You can’t make excuses like, “They won’t do what they are told.”  ”They keep breaking the rules.”  “They just won’t comply.”  “We have spent thousands on training and they just don’t learn.”  Rather than using blame, look at your training methods.

If your organization doesn’t understand how people learn and develop behaviour patterns, it is a less than intelligent approach to spend time and money on safety training, or any other training.  Yet, the vast majority of organisations plainly don’t understand because they keep on doing the same thing over and over with the same results.

Simple Learning Facts

There are many types of learning but let’s just focus on two.  Firstly, there is cognitive learning which takes place in one part of our brain and operates in our neo-cortex.  Here we store information. Secondly, there is a much more complex and difficult type of learning, which can be described as emotional learning and this takes place in an entirely different part of our brain.  This area is more like the command centre.

Learning that is information based merely requires storing information and understanding to our memory banks. On the other hand developing understanding about practical concepts such as safety involves much more. Changing habits is a much more challenging task than merely adding to our information banks.

Because organisations fail to understand the difference, they keep on trying to train people in safety using the same techniques that they use to teach people in cognitive skills.  No wonder our workplace death and accident rate is not diminishing.

It is time that we looked very closely at the way we design and deliver safety training. The objective of our training is quite clear, we want people to behave in a safe manner to avoid harm. The problem which faces us is that the training methods we use are not the best in creating changes in behavior.

Learning information is best done in a classroom environment.  Information can be mastered relatively easily in the well ordered environment. On the other hand, to establish behavioural change, the most appropriate environment is the one where the change is going to take place.

Solutions

The problem is simple.  Safety behaviour can’t be improved overnight. The emotional brain only changes habits over weeks, months and sometimes years. When you have recognized the need for a change in safety, you assume that change will occur dramatically and quickly. Put people on a two day seminar and they will transform their behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. People don’t change their behaviour as a result of a two-day program.

The most effective way for people to learn a new skill such as safe behaviour, is when they have repeated opportunities to practice it over an extended period of time. It is a case of little and often. If they spend the same time in a single intensive session, they will not learn to the same degree.  After a day, the participants are in overload and their ability to grasp new information is greatly diminished.

Most of the time training courses devote far too much time in discussing safety and not enough time practicing it in a controlled environment. This has been extensively researched over the years.  It shows conclusively that practice sessions had double the impact on job performance as opposed to the presentation of concepts alone.

The return on investment for practice during training was seven times greater than the discussions by themselves. This is compelling evidence to look very closely at our training and the return on our investment.

Clinical studies of behaviour change indicate that the longer people work at changing, the more robust and durable the change will be. For complex habits like safety; weeks are better than days and months are better than weeks. It has been assessed that it takes 6 to 9 months to achieve the necessary change.

Emotionally and physically engaging people in the behavior that is required will produce a much better result than giving them a list of procedures.

When you evaluate your current safety training in the light of this information, you can probably see there is an opportunity for change.

Being Ready to Learn and Change

From a training point of view, the most difficult situation to overcome is where some of the participants just do not want to be there. The problem is compounded because their resistance and resentful feeling can be highly infectious and affect the learning of rest of the group.

Many organizations ignore whether or not the people that they are sending on training courses have any intention of learning or changing. Regardless of the feelings of the trainees, they are compelled to attend. Obviously, this creates a less than satisfactory learning environment. The waste is colossal.  Do you check the willingness to learn of participants before you put them on a training course?  Some organisations “punish” staff members by putting them on courses!

Is possible to categorize people attending training courses into three groups. The first group is the most rewarding. These are the “sponges” and are willing to learn and put the learning into practice.

The second group is hard work. These are the people who are on holiday from work, they are more concerned with the quality of the lunches and the social interaction than learning or changing.

The final group are the “hostages” to have been forced into attending a training course. They are oozing resentment which they are prepared to share with anybody and everybody. They have been told to attend, they have no intention of learning let alone changing the way they do things.

To get best return on your training dollar and avoid such a waste of time and money it is imperative to help people assess their own readiness for learning. Potential trainees should be assessed for readiness to change, interest, and motivation.  Obviously if they are not ready for change then this can be the focus of discussion and coaching before investing in training.

There are four basic categories of readiness that must be taken into account and established during the discussions.

•  Outright resistance or a complete lack of understanding of the need.
• The acknowledgment of the need for change at some distant time in the future.
• A clear understanding of the need for change and a willingness to plan.
• A readiness and enthusiasm to take action.

Motivation to learn

People learn to the degree that they are motivated to learn. They become motivated when they can see clearly the potential consequences of that learning. It may be that they are more competitive in the job market place inside and outside their organization. It may be that the training can help them solve some of the difficulties that they are currently having in their job. It may be that they can lift their performance to a level that they will be proud of.

If they can see the benefits of training and learning, their levels of motivation will rise. Remember, we are most moved to pursue change that meets our values and hopes.

If you present training and learning as a way of meeting their values and visions, then they can see how they can use the training opportunity for themselves as well as the organization.

The learning experience should be enjoyable.  Think about your recent and not so recent learning experiences.  How enjoyable were they?  Now, let’s put this in context.  Did your trainees have an enjoyable learning experience last time?  If not, they may be less than willing to learn. How much do you promote learning?

This is the largely forgotten part of training and development and the cause of a considerable waste of money, time and energy.

It is time that we look very closely at the way we design and deliver safety training. The objective of our training is quite clear, we want people to behave in a safe manner to avoid harm. The problem that faces us is that the training methods we use are not suitable for creating changes in behavior.  The results demonstrate that.

By not understanding how people learn, we are doing our employees a considerable disservice because we are effectively creating barriers to learning.  This leaves us with limited options such as blame, punishment and other sanctions that are totally ineffective and counter-productive.

The solution is to clearly understand the differences in the underlying brain function with the two types of learning. Only then is it possible to design and deliver appropriate training programmes that are relevant, meaningful and enjoyable to the participants that create the required behavioural results.

No related posts.

All our safety training is based on knowledge, such as knowledge of hazards, knowledge of rules, knowledge of procedures and knowledge of safe methods.  All this knowledge has led us to the current situation where we have unsafe behaviour and an unacceptable level of fatalities and accidents.  An honest evaluation will show that it’s not working.

2) The people who are doing the job, draw the line between safe and unsafe behaviour.

This will cause some problems because it is way outside the comfort zones of most organisations.  If its not the people doing the job, who should do this?  All our attempts at prescribing safe working have failed dismally.  The people doing the job have a unique view of safety, their safety.  Having prescriptive safety rules and safe working practices drawn up by people removed from the workplace is never going to be a practical and workable solution.  The people on-the-job sneer at the concept and the practice.  Don’t forget these are the people that make your profit.  Why impose unreasonable conditions on them?

3) The people who draw the line decide the consequences of crossing it.

This is an intelligent way to deal with the sanctions of non-compliance.  By dealing with the situation in advance, all parties have agreed to the consequences before there is an emotionally charged situation.  The universal approval means that everyone is aware of what will happen if the line is crossed.  This can be used in safety talks, briefings and promoted by the immediate supervisor.  It becomes an accepted standard of behaviour.

4) Any safe behaviour must be designed and approved by the people doing the job

The people doing the job know best.  Again, this may cause some angst and corporate teeth gnashing but check out the logic.  We are not competent to design safe working practices when we never perform them.  This concept cuts across all our imposed systems, procedures and methods but unless we change our ineffectual models, we will continue to investigate accidents and fatalities.  It is our choice.  Should we be courageous and admit we can do better or blindly continue accepting unsafe workplace behaviour through poor policies and ineffective training?

5) All safety rules must pass the TSR test of those carrying them out

We all have a TSR test that we apply to new experiences, new ideas, work restrictions, rules, regulations and many things in our life.  TSR stands for That Seems Reasonable.  We judge most things to which we are exposed and apply this test. If something a politician says fails our TSR test we just don’t believe them.  If we are asked or forced to do something that fails our TSR test we will avoid it.  Many of the safety rules generated by desk bound ”experts” fall into this category.  Blanket rules are a good example.  This has led to many examples of the safety tail wagging the organizational dog.

6) Any safety rule prescribed by people not doing the job will be subjected to rules 2 to 5 and modified to meet local conditions

This needs no explanation.

7) Any safety rule or procedure that hinders or prevents people from doing their jobs, will go through the assessment of rules 2 to 5 and modified

This needs no explanation.

If You Violate These Rules

1. You won’t get compliance.
2. You will see unsafe behaviour.
3. Your staff will not respect the organization or the people who have to administer the ineffective rules.
4. Discretionary Effort will be abysmally low
5. Trying to excuse or justify unreasonable safety rules lowers morale throughout.
6. People will try and avoid the prescribed behaviour.
7. You are only left with discipline to try and get compliance and you will fail now, and in the future, as in the past.

These rules are based on experience, testing and re-testing.  If they make you feel uncomfortable, there is no apology.  You probably won’t like them but you will not change until you personally feel the pain that your current methods are creating.

Check the logic out.  You don’t train properly.  There is an incident of non-compliance so you sack the person.  The cost to the individual is huge, the cost to the organization is massive because the remainder of the staff withdraw their discretionary effort.

If an organization loses its credibility with its employees, it will find it very hard to be successful in today’s business environment.

Peter Mitchell is a trainer and consultant with 35 year’s experience in workplace behavioural change.  He is relentless in his quest for safer workplaces and is in much demand by organisations to improve their safety. To obtain a free workplace safety assessment, contact petermitchell23@gmail.com and receive a copy of a case study using his methods.

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.

There are broadly two types of workplace learning.  Cognitive learning which is the acquisition of knowledge and emotional learning which is the application of interpersonal skills.  With cognitive learning we want the learner to be exposed to and store information to use at a later date.  With emotional learning we are trying to persuade the learner to change their thinking and behaviour.  Cognitive learning can be described as product knowledge, learning new software features, learning processes and procedures.  Emotional learning includes leadership, selling, customer service and managing staff.

These two divisions do overlap but they require different techniques so that people can learn.  Regrettably, we have used the same methods associated with cognitive learning to train people in all workplace training.  The results of our emotional learning have been extremely poor and we have largely wasted our money in these areas.

Our methods have guaranteed low retention rates and little evidence of transfer of training into workplace behaviour.  You cannot learn a practical skill like leadership in a classroom.  We keep using methods that don’t work.  Sending people on adventure courses is just as dumb.  We know they don’t work.  Leadership is learned and developed over a long period of time.  It is not a training event.  it is a learning process.

Consider the money spent on sales training with no effect, customer service is just the same.   Unless we know how people learn, we cannot provide effective training.

Send me an email for a special report on learning and how you can improve your results. petermitchell23@gmail.com

No related posts.

To improve the levels of safety, it often becomes necessary to cope with the forces that have a negative effect on safety. These forces may include time pressure, cost cutting, the single-minded pursuit of profits and indifference to hazards. So often, organizations look at the forces that are lined up against them and give up on improving safety or just pay lip service to it. Under these circumstances each organization gets the repeated accidents it deserves. As always, the losers are the members of staff who get injured or killed.

To improve levels of safety, all staff within the organization must be better informed. In other words, they understand and respect the hazards they face and are constantly reminded of the potential dangers in their workplace. This means that they will never forget the dangers around them.. They know the dangers without having to fall victim to them.

An improved level of safety is achieved by creating a safety information system that collects, analyzes and disseminates knowledge from “near hits” and other incidents. Of course, this can only be achieved when there is a reporting culture that promotes the collection of this sort of information. Generally speaking, staff members understand the need for this information in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, it also requires people to report their own mistakes, errors and lapses. Overcoming this barrier requires sound leadership and positive reinforcement for those people who report.

It is possible to institute a system which can include the confidentiality of the people who are reporting the “near hits” and incidents. Within the system it is vital that all aspects of blame are removed. Any blame direct or implied will ensure that reporting will be minimized. Removing the blame barrier can be a challenge.

The single most important component of an improved level of safety within the workplace, is the establishment of a greater degree of trust. Again, this is a substantial barrier for some organizations to overcome.

No related posts.

The first thing to remember about slogans on notice boards or posted up around the workplace, is that they become invisible. They become part of the landscape and do not penetrate the minds of people in the workforce. Even important signs such as “exit,” are not remembered by people who walk past them every day because their minds are engaged in other more important things.

The second thing about a slogan is that it has to be delivered by somebody with credibility. Credibility is measured by the listener. If that person’s credibility is regarded as only average or less, the message will be ignored or will be regarded as totally unimportant. There are plenty of examples of messages delivered by politicians with low credibility failing to arouse and response.

The third thing about a slogan, is firmly in the minds of the people seeing or hearing it. The slogan has to have the ability to pass our T S R test. This is a test that we all apply on a constant basis. It is our That Seems Reasonable test. Any slogan that fails that will also be ignored. If we think a slogan isn’t reasonable we will dismiss it and then ignore subsequent messages from the same person.

We have slogans like “Zero Accidents” and “Zero Harm,” that fail our TSR test because we know they are unrealistic. We know that you cannot totally exclude accidents and harm from the workplace because they are function of risk and risk is an integral part of human life. Slogans like this give rise to cynicism in the workplace and have a negative effect on a lot of other important messages that may be about safety or quality. They also destroy the credibility of the promoters of these messages which, in turn, can lead to a breakdown in workplace communications.

If your organization is trying to find a slogan to emphasize safety, offer this alternative point of view. Instead of a slogan, lead by example and be the behavior you want in other people. This is much more believable than a slogan.

No related posts.

It is totally imposed and prescribed for the “good” of the masses. The fact is you cannot create a culture. It happens. From a leadership perspective, you can only encourage and gently persuade, you cannot impose the integral parts of the culture. Real culture is bone deep, instant culture is varnish.

If you encourage people to be honest, then honesty will be built into your culture. If you reinforce trust, then trust will be built in. Culture is behavior not slogans, mission statements on the wall or blind hope. Culture matures and develops with time, you can’t rush it.

What is interesting is how the two cultures exist in the one business. The real “organic” culture and the false “varnish” culture. The clearly the false culture cannot compete with the real culture in spite of the efforts of senior management. Occasionally, they clash and the superficiality of the false culture is exposed. It may be enforced but largely ignored. Ultimately the real culture reigns supreme.

No related posts.

The phrases commonly heard are, “I have been doing it this way for 15 years and never hurt myself.” “This is a dangerous industry, I’ve seen many accidents in this place in the past.” “Accidents go with the territory. If you work in this industry you will hurt yourself.” “You are still a newbie until you hurt yourself.” “You can’t prevent accidents in this industry, they just happen.” “You can’t prevent accidents in the workplace, that’s why they are called accidents.”

All this entrenched thinking will have to be changed before the culture changes. This sort of thinking is part of the current culture. Obviously, you can’t go head-to-head with this sort of thinking, you need a more subtle, alternative approach which will gradually overcome the very pessimistic approach and replace it with optimism. Getting people to question their deeply entrenched views and beliefs takes time. After all, it took quite a long time for them to reach these conclusions and beliefs. They will not be changed in a few weeks and certainly not as the result of a two day course on safety.

The secret of changing the culture in the workplace is to consider very carefully the people who wield influence. They may or may not be in a position of authority. Convince them. The problem you are faced with is that if you want someone to change their belief, it has to be replaced with something else that they can believe in. There is little point in telling people that their beliefs are part of the reason why so many accidents happen. In fact, telling people anything, especially how to do the job safely, is likely to create resentment. Especially, if they have been carrying out the job for a number of years.

The new belief system must be credible. There must be compelling reasons to adopt it. There must be some benefit from the new way of thinking that will positively affect people in the workplace. By far the best method of introducing this belief system, is to lead people to discover it. If you fail to do this, and prescribe what people should think, you will fail in your attempts to change the safety culture in the workplace. There are thousands of examples where change has been prescribed and failed miserably. It requires a much more thoughtful approach and the avoidance of creating resentment within the organization.

No related posts.

A safety culture is built up over a long period of time within an organization. It seems to absorb all the negative things that are thought or mentioned about safety. Memories are long and incorrect. Often incidents are misinterpreted and added to the folk lore.

There are some questions you can ask that may reveal information you are seeking. An example is this, “If you were recommending a friend to come and work here, how would you describe how our safety works.” If you ask a cross-section of people the same question and note the answers, you may end up with a snapshot of your safety culture.

Another question could be, “If you had a magic wand, what three things would you change about our safety here to improve it?” Again, note the answers and review those comments which are repeated by several people.

The problem arises when you investigate a subject like this and you don’t like the answers. What if you discovered a perception that there was a culture of blame? What do you do then? How can you modify the prevailing safety culture so that it is more aligned with what you want?

The difficulties start to emerge when you realize that you can’t prescribe it, you can’t force it, you can’t impose or regulate it. You are powerless to urge, press or push for it. A safety culture is organic and develops within the workplace environment. It will grow in the “right” circumstances.

The circumstances include positive reinforcement, gentle encouragement, leading by example and respect for the individual. Respect for the individual includes creating a positive environment where staff members can decide the boundaries of safe and unsafe behavior. It’s about allowing them the ability to decide consequences for noncompliance of their safety regime. It includes encouraging staff to draw up the procedures and protocols for safe working.

As you can see, providing this sort of environment is way outside the comfort zone of most people in the workplace, especially those at supervisory and management level. These are the people that need to have a completely open mind to contribute to such a complete change in business philosophy. Without this cooperation at every single level within the organization, the safety culture will gradually deteriorate.

No related posts.