Tom Krahn, Safety Training within Occupational Workplaces 

With the institution of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration in 1971 and the multitude of safety and health issues over past decades, the demand for safety professionals and implementation of safety programs has certainly increased.  Throughout the 21^st century, companies have begun striving for workplace safety in conjunction with increased production quality, cost containment, and loss prevention.  In order to achieve such goals, industry has begun placing its trust in safety personnel.  While engineering controls certainly assist with such issues, primary prevention begins with safety training.  Through effective training techniques, implementation of a culture where workplace safety is most important can be accomplished.  While some forms of safety training yield more positive results than others, they are all accompanied by many benefits and pitfalls.  Despite various techniques, they all exist to assure employers that each employee completely understands his or her job description and always values the concepts of safety.

Before attempting to implement a specific safety program into the workplace, safety professionals must completely understand the safety or health hazard being discussed.  Since there are many forms of safety training, being able to “analyze the problem and assess training needs before making decisions about solutions” is crucial to determining which strategies to utilize (Hagan, Montgomery, & O’Reilly, 2001b, p.681).  Failure to follow this primary step may lead to unsuccessful solutions, money loss, and may question the worthiness of safety professionals.  When choosing a certain training method, objectives must also be set including “teaching new or current employees to perform their job tasks safely or increasing safety awareness through education” (Taylor, 2004, sec. 1).  If effective, safety training will help “reinforce a company’s operational goals, improve performance, decrease incident and accident rates, and reduce costs” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 680).  While all training methods strive to accomplish this, choosing whichever best communicates to employees will be most beneficial.

When discussing various forms of safety training, there are basically four categories the National Safety Council refers to as “quantifiable performance-based training that directly solve certain production or behavioral problems” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 682).  These methods include “instructor-led training, self-paced training, computer-based or computer-assisted instruction, and finally structured on-the-job training” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 682).  Of these four, structured on-the-job training is most common and appeals more to employers because it allows training to proceed while continuing production.  This method entails an instructor teaching and supervising an employee at the actual worksite.  The second most popular would be the instructor-led training that generally uses textbook materials which employees follow during a taught class.  With recent technological advancements, many employers are also turning to self-paced, computer-based, and computer-assisted training.  While self-paced training usually uses text materials, it is similar to computer training because each employee can work at his or her own pace while learning the required material.  Despite the many positives, however, all of these have several shortcomings.  For example, “unskilled trainers or instructors may lead the training process, ample scheduled training time may be limited allowing key information to be overlooked, unsafe shortcuts may be taught, and employees’ questions may not all be addressed” (Taylor, 2004, sec. 3).  Whatever the method, it is always crucial to remember that each person’s learning methods and mental capacities vary.  While many are visual or auditory learners, other may learn best through active interaction.  Considering this, understanding each worker’s abilities will help determine which training methods to use, which will likely increase employee compliance toward safety intervention.

Apart from these general methods, there are many other forms of training that may also be utilized.  According to Hagan et al. (2001b), on-the-job training contains two forms including “job-instruction training and coaching” (p. 687).  As mentioned earlier, these methods allow training personnel to work one-on-one with employees while still being productive.  When using either method, there are basically four phases to follow, including “preparation, presentation, performance, and follow-up” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 689).  These phases allow safety personnel to explain the tasks at hand, demonstrate those tasks, observe each trainee as he or she performs the work, and finally review each trainee to assure proper, continued performance.  One-on-one methods such as this also “allow for sufficient training time where questions can be asked and answered readily” (Taylor, 2004, sec. 3).  Once again, with such training styles, companies must be concerned that trainees are not learning incorrect workplace practices.  This tends to occur when “trainers possessing bad habits miss key training elements because they have been selected for availability purposes rather than their ability to properly train other individuals” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 689).  For these reasons, trusting relationships between employers, safety professionals, and training instructors is expected to effectively make workplaces safe.

While on-the-job training techniques are very effective, so are many group methods that do not occur within worksites.  The majority of these training types involve input from a vast number of employees and safety personnel.  Usually through group activities, people interact more and have a chance to share their own thoughts and ideas.  This interaction usually increases employee worth, responsibility, and morale, which in turn help implement “safety cultures”.  According to several sources, group methods may include those such as “conference, brainstorming, case studies, incident processes, facilitated discussion, role-playing, lecturing, question and answer, and simulation” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 687-688; Taylor, 2004, sec. 3).  As mentioned earlier, these all have positive and negative aspects.

One of the most common training techniques that companies use involves holding conference meetings.  This method can prove to be beneficial because it allows “each participant to share his or her knowledge while improving industrial education and solving problems” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 690).  During conferencing, a technique known as brainstorming is used to quickly generate many creative ideas.  An example of this may be “brainstorming engineering and ventilation solutions to control workplace air pollution” (Global Environmental Management Initiative, 2005, p. 29).  Although these methods require instructors to “summarize many ideas, control disagreements, and keep participants focused on relevant issues,” conferencing is still very popular (Taylor, 2004, sec. 3).

The next two methods including case studies and incident processes are very similar because they strive to determine the “root cause” of safety and health issues within workplaces.  These techniques allow safety personnel and employees to analyze actual workplace accidents that have occurred.  A prime example may include an employee who slipped on oil leaking from an operated forklift.  Certainly the cause is more than a simple forklift leak.  Through analysis and questioning, the cause is traced back to management and maintenance issues.  According to Hagan et al. (2001b), these interactions help develop that “safety culture” mentioned earlier by “challenging and involving others in the safety process” (p. 692).  Another method known as role-playing is also very similar; however, this time the incident is reenacted.  Simulation also utilizes enactment through “aircraft pilot or railroad engineer simulators for example” (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 693).  While these are “time consuming and require expensive materials and equipment”, they both allow safety professionals the chance to visualize and see safety concerns they may have missed from a different perspective (Hagan et al., 2001b, p. 693). 

Several other group training methods include facilitated discussion, lecturing, and question and answer.  Though lecturing is “very structured and appeals to larger groups”, it is very ineffective (Taylor, 2004, sec. 3).  According to Taylor (2004), only “10 percent of the covered material is actually retained” (sec. 3).  Another reason is that lecturing lacks the interaction which discussion and questioning allow between employees and safety personnel.  These two methods allow much involvement and sharing of ideas rather than listening to someone lecture.  If employees interact, they are more likely to apply safety to the worksite.

Apart from group training, there are also several types of individual methods such as drill, demonstration, testing, video-based, computer-assisted, reading, independent study, and seminar training.  Demonstration and drill both take place at the site of production and require an instructor to demonstrate a task which the trainee then practices.  Hagan et al. (2001b) mentions that these are effective because they “instill realistic workplace tension; however, trainers may once again teach unsafe habits” (p. 693).  As for video-based or computer-assisted training, these occur off-site and usually let individuals train at a comfortable pace.  Several final methods include reading, independent studying, and seminars that utilize written materials such as textbooks and pamphlets.  Many of these methods are “self-directed” (Taylor, 2004, sec. 3) and “assure that employees comprehend key safety concepts through worksheets and testing” (Global Environmental Management Initiative, 2005, p. 27).  Although these are very expensive yet effective, safety professionals must remember that each employee has different learning requirements and may only respond and comply with certain training methods.

Considering the numerous safety training methods, safety professionals and employers must determine which will best educate their employees about safety and solve workplace hazards.  To assure the effectiveness of proper training methods, extensive analysis of workplace problems and the mental learning capacity of those employees being addressed must be conducted initially.  By understanding employees, utilizing proper learning materials, offering them responsibility through involvement in the safety process, and by developing trusting relationships with them, safety professionals and employers can rest assured that their workers value implemented safety programs.  According to Heinrich’s Third Axiom of Industrial Safety, “for every 330 unsafe acts, there is one fatality or lost time”; therefore, without using proper training techniques, increasing safety and reducing these ratios may not occur (Brubaker, 2005, slide 4).  Through safety training methods, safety professionals have various options to properly communicate the concept of “safety culture” to all employees.  This will hopefully decrease a company’s “direct medical and indemnity costs” as well as indirect costs including “pain, suffering, overtime, equipment or product damage, time, and loss of business” (Brubaker, 2005, slide 27).  More importantly, however, unsafe work practices, as well as near misses, minor injuries, lost-time, and ultimately, fatalities will likely diminish and lives within occupational workplaces will be saved.

Brubaker, S.  (2005).  Incident Investigation PowerPoint.  UWSP SHP 311 Course Outline & Materials CD.  Folder 2, Presentation folder, UWSP 2005-Incident Investigation.  Slides 4-5,27.  Wausau, WI:  Liberty Mutual.