What works with safety systems? Less may be more
- Tired of systems?
- Leadership vs. clutter.
- People exploit risk.
- Designing for negotiated behaviour.
- Implications for OHS
Tired of systems?
We must admit to being somewhat careworn
and cynical about the whole “process and procedures”
fixation in health and safety, (see September’s
SafetyBlog in our HUMOUR section),
“We passed the audit” appears to be an end
in itself. “We arrived”.
No you didn’t. What passing an audit actually
means in most cases is increase in clutter, removal
of more and more individual freedom in an attempt to
systematise everything, and a superficial veneer of
signs, hard hats, high visibility vests and meetings
all achieving very little. Humans can’t be systematised.
The only thing audits and systems actually achieve is
to force people to talk about health and safety from
time to time. This sometimes gets a modest result, but
unless human behaviour actually changes, unless risk
levels come down, lasting and significant improvements
to accident rates are unlikely to occur. .
Leadership vs. clutter.
We have previously advocated good
leadership and employee consultation as the only two
things that really make a difference and we have
joined the chorus of officially backed policy emanating
from the UK about the need for “sensible
risk taking”.
In this article, we look at another interesting set
of theories and research supporting the general thrust
of this approach. What we are advocating is removal
of clutter, providing a workplace that is simple and
transparent and giving individuals an incentive to negotiate
safely within it. What does this mean?
Ever noticed what happens when traffic lights at a major
junction fail? It’s not carnage, is it? People
perceive the high risk level, slow down and edge through,
often in streams, until another line of traffic builds
up from another direction. The flow of traffic can even
improve. Contrast that with the behaviour of some individuals
when lights are working – the acceleration to
crash the red light and the all too frequent T boning,
with serious consequences.
People exploit risk.
The point here is that people tend
to exploit lowered levels of perceived risk by increasing
their risk level or transferring it to others. There
comes a point where further clutter and use of ineffective
or marginal safety improvements actually does nothing
to improve risk (and may increase it). Last year Norway's
centre for transport research, in rejecting compulsory
cycle helmets, noted the "increased risk per cycling
kilometre for cyclists wearing helmets, in Australia
and New Zealand at around 14%". It also noted a
consequent reduction in cycling use of 22%. Incidentally,
a British study showed that motorists instinctively
give cyclists without a helmet a wider berth.
The theory of risk homeostasis advanced by Gerald J.S.
Wilde holds that “the degree of risk-taking behaviour
and the magnitude of loss due to accidents and lifestyle-dependent
disease are maintained over time, unless there is a
change in the target level of risk.”
There is much evidence for this theory: traffic lights
do nothing to change the frequency of accidents at cross-roads;
reflector posts along the side of the road leave the
level of night-time accidents unchanged. Likewise with
lifestyle diseases: low-tar cigarettes do nothing to
reduce the intake of toxic tobacco-products; fitness
and slimming routines do nothing to reduce the likelihood
of heart disease; condoms do nothing to control the
spread of venereal diseases; and so on. In every case,
the reduction of risk from one source leaves the agent
free to cultivate risk from another. Furthermore, as
John Adams has argued, ‘risk compensation’
may operate to transfer to other people the risks we
have been liberated from. Those wearing seat-belts will
drive that bit faster; those using condoms will spread
the risk of disease more widely. The only way to reduce
risk overall is to change the target level – in
other words, to reset the thermostat.
The best way to do this, Wilde argues, is not by trying to eliminate risks one by one, whether by warnings (which in any case attract the risk junkies) or by regulations. The best way of lowering the target level is to reward people for behaving safely. A positive incentive for accident-free driving, for a healthy lifestyle, or for a safety-conscious hobby will reset the controls far more effectively than any regulation that merely transfers risk-taking behaviour from one focus to another.
Designing for negotiated behaviour
Tom Vanderbilt, who has recently published a book called Traffic, also believes that stripping people of responsibility for safety makes them take more risks, not less. Vanderbilt is a follower of the "shared space movement" pioneered by the Dutch engineer, Hans Monderman, whose work is now near standard across mainland Europe. There are 4,000 "naked street" schemes in Germany alone, where lights and restrictions are minimal and pedestrians, cyclists and cars tolerate each other at all but the most difficult crossings. Hans Monderman was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognised for radically challenging the criteria by which engineering solutions for street design are evaluated. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other.
His most famous design approach is Shared Space, also known as designing for negotiation or Shared Streets. Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs, and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts.
Rather than accelerating and braking down a regulated street, cars tend to move slowly, informally policed by pavement design and the uncertainty of sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists. In shared space, accidents fall and journey times actually improve, often significantly.
Implications for OHS.
What has this to do with occupational
health and safety? We believe it has a lot to do with
it. People do not behave according to rule books or
warning signs. Their behaviour is a result of what they
perceive as acceptable, in terms of risk, expectations
of others and their ability to make informed decisions.
The more responsibility is taken away from them, the
more leadership is replaced by processes and procedures,
the more confusing and complex the work environment,
the less safe will be their decisions.
We are not promoting anarchy or letting people loose
in dangerous environments, but we are suggesting that
people need more accountability and more freedom to
make decisions, not less.
What are some of the things that will work?
- Strong, unequivocal leadership. Setting a standard and recognising when people achieve it.
- Delegation of responsibility for safety processes to employees.
- Less signs, rulebooks and forms.
- Clean, transparent workplaces.
- Consultation with employees. Make them part of the solution in their own work cell.
So, if you are a manager, start thinking more as if the business is part of your social group. Start asking “What can I do to shift responsibility to the employees, to collaborate with them, to make this place their home from home, to cultivate work group relationships, to give them the knowledge and resources to manage their own interactions?”
We believe the benefits of the approach are not just safer workplaces, but more efficient, rewarding and successful results for all concerned.
 |
Smart Safety Software >> |