When introducing change in the workplace it is essential to focus on personal motivation and engagement of workers, and not just on systems and processes. Garry Platt describes three models that HS&E managers can use to mould and gain commitment of staff.
Achieving a committed and motivated workforce that adopts a proactive approach towards health and safety performance and environmental issues is a goal shared by many practitioners. The challenge of engaging and motivating staff at all levels to take both responsibility and a proactive stance in these areas is extremely difficult, but the potential benefits are enormous.
Time and time again, attempts to link and encourage personal change to align with company policy fails — not just in relation to safety and environmental issues but in many other areas as well. All too often, the emphasis is on systems, processes and procedures, and on ensuring that these are communicated to the workforce, with too little focus on motivational and commitment issues. Such formal and structured approaches may well allow the organisation to tick a box and provide evidence that it has discharged a reasonable level of care, but they do not create a truly committed and involved workforce, nor achieve the best results possible.
Managing complex change
Dr Mary Lippitt has developed a simple and insightful model to illustrate the source of such problems, which also provides some guiding principles on achieving a successful outcome.1 For any effective introduction and commitment from involved parties, the following five factors must be present:
Taking them individually, the first thing that has to be created and communicated to people in order to get them to take a proactive approach on health, safety and environmental issues is a vision of what is to be achieved. This should encompass a clear explanation of the aims, objectives, and tasks to be undertaken.
Secondly, all stakeholders who will be involved in this process must have the requisite skills, and these should be formally assessed and analysed. These same individuals have to be incentivised, i.e. there has to be some reward for undertaking and getting involved with the new approach. This does not have to be financial — incentives create energy to get people moving, but money is not key.
Resources are frequently missing, but they are necessary to undertake the new, or revised processes. Focusing too hard on the task means the supporting structures are sometimes overlooked. Finally, there has to be an action plan: a sequenced, rational series of tasks that will lead to the accomplishment of the vision.
Together, the five elements add up to effect change but, all too often, one or more of these factors is missing, and the lack of each has a particular negative outcome. For example, a lack of vision can lead to confusion, as it will be unclear as to why new systems and working practices have been introduced. The efforts of the safety and environment managers will be seen as fragmented and lacking a cohesive strategy, and consequently they will struggle to achieve success.
If it is the skills base that is insufficient, the result is anxiety or resentment at being asked to fulfil duties and responsibilities for which those so tasked are not equipped. Training is frequently overlooked when introducing new processes, and the result is a good idea let down by a simple oversight.
Without incentives, there is rarely any movement and often resistance from the people involved. As far back as 1959, Herzberg recognised that the most important factors regarding the motivation of personnel were linked to achievement, recognition and responsibility.2 Money merely keeps people in the workplace; it doesn’t buy commitment.
If resources are not available, the result is often frustration at not being able to move forward, or implement the changes. Resources do not always come in the form of major capital expenditure; sometimes the devil is in the detail, and a simple error here can stymie an otherwise positive approach.
Last and by no means least, the omission of an overall plan, with details of who is doing what, where, and when, will eventually make those involved feel like hamsters trapped on an eternally-spinning exercise wheel.
Influencing response to change
So, with these five key building blocks crucial to the success of any health and safety or environmental initiative, time spent in developing and managing them is an investment, not a cost. The next question to address is personal commitment. Asking people to change is sometimes like asking them to perform an unnatural act. We are creatures of habit and pattern, and breaking that pattern so that it becomes second nature requires effort, energy, and time.
Try this as an experiment: fold your arms across your chest. One arm will be above the other. Now fold them so that the other arm is on top. It doesn’t feel right, does it? We much prefer our old way. So, imagine asking people to change something as large-scale and ingrained as their attitudes and behaviour towards safety and environmental issues!
Kübler-Ross proposed a psychological process by which humans respond to change.3 Her work has been simplified into what is commonly referred to as the DREC cycle (Denial, Resistance, Exploration, Commitment). This gives a clear breakdown of the process an individual can go through in order to change learned patterns of behaviour into new ones. It is not as simple as just telling people to change and then sitting back and watching as they magically transform. That would be obvious to most of us, I think, yet too many organisational planners and strategists seem to believe that this is exactly what happens, and pay no heed to the personal process of change. Instead, they focus on the systems and procedures, presuming the human component will tail on naturally after. Well, it won’t and it doesn’t.
The DREC cycle is a four-stage process of change and, for the health and safety, or environmental manager wishing to embed changes in the workplace habits, it would be useful to be aware of these stages and develop an action plan to work with them, rather than ignoring them.
The first reaction to major change is denial, a state of disbelief, ‘they must be joking!’, ‘that might work down south, but not here’, etc. Where your latest plans impact on an individual — for better or worse — do not expect them to like it. That may come as a shock, but it’s true. During the denial stage, it is therefore imperative to explain why the change has to be introduced, to be rational, and not take the rejection personally.
Once the denial stage is over, there follows resistance. Now they will begin to create arguments and barriers to the introduction of the change. The important thing at this stage is to listen to the arguments, no matter how obtuse, and, where fair points are made, respond to and introduce changes into your plans. It is also essential at this stage to outline and emphasise the plans for the introduction. Don’t waste any time on training at this point, as it will not be retained.
Sustaining this kind of resentment and resistance to change needs energy and, with perseverance, you will see it start to erode. This is the onset of the exploration phase. Essentially, what people are now looking for is the WIIFM factor (What’s In It For Me?). Recognising that the change is inevitable, the individual searches for what part they can play, and how they can work with the new system. This is where training comes to the fore, or simply input on what it means and what needs to be undertaken.
The final stage is commitment, when the new way becomes the old way, and the individuals return to their preferred state of equilibrium. It’s a good idea at this point to celebrate success, or recognise the distance people have travelled.
Three essential activities underpin all four stages of the DREC cycle, and the manager of the change process must ensure these are practised at all times. In order of importance they are:
1 Communication
2 Communication
3 Communication
You cannot under-communicate with people going through important change, and whatever initial plans you might have made for communication with the involved individuals, increase them by a factor of 10!
Determining drivers and resistors
Another immensely useful instrument in determining where to spend time and resources to successfully implement change was developed by Kurt Lewin and is formally called Force Field Analysis.4 It can be undertaken either alone or as a group activity.
It begins by identifying the current state and the desired future state, which need to be clearly stated and are similar to the Vision element of Lippitt’s management process. The two occupy separate physical positions and, in order for the former to move towards the latter, driver forces must be applied. Initially, all the drivers are identified and listed. Drivers are any dynamic players in the process of change that will give credence, support, or aid in moving towards the desired future state. They can be people, processes, resources, systems — anything.
If only driving forces existed, the change would happen automatically, but also present are resistor forces — factors that work against the change. Again, they could be anything, but they should be defined and identified to facilitate creation of a plan of action to eliminate or reduce them. Doing so will also ensure that driving forces have the best chance of impacting on the existing inertia and moving towards the desired state.
Conclusion
Considering and addressing the human aspects of health and safety and environmental policy introduction exponentially increases the chances of success. Relying on directive management and non-inclusive strategies will frequently lead to operational failure, with the finger pointed at the workforce for failing to engage with the subject. It is time to realise that the reason for this is failure to consider them in the first place.
References
1 The Managing Complex Change model was copyrighted by Dr Mary Lippitt, founder and president of Enterprise Management Ltd
2 Herzberg, Frederick (1959): The Motivation to Work, John Wiley and Sons, New York
3 Kübler-Ross, E (1973): On Death and Dying, Routledge, ISBN 0415040159
4 Lewin, K (1997): ‘Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science’, American Psychological Association, Washington DC
Garry Platt is a tutor at EEF Oakham.
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!
