The development and maintenance of a Safe or Preventive Culture within companies requires, among others, the detection of risky behavior and the consolidation of safe habits. In other articles I have stated that behind risky behavior there is a particular predisposition called “reckless” or “risky” attitude, and that ultimately we can identify and improve them through significant relearning, changes in the cost / benefit ratio, etc.
Intervening behaviors requires a consensus regarding what we understand (really) as “risky behavior” and the “urgency” of applying feedback or disciplinary actions, depending on the case. It is not enough to list the risk behaviors associated with a process, but we must create "awareness" in each and every worker regarding a sensible behavior / consequence relationship.
According to Jane Dryden (2009), "… we judge people more severely when their acts cause serious harm than when, with a little luck, those same acts do no harm." In practical terms, we tend to evaluate acts based on their consequences. Or as in one of his chapters in the series Dr. House, he said: "errors are as serious as the consequences they bring."
In other words, writing and socializing that “traveling through unmarked areas” or “over a certain speed” are prohibited due to the (possible) consequences analyzed, does not generate a preventive culture based on norm and attitude if the “experience” and the “sense common ”sneakily deceive workers. If a worker is more efficient in carrying out risky behavior with zero consequences, then he will question the safety norms creating an attitude that is contrary to the norm, or reckless. Therefore, when there are no negative consequences, there is a tendency to “turn a blind eye” to risky behavior, especially by supervisors, setting a dangerous level of “permissiveness”.
Let's add to this that reckless attitudes infect other attitudes (if there is no risk –or better thought “consequence” - in doing X, then there shouldn't be doing Y or Z…) and other workers (if the other does it… Because I do not?). These thoughts must be eliminated at the root, taking advantage of the same mechanism of functioning of thought ("if there is a risk in X, then also in Y") and of social dynamics ("if they applied a disciplinary measure to the other, then they could also apply it "or" this prevention is serious… ")
It is possible, then, that reactive (non-proactive) action in the face of risks is caused by the low sense of urgency that “risky” behaviors generate that “in general” do not have serious consequences over time (How many times have you been run over while crossing the street in an unmarked area? How many times have you suffered an accident when you exceed the limit established by the norm? How many times have workers fallen while doing work at height without the corresponding measures? etc. etc. etc.).
In some companies, the main preventive actions (not the standard actions for the industry or those regulated by law) arise or exist as a result of an important consequence, that is, "something" had to occur to regulate it. Statistics show with certainty what to pay attention to, even when statistics feed on events that have already occurred and cannot be changed, which is again reactive and not proactive, leaving behind those latent risks.
If we believe that the aforementioned has some certainty, then we must assume that our mental configuration, regarding the behaviors we carry out, is mediated by concern regarding the “supposed” negative consequences, which is worse in the case of occupational diseases, where the consequences are seen in the medium and long term, prioritizing those "positive" consequences of sub-standard actions, leaving all these learnings in our memory forging attitudes.
These attitudinal learnings make us pay more attention to what we “consider” dangerous, versus what is not, or that we believe is not dangerous, or that we believe is less dangerous than it really is. Again we are faced with a subjective aspect of risk assessment.
However, it happens then that the unforeseen consequences (or accidental, or not expected…) of an action, finally determine if the person will be in serious problems or not, so that proactive action, in this case, seeks to control the greater number of possible variables that intervene both in the occurrence of the event itself or in the perception of risk of the workers, two fronts that require joint interdisciplinary action.
It is in our human nature to relativize actions, intentions and their consequences, to get an idea of the world around us and of course how to interact with it. However, the challenge is to carry out the corresponding actions to avoid that this “relativization” is the cause of bad practices and of consequences that we do not want.
