No doubt, collaborative organizational approaches are designed to increase productivity, quality and safety performance. In fact, in many cases, “collaborative involvement and decision making” at the customer and production level have become a competitive necessity. Among the many approaches to improving safety performance, “active involvement” must be viewed as a critical construct. Intuitively, participation and collaboration seem sound. But have these concepts been researched and tested?
The work of Kurt Lewin was instrumental in this regard (Lewin 1947, 1951, 1952; Raven 227+). In his study of interpersonal conflict, Lewin observed that teachers influenced their students in one way, but that these students were being pushed/pulled in the opposite direction by peer pressure.
He extended this reasoning to group dynamics and subsequently discovered that in these “push-pull” situations, where an authority attempts to influence someone against group pressure, it was more advantageous to present the reasons for change to the group (rather than try to affect change via an individual). The group could then discuss the possibilities and arrive at decisions for action. This was found to be particularly effective if the group’s solutions were similar to (or as good as) those offered by the manager trying to initiate change.
Coch and French expanded Lewin’s research to test participative approaches in a manufacturing environment. The focus: increased productivity. Their work supported Lewin’s research. They found:
1) When management simply told workers what changes should be made without first involving them, employees adhered to group standards instead – in effect resisting management’s desires. This produced a hostile work environment and created a frustrated workforce.
2) When mutual participation led to “group decision making,” employees accepted change more readily – it became an internalized component of their decision-making process. Management was not viewed as a dictator; rather, its participative influence was seen as that of a friend. As a result, production improved (Coch and French 512+).
BENEFITS OF INCREASED COLLABORATION
Several dynamics occur when actions and attitudes are the focus of the change process “with participation being key among them.” Several benefits can be realized via collaboration. Greater “upfront” acceptance as the result of group decision making increases the quality of work. Cooperation and participation set the stage for further collaboration. People begin to anticipate success and look forward to working together. Mutual respect and open dialog follow. A greater sense of community and corporate citizenship develops. People recognize that they must work together, so they consistently strive to build relationships in which reciprocation is a priority (Sarkus 26+).
The force and effectiveness of the “collaborating group” overcomes individual pressures to disrupt changes that the group has already accepted. In other words, the force of the group can propel it through individual forms of resistance. Group-oriented work fosters positive relationships and builds trust. Members begin to understand that the “inter-related work” of others in the workplace helps them reach individual and collective goals.
PRACTICAL COLLABORATION
1) When implementing a change process, how can safety professionals use active involvement to the benefit of all workers?
2) In behavioral approaches, target behaviors can be defined by groups of people–the more employees who contribute the better. These behaviors become the norm that the workforce has established–they are no longer the “rules of management.”
3) Behavioral approaches should involve as many peer observers as possible. Regular “informal coaching” (feedback that occurs when trained observers are not at work) should be encouraged as well. In many cases, supervisors should not serve as “formal observers” because they may be perceived (by employees) as figures who could act punitively rather than positively. Instead, supervisors should be facilitators, helping peer observers overcome resistance to change.
4) Action and activity-based recognition and rewards should also be developed via collaboration. They should reflect the workers’ ideas and be meaningful to the group.
5) Encourage group discussion and employee input during the kickoff session and all regular meetings. Look at group members as true advocates – they can use their personal appeal to influence others, especially if these individuals are trusted.Efforts that are designed to clarify goal-setting or progress toward some objectives should be inclusive as well; again, involve as many employees as possible.
6) Some personal “storytelling” activities about how a work-related injury was avoided (or how someone became a safety “champion”) can influence behavior and attitudes – especially when the stories are recent and relevant.
7) Seek employee input when considering equipment improvement, ergonomic changes or new personal protective equipment. Employees know the work environment well and can contribute to design changes and related improvements.
8) Role-playing exercises that portray specific safety procedures (i.e., lockout/tagout) are valuable as well. Such activities can positively influence a broad spectrum of actions and attitudes.
CONCLUSION
Even though the seminal work of Kurt Lewin is some 50 years old, it still remains as insightful as it is practical with regard to participation and collaboration. Despite this, many firms continue to struggle with participative approaches. How is your organization doing?
(Adapted from Professional Safety, October 1997)
REFERENCES
Cock, L. and J.R.P. French Jr. “Overcoming Resistance to Change.” Human Relations. 1 (1948): 512-532.
Lewin, K. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics.” Human Relations. 1(1947): 541.
Lewin, K. “Constructs in Field Theory.” In Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, D. Cartwright ed. New York: Harper, 1951.
Lewin, K. “Group Decision and Social Change.” In Readings in Social Psychology, G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley eds. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952.
Raven, B.H. “The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments.” Journal of Social Issues. 49(1993): 227-251.
Sarkus, D. “Servant-Leadership in Safety: Advancing the Cause and Practice.” Professional Safety. June 1996: 26-32.
~~~~~~~~