Last month I scrutinized the apparent focus on positive reinforcement in behavior-based safety (BBS). I specified critical distinctions between positive reinforcers and rewards, and pointed out flaws in the standard training protocol for teaching employees how to give interpersonal recognition.
The president and CEO of International Coal emphasized this point this past January when he said the owners and management of Sago Mine “...will report all findings in the hope that lessons learned here may help prevent similar problems at other mines.â€
What an employee, supervisor or manager does — for safety or anything else — is determined by his or her perception of “what’s in it for me?â€
Jim is a safety professional with 12 years of experience. He’s technically very competent, probably the best in the whole corporation. Jim tends to be low-key, private and introverted, a bit hard to “read.†He doesn’t initiate a lot of contact with the folks in the plant unless he is doing a safety audit, and spends a lot of time in his office alone.
After the dust-up over the hexavalent chromium standard in late February, OSHA lifers on Pennsylvania Avenue must feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. You remember, the 1993 movie with the tagline, “He’s having the worst day of his life... over and over…†No matter what the standards-writers try, the same damn thing happens… over and over.
It has always been an issue, but not that much of a problem, until now. What I am talking about is the growing number of zeros, after the decimal place, used to describe exposure limits and measurements.
Perhaps you missed this dispatch from Reuters news service earlier this year: “The round-the-clock availability that cell phones and pagers have brought to people’s lives may be taking a toll on family life, a new study suggests.â€
In this month’s column I offer critical distinctions between positive reinforcement, reward, and recognition; and explain the standard BBS instruction for giving recognition can be undesirable.
RSS