E. Scott Geller, Ph.D.
My prior ISHN contribution illustrated the complexity of the human-side of safety by reviewing seven dimensions of people–Behavior, Attitude, Sensation, Imagery, Cognition, Interpersonal, and Drugs (BASIC ID). That article concluded with a recommendation to address the human dynamics of safety by starting with behavior and the mission to “Act people into constructive safety-related attitudes, perceptions, cognitions, images, and interpersonal support”.
While this recommendation could be interpreted as a promo for behavior-based safety (BBS), the critical role of human dynamics beyond observable behavior is implied by this mission statement. This presentation provides the evidence-based framework for this recommendation, as well as some practical intervention strategies.
Humanism vs. Behaviorism
Readers who have experienced an introductory-psychology course undoubtedly heard of both behaviorism, made popular by B.F. Skinner1 and humanism, developed by Carl Rogers2. It’s likely these philosophies and approaches to psychotherapy were introduced as opposing, even competing, perspectives.
Behaviorists treat only the behavior of their clients, essentially applying positive consequences for desirable behavior and removing positive consequences for undesirable behavior. In contrast, humanists evaluate and target people‘s intentions, and focus on discovering a client’s personal perceptions, motives, and self-concept. Behavioral therapists are selective when providing positive consequences (e.g., positive recognition, supportive feedback, and behavior-based rewards), whereas humanistic therapists give positive regard independent of a client’s behavior.
The humanist’s clinical approach is nondirective, with the therapist doing more listening than directing. In contrast, behavioral therapists are directive as they define behavioral consequences that can be changed to increase the frequency of desirable behavior and decrease occurrences of undesirable behavior.
More distinctions between behaviorism and humanism could be discussed, but these few distinctions explain why I receive negative body language when I propose “humanistic behaviorism” as an intervention approach at professional conferences for applied behavior analysts. However, I do stifle some negative vibes when I inform the audience that B.F. Skinner was honored with “Humanist of the Year” in 1972, and he affirmed that “Behaviorism makes it possible to achieve the goals of humanism more effectively.”3
A Beneficial Compromise
I propose that “Humanism makes it possible to achieve the goals of behaviorism more effectively”. For safety pros: “The application of select principles from humanism can optimize the injury-prevention impact of the essential intervention process of BBS–peer-to-peer observation and feedback”. In fact, many readers who have applied an effective BBS-coaching process have likely used these principles, but perhaps didn’t realize they were practicing humanism. Let’s consider three critical principles of humanistic therapy.
1. Listen First with Empathy.
Listening to another person’s opinion or perspective with empathy before providing advice or direction reflects Stephen Covey‘s fifth habit of highly effective people–“Seek first to understand, then to be understood”.4 As most readers know, empathic listening is more than feeling sympathy and expressing concern for another person’s plight. We truly empathize when we identify with another person’s situation and attempt to understand what it’s like to be in the other person’s steel-toed shoes.
The critical behavior checklist (CBC) used in BBS to observe safe and at-risk behavior is not handed down by OSHA, management, or a safety professional. No, the CBC is developed by the team of workers on a particular job, and they modify this CBC when their job and/or the environmental setting changes. This is empathy in action.
Plus, when coworkers, safety professionals, and supervisors give an employee corrective feedback for observed at-risk behavior, they practice empathy. They don’t begin with behavior-change directives, but rather ask questions to understand the rationale for the at-risk behavior and learn if features of the situation could be altered to facilitate occurrences of the safe alternative.
2. Develop Self-Accountability.
Rather than telling an employee what safe behavior should replace an observed at-risk behavior, a humanistic observer asks the worker what s/he could do to reduce the probability of an injury and thereby set the safe example for others.
Similarly, after identifying a work problem, humanistic supervisors do not specify a resolution. Instead, they challenge the relevant employees to discuss possible solutions and propose an action plan. As every reader has experienced, ownership and self-accountability happens when individuals perceive some autonomy and receive respect and appreciation for their competence to collaborate with peers to solve an issue.
This common-sense strategy for facilitating self-accountability is founded on evidence-based self-determination theory derived as from humanism. Specifically, perceptions of autonomy (or choice), competence, and relatedness (or interdependence) enhance self-accountability. Readers can learn more about humanistic behaviorism and its connection to self-accountability and empowerment by watching a 15-minute TEDX talk on self-motivation by Googling Scott Geller TEDX.
3. Appreciate Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs.
Every reader who has taken a course on human motivation has heard about this approach to understanding variations in human motives, created by humanist Abraham Maslow. Categories of needs are arranged hierarchically, and people don’t attempt to satisfy needs at one level until the needs at the lower levels are satisfied to some degree.
First, we are motivated to fulfill our physiological needs–basic survival requirements for food, water, shelter, and sleep. After these needs are under control, we are motivated by the desire to feel secure and safe from potential dangers. Next, we have our social-acceptance needs–to have friends and feel a sense of belongingness. When these needs are gratified, our concern focuses on self-esteem–earning self-respect and feeling worthwhile.
After enjoying a perception of self-esteem, we presumably reach the top of this need hierarchy–self-actualization or the realization of reaching one’s full potential. While many have learned that self-actualization is atop this need hierarchy, Maslow revised his hierarchy near the end of his life by placing another ultimate achievement at the top–self-transcendence. We are the best we can be when we reach beyond our own self-interests and contribute to the needs of others. Isn’t this what safety pros do on a daily basis? They intervene whenever possible to keep others safe from personal injury.
How satisfying to realize that you reach the top of Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs every time you act on behalf of another person’s safety. And doing this helps to satisfy your lower-level needs that never get completely satiated–social acceptance, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Consider this: Achieving self-transcendence is the ultimate and is self-reinforcing because it naturally satisfies other higher-level needs.
In Conclusion
I hope you are convinced that these three basic principles of humanism are relevant to making BBS more effective–empathy, self-motivation, and self-transcendence. As indicated by the title of this article, the academic term underlying effective BBS is humanistic (caring) behaviorism (acting). Yes, this intervention approach is the foundation of the Actively Caring for People (AC4P) Movement–www.AC4P.org.
References
1.Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
2. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Skinner, B.F. (1978). Reflection on behaviorism and society (pp.9-10). Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Covey, S.R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic (pp. 236-260). New York: Simon & Schuster.
5. Deci, E.L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguin Books; Geller, E.S. (2016). The psychology of self-motivation. In E.S. Geller. (Ed.). Applied psychology: Actively caring for people (pp.83-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recent Comments