According to the dictionary, [an] “accident” is defined as “an unfortunate event that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage or loss.” The term “unintentionally” is the heart of the concept behind accidents. If a worker intentionally injures himself or herself, it is not an accident; accidents are things that occur in spite of, and counter to, our intentions. However, this does not mean or imply that such events are beyond our control. It simply points out the weakness in our intentions and our ability to accurately forecast and control the outcomes of our actions. This concept is central to safety efforts. How can we better project and predict the safety implications of our choices and actions? –Terry L. Mathis Examining the Workerās Compensation Board (Alberta) and Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (Ontario) databases reveals quite an interesting picture: Many of the companies with the highest injury rates are (at best) maintaining this high rate or (even worse) seeing an increase in the number of injured employees. Some Albertan companies face injury rates as high as 1 in 4 workers, while some companies in Ontario have spent between $250,000 and $8,000,000 in workerās compensation payouts. These statistics are, quite frankly, alarming. One would think that there would be incentive to prevent these accidents from happening, especially as we continue to see the high costs of injuries (both human and financial). So, whatās the right answer to address these issues? Further training? Better policies? Unfortunately, a common sentiment towards this issue is one of helplessness (e.g. āThese things just happen.ā or āIt was an unlucky year.ā). Further training is ineffective when the attitudes toward safety (both at the employee and organization levels) are already a challenge. But, is it really just ābad luckā? Or is there an element of control beyond policies and procedures that can affect workplace safety? The WorkSafe Predictor is designed to assess patterns of thinking and acting that predict safe behaviour and the likelihood of remaining free from workplace safety incidents. My most recent research examined the connection between these safety attitudes, grouping those that were most similar together. It revealed an interesting picture that describes those individuals who are most concerned about workplace safety. The first group is created by the combination of Attentional Focus, Operating Care and Harm Avoidance, and forms what could be defined as āExternal Motivatorsā of safety. These are the action-oriented behaviours that one takes to avoid harm around them, such as identifying risks in the environment, avoiding these risks and being vigilant while operating machinery. These relate directly to how an individual completes their work. The second group is created by the combination of Responsible Care, Stress Response and Safety Ownership. This group can be thought of as the āInternal Motivatorsā of safety. These are internal drivers that reflect the individualās attitude towards safety, but are not immediately visible. However, they do shape the individualās concern for the safety of their co-workers, resilience towards stressful situations and perception of personal responsibility towards workplace safety. Focusing on a single cluster is ineffective, as the beliefs and the behaviours only support each other when they align. If you have an employee who is only taking action to avoid risks (high External Motivators but low Internal Motivators), that individual will effectively avoid harm themselves but may leave others at risk. If you have an employee who cares about safety but neglects to take action (high Internal Motivators but low External Motivators), that individual may become the preacher of the workplace, while not practicing what they preach. When both of these motivators are combined, the profile of an individual committed to workplace safety begins to form. And itās not like these attitudes canāt be changed: These arenāt innate personality factors that weāre stuck with for life. Safety behaviours can be developed and improved, but you have to know where the individual is lacking in order to develop the correct motivating factor. So, I present to you this question: Is it worth investing into pre-screening assessments of safety? If your answer is āYesā, feel free to reach out to me and we can start a conversation. Remember: All you have to lose are quality employees and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in injury benefit payments. About the Author Justin M. Deonarine is an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist with Psychometrics Canada. He previously led psychological evaluation teams for Canadian reality TV shows. He is currently engaged in data-driven research initiatives, the development of custom assessment solutions, and leading new product development efforts. Justin is driven by his passion for predicting and improving human performance.
