The Safety Training Paradox: Hoping for Change

1. The Safety Training Paradox: Hoping for Change Bruce Dodge MEd NSSC March 29, 2007

2. WCB of Nova Scotia • Preventing injury and facilitating Return to Work • Nova Scotia’s workplace injury insurance provider • Covering 18,000 employers and 300,000 workers

3. WCB: Our Vision Nova Scotians, Safe and Secure from workplace injury

4. The Safety Training Paradox: Hoping for Change Agenda • Understanding the Paradox • WCB’s experience • The Inhibitors • Theory to Practice • A different approach

5. The Paradox • “a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that may in fact be true” – Oxford • Safety training is provided but injuries are not reduced • “Safety Training Reduces Injuries” – an article of faith?

6. The Paradox • How many have active safety training? WHY? • WCB Survey: 79% of employers report their “workplace provides safety training or information on an on-going basis” • 86% of employers “review OH&S responsibilities with staff”

7. The Paradox • …yet workplace injuries and costs continue at high levels (5th in country, second in duration) • If Training reduces injuries…what’s going wrong? • Are we expending effort and simply “hoping for change”?

8. Case: The PEP Experience • Prevention Services offers a Priority Employer Program to employers with high potential for improvement in injury rates and costs compared to their industry • A Prevention Services coach works with the employer to identify opportunities for system improvement and injury reduction • Over 50 companies engaged to receive the full service (100+ for lighter version)

9. PEP – Are they training? • Consultants indicate the majority of PEP companies have: • Some form of safety orientation for new staff • Some form of specific safety training provided regarding the work done by the company • Participation rates, ie the % of workers that participate in safety training varies • * Much of the training appears to fail to achieve a prevention focused outcome

10. What are the inhibitors? • Consultants were asked to describe those items that appeared to inhibit effectiveness of the training • Findings are anecdotal based on observation and interviews • There is a wide range of observations, however a number of themes emerge

11. Lack of relevance to work / job • Generic training is often provided that is too vague and not related to work activities • Training may reflect “good sales” rather then respond to an identified need • May be overview ie the value of respirators, vs how and when to use it • Training for the sake of training (good intention?)

12. No defined outcome or purpose • No strategy or comprehensive plan • Unclear what the purpose of the training is • “one off” training, with no linkages • No sense of “loss control” • Lack of “safety culture” as context • If asked - “Why did you do the training?” - ???

13. Poor Motivation • Training provided to meet a compliance requirement or industry obligation (COR) • No intention to provide quality, simply to “check-off” the requirement • Inadequate training is accepted • Lack of “knowledgeable buyer” – accepts what is offered without evaluation • Provided to the wrong, or minimum number of employees to meet requirement (eg sent to JOHSC course)

14. Training in a vacuum • Training provided without any context • No process changes to reflect training • Example: Training small number of staff in inspections, without providing support or endorsement of an inspection process • No linkages to operations

15. Lack of Commitment • No management commitment to safety • Training responds to external demands only eg DEL orders • Buy as little as possible for as few as possible • Not supported with systems, processes • No implementation • …Those trained are frustrated

16. Oversold / Under-delivered • Consultants selling what they have, and as much as the buyer will take • Selling an OH&S Program – or at least a binder, with no methodology or process • Selling as THE answer to injury reduction • Piecemeal purchasing • Saving $$, delete the manuals, checklists etc

17. Wrong Trainer • Picked someone available or cheap, without the “right” subject material and knowledge • Use in-house resource who lack the proper training – eg. WHMIS training which did not include symbols! • Inappropriate process / delivery methodology – “talking ain’t training” • Lack of assessment of what they are “buying” – no selection process

18. Lack of Evaluation • Acceptance of “value add” of training without any form of evaluation • No indication if learning took place • No assessment of integration of learning into processes • No processes to link learning to action • No measure of organizational change

19. Are these real problems? What do we think we know about Safety Education and Training (SET)?

20. Context of Learning • Safety Education and Training (SET) need to link to desired safe behaviour and conditions – impact on work • SET needs leaders commitment • SET needs to be incorporated into processes and supported by corporate policy • Type of learning and methodology must be relevant to desired behaviour

21. Learning Process • Identify the needs – root cause • Define the desired outcome and objectives • Determine who the audience is • Define the content material • Determine the type of learning required • Develop instructional materials and process (contract?) • Deliver and Evaluate (training AND impact)

22. Learning Integration • How will the learning be implemented? • Learners obtain the knowledge / skill /attitude • Are there processes / polices required to support the learning? • Inspection training requires a new process, endorsement by management, forms and equipment, action to inspect and evidence of impact

23. Management Commitment • Learning must be an integrated component of a comprehensive process • Training without implementation = frustration • Change requires: • Commitment / • Learning Process / • Integration

24. Right Type of Learning • Know what you want to achieve: • Doing: • skills and abilities: learned hands on activities, recognize hazards; eg safe machine operation • Thinking: • Knowing, understanding and analysis: problem solving and developing methods hazard analysis and safe work procedures: • Believing: • Your value set and what motivates you: caring for staff and colleagues What is your commitment? Defining the place of safety in the operation.

25. Barrier - WIIFM • What’s In It for Me?? Or Zohar’s “Bounded Rationality” • Fallacy – “if they know how to be safe, they’ll do it for their own good” • Unfortunately unsafe behaviour often perceived as having rewards – saves time, increases productivity, increases comfort, injury / penalties infrequent • SET needs to establish the values which are reinforced with culture, policy and action

26. New Worker Training • A new worker is hired and assigned to the maintenance shop • The worker is unfamiliar with a Jointer – Planer • Fortunately the employer has developed a “Safe Work Procedure” • “Training” is provided…. (sample)

27. Jointer Planer

28. Safe Work Procedure • Is anything wrong with this training? • Does the type of training match the need: doing, thinking, believing? • What is the retention? Exercise • Unintended learning re commitment?

30. How could it be done differently? • Demonstration and explanation • Have learner read and KEEP copy of SWP • Have learner explain and demonstrate: IN LOCK OUT! hands on simulation (Doing) • Have learner explain hazards and consequences (Thinking) • Learner demonstrate POWER ON, basic skills progressing to complex

31. Will the new operator work safely? • WIIFM / Bounded Rationality – worker must see that company values safety • Supervisor must encourage and support safe work / not accept unsafe work – interactions permission to work safely • Production must not be valued over safety; cannot ignore for the “big order” • Experience of commitment = “Believing”: a basis to act from in non-related activities

32. Transformative Learning • “It is the basic assumptions that workers and managers take into the workplace relative to Occupational Health and Safety that have perhaps the greatest impact on safe operations within the workplace” (Dodge, 2002) • Do we agree?

33. Transformative Learning • “Believing”: knowledge, assumptions , value judgments, and feelings determine how an individual sees the world and interprets their experiences • new knowledge or experience either reinforces the belief or stretches its boundaries • radically different experience is either rejected or what we believe is transformed

34. Transformative Learning: Managers • Beliefs inconsistent with safety culture • Safety costs money • Safety wastes time • Safety is common sense • Law is not a real concern • People take care of their own safety • Transformation can be triggered by a critical incident, information or experiences changing beliefs: - a new perspective on the world and their role in it.

35. Transformative Events - Managers • Experience of direct and indirect costs of a serious injury in dollars, time, productivity • See re-engineering for safety resulting in waste and time reduction • Experiencing human cost of a serious injury from unsafe work, disregard of personal safety • Serious legal impact / community loss of integrity • Recognize injury reduction = cost reduction • Disciplinary action

36. Transformative Events: Worker • Recognition employer values personal safety and well being • Recognition that time spent on safety is valued • Safe work is encouraged and rewarded… consistently • Evidence of investment in safety – equipment, training…. • How the employer responds to injury eg Plant Manager reaction

37. Addressing the Inhibitors

38. Lack of Relevance / Purpose • SET must respond to identified workplace needs • Clear objectives must be defined • Type of learning must be appropriate • Must be the RIGHT learning for the people and the need • Purpose and USE of the training must be clear to all

39. Motivation and Context • Training must be valued and recognized as an investment – understand the business case • Planned training (not reactive) must be encouraged • Training must be clearly linked to desired behaviours and outcomes relating to the work • Training integrated with process, policy, forms, and actions

40. Commitment and Right Product • Achieving “Beliefs” consistent with safety culture is critical • Managers reinforce desired behaviours • Learning must be planned and integrated, not fragmented • “Knowledgeable buyer” must examine the need against products and trainers considered

41. Right Trainer • Trainer and product selected against needs and objectives • Trainers understand both content and process…and your objectives “The behavior of the teacher probably influences the character of the learning climate more than any other single factor” (Knowles, 1980)

42. Learning Process - Review • Identify the needs • Define the desired outcome and objectives • Determine who the audience is • Define the content material • Determine the type of learning required • Develop instructional materials and process (contract? – see above!) • Deliver and Evaluate

43. Evaluation • What were your objectives – Doing / Thinking / Believing? • Were the objectives met? – Indicators? • Are processes or systems impacted by the training demonstrating the desired performance or change? eg. Do people know how to don a respirator, understand when and the benefit of it, and do they believe it is of value…and do it consistently?

44. Take Away • Safety Education and Training must relate to the organizations needs • Safety Education and Training must be integrated into operations, processes, policies and reflected in behaviours • Transformed Belief about safety is critical and achievable

45. How can you improve training? * More Research is required