In Poland, nearly 90,000 workplace accidents occur each year. Although human behavior accounts for more than two-thirds of these incidents, it is clear that they occur within a broader context. Every injured employee works within an organization and has a supervisor.

To begin, a brief news roundup:
June: Rakowice – at a production facility, a concrete tank crushes a worker’s legs.
May: Zielona Góra – a machine operator is pulled into machinery and dies.
April: Suwałki – a man attempts to clean up spilled acid; fumes burn his respiratory tract, and he is hospitalized.
March: Murów – a sawmill worker is crushed by a bucket conveyor and dies.
February: Janików – an external company employee is fatally electrocuted.
January: Złotniki – a man puts his hand into a fan opening and loses four fingers.

And here’s the previous year:
December: Sławno – a man wipes a running machine with a cloth; his hand is pulled in with the material and crushed.
November: Wysokie Mazowieckie – an external company worker becomes trapped in a machine and dies.
October: Radlin – a textile machine pulls in a worker’s feet.
September: Koszalin – a press crushes a man’s fingers.
August: Łowicz – a man falls from a forklift, sustains injuries, and is hospitalized.
July: Wadowice – a technician is cleaning a machine; an unaware worker turns it on, severing the technician’s head.

As we can see, in the past 12 months there has not been a single week without media reports of serious workplace accidents in our country. Considering the statistics, the list above is just the tip of the iceberg. According to data from the Central Statistical Office, in 2016 Poland recorded 239 fatal accidents. Another 464 people suffered serious injuries. In total, more than 87,000 employees were involved in work-related accidents—more than the population of Nowy Sącz.

Behind each of these numbers are real people. Every death represents a family left without a father, mother, or child. Every serious injury means decades of struggle to survive on a basic disability pension. There are also economic consequences. In 2016 alone, work-related accidents resulted in 3,030,804 days of incapacity for work. During this time, employers had to manage employee absences by hiring additional staff or placing extra burdens on those who were unharmed. It also represents costs borne by everyone through insurance benefits paid to the injured.
Faced with these consequences, several questions arise: “Did these accidents really have to happen?” “Where does the root of the problem lie?” “What can be done to prevent similar incidents?”

When an Accident Occurs

For a fatal accident to occur, two factors must coincide. There must be an error (human or material), and a rule must be broken. This can be illustrated simply: an employee is transporting a heavy load with an overhead crane. Suddenly, a mistake happens, or the crane turns out to be faulty, and the load falls to the ground. The first factor—an error—has occurred. If, at the same time, someone violates safety rules and stands under the suspended load, a fatal accident results. Had the person followed the rules, no one would have been harmed.

Last year, as much as 69.9% of workplace accidents in Poland were caused by human factors (see table: “Share of Accidents Caused by Human Action”). These numbers are rising because employees act improperly, neglect the use of protective equipment, or come to work in an unsuitable physical or mental state. Yes, one could argue that the responsibility lies with them and leave it at that. However, it is clear that all these incidents occur within a broader context. Every injured person works within an organization and has a supervisor. Employees’ approach to safety directly reflects the culture present in the workplace—and that culture can vary significantly.

In the 1990s, DuPont developed a theory on the development of safety culture in organizations. The theory is illustrated by a curve named after one of the company’s employees—the Bradley Curve—which identifies four stages of safety culture development: reactive, dependent, independent, and interdependent (see figure: “Bradley Curve”). Each stage reflects a different approach to safety, not only at the organizational level but also at the human level.
The further along the curve, the more aware the employees. The higher the employees’ awareness, the fewer accidents occur. For an organization aiming to reduce workplace accidents, the goal should be to progress through all stages of the curve. However, the path can be challenging, and importantly, there are no shortcuts: to reach the final stage, all preceding stages must be completed.

Natural Instincts

 

The first stage in Bradley’s theory is the reactive stage. In an organization at this phase, employee behavior is driven by natural instincts. This means that employees must first face serious consequences before they think twice in the future about whether their actions are truly safe.

This is also the stage of dormant vigilance. When employees start a new job, they are cautious about everything. Their high level of alertness prevents accidents at first. Over time, however, they become more relaxed and distracted… until someone is seriously injured or killed. Suddenly, they become alert again and focus on safety in the area where the incident occurred. But the next accident happens somewhere else entirely. They are, in effect, engaged in a battle they can never win.

The same pattern is seen at the organizational level. A company in the reactive stage takes action only in areas where accidents have already occurred. As a result, it constantly struggles with crises, because sources of danger and risk often appear where no one expected them. It is like commanding an army preparing for wars that have long since ended.

Everything Under Supervision

 

 

Ineffective prevention becomes a trigger for moving to the dependent stage. Accidents and the experience they bring prompt the organization to implement supervision. This is the point when everyone knows the occupational health and safety (OHS) rules and understands the importance of following them. Procedures and training are introduced. The organization invests in equipment designed to prevent accidents. Managers are responsible for the safe work of their teams and for ensuring compliance with rules and procedures. OHS officers and workplace safety inspectors are active. As a result, everyone works safely because they are being closely monitored.

And this clearly shows that the situation is still far from ideal. Yes, employees try to perform all tasks safely. However, their behavior is driven primarily by a desire to avoid punishment. This leads to a situation where employees learn to bypass regulations in ways that prevent anyone from discovering violations. It’s easy to imagine the consequences. Over time, a belief takes hold that OHS measures serve no real purpose.

Moreover, this approach often leads to unnecessarily strict regulations. A real-life example illustrates this well: an employee working in a dust-prone area had an accident. During the incident, he was not wearing safety goggles because he, like his colleagues, believed they were unnecessary and uncomfortable. However, when speaking with the investigation committee, he claimed he had been wearing them all along. He was afraid to tell the truth, fearing it would reveal that he had broken the rules. As a result, he harmed both himself and his colleagues—the recommendation for his workstation was to wear even larger, less comfortable goggles.

One for All

 

When an organization moves beyond the dependent stage, it enters the independent stage. Here, employees understand that safe behavior is worthwhile. They proactively report missing safety procedures, request them, or refuse to work if nothing is done to address the risks. They know that wearing safety goggles isn’t about avoiding a penalty—it’s about being able to see their children in the evening. That a LOTO lock isn’t an unnecessary precaution, but a guarantee of returning home healthy.

Of course, such awareness requires that proper safety measures, rules, and procedures are in place. It is therefore impossible to reach this stage without first passing through the dependent stage. Moreover, although this is a stage worth striving for, it still has its limitations. Conscious employees will monitor their own work and the work of those who directly affect their safety. Unfortunately, many accidents in which they are involved will still be caused by people with whom they have no direct contact—for example, someone improperly positions a railcar two kilometers away, causing an accident in their facility.

Team responsibility emerges only at the final stage—the interdependent stage. Here, every employee understands why it is important to work safely and, at the same time, helps others do the same. For example, they point out risky behaviors, including those that could contribute to an accident affecting someone else in another

are (for example, the railcar scenario). This kind of shared responsibility helps establish team safety norms and practically eliminates the risk of a fatal accident. It can therefore be confidently regarded as the ultimate goal of any organization’s safety efforts.

Where It’s the Hardest

 

The differences between the stages are qualitative, which makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly when the reactive stage ends and supervision (dependent) begins. It is equally hard to determine when supervision evolves into awareness (independent), and when awareness transforms into engagement (interdependent). Diagnosis alone is not enough. Once we identify where we are, the key question becomes: what steps should we take to move forward?

The most difficult transition is from the supervision (dependent) stage to the awareness (independent) stage. This is mainly because it requires a profound change in employees’ attitudes. It is the moment when safety must no longer be seen as something one has to comply with, but when a genuine willingness and inner need to care about safety must be awakened. This demands significant effort from direct supervisors, senior management, and health and safety services—along with a great deal of sensitivity and judgment.

Paradoxically, the stronger the presence of supervisors in the area of safety, the greater the tendency of employees to shift responsibility away from themselves. This is why it is crucial to make managers—who are formally responsible for the safety of their teams—aware of their leadership role in this area. In other words, the goal of their work should be to build safety awareness among employees and to lead by example, even at the cost of a temporary decrease in productivity. How can they achieve this?

Leadership triad

 

Jednym z najsilniejszych źródeł nauki dla ludzi jest doświadczenie. Jeśli organizacji zależy na tym, by pracownicy świadomie podchodzili do spraw bezpieczeństwa, menedżerowie powinni wykorzystać każde niebezpieczne zachowanie do wzbudzenia ich świadomości. Przy czym to nie miejsce na kary. Kary tylko utwierdzają pracowników w przekonaniu, że ich błędem było to, iż pozwolili „przyłapać się” na błędzie. To raczej przestrzeń do rozmowy interwencyjnej o bliskich i dalekich skutkach zachowania. I uświadomienia zatrudnionym konsekwencji tego, co robią.

Managers’ role is to ask employees the right questions—open-ended questions that focus on the future: “What will happen to your head if you fall from the scaffolding?” or “If you survive, how will your family cope for the next 20 years with a bedridden relative?”
These questions illustrate the potential consequences of recklessness and irresponsibility. They also help employees relate possible outcomes to their own lives—unlike other people’s examples, which only have a temporary effect and to which, thanks to repetitive safety training, they have long since become indifferent.

Raising awareness and changing attitudes can also be supported by “catching employees doing things right” and clearly communicating expectations. A manager should pay attention to exemplary employee behaviors and explicitly name them. For balance, they should also highlight the positive short- and long-term consequences of such actions, as employees are often unaware of them. This increases the likelihood that the same safe and responsible behavior will be repeated in the future.
When communicating expectations, managers should use simple language, provide concrete examples, and refer to personal convictions. In this way, employees will not feel like they are taking part in yet another “safety training exercise,” but rather that they are being guided by a genuinely engaged supervisor who cares about their well-being.

Safe return home

 

The dominant percentage of accidents attributed to employee error can indicate whether managers and their organizations are effectively ensuring safe working conditions—even under the strict framework of Polish law. At the same time, it suggests that managers have abdicated responsibility for fostering personal awareness and engagement among their employees. After all, every accident involves a supervisor who failed to help the employee recognize their own personal responsibility—for themselves and for their families. It also involves colleagues who ignored, and sometimes even concealed, previous unsafe behaviors.

Breaking the status quo is currently the greatest challenge for both employers and employees. Taking into account generational changes, the shortage of workers on the Polish labor market, and the steadily expanding scope of individual responsibilities, it seems there is no alternative. This is especially true for companies that think in long-term terms.
Let us hope that this process will soon gain momentum. That April 28 (World Day for Safety and Health at Work) will become a genuine occasion for celebration—and that employees will be able to enjoy a safe return home. Because that is what matters most.

 

The article was published in Personel Plus magazine, August 2017.

About the Author

Błażej Płaczynta-Brudnik He is the Vice President of the Board at the training company MindLab, a psychologist, and a trainer with 15 years of training experience. He specializes in implementing projects for industrial companies, including in the area of building a safety culture.