In safety, we often focus on policies and procedures, training and maintenance, while trying to employ some behavior-based safety ideas. However, sometimes it’s the little things that can have the biggest impact. Non-safety fields such as crime reduction and psychology sometimes provide interesting ideas and concepts that have possible use in the area of safety management.
Take the idea of fixing broken windows. This theory was illustrated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in an article entitled “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in March 1982. In this article, they note the consequences of small-scale neglect, like broken windows, on crime. Small infractions may seem to do no great harm if promptly addressed, but if left unattended, this sends a signal that no one cares and may give others permission to engage in similar behaviors (criminal or, in our context, unsafe). Rudy Juliani, the former mayor of New York City implemented his own vision of Broken Windows policing across New York City. The police cleaned up the little minor public disorders like panhandlers. The result? Crime in New York dropped.
So how does this apply to safety? Well, to put it simply, poor housekeeping, letting unsafe behaviors go unaddressed, not providing adequate safety training, etc. can lead to more of the same, with a continuous deterioration in safety efforts in general. Along with this concept of fixing broken windows in an effort to reduce crime, the idea of community policing (getting them out of their car and into the neighborhood) was part of the solution. Similarly, supervisors can’t sit in their office to effectively manage drivers who aren’t in their office. They need to see and be seen by the drivers in the parking lot, in the drivers’ lounge, etc.
Another area of behavior psychology that may have implications in safety is the idea of an accomplice. In an experiment that makes you wonder about humankind, psychologist Stanley Milgram designed an experiment in which subjects were instructed to inflict electrical shocks to a confederate victim whom the subject could not see but could hear. Sixty-five percent of the subjects continued to increase the shocks (as directed by what they took to be an authority figure) to the victim all the way up to the final, massive 450-volt shock, demonstrating that most people follow authority even when it conflicts with their principals. Milgram introduced a variation of the experiment that called for an accomplice to refuse to administer the shocks. In these cases, the number of subjects willing to further administer shock when accomplices were vocalizing their concern dropped considerably.
In safety, we know that behavior is a key component. Making the safe way easiest is a better way to motivate people to take the safe action, and inspiring others to take action is often the commitment you and your management staff bring to the cause. Could you use some confederate accomplices in the driver’s lounge to turn the conversations of unsafe actions to those that are more appropriate? Are your dispatchers spreading the “right” ideas? Don’t let your authority figures (supervisors and dispatchers) influence drivers to do the wrong things and provide accomplices of the correct way.
You and your management staff are the key to affecting proper behavior in drivers, so take time to fix the little things that might be encouraging the wrong behavior, demonstrate the correct behaviors and find accomplices to do the same.
This article is courtesy of Keystone Insurers Group, the NSTA endorsed insurance provider.
