Holding individuals at the workface accountable for their behaviours is na?ve.
Bob Cummins
Helping people who influence, improve performance through the application of behavioural science.
It’s a common demand and sounds justified but this wishful thinking comes from a position of frustration from human behaviour rather than understanding.
Holding individuals at the workface accountable for their behaviours is na?ve. It assumes that they have knowledge of how behaviours work and are then given the resources, materials, tools, money and authority to arrange the environment that they will work in to support the desired, safe productive behaviours.
This is far from the case. Most workers do not understand how human behaviour works. Most do not understand that they will, when it comes to it follow the crowd, break a rule, do something unsafe, if the environment supports it, even if they have pledged on their daughters life that they will not. But, this is the reality of human behaviour.
In order to make the safe, desired, productive behaviours most likely, one must arrange the environment in such a way that supports this.
The arrangement has to happen before the worker gets to the point of where the behaviour happens.
The architect of the environment makes desired behaviour more or less likely. Most workers do not have control of the resources, the selection of tools, the delivery and selection of materials. They do not choose their work colleagues or their supervisors. They do not choose the task, the location. They just choose to turn up. They then have to use what they have to deliver the task prescribed.
Each output, every behaviour is a response to the environment created by the company, very few behaviours, circa 0.01% are wilful – both desired or undesired.
Learn and apply the science of human behaviour and save lives.
Reformed Safety Jedi, now trying to bring balance to the force. 3 decades as a Motorcycle Instructor, safety rep and professional driver, I’m #MadeByDyslexia – expect creative systemic thinking & creative spelling.
5 年While I agree with not holding people in my workplace responsible for their actions and agree people can go a long way to better understanding human nature.? I also worry about making an environment appear safer due to risk compensation and hyper compliance.? "Work as done" often being very different to "work as prescribed".? We can operate in a hazardous environment in a safer manner if we understand the human factors along with the skills needed to operate in that environment.? It would be nice to see others who have training and experience to the same levels as I, but that is not going to happen with 99% of them in the environment where I work and play.? Human factors includes me understanding that when I enter that environment.?
Project Leader - Laing O'Rourke
5 年As I’ve heard you say many times Bob, ‘the environment is perfectly designed to get what you get’, only when leaders get this and realise they are the designer of the environment will sustainable improvements be realised
Simplifying Talent Processes, Championing Mental Wellbeing, Navigating Talent Complexity Risks
5 年Bob Cummins accountability starts at the top.. Then it's is the responsibility of the individual at the top to make sure that the individual in the job will be safe by not hiring them in day 1 without understanding how they function when we take away everything that confuses and misleads us into thinking they COULD be safe. What is left to check is innate talent and complexity potential.. Both words are foreign and not defined in the HR nor dictated by the one on top.. No 1 threat to the business is the one on top and the HRBP because they do not have Safety in their job description or a way to prevent the individual from being hired who will not be able to function in the complexity of the environment where they need to function without being in stress or pushed into incompetence due to not possessing the innate talent and complexity potential.. So ultimately the individual is not guilty of any wrong doing when they cannot proof beyond training and qualification if there is no innate talent to support the training and qualifications.. If not all we end up with is knowledge absorbed like a sponge regurgitated with no meaning on demand, unable to apply when in danger.. Just a memory /muscle exercise..
Safety Professional, ASSP, Former CHST, Speaker, Author
5 年I am a firm believer that scapegoating is not productive. But I have trouble with the width and breadth of your assertion. Perhaps I just want to believe that I have control. But I think it more likely, that we must look at all things on a case by case basis. A supervisor with 15 years experience and a new employee on their second day are both employees, but one is expected to know more than the other. I am a proponent of fixing the system, but I believe it is just as wrong to always blame the system, as it is to always blame the people.