Motivation-Based Safety |
|
|
Steps to the Next Level of Safety
|
Clarifying the CyclesCycle 2A. Employees’ Ownership of Their MotivationsHow do you identify problematic employees and remain pro-active about safety? The real issue is not if Corporate America takes heed, but when and how it takes heed. Individuals, groups, or institutions normally have difficulty admitting they have problems. Individuals, on their own or in groups, do not like to discuss their weaknesses -- yet they exist. Most frequently, safety training takes place in large groups, which minimizes frank discussion. Frank discussion, with all participants in the safety review process, is necessary for each participant to take ownership and responsibility of his or her behavior. "Buy-in," or ownership, is created when it is personalized individually; otherwise, the natural tendency is to feel "It does not pertain to me"; "It is someone else who needs this talk"; or "I know what they are going to say." Given these factors, large group training in safety is not as effective as properly directed small groups. Smaller groups provide a message of value to the individual, or "ME." Additionally a smaller group is more likely to have individuals bond with certain other individuals and indeed, with the group as a whole. A sense of community/teamwork can result. An employee cares about "ME" most, even if he or she is a good team player. When his or her personal safety issues are addressed, he or she becomes attentive. Small interactive groups where strengths and weaknesses can be addressed openly as a mutual concern will create positive learning experiences for the participants and bond workers together. Large group training sessions without addressing personal issues will have little or no impact on the individuals in the group. No matter how many safety skill areas a worker receives training in, the training will not be owned by the individual unless the individual can see personal benefit. Employees buy safety principles the same way they buy marketed merchandise -- what’s in it for ME! The following case study illustrates where personalized assessment isolated "UWDs" (unsafe work disorders) allowing individual intervention. A Florida transportation company had five key employees screened individually. After assessing the five employees, one employee was isolated
(The top bar on the graph measures developed motivational (technical) skills that produce "good" or "bad" behaviors. The bottom bar of the graph indicates motivational sources (attitudes) or the issues behind the skills.) Please note this individual had some of the same problems that employee #2 had from the previous example. This particular employee felt that inflicting pain on oneself or others was an acceptable part of life. Sadly, this person had been physically abused as a child and needed to be repositioned and to undergo extended therapy. This employee could never have been isolated and helped had this training been large-group based. Specialized training aimed at removing this individual’s negative motivations was successful because the employee took ownership of the behavior and accepted the appropriate assistance needed for improvement. (Corporations must remember that when they hire, they hire the entire person and often are financially penalized because they do not screen appropriately. Pre-screening this individual would have provided a different perspective to the hiring manager.) How can the training be specialized and cost effective?
|
