LANDASAN TEORI
For more than a decade, behavior-based safety (BBS) has been prospering in
organizations nationwide and more recently throughout the world. A variety of books
detail the principles and procedures of BBS (Geller, 1998b, 2001d, 2001e;
Geller&Williams, 2001; Krause, 1995; Krause, Hidley, & Hodson, 1996; McSween, 1995;
Sulzer- Azaroff, 1998). In addition, a number of comprehensive reviews of the literature
provide objective evidence for the effectiveness of this approach to risk management
and injury prevention (Grindle, Dickinson, & Boettcher, 2000; McAfee & Winn, 1989;
Petersen, 1989; Sulzer-Azaroff & Austin, 2000; Sulzer-Azaroff, McCann, & Harris, 2001).
The successful applications of BBS generally adhere to the seven key principles
described below. Each principle is broad enough to include a variety of practical
operations, but narrow enough to instruct the development of cost-effective
interventions for managing the human dynamics of occupational risk. The author has
proposed these principles in several sources as a map or mission statement for guiding
the design of interventions to benefit safety-related behaviors and attitudes in the
workplace as well as in homes, neighborhoods, and throughout entire communities
(Geller, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b, 2001a, 2001b; Geller & Williams, 2001). All of these
presentations of BBS appeared in publications for safety professionals and as a result,
most readers of this journal are likely unaware of this popular application of behavior
analysis for managing occupational risk.
1. FOCUS INTERVENTION ON OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR
In other words, BBS focuses on what people do, analyzes why they do it, and
then applies a research supported intervention technique to improve behavioral
processes.
2. LOOK FOR EXTERNAL FACTORS TO UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE
BEHAVIOR
We obviously do what we do because of factors in both our external and internal
worlds. However, given the difficulty in objectively defining internal states or
traits, it is far more cost effective to identify environmental conditions that
influence behavior and to change these factors when behavior change is needed.
This can include identifying inadequate management systems or manager
behaviors that promote or inadvertently encourage at-risk work practices.
3. DIRECT WITH ACTIVATORS AND MOTIVATE WITH CONSEQUENCES
As Dale Carnegie (1936) put it, “Every act you have ever performed since the
day you were born was performed because you wanted something” (p. 62). The
critical point here is that activators (or signals preceding behavior) are only as
powerful as the consequences supporting them.
4. FOCUS ON POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES TO MOTIVATE BEHAVIOR
B. F. Skinner’s concern for people’s feelings and attitudes is reflected in his
antipathy toward the use of punishment (or negative consequences) to motivate
behavior. “The problem is to free men, not from control, but from certain kinds
of control” (Skinner, 1971, p. 41). He goes on to explain why control by negative
consequences must be reduced to increase perceptions of personal freedom.
Unfortunately, the common metric used to evaluate and rank companies on their
safety performance is the total recordable injury rate (or an analogous count of
losses) that puts people in a reactive mindset of avoiding failure rather than
achieving success. The BBS approach provides proactive measures that
employees set goals to achieve to reduce occupational risks and prevent
unintentional injury.
5. APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO IMPROVE INTERVENTION?
Behaviors can be objectively observed and measured before and after an intervention process is
initiated. This application of the scientific method provides feedback for cultivating
improvement. The acronym DO IT (standing for define, observe, intervene, and test),
6. USE THEORY TO INTEGRATE INFORMATION, NOT TO LIMIT
POSSIBILITIES
This is an important perspective for safety and health professionals, especially
when applying the DO IT process. It is often better to be open to many
possibilities for improving safety performance than to be motivated to support a
certain process. Numerous intervention procedures are consistent with a BBS
approach, and an intervention process that is effective in one setting will not
necessarily work in another. Thus, the author and his colleagues teach change
agents to make an educated guess about what intervention procedures to use at
the start of a BBS process, but to be open to results from a DO IT process and
refine procedures accordingly. Of course, Principles 1 to 4 should be used as
guides when designing intervention procedures.
7. DESIGN INTERVENTIONS WITH CONSIDERATION OF INTERNAL
FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES
The rationale for using more positive than negative consequences to motivate
behavior is based on the differential feeling states provoked by positive
reinforcement versus punishment procedures. Similarly, the way we implement
an intervention process can increase or decrease feelings of empowerment, build
or destroy trust, or cultivate or inhibit a sense of teamwork or belonging (Geller,
2001a, 2001b, 2001c; 2002). Thus, it’s important to assess feeling states or
perceptions that occur concomitantly with an intervention process. This can be
accomplished informally through one-on-one interviews and group discussions,
or formally with a perception survey (O’Brien, 2000; Petersen, 2001).
The ABC (activator-behavior-consequence) model described in Principle 3 is a
framework to analyze why behavior occurs, as well as to develop interventions for
benefiting behavior. Consider that activators and consequences are external to the
performer (as in the environment), or they can be internal (as in self-instructions or
self-recognition). They can be intrinsic or extrinsic to a behavior, meaning they provide
direction or motivation naturally as a task is performed (as in a computer game), or
they are added to the situation extrinsically
to improve performance (as in a salary bonus program). An incentive or reward
program is external and extrinsic. It adds an activator (an incentive) and a consequence
(a reward) to the situation to direct and motivate desirable behavior (Geller, 1996).
Instructional intervention.
An instructional intervention typically uses an activator or antecedent event to get new
behavior started or to move behavior from the automatic (habit) stage to the self-
directed stage. Or it is used to improve behavior already in the self-directed stage. The
aim is to get the participants’ attention and instruct them to transition from
unknowingly at-risk to knowingly safe.You assume
the person wants to improve, so external motivation is not needed — only external and
extrinsic direction. This type of intervention consists primarily of activators, as
exemplified by education sessions, training exercises, and directive feedback.
Supportive intervention.
Once a person learns the right way to do something, practice is important so the
behavior can become part of a natural routine. Continued practice leads to fluency (i.e.,
fast and accurate behavior) and in many cases to automatic or habitual behavior.
Practice does not come easily, however, and benefits greatly from supportive
intervention. People need support to reassure them they are doing the right thing and
to encourage them to keep going.
Motivational intervention.
When people knowwhat to do but don’t do it, they require some external
encouragement or pressure to change. Instruction alone is obviously insufficient
because they are knowingly doing the wrong thing. In safety, this is referred to as a
calculated risk. People take calculated risks when they perceive the positive
consequences of the at-risk behavior to be more powerful than
the negative consequences. The positive consequences of comfort, convenience, and
efficiency are immediate and certain, whereas the negative consequence of at-risk
behavior (such as an injury) is improbable and seems remote. In this situation an
incentive or reward program is useful. It attempts to motivate a certain target behavior
by promising people a positive consequence if they perform it.
