Introduction:

Ever since the industrial revolution there has been a consistent history of workplace accidents and injuries. Recently there have been tragic and catastrophic accidents within the mining and oil industries, which have cost billions and the loss of many lives. Although there have been significant improvements in workplace safety brought about by regulation, the technology, improved processes and organizational commitment needed to improve worker safety, accidents and injuries remains a significant problem and business risk. Still, no amount of regulations, oversight, education and organizational commitment will eliminate workplace accidents and injuries. To believe so is misguided. As long as a human being is directly or indirectly involved in a work process, there will be accidents It is so deeply embedded in our lives that most of and injuries. However, this does not have to be an us scarcely recognize that unpredictable, mysterious or acceptable reality of it exists. For as long as doing business. Beliefs about human motivation any of us can remember, weve configured our and the workplace models and approaches that organizations and have been used since Henry Ford produced the constructed our lives first model T do not address the human factor, around its bedrock nor do they improve how people perform. The assumptions: The way to reasons are clear and are backed by extensive improve performance, increase productivity, research. Theory X and the carrots and sticks and encourage excellence and reward and punishment approaches may is to reward good produce short-term improvements, but in the long behavior and punish term they stifle motivation and engagement and bad. contribute to people making unwise decisions. Daniel Pink, Drive The question must be asked, Why, when the personal and organizational stakes are so high, do we choose to rely on motivational approaches and systems that produce minimum levels of compliance and contribute to worker disinterest and defiance? The Partners In Safety Program is a solution. It is based on models of change and motivation that have been validated by years of research and demonstrated effectiveness in creating and sustaining organizational cultures that motivate and engage employees in achieving and exceeding organizational goals; safety being priority one. 1

Partners in Safety A Generative Approach To Safety

 Overview: What is human motivation or more specifically, what internal or external factors drive people to behave and make decisions, which in some situations appear to be contrary to their best interests? Im sure youve asked yourself, Why would anyone do something that goes against his or her best interests? Trying to decipher someones rationale for what appears to be irrational behavior is a situation that boggles the minds of parents, teachers and corporate leaders alike, and it is the crux of management seeking to drive and elevate an organizations safety culture. Why would anyone do something that they know could cause injury or harm to themselves or others? We are products of motivational theories and approaches that create hierarchal and adversarial relationships within the workplace, which in turn kills intrinsic motivation and requires continued oversight as well as the use of extrinsic rewards to produce short-term. This is why you often hear the familiar refrain from employees, Here we go, another program. They know what should be obvious to management: if youre rolling out another safety program, youre on the wrong path. Programs and approaches based on these unproven theories will continue to foster dependency, eliminate personal responsibility, and require extensive and costly rewards and punishment systems to produce short-term limited results. The key to solving this motivational riddle and to get on the right path is not as difficult as one might think. Drive by Daniel Pink and There are two basic Why We Do What We Do by Edward Deci provide a responses to the history of how workplaces got off track and still rewards/punishment style of continue to employ approaches that are counter- control and motivation: productive, risky and costly. But more importantly, compliance and defiance, and they enlighten us on what does work. both have negative consequences, intended and unintended. Both Deci and Pink, as well as numerous other behavioral scientists, know why we do what we do. Edward Deci, PhD Organizations can reduce their risks, improve their Why We Do What We Do safety performance and bottom-line, and build a self- sustaining safety culture by learning, applying and monitoring proven models on human motivation to their safety program. Safety is a serious business issue; one accident could cost millions of dollars and the loss of life. Business leaders like sure bets, and if that isnt available they want the odds in their favor. It makes sense. The Partners in Safety Program isnt a sure bet, but the research and evidence says it will increase your odds and reduce your risks. 2

 Review of Motivation and Engagement: The Gallup Organization, as well as other organizations that study and survey workforce engagement, have surveyed thousands of employees across all business sectors and find that 65 % or more employees are not meaningfully engaged with their managers, jobs or organizations! And if they are not engaged with their job, they are certainly not engaged with safety in the workplace. There are numerous assumptions and data that can be drawn from this statistic, but the most relevant is that these organizations all use rewards and punishment or carrot and stick approaches to the design and management of their safety engagement programs. Building an engaged workforce starts by understanding and implementing the right type of motivation. There are two basic types of motivation: external or extrinsic motivation, and internal, which is intrinsic motivation. The carrot and stick theory is an extrinsic method for motivating performance, and the one that is most prevalent in organizations. Its underlying belief is that people fundamentally dislike work and that they require direction and even Federal agencies with the coercion to produce. It gained support from the work lowest engagement of behavioral psychologists who noticed that animals, compared with the not humans, changed their behavior after consistently highest experienced 3 receiving a reward or punishment. times the average OSHA lost0time case rate (.73 In 1960, Douglas McGregor proposed an alternative to vs. 2.15 per 100) what he referred to as Theory X, which assumes that people dislike work, attempt to avoid it, have no ambition and do not want responsibility. His conclusion, known as Theory Y, is based on his research and experience as a leader. Theory Y held that taking an interest in work is as natural as play or rest, that creativity and ingenuity were widely distributed in the population, and under the proper conditions, people will accept, and even seek, responsibility. Todays businesses and organizations still have not applied sound research and tested methods of motivation and engagement. Management in most organizations still rely on approaches and programs based on extrinsic rewards, theory X, and the carrot and stick theory. In practice, organizations resort to default assumptions and answers that were programmed into management psychology in the early 19th century. These defaults essentially achieve the same results year after year: sub- optimal performance in all areas including safety. The alternative is to break the carrot and stick Changing organizations addiction and begin to understand and implement depends overwhelmingly proven behavioral models of motivation and on changing the emotions engagement. The first approach to creating and of their individual sustaining a high-performing safety culture is the members. practical application of the Self-Determination Theory John Kotter, PhD (SDT). Developed by Edward Deci, PhD and Richard 3
The Heart of Change

Ryan, PhD, two influential behavioral scientists that have conducted extensive research on human motivation, the SDT Model consists of three factors: Autonomy, Competence and Interpersonal Connectedness. These three factors, when consciously and consistently integrated into designing initiatives to improve and promote safety, will begin to change the genesis of employee motivation from extrinsic to intrinsic, resulting in increased personal responsibility and accountability for and a higher degree of safety successes. The second breakthrough approach in creating and sustaining a high-performance safety culture is the neuroscience of emotional intelligence and its application in establishing organizational climates that drive safety-focused behavior and engagement. Science has proven that emotions are inseparable from our thinking and that emotions are keys to memory and motivation. Emotions are the energy sources that move people to action. If we dont care about our safety we will not make the discretionary effort to be safer. Earlier we posed the question, Why would anyone do something that seems to go against his or her best interests? The answer lies not in the cognitive realm, but in the emotional realm. If emotions and reasoning are not aligned, people do stupid things. It is not sufficient to be committed to safety in mind only; organizations and employees must also feel the commitment in their heart. Emotional commitment is the energy needed to develop a high-level safety culture. Conclusion: The next step in achieving a high performing safety culture is to step beyond the carrot and stick behavioral approach to safety, to one in which employees willingly and intrinsically take responsibility for their safety behavior as well as that of their co-workers. Organizations can continue to rely on typical safety training initiatives, writing additional policies and procedures as they go, or invest in a model and approach that is grounded in the human sciences and that gets leaders and organizations out of the program-of-the-month merry-go-round. By doing so, they can begin to restore and build their employees intrinsic motivation and emotional commitment to safety, and move forward in building and sustaining a high- performance culture of safety. Program Objectives: To assist managers and leaders in learning and conducting generative conversations with employees to improve understanding, ownership and commitment in achieving the organizations safety mission. 4

To assist managers and safety leaders to design all safety initiatives by incorporating the three factors of Self-Determination Theory. Managers and Safety Leaders will learn how to use an Autonomous Supportive style of managing and leading to build increased intrinsic motivation and safety accountability. Managers and Safety Leaders will learn how to apply the science of emotional intelligence to increase awareness, attention and intrinsic motivation

Program Vision: To create and sustain an organizational culture in which safety is a value that is embraced, shared and realized by all employees. Implementation and Change Model: For individuals and organizations, change is often perceived as difficult, disruptive and results in small if any gains. Most organizational change efforts never fully meet their intended goals and many are abandoned in the early stages. One reason for this dismal record is that the change process used is based on the wrong assumptions of what motivates people to change. Many organizations approach change with a reward and punishment strategy. In Change or Die, Alan Deutschman calls it the 3 Fs: Facts, Fear and Force. Organizations provide employees with facts: Our safety record is below our stated objectives. Its costing us time and money. The next step is to motivate change through scare tactics: If we dont get better at safety procedures, someone will get injured and we wont have the financial resources for salary increments. And if this doesnt achieve the desired changes, more force is applied with a bigger stick. While these approaches may work in the short term, it almost always assures that the change effort will be fraught with problems, and any gains are usually short-lived, which increases discouragement and mistrust. But it doesnt have to be this way. The Partners in Safety Program employs a change model that addresses the core issues that motivate people to change. It also employs one critical element: utilizing the power of the group and or team. The title, Partners in Safety, is designed to convey this critical element of change. Many organizations mistakenly assume that the line or the hourly employee is the problem, since this is where and among whom most injures occur. Though this may be the reality, if you want to change a culture everyone must change, including managers and leaders. 5

 Change Model Process: Otto Scharmer, a PhD Senior Lecturer at MIT and author of Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations and Communities, developed a model which he named theory U. The Partners in Safety Program utilizes this model to provide a structure and process for achieving its vision and implementing its program objectives. The goal of the program is to move from command and control, reward and punishment, and hierarchical models to a culture in which employees at all levels of the organization are intrinsically motivated and committed to achieving the highest levels of safety at all times. The goal is to create and sustain a culture and program in which managers and leaders are partners in the process, instead of policing, imposing rules and meting out discipline.

Challenge: Current Model --------------------------------------New Model & Solutions

Theory U Model and Process

Focusing
Understand current reality

Sustaining
New Structures and Monitoring

Broadening
Understanding Perceptions

Creating
New Core Activities & Processes

Deepening

Surfacing Assumptions

Creating
New Thinking & Principles

Figure 1

Vision
Establishing Common Ground and Action

 Using Theory U Model, Figure 1, the Partners In Safety Program designed the following process, Figure 2, composed of five steps structured to achieve the goals in Figure 1: 1. Safety Review: This step is an on-site review in which key stakeholders from all levels of the organization are interviewed and given an opportunity to provide their current reality of the program. The review is intended to surface, understand and broaden perceptions and assumptions. Each Plant Manger and EHS Manager is provided an on-site debrief of the review, which is then formalized into a report. The review incorporates the first three phases of the Theory U Model. Data from all surveys and metrics of the safety program are also reviewed for additional insight and understanding. 2. Vision: The information that is gathered during the on-site review is formalized in a report and forwarded to the Plant Manager and EHS Manager for their review, which they can use to debrief their management team. It is recommended that the review of the plan be in a formal setting with all key managers and that in-house and outside consultants participate. The Plant management team is tasked to develop an action plan to address the issues and recommendations highlighted in the plan. It is critical at this step to assess whether or not the organizations vision/purpose and mission statements are critically balanced and aligned with external and internal objectives. If this is not apparent, it is advised that a vision statement be developed that meets these criteria. 3. Training: After the action plan is reviewed and all parties agree and commit to implementing the plan, a training program is scheduled for the management team and safety leaders. This program will provide core skills in utilizing the motivational theories and applying them to action plan initiatives. The main focus of training is to introduce and equip mangers to utilize Self-Determination and change theory to increase intrinsic motivation and accountability in the safety program. This step focuses on practical applications of the theories. 4. Monitoring: This step is critical to insure the plan is implemented and that the program continues to evolve and that a new culture is taking hold. Monitoring involves coaching and a process that will identify which initiatives are working and which are not. Plan adjustments are made accordingly and new commitments are obtained. The last aspect of this step is another on-site review to assess progress.

 Partners in Safety Change and Implementation Model

High-Level Safe Culture

Current Safety Program Step One: On-Site Review Focusing Broadening Deepening

Step Three: Monitoring Coaching, Adjustments & New Commitments

Step Two: Vision & Planning Establishing Common Ground, Creating a Vision, & Defining Values and Action Plans Figure 2 2011 The Renewal Group All rights reserved

Step Three: Training New Thinking, Principles, Activities & Processes