• identify all hazards present on a site and associated with all operations on that site,
• analyze each of the risks associated with those hazards,
• make a value judgement on each of these risks and decide whether to tolerate, terminate, transfer or treat the risk,
• implement, manage, monitor and evaluate the effects of the measures taken, and
• repeat the process through numerous iterations in order to reduce the risk profile of the organisation and ensure long-term continuous improvement.

In managing safety risks, the classic approach is to focus on the workplace [systems, procedures, tools, equipment, etc.], and the competency of the people working there (skills, knowledge, ability, etc.), in the belief that if everything in the workplace is perfect and if it is staffed with truly competent people, nobody can be injured. Dealing with human beings however, nothing can be further from the truth.

This classic approach to safety management will take organisations a long way towards very good performance in safety, but it does not normally take cognisance of the problems associated with human behaviour.

Most organisations have dominance hierarchies and group leaders, but the sheer power of self-organising behaviour within groups can be astounding. A swarm of bees, a colony of ants, a pack of wild dogs - these are all examples of groups exhibiting self-organising behaviour.

It is a deep human prejudice to expect to find a central command in any organisation. States have governments. Corporations have CEOs. Schools have principals. Armies have generals. Teams have leaders. Human beings tend to believe that without a central command, chaos will overwhelm the organisation and nothing significant could be accomplished. This is simply not true.

People find it difficult to believe that extremely stupid creatures with brains smaller than pinheads are capable of construction projects more complicated than any human project. But, in fact, they are.

African termites are a classic example. These insects make earthen castle like mounds forty metres in diameter and spires thrusting ten metres into the air. To appreciate their accomplishment, you have to imagine that if termites were the size of people; these mounds would be skyscrapers two kilometres high and eight kilometres in diameter.

And, like a skyscraper, the termite mound has an intricate internal architecture to provide fresh air, remove excess carbon dioxide and heat, and so on. Inside the structure there are gardens to grow food, residences for royalty, infant nurseries, and living space for as many as two million termites. Waste removal and water supply are governed by efficient systems, and the colony is protected against almost anything nature can throw at them, including storms, floods, drought, etc. No two mounds are exactly the same; each is individually constructed to suit the requirements and advantages of a particular site.

All this is accomplished with no architect, no foreman, and no central authority. Nor is there a blueprint for construction encoded into the termite genes. Instead these huge creations are the result of relatively simple rules that the individual termites follow in relation to one another. [Rules such as, for example, "If you smell that another termite has been here, drop a dirt pellet on this spot."] Yet the combined outcome of this set of simple rules is more complex than any human creation.

Groups of people, working together, can achieve remarkable results if they can find a way to get every individual member of the group to consistently stick to the rules. But human beings are far more complex creatures than ants. They seem to be incapable of operating within a formal system of rules without a parallel system of informal rules. Selfless dedication to the cause of the group is replaced by selfish individualism.

How can a group of people, without interference by an appointed leader, get conformance to group norms? How can the group achieve its mission despite the human propensity for individualism that many times undermines the interests of the group? The answer lies in the positive exploitation of the phenomenon known as peer pressure.

In order to be truly world-class, human behavioural risks cannot be dealt with in the classic management manner. When it comes to human behaviour, the classic approach simply does not work.

Policies and procedures do not change people's behaviour; what is required is a structured process whereby employees themselves are empowered to change things. This is done by using a process where the employees in a work team identify the critical behaviours associated with their work themselves, and then, using the principles of behaviourism, change their behaviour to sustained compliance with those critical behaviours.

These behaviours then have to be brought to the level of subconscious competence by means of continuous reinforcement by the team members themselves to enable assimilation into the value system of each team member.

This is what the IMBOP part of the IRCA BBS process is designed to do. Using only the principles and approaches of classic risk management [policies, prescriptions, instructions, SOPs, etc., etc.] simply will not do it.

Human behaviour risks are unquantifiable, unpredictable, and subject to an almost infinite array of variables. A statement such as "identify human behaviour risks" is therefore meaningless -- there is no way that anyone can identify each and every human behaviour risk in every given situation in a workplace. Human behaviour is a function of numerous parameters, amongst others, values, beliefs, self-interest, emotions, peer pressure, habits, culture, reward systems, condoning behaviour by supervisors and managers, mental lapses, etc. In fact, a vast array of activators and consequences influence human behaviour on a continuous basis. It varies from minute to minute in the workplace and cannot be controlled or permanently influenced by ordinary management methods. Hence, the classic approach to risk management within the formal system of the organisation will be completely useless as a behavioural process.

Does this mean that organisations should abandon the classic approach to risk management? Absolutely not! It is not a question of whether to follow the classic approach or the behavioural approach: organisations should do both!!

For more information contact:

Manie Mulder: IRCA Consultant

Tel: (011) 285 4305 Cell: 083 300 2763 Email: mmulder@ircaza.com