which include how to correctly use tools and equipment as well as safety and health procedures.” (King, 2010). Investing in getting the workers trained in operating all kinds of equipment will not only save the managers the cost that they incur in the form of workers’ compensation insurances and work delays, but also earn them the sincerity and affection of the workers who would find the training as an opportunity to enhance their skills which would bear them fruit later in their career. Besides, managers should encourage the implementation of a physical exercise daily for at least 20 minutes prior to the start of work. Such practices play an important role in boosting the workers’ energy and spirit they need in order to make sure that they are not preoccupied. There should be toolbox talks which would spread general awareness among the workers and it would become easy for the “actors” to maintain safety in their works. The “actors” would no more play heroic roles to impress their co-workers, since such acts would be condemned in the company’s safety policy. Another way site safety can be enhanced is by incorporating the concepts of buildability in the construction of drawings in the design phase of the project. Before preparation of drawings, projects of similar nature should be reviewed to analyze where the design of building facilitated the occurrence of accidents. This would help the “robots” escape accidents who know less about the potential hazards because of the elimination of hazards inherent in the complicated designs and methodologies of construction. The “rats” can be influenced to behave safely by giving them open opportunities of interaction with the managers, so that they would feel relieved and realize that they are important to the company and accordingly their safety is a matter of big concern for the owners. The most difficult model to be convinced to implement safety is the “amoeba” since there is very little they can do to avoid accidents because of their inherent accident proneness. Perhaps, the only way they can be made to act safely is by offering them sufficient training and guidance on safety matters that would help them overcome their genetic deficiencies. Findings of a study conducted in Hong Kong about construction safety suggested that ““re-enforced safety training” and “equipments for working at height” are the adoptable methods to enhance the workers' safety performance.” (Francis et al, 2009 cited in Emerald). Conclusion: Implementing site safety in fast-track projects where managers think of time as money is quite cumbersome. No matter how much emphasis is put on safety, accidents can not be avoided completely because of the inherent risks in the nature of work of an industry. Workers’ psychology, urgency of work, lack of experience and genetic accident proneness mutually integrate into the development of the workers’ approach toward maintaining site safety. There are also time constraints. Businessmen can not afford to get their workers trained on the cost of their precious time. Besides, the workers’ training programs themselves add much to the owners’ bills. References: “Accident report – Fatal facts”. www.osha.gov. 18 Sep. 2007. Web. 1 May 2010. B F Skinner. The Origins of Cognitive Thought. (1989). Buss, L. W. 1987. The Evolution of individuality. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. Dawkins, R. 1982. The extended phenotype. W. H. Freeman, Oxford, U.K. Francis, Wong, K.W., Albert, Chan, P.C., Michael, Yam, C.H., Edmond, Wong, Y.S., Kenny, Tse, T.C., Kendra, Yip, K.C. and Esther Cheung. Findings from a research study of construction safety in Hong Kong: Accidents related to fall of person from height. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 7 (2). (2009): 130 – 142. Web. 1 May 2010. Froggatt, Peter and Smiley, James A. The Concept of Accident Proneness: A Review. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 21(1). Jan. (1964): 1–12. Web. 1 May 2010. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday: Garden City, New York, 1959. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (1982) Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. King, YaShekia. “Construction worker training”. www.ehow.com. 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rojas, Eddy, M. Construction Project Management: A Practical Guide for Building and Electrical Contractors. USA: J. Ross Publishing, Inc., 2009. Web. 1 May 2010. Whyte, Helena. “Introduction to the accident investigation process in a manufacturing industry”. www.helium.com. 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. Read More