Bridget Leathley argues that we need to embrace human factors and design systems that inherently promote safe behaviour.

In the Human Factors area of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website there is a heading Behavioural safety approaches (behaviour modification). The text explains that the key features of the approach are to first, define 'safe' and 'unsafe' behaviour, and then reinforce safe behaviour and 're-educate' unsafe behaviour.

The model of the worker that this suggests is that of a lab rat in a maze. There are correct routes through the maze which will always lead to cheese (safety), and incorrect routes that will always lead to an electric shock (danger).

But the real-world workplace is not that consistent. For instance, utility workers are told not to start work on a public highway until the traffic management team have set up traffic lights, barriers and advance signs. They arrive on site, and the traffic management isn’t in place.

The first time, they go back to base explaining they couldn’t do the job. It’s unsatisfying for them to have wasted time travelling there and back. Management responds - as too often they do – by criticising the workers for not overcoming the hurdles and getting the job done. The word gets around. You’ll be ok if you’re careful. It’s a quiet road. It’s a short job. You’ll be fine! People learn that the culture rewards people who get on with the job, bypassing safety rules if necessary. But then one day, an accident happens, and the report concludes it was a ‘behavioural safety’ problem.

It is essential to get the motivational environment right for safe behaviours – rewarding people when they stop work because of a safety concern, even if this has a detrimental effect on productivity. But it is even more effective if we design the work so that the safe ways of working are the easiest ways.

An old problem                            

Using insurance claims, engineering reports and interviews with plant managers, Herbert Heinrich reviewed 75,000 industrial injury and illness cases. From this, he concluded that 88 per cent of accidents are caused by unsafe acts carried out by people, 10 per cent by unsafe machines and two per cent that are unavoidable. This research was published in 1931 in Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. Nearly a century later the idea that nine out of ten accidents are caused by unsafe acts has persisted – the workers are at fault, and all would be well if only we could motivate them to behave more safely.

But workers want to be safe – they want to go home to their families and friends, and they want their colleagues to stay well. Focusing only on motivating workers is a dangerous idea. By concentrating on the unsafe act, we miss opportunities to address the real causes of accidents. We need to think differently.

Physical limitations

You can’t motivate people to be taller, stronger, faster or fitter than they are.

An office worker used a small step ladder to access a shelf which stored files they needed once a week. The site manager went on a ladder safety course and concluded that no untrained staff should use a ladder. The step ladder was removed. But the file was still on a shelf that no one could reach from the floor. So now, staff had to climb on an office chair (when no one was looking) to reach the file!

Far better to review storage arrangements – could everything be stored at a height that all the workers could reach? Could a technology solution remove the need for a paper file altogether? If there was still storage at height, then provide training on safe use of the step ladder.

While this arbitrary ‘no climbing’ rule might seem extreme, check your own workplace to see if there are tasks that people can’t physically do safely. For example, are there heavy loads to be carried? Providing a handling aid like a trolley reduces the distance it needs to be carried, but how easy is it to get the load onto and off the trolley?

The ability to lift objects is not just about how heavy something is, but also its shape. A large, strong hand might be able to grip with the fingers extended, but a smaller hand will have a smaller grip, and a hand with even mild arthritis won’t be able to grip with the same extension.

The pace of work has a further influence on workers’ physical abilities. Do they have the time for all the steps required in a process? Is recovery time built into a schedule for tasks that require physical strength?

Cognitive limitations

You can’t motivate someone to remember more than their memory can retain, or to concentrate on a single task for longer. Telling workers to "try harder" or "stay alert" will not overcome these limitations. If I ask you to copy “22°C” from a water system thermometer to a logbook immediately, you can probably do it accurately. If I ask you to look up ideal tyre pressures for front and rear wheels on a vehicle in a manual and remember those numbers for long enough to pump up the tyres, you might remember them – but you could easily mix up the front and back tyre pressures or overlay the memory of correct pressures from a more familiar vehicle.

Now I ask you to load a pallet on a forklift truck with different sizes of boxes from multiple locations, adding up the weights of the boxes as you go in your head. You must ensure you don’t break the safe working load. You must drive carefully between locations. What are the chances you make an error in the arithmetic, or remember the load from the fourth stop instead of the fifth stop by the time you get to the sixth stop? You exceed the safe working load – if only you’d been more motivated to get the numbers right!

Another more complex aspect of cognitive science is how our brains take short cuts. Presented with a failed piece of equipment, a new technician might take an hour to work systematically through a list of possible failure modes and solutions; an experienced maintenance technician is able to take short cuts to get to the fix needed in less time. They are appreciated for this expertise that gets the machinery working again quickly. But the same cognitive short-cut could lead the technician to miss something unusual and unexpected, resulting in an unsafe repair.

A better way: Designing safer systems

Given the limitations of motivation-driven safety, a more effective approach is to design systems that inherently promote safe behaviour. This involves creating environments and processes that minimise the potential for human error and make safe behaviour the default option, rather than relying on individual motivation, photographic memory and superhuman physical strength to drive safety. ​

The scientific discipline of understanding how people interact with their environment, including with each other, and using that to optimise wellbeing, safety and overall system performance is called ‘human factors’.

Human factors are not the same as human error. It’s about understanding human physical and cognitive limitations, as well as human strengths - the flexibility, imagination and resilience that make people excellent problem solvers, innovators and planners.

We need to understand the human factors and then design the environment to support the ‘right’ behaviours, recognising the complexity of workplaces.

In case we need reminding, a safe working environment is not just a ‘nice to have’ human factors requirement – it’s a legal requirement, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, expanded in other regulations. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations don’t suggest motivating workers not to fall, but mandate that employers provide premises free from trip and slip hazards.  The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) don’t recommend motivating people to be careful near dangerous parts of machinery, but mandate that access to dangerous parts is prevented.

Conclusion: Stop treating safety as a worker problem

In summary, if you want safer people, you need to abandon outdated motivational programmes and invest in human factors. Give people safer places of work, safer tools and safer systems of work. These need to match their physical and cognitive capabilities and provide opportunities to get things right. If the safer choice is the easier choice, rather than the hardest, people will make the right choice without motivational programmes.

Safety is not a worker problem – it’s a design problem. Safety comes from designing systems that work with human limitations, not against them.

With a first degree in computer science and psychology, Bridget Leathley started her working life in human factors, initially in IT and later in high-hazard industries. After completing an MSc in Occupational Health and Safety Management, she moved full-time into occupational health and safety consultancy, training and writing.