The ADSI Human Elements Process

DSI has developed

a broad spectrum Human Elements Process to be custom designed and implemented at your facility by your employees. This approach naturally results in some final design variation as your team of volunteers increase their knowledge and participation in Human Elements Safety. Generally, this team is made up of mostly hourly people and a few managers. The team is charged with the responsibility of first becoming your company's internal experts on human sources of risk and then subsequently designing and implementing a behavioral, humanistic, or fully integrated safety process (according to what is most appropriate for your site). The team members should represent all the various work cultures in the facility, i.e. maintenance, operations, lab, etc. and should be people who are regarded as leaders by their peers.

For situations where a comprehensive or long term process is not feasible, there are also "Understanding Human Sources of Risk" seminars available in time segments ranging from two hours to five days. (This means your group may purchase as much or as little of the ADSI technology as they deem appropriate).

Most behavioral safety processes are "canned", comprised of one standard procedure, and your facility is forced to fit into their preconceived, rigid framework. ADSI's new approach is multi-dimensional, allowing the team to systematically look at and address any and all factors that might influence high risk behavior on the job. This knowledge is critical for understanding and impacting the most potent source of true risk.

This unique method of training is changeable from hour to hour. This versatility stimulates and taps your team's creativity as they custom design the Human Elements Process that will have the most impact at your facility.

Where does human energy (or motivation) come from? What is it that makes a safety/quality process successful in the long term? Should we try to motivate our people to take responsibility for their own safety through mandates, slogans, contests, programs of the month and/or giveaways?

The Rationale and Justification for an Integrated Approach

The two basic philosophies upon which most organizational improvement processes are built are the humanistic and behavioristic models. Chances are you have been exposed to both in the course of your professional endeavors. It is also likely that you have a strong preference for one or the other of these depending on certain factors that influence your own personal frame of reference (which we discuss later). Both of these suggest an explanation for the sources or causes for why humans behave as they do in organizations. The problems is that these two models are philosophically diametrically opposed.

We will now explore some of the basic beliefs which lie at the foundation of each.

The Behavioristic Model

The behavioristic model suggests that behavior is driven or even controlled by consequences or sources outside the person.

This philosophy uses the popular A.B.C. Model: AntecedentswBehaviorwConsequences.

A second generation of the Behavioristic Model known as an "enhanced" behavioral process is also available.

The "Enhanced Behavioral" Model: A.IV.B.C. AntecedentswIntervening VariableswBehaviorwConsequences

Some of the verbiage used with these types of processes are terms like, "positive or negative reinforcement", "shaping", "stimulus/response", "punishment / reward", "antecedents", "consequences", "extinction of behaviors", "schedules of reinforcement", "token economy", "conditioning", etc. Some of the people that influenced the founding of the behavioristic school of thought were Ivan Pavlov, B.F. Skinner and John Watson. Commercially available processes built on the Behavioristic Model include

Dr. Thomas Krause's Behavioral Science Technology and The Devereaux Teen Behavior Modification Program.

The Humanistic Model

This model suggests that behavior is driven and influenced primarily by a person's values, beliefs, emotions, attitudes, principles, etc... which are all sources inside the person. Some verbiage used with these types of processes are terms like, "empowerment",

"values", "self image", "belief systems", etc.

Some of the people that influenced the founding of the Humanistic Model include Abe Maslow, William James, Victor Frankel and Carl Rogers. Commercially available publications built on the Humanistic Model include

Steven Covey's; "Principle Centered Leadership" and "7 Habits of highly Effective People

M. Scott Peck's; "The Road Less Traveled"

Norman Vincent Peale's: "The Power Of Positive Thinking", Wynne Stewart's; "Safety Is A State of MInd", W. Edwards Demming's; "Excerpts from a system of profound knowledge"

and most religions.

Both the Behavioristic and Humanistic approaches are able to demonstrate some success. But, how can this be possible? ADSI believes that the answer to this phenomenon is contained in some recent discoveries concerning a persons' "Locus of Control". This theory suggest that there are two basics type of people. The first type is a person with an external locus of control (ELC) who gets their primary motivation from outside themselves. The second type is a person who's primary motivation comes from within themselves which is internal locus of control (ILC).

Where does ADSI stand on the subject of Behaviorism versus Humanism?

ADSI believes both schools of thought have merit and yet both have serious weaknesses as stand alone processes for organizational improvement. We also believe that each can explain some of the factors that influence human behavior but neither can explain them all. Although the two differ radically in their foundation-level beliefs concerning the factors that drive behavior, we believe it is possible to integrate the two into a hybrid approach. The "Next Generation Approach" has a much broader appeal and allows more people to find value in the process earlier on, thus accelerating and more firmly anchoring the safety/quality improvement

process.

An Example

If, for a million dollars (external locus of control issue), I had to design the ideal human elements safety process that would reduce injuries and give my own life more meaning (internal locus of control issue), it would definitely be a hybrid combination (Next Generation Approach) which would utilize both approaches. It would be custom designed, site specific and would be a process where the

internals and externals worked together to design a behavior safety process unique to their own culture.

How should this process come about?

Before we can fully understand the mechanics of an integrated process, we need to understand that our endeavor in the direction of human elements safety has two dimensions. They are process and content. The content is basically "what" we hope to do or the end product, and the process is the "how" we are going to get there.

Since we know for certain that observing behavior can lead to changing it, we suggest that a method of observation and feedback (the content) be a foregone conclusion. However, the process or how we intend to design, build commitment for, implement and problem solve the new system should be left up to the team of volunteers with some freshly-gained understanding. The type of understanding that goes far beyond the conventional approaches of today. An understanding that creates within group of employees, the internal ability to directly impact both individual and aggregate beliefs and attitudes. Our method consists of a specific set of tools or models for impacting the organizational culture directly during rollout so that your group doesn't have to experience the one to two year impact that is typical of conventional behavioral processes.

In this way, all that is good and valuable in both the behavioristic and humanistic philosophies can be captured and woven into the process of getting the content and all of the related problem solving attributes into place that are critical for success.