People involved in managing worker safety may attribute their effectiveness in getting the workforce to work safely to their ability to coach, inform, train, motivate, influence, teach, instruct, to name a few. The purpose of these interactions is to motivate the individual to focus on safety, pay greater attention to work environment, recognize hazards as well as adhere to the project’s safety requirements. Many felt that their interventions (conversations or messages) improved and sometimes even saved lives.

The interaction is triggered by the safety practitioner observing the worker engaged in some form of at-risk behavior. Before suggesting corrective action, the safety practitioner needs to understand the circumstances that are driving the perceived unsafe behavior. This could be work habits, lack of knowledge or capability, inattention, crew influence, production pressures, etc. The worker also may perceive that the suggested action may be more difficult or take longer to perform.

For the message conveying the suggested appropriate “safer” way to perform the task to even come across, be understood and accepted, the safety practitioner must ensure that the underlying words used, the body language, and the tone of voice used in the conversation are appropriate to the situation in order to make the exchange positive and not confrontational.

Four aspects of messages

Messages have four elements or features that can impact the effectiveness of the communication in terms of what is said or transmitted and what is actually received and understood — see figure 1, which is an adaptation of Friedmann Schulz von Thun’s Information Theory. Three features affect the message independently or in some combination, and the fourth affects them all.

Conversation factors

An example conversation regarding safety on the worksite: The safety practitioner observes a worker engaged in at-risk behavior performing the task which may result in an injury. So, he walks up, greets the person and tells them what was observed, what the unsafe issue is and the potential negative consequences. This is followed by some suggestions of how to modify their behavior in order to accomplish the work safely and avoid getting injured. This is affected by the four elements of the message.

If the message is “heard” in the fact area, then the worker will accept that he is behaving unsafely. He also has to believe that the information is correct, doable, and effective in order to comply with the request.

If the worker interprets the message in the “appeals” area, defining it as the speaker’s wishes, this is subject to the perceived speaker’s knowledge, good intentions, and the impact to the worker’s ability to meet the expected production goal.

If the worker interprets the message in the self-revelation area, then he may look for the speaker’s motives, or possible hidden agenda. Compliance will depend on whether the worker trusts the speaker or not.

Underlying these three areas is the relationship area regarding how they feel about each other, which can affect the other three. These include whether the speaker as likable, friendly and with good intentions, as well as the job and the organization in general.

After the worker receives the message, and filters it though the four aspects, they try to understand what is being conveyed. This is then filtered thought the receiver’s standards (beliefs, values, norms, etc.) as well as perceptions, and expectations. This then generates a response which is transmitted back to the sender; a reverse of figure 1.       

Participant and work-related factors

Besides the message factors shown above, there are a number of issues which also effect the conversation’s outcomes. These involve the personality factors of the participants, as well as work-related factors. A comprehensive representation of these is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2
Graphic credit: Peter Furst

How we act and think in any given situation is influenced by our personality. Personality traits are relatively stable, affecting our thoughts and perceptions, manifested in our behavior. It also establishes people’s expectation of how others will react in any given situation. This generally leads to how people respond and interact with one another. 

Personality

The quality of the conversation will be colored by the participant’s personality. The Sender’s personality affects the message formulation, words used, tone of voice, body language and affects the recipient’s understanding, and reaction. Both individuals' values, beliefs, experience, opinions, prejudices, and emotions will play a role in the transmitting and receipt of the message. The recipient will respond more favorably to the message if the sender is deemed likable, knowledgeable, empathic, and/or trustworthy.

Emotional state

Emotions affect people’s state of mind, shape behavior, which is telegraphed to the recipient, (See my 2023 ISHN article: “Communication leads to Engagement”). Our state of mind affects well over 90% of the information the other person “reads” into the message and responds in kind. So, we need to be cognizant of this so that our message does not negatively affect what we are trying to convey and so diminish its effectiveness and acceptance.

Work factors

From the listener’s perspective, operational and task factors come into play when it comes to the worker agreeing to comply with the safety practitioner’s request. This area covers a wide range of factors, such as the worker and the safety practitioner assessing the level of risk in a similar way. The belief that the worker has the ability to handle the perceived risk without needing to change anything, as well.

Task factors

There are numerous task and crew factors which any encourage risk-taking. The importance of achieving the production goal and ensuring continued employment may encourage at-risk behavior and hinder compliances with the safety practitioner’s request. Past interaction between the parties may affect the worker’s willing compliance.

Work climate

The culture of the organization and the way leadership interacts with the employees and others creates the atmosphere of the worksite as felt by the employees. This atmosphere is known as the psychological climate of the organization or the worksite. The work climate is going to shape the perception of the participants, which will be reflected in their behavior. That behavior may involve risk-taking or not. If the worker gets a sense that risk-taking is an acceptable way to go about getting the job done, more than likely, the worker will proceed in that fashion.

Organizations can create different climates, such as an ethical climate, entrepreneurial climate, innovative climate, people-oriented climate. risk-taking climate, to name a few. The people working for the organization will in all likelihood factor this into every decision they make. Since the climate is shaped by leadership, they can rather easily exert influence and modify it for the better. They have to first identify what sort of climate exists and why, then they have to determine what sort of climate they want. And with forethought they have to implement practices that will foster the desired climate. They will also have to make a concerted effort to show the workforce that they in fact are serious about the change and that the organization as well as the workforce will benefit from it.

Work culture

The structure of the organization will come into play in this regard. If the organization manages safety as a separate function which deals with worker safety while work production is managed by a foreman or superintendent, then the worker is going to be placed in a potentially untenable position where there may be cases where they will have to choose between what the superintendent expects them to do (meet production goals) as opposed to what the safety practitioner wants them to do. In a production-focused climate, the safety practitioner is going to find it difficult to get compliance when such a situation exists. In any communication, the work climate as well as culture is going to shape the perception of the participants when they engage in conversations. It will affect both the creating of the message and how it is received by the other party.

Conclusion

People’s personality, their emotional state, the task requirements and the work climate may make meaningful conversations easier or more difficult. The situation in which our communication takes place may influence its outcome as well as it level of effectiveness. The person making a request must be aware of this and factor these elements into their approach to another person. This is especially true for a safety practitioner working in production-driven climates. They will have to make adjustments to the four features of the message they are trying to convey so as to improve their effectiveness in achieving their goal in getting compliance.

They will not only have to be cognizant of the work factors but also have a good understanding of the person with whom they are conversing. Many conversations may be conducted in stressful situations which may very well impede understanding and affect compliance. This will play a role in the success or failure of the conversation. For the message to get across, it has to be clear, concise, and coherent. The information has to be “solid” and correct. It also has to be made in a courteous and considerate way.

An important element of successful conversations is active listening. People respond more favorably to those they deem are truly listening and trying to understand their concerns and circumstance. By making it a practice to better understand the other person’s circumstance as well as actively listen to them, the safety practitioner will soon become known as someone who is empathic and can be trusted. 

But more importantly, the safety practitioner may be much more effective if they try the use their communication abilities to change the system rather than the worker, in order to structurally change the way the work is planned and executed, with greater attention to potential risk of harm, and eliminate it or diminish its potential outcome before the worker is assigned to the task and asked to “deal” with the risks involved.