Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in behavior-based safety coaching
Introduction
When considering psychology-based interventions for improving safety, the behavior-based approach has been the forerunner for several decades. While there are numerous injury prevention tactics within the realm of behavior-based safety, the comprehensive observation and feedback or “safety coaching” process is one of the more popular and critical applications (e.g., Geller, 2001, Geller and French, 2001, Krause, 1996, McSween, 2003). Safety coaching is grounded in behavior analysis because it involves understanding and manipulating environmental conditions that are directing (i.e., antecedent to) and motivating (i.e., consequences of) safety-relevant behavior (e.g., Geller, 2001, McSween, 2003).
Safety coaching typically involves observing workers behavior and interacting with them to discuss the antecedents and consequences of the behavior(s), which may not have been directly observable. For example, workers may perform a task in a particular way because they saw another worker doing the same thing, or they may believe performing a task in a particular way will lead to more comfort and/or productivity. Once the antecedents and consequences of a particular behavior are identified, safety coaches attempt to manipulate these conditions by delivering behavior-based feedback to increase safe behavior and/or decrease at-risk behavior.
The safety-coaching process has been successful in reducing injuries in a variety of occupational settings (see Sulzer-Azaroff, McCann, & Harris, 2001 for a review). Indeed, a meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of various interventions for occupational safety revealed behavior-based processes were the most effective, showing an effect size of 59.6 (Guastello, 1993). While this adds credibility to behavior-based processes, it is obvious there is room for improvement.
To address continuous improvement, several researchers and practitioners have recently challenged behavior analysts to consider the theories, principles, and empirical research generated by other subfields of psychology when designing, implementing, and evaluating their interventions to address safety-related behavior (Geller, 2002a, Geller, 2002c, Roberts, 2003, Wiegand, 2005, Wiegand and Geller, 2005). By understanding and applying knowledge from areas such as cognitive, social, and clinical psychology, it should be possible to complement and strengthen behavior-based safety interventions while addressing other aspects of the human experience relevant to injury prevention (Geller, 2003, Roberts, 2003).
Geller (2005) recently coined the term people-based safety to refer to this more encompassing approach. People-based safety applies behavior-based principles to improve safety, but also targets person-level variables (e.g., personality, emotions, perceptions) relevant to supporting the behavior-based process and fostering positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, work quality, productivity, and interpersonal relationships within the work culture (Geller, 2005). A people-based approach may therefore be useful for addressing challenges that arise with the implementation and maintenance of behavior-based interventions by influencing variables internal to the individuals involved in the intervention, such as attitudes, feelings, and abilities.
For example, one challenge of behavior-based interventions is getting employees directly involved as change agents or safety coaches. Researchers have recommended the safety-coaching process be employee-driven (Boyce and Geller, 2001, Geller et al., 1996, Krause et al., 1999). That is, employees at all levels of an intervention site, especially the front-line employees, should be enlisted and trained as change agents to apply the safety coaching process among their peers. When employees learn how to successfully implement the process themselves, organizations achieve maximum application, cost effectiveness, and process maintenance, in addition to increased perceptions of control and ownership among employees (Geller et al., 1996). However, getting employees actively involved in this process is no easy task.
To address the issue of employee involvement, Geller, 1991, Geller, 1995 developed the actively caring model based on social psychology principles investigating the conditions in which one is most likely to engage in prosocial behavior or to intervene in an emergency situation. From his review of this literature, Geller identified five person-level variables believed to influence one's propensity to intervene for the safety of others (see Geller, 2001 for a review). These person-level variables are: self-esteem (“I am valuable”); self-efficacy (“I can do it”); personal control (“I'm in control”); optimism (“I expect the best”); and belongingness (“I belong to a team”). Geller proposes that increasing these variables throughout an organizational culture will lead to more participation in behavior-based interventions. Direct tests of the actively caring model have offered partial support of this assertion (Allen and Ferrand, 1999, Geller et al., 1996, Porter, 1998, Roberts and Geller, 1995), but additional studies are required to determine whether these variables predict participation and if it is possible to influence them (Geller, 2002b).
While Geller's model focuses on person-level variables that theoretically influence one's propensity to participate in the safety coaching process, it leaves one's ability or skill to be effective in this realm relatively unexplored. This is important, because even if people are willing to be safety coaches, they may lack the ability (or skill) to engage another employee in a caring, trusting, and productive manner. Research has shown the manner in which employees are coached and the consequent perceptions and feelings influence whether corrective feedback will be accepted and acted upon in a positive, productive manner (Clampitt, 2004, Fedor, 1991, Fedor et al., 2001, Herold and Fedor, 1998, Ilgen et al., 1979, Kinicki et al., 2004, Kluger and DeNisi, 1996, Steelman and Rutkowski, 2004).
London (2003) relates the skills of a coach to those of a therapist or counselor, and describes eight behavioral dimensions of successful coaching within an organization. These eight dimensions were originally postulated by Kahn (1997), who applied them toward the improvement of human service providers' mentoring relationships. They are as follows: accessibility (allowing time and space for contact and connection), inquiry (probing for other's experiences, thoughts, and feelings), attention (showing comprehension with verbal and nonverbal gestures), validation (communicating positive regard, respect, and appreciation), empathy (identifying with others' experiences and communicating this with them), support (offering feedback; helping others reframe or analyze a situation), compassion (showing emotional presence by displaying kindness), and consistency (providing a steady stream of resources, compassion, and emotional presence for others). By displaying these behavioral dimensions, people can make a desirable impression on the individuals they coach, gaining the trust needed to facilitate the coaching process and improve outcomes (Kahn, 1997, London, 2003).
Taking this into account, it seems logical that attention should be given to individual differences in the ability to interact successfully with others while engaging in a safety coaching process. Of course, the challenges that arise from this proposition involve determining what these individual differences in ability are, how they can be measured, and ultimately, whether and how they can be influenced to produce meaningful improvements in safety coaching outcomes. The remainder of this article addresses the first of these challenges; namely, identifying what specific skills facilitate a meaningful and effective safety coaching process. In this regard, it is believed the psychological concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has much to offer.
Section snippets
Emotions and the popularization of emotional intelligence
Before delving into EI, it is important to define what is meant by the term emotion. Emotions are highly subjective, positively or negatively valenced feelings that arise in response to either an internal or external event. Emotions are generally shorter lasting and more intense than the closely-related concept of mood. Many researchers in psychology believe emotions can be adaptive and can transform personal and social interactions into positive, enriching experiences (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
The ability model of EI and its impact on the safety industry
In what may be the first scholarly article published on EI, Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined the concept as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (p. 189). Salovey and Mayer began their study of EI by reviewing research on intelligence, emotions, aesthetics, artificial intelligence, neurology, and clinical psychology. In addition to using this scientific basis to define EI
Emotional transitions
Finally, this branch involves the ability to recognize transitions between emotions. For example, frustration may lead to anger, which may then lead to behaviors that could later be associated with regret. By understanding that corrective feedback can lead to frustration or defensiveness, one might anticipate what psychologists call psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). Reactance is when people do the opposite of what they are told because they want to assert their independence over someone
In summary
The paragraphs above reflect the definition and structure of EI as put forth by leading research psychologists in the fields of emotion and intelligence. Each branch of Mayer and Salovey's (1997) model can be applied to various aspects of daily life, yet were described here in terms of their applicability to safety coaching, with a focus on the role of the coach.
Safety coaching is no simple process. It involves skillfully interacting with another individual so feedback and instructions are
Douglas M. Wiegand earned his doctorate in the clinical psychology program at Virginia Tech in 2006. He is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, specializing in truck and bus safety. His interests include the psychology of safety, applied social psychology, personality, transportation safety, emotional intelligence, and reducing the negative effects of alcohol consumption. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed to [email protected]
References (54)
- et al.
Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: The roles of source power and recipient self-esteem
Journal of Management
(2001) - et al.
Predicting propensity to actively care for occupational safety
Journal of Safety Research
(1996) Do we really know how well our occupational accident prevention programs work?
Safety Science
(1993)- et al.
Long-term evaluation of a behavior-based method for improving safety performance: A meta-analysis of 73 interrupted time-series replications
Safety Science
(1999) - et al.
Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence
Intelligence
(1999) Predicting active and effective agents for safety: Test of the actively caring approach
Journal of Safety Research
(1998)- et al.
An “actively caring” model for occupational safety: A field test
Applied and Preventive Psychology
(1995) - et al.
Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental behavior: A test of Geller's actively caring hypothesis
Environment and Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Emotion in the workplace: A re-appraisal
Human Relations
(1995) - et al.
Applied behavior analysis and occupational safety: The challenge of response maintenance
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management
(2001)
A theory of psychological reactance
Social and emotional competence in the workplace
Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations
Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace: A technical report issued by the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations
The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations
Communicating for managerial effectiveness
Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups
Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed model and its implications
Measuring subordinate perceptions of supervisor feedback intentions: Some unsettling results
Educational and Psychological Measurement
If only more would actively care
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Integrating behaviorism and humanism for environmental protection
Journal of Social Issues
The psychology of safety handbook
Organizational behavior management and industrial/organizational psychology: Achieving synergy by valuing differences
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management
People-based safety: Social influence principles fueling participation in occupational safety
Professional Safety
Should organizational behavior management expand its content?
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management
People-based safety: The psychology of actively caring
Professional Safety
Cited by (35)
An experimental study of intrusion behaviors on construction sites: The role of age and gender
2019, Safety ScienceCitation Excerpt :Also, the group-level safety assessment calculated by the percentage of safe behaviors of all observed ones, conceals the need for personal safety (Choudhry, 2012). The observed behavior is judged by an “all or nothing” norm (Wiegand, 2007) and cannot reveal the detailed processes involved in the behavior. Thus, the lack of individual-level assessment can compromise the ability of safety management to improve individual safety behavior.
Training leaders to apply behavioral concepts to improve safety
2019, Safety ScienceCitation Excerpt :According to Baer et al. (1968) and Daniels (1989), interventions based in behavior analysis have several strengths including, “(a) it can be administered by individuals with minimal professional training; (b) it can reach people in the setting where the problems occur (e.g., school, workplace, or community at large); and (c) the leaders in the settings can be taught the behavior-change techniques most likely to work under specific circumstances” (DePasquale and Geller, 1999, p. 238). Although BBS has many strengths, others have noted that there is still room for improvement (e.g., Geller, 2003; Roberts, 2003; Wiegand, 2007). Some common challenges of BBS interventions include: (a) employees perceiving the employee observation component as a method for blaming the worker or “ratting” on each other (DePasquale and Geller, 1999), (b) not empowering employees to get involved as change agents or safety coaches (Wiegand, 2007), and, (c) not getting an appropriate level of support from organizational leaders (Geller et al., 2004).
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-experimental field study
2018, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :With the theoretical basis of these studies rooted in reinforcement (Skinner, 1938) and goal-setting theories (Locke and Latham, 1984), the objective is to increase the relative frequency of a specific supervisor behavior, such as safety exchanges with employees, and provide feedback to supervisors on the increase in this behavior, based on employee reports. Behavior-based ‘safety coaching’ (an applied behavioral analysis technique, involving interpersonal interaction to understand / change environmental conditions that underlie safety behavior; Passmore et al., 2015; Wiegand, 2007) has also been used as a supervisory intervention, where the emphasis is on identifying and changing specific behaviors through dialogue with the supervisor or manager (e.g., Kines et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 2015). Only a few studies have taken a training approach, with a theoretical basis in leadership theory (e.g., Bass, 1985), which focuses on increasing supervisors’ awareness and knowledge of leader behaviors, and their motivation to use them (e.g., Hammer et al., 2015; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2016).
Douglas M. Wiegand earned his doctorate in the clinical psychology program at Virginia Tech in 2006. He is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, specializing in truck and bus safety. His interests include the psychology of safety, applied social psychology, personality, transportation safety, emotional intelligence, and reducing the negative effects of alcohol consumption. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed to [email protected].