Author Bio ▼

Dominic Cooper PhD is an independent researcher who has authored many books, articles and scientific research papers on safety culture, behavioural-safety and leadership.
January 20, 2025

Exploring behavioural safety criticisms

Can behavioural safety directly reduce accidents at work? Dom Cooper looks at common assumptions and approaches to behaviour-based change. 

Credit: Alamy Stock

Critics of behavioural safety (aka behavior-based safety), of which there are many, argue a focus on behaviour [a] shifts responsibility for safety from management and blames workers for poor safety, leading to the underreporting of incidents, and [b] ignores the impact of systems and unsafe conditions in driving unwanted behaviour[[i]]. This has led to many ‘newer’ safety approaches emphasising a focus on fixing the system instead, although research supports the need to focus simultaneously on both behaviours and systems[[ii]].

Without doubt, some of the criticisms have been justified by poor implementation of a process and/or processes lacking in managerial and leadership support. However, does that mean behavioural safety is not worth pursuing to prevent injuries and improve safety performance?

To me, behavioural safety is simply an element of a safety management system that sits at the crossroads where people, systems, working environment and company culture converge; these are all considered precursors of behaviour.

Common assumptions 

The assumptions underpinning behavioural safety are that: [1] behaviour is often the final trigger for an incident/injury; [2] a small proportion of work-related behaviours are implicated in the lion’s share of injuries; [3] focusing on behaviours associated with incidents/injuries will reduce them; [4] people respond to performance feedback; [5] regular safety observations and conversations provide the basis for focused performance feedback and corrective action(s); and [6] attending to any precursor conditions driving unwanted behaviour will help sustain behaviour change.

“In the early days, a top-down approach was common, with behavioural safety being done at workers not with them.”

Broadly speaking, there are four different approaches to behavioural safety: top-down, in which management/supervision observes workers and gives feedback; bottom-up, with workers developing and running the entire process themselves, supported by management providing the necessary resources; a safety partnership, whereby managers, supervisors and workers are all equally involved in improving safety; and a self-managed approach, in which workers monitor themselves (this is based on the notion that self-generated feedback is the most effective[[iii]]).

In the early days, a top-down approach was common, with behavioural safety being done at workers not with them. Bottom-up approaches overcame that issue but mostly excluded supervisors and managers from the process (apart from resource provision which was not always forthcoming). The safety-partnership approach overcame the exclusion of certain groups, with all involved working for a common aim: to improve safety together.

Regardless of approach, most involve [a] educating everyone (promoting the approach, training people in their roles); [b] examining injury and near-hit incident records to identify problem behaviours; [c] developing appropriate observation checklists featuring up to 20 desired behaviours; [d] having regular behavioural observations and conversations to monitor and change performance; [e] providing verbal, graphical and written collated feedback about results; and [f] completing relevant corrective actions. Some also include goal-setting and/or incentives.

Applying a claim’s typology to behavioural safety

Using a claim’s typology[[iv]]to establish its true status, it is useful to examine the impact of behavioural safety in the workplace through various lenses.

Claims of classification or facts show the process design determines its impact on behaviour and injuries[[v]]. For example, making observations either daily or two to three times a week reduces injuries much more than making observations once per week or less; many lean processes do the latter.

More feedback channels (verbal, printed, graphical, group discussion) means fewer injuries and greater behaviour change. Component analysis shows the combination of goal-setting & feedback leads to greater behaviour change, while training & feedback demonstrates greater injury reduction. Participatively set improvement goals are more impactful than implicit (none) or assigned goals.

Claims of definition or understanding of the facts reveal that locating problem behaviours helps to identify the context in which they arise (e.g. whether driven by situational constraints and/or by personal choice). Identifying the precursors to problem behaviours facilitates focused corrective action(s).

Engaged employees are five times less likely to be involved in incidents[[vi]]; deciding which behaviours to observe, setting participative improvement goals, having on-the-spot conversations, and holding workgroup feedback meetings to discuss the observations all facilitate employee engagement. Managerial safety leadership significantly affects employee behaviour[[vii]], demonstrating why a safety partnership approach is so important.

Claims of cause & effect show that a focus on specific problem behaviours known to be associated with injuries provides measurement precision and operational control and reduces associated incidents/injuries. Perhaps of interest to those advocating New View Safety approaches, the ratio of desired to unwanted behaviours provides quantitative feedback (Percent Safe score) to track progress. The Percentage Safe score also reveals where there is variability in performance and what it concerns. Completing associated corrective actions changes the causal mechanisms driving unwanted behaviour and increases desired behaviour by approximately 21.5% [[viii]].

Claims of value or worth demonstrate reductions in injuries[[ix]], unsafe conditions[[x]], and insurance premiums[[xi]]. They also validate improvements in safe behaviour, hazard reporting[[xii]], corrective action completion[[xiii]], morale[[xiv]], operatives & managers communications[[xv]], prevailing safety cultures[[xvi]], and often exhibit a return on investment[[xvii]].

Claims of solution(s) prove designs that incorporate daily observations, focus on workgroup observations, and use participative goals with multiple feedback mechanisms will reduce injuries more than other designs in static settings (e.g. factories, refineries). In dynamic settings (e.g. construction), one-on-one observations and conversations are more effective at reducing injuries and changing behaviour.

Evidence-based injury reductions 

Examining behavioural safety through the lens of a claim typology is illuminating, as it facilitates evaluation of the veracity of ongoing criticism. In this instance, we learn that although the criticisms made might hold up in particular instances, they do not hold up across the board. Claims of classification or facts about behavioural safety are supported by a large body of evidence from both academe and industry.

“Claims about definition or understanding of the facts show a safety partnership between workers and managers is vital”

Claims about definition or understanding of the facts show a safety partnership between workers and managers is vital as problem behaviours and their precursors are addressed. Claims of cause & effect show a systematic focus on behaviour significantly reduces injuries.

Likewise, claims of value or worth show evidence-based reductions in injuries, unsafe conditions and insurance premiums. Moreover, we see evidence-based improvements in safe behaviour, hazard reporting, corrective action completion, morale, and worker–managerial communications. Returns on investment have also been realised. Claims of solutions show that different BBS designs are required for different settings.

Thus, the claim typology framework used here to explore behavioural safety demonstrates positive and tangible evidence for each claim type. This body of evidence vindicates its underlying assumptions and its utility for improving safety in a variety of settings, while objectively refuting the criticisms levelled.

References

[i] Skowron-Grabowska, B., & Sobociński, M. D. (2018). Behaviour based safety (BBS)-advantages and criticism. Production Engineering Archives20(20), 12-15.

[ii] Komaki, J. L., Collins, R. L., & Penn, P. (1982). The role of performance antecedents and consequences in work motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology67(3), 334.

[iii] Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal25(2), 359-372.

[iv] Cooper, M. D. (2024). Critically deconstructing OSH narratives; retrieved from https://www.shponline.co.uk/culture-and-behaviours/critically-deconstructing-osh-narratives/ 15th Jan 2025.

[v] Cooper, M. D. (2009). Behavioral safety interventions: a review of process design factors. Professional Safety54(02).

[vi] Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., et al. (2006). Q12 Meta-Analysis. Washington, DC: Gallup Consulting

[vii] Cooper, M. D. (2015). Effective safety leadership: Understanding types & styles that improve safety performance. Professional Safety60(02), 49-53.

[viii] Cooper, M. D. (2010). Safety leadership: application in construction site. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia32(1 Suppl A), A18-23.

[ix] Krause, T. R., Seymour, K. J., & Sloat, K. C. M. (1999). Long-term evaluation of a behavior-based method for improving safety performance: a meta-analysis of 73 interrupted time-series replications. Safety Science32(1), 1-18.

[x] Hagge, M., McGee, H., Matthews, G., & Aberle, S. (2017). Behavior-based safety in a coal mine: The relationship between observations, participation, and injuries over a 14-year period. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(1), 107–118.

[xi] Harrison, S. (2013). Behavioral safety programs help employers cut workers comp costs. Business Insurance. https://www.businessinsurance.com/behavioral-safety-programs-help-employers-cut-workers-comp-costs/

[xii] Cameron, I., & Duff, R. (2007). Use of performance measurement and goal setting to improve construction managers’ focus on health and safety. Construction Management and Economics25(8), 869-881.

[xiii] Duff, A. R., Robertson, I. T., Phillips, R. A., & Cooper, M. D. (1994). Improving safety by the modification of behaviour. Construction Management and Economics, 12(1), 67-78.

[xiv] Cooper, M. D., Phillips, R. A., Sutherland, V. J., & Makin, P. J. (1994). Reducing accidents using goal setting and feedback: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology67(3), 219-240.

[xv] Vidusha, R. S., Raghav, Y. S., Vaghasia, S., & Yadav, B. P. (2018). Correlating the factors of human error and behavior-based safety using pareto analysis and BBS observation application. Advances in Fire and Process Safety, 271-289.

[xvi] Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Szwedzka, K., & Szczuka, M. (2015). Behaviour based intervention for occupational safety–case study. Procedia Manufacturing3, 4876-4883.

[xvii] Cooper, M. D. (2010). The return on investment of behavior‐based safety processes. Italian Journal of Occupational Medicine and Ergonomics: Suppl. A Psychology, 32(1), A15‐A17.

The Safety Conversation Podcast: Listen now!

The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.

Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments