Personal contact and safety culture: the human approach
The signatures are in place in the briefing book. The risk assessments are up to date. Personal protective equipment is issued against signature. And yet the second shift worker continues to take off his helmet as soon as he is out of sight of the foreman. Does this sound familiar?
The discrepancy between the documented state and the actual behavior is the most common problem that OSH specialists encounter in Bulgarian enterprises. The reason is rarely in the documents. More often it is in the lack of quality personal contact between the OSH specialist and the worker - contact that provokes thinking, not defense.
This article looks at exactly what such contact looks like. Which questions open the conversation and which close it. How to talk about a violation without blaming. And why the employee's own conclusion is ten times more sustainable than your instruction.
1. Why training doesn't create a safety culture
The difference between formal compliance and real behavior
Regulation No. RD-07-2/16.12.2009 defines the types of briefings and the order in which they are conducted. Documentation is mandatory. This is also the point at which many organizations stop — they assume that a filled-in book means a recognized risk.
The reality is more complicated. A signature certifies presence, not understanding. It certifies listening, not acceptance. And acceptance of a rule is a condition for its observance, when no one is looking. That's when the safety culture comes into play.
If all your energy goes into updating documents and conducting scheduled briefings, you will achieve compliance. You will not achieve behavioral change. Change requires a different type of contact—one that happens outside the briefing book.
What safety culture maturity models show
Pathological → Reactive → Calculative → Proactively → Generative
The majority of Bulgarian enterprises operate between reactive и calculative. They have documentation and procedures. Proactive work — trust, voluntary reporting, discussion of near-misses — is often lacking.
James Reason completes the picture with the concept of „informed culture,“ which rests on four elements: reporting culture, just culture, flexible culture and learning culture. Without personal contact between the OHS specialist and the workers, none of these elements can be built — not because there is no procedure, but because no one will report, no one will learn, no one will change.
Reference: Hudson, P. (2007). Implementing a safety culture in a major multinational. Safety Science, 45(6); Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate.
2. The psychology behind the defensive reaction
Cognitive dissonance and ego-protection
When you ask an experienced worker, „Why didn’t you wear your safety glasses?“ the answer is almost never, „Because I underestimated the risk.“ More often, you hear, „I’ve been working for so many years, nothing has ever happened to me.“ That’s not stubbornness. That’s a psychological mechanism.
Leon Festinger describes cognitive dissonance (1957) as discomfort when an action contradicts a person's self-image. An experienced welder sees himself as a careful professional. Working without a face shield contradicts this image. To eliminate the contradiction, the psyche has two ways: to change behavior or to change interpretation. Changing the interpretation is easier — "in a short operation the risk is minimal."„
A person who defends himself does not learn. When you enter the conversation head-on—with a statement of the violation—you are attacking not the action but the self-image. A defensive reaction is inevitable.
The power asymmetry in the conversation
When an OHS specialist approaches a workplace, there is already a power asymmetry in the room—no matter how friendly the tone. The worker knows that there is someone standing in front of him who can report to management.
This asymmetry has a specific cost: loss of status with colleagues, loss of trust with your immediate supervisor, potential formal sanction. Until you neutralize this cost, your conversation will run up against this wall. Neutralizing does not mean promising not to report—it means framing the conversation in a way that admitting a problem is not an admission of personal guilt, but a description of a situation.
3. Principles of personal contact that leads to change
Before the conversation — context and preparation
The quality of a conversation is decided before you even open your mouth. Before you head to work, check:
- Current load and pace. An overloaded schedule is often the cause of step reductions. If you don't know about the overload, you will blame the worker for something that is a symptom of a systemic problem.
- Recent incidents or near-incidents. If there was a near-miss with similar equipment in a neighboring workshop a week ago, that's a natural starting point.
- Who is standing in front of you?. Experience, training, personal circumstances. An employee returning from sick leave is not the same employee from two months ago.
- The history of the workplace. Have there been any changes in procedures, equipment, or team?
This preparation takes 10–15 minutes. It saves you hours of corrective conversations later.
During the conversation — observation, questions, silence
Observation before finding. When you see a violation, the temptation is to immediately name it: „Why are you working without a helmet?“ The alternative is a description without evaluation: „I see the helmet is on the workbench. What happened?“ In the first case, you put the worker in a position to defend himself. In the second, you invite him to tell the story.
Open questions instead of closed ones. Closed questions (yes/no) provoke defense. Open questions provoke narrative.
| Closed (avoid) | Open (use) |
|---|---|
| „"Do you know you have to wear a helmet?"“ | „"What does experience tell you about wearing a helmet in this operation?"“ |
| „"Did you read the instructions?"“ | „"How do you understand the requirement in the instructions for this step?"“ |
| „"Do you see that this is dangerous?"“ | „"What is the most complicated thing about this operation from your point of view?"“ |
Silence before the next question. After the worker responds, don’t immediately fill the pause. Three to five seconds of silence are uncomfortable, but it’s during those moments that the person often adds the most important thing—the thing they didn’t plan to say. Silence is not an empty space; it’s an invitation for a deeper response.
After the call — unattended tracking
If you come back two days later with the words, „I came to check on you to see if you’re doing what we talked about,“ you’re sending a clear message: I don’t trust you. The alternative wording is minimal in volume but huge in impact: „I’m stopping by to see how things are going. Was there anything that bothered you?“
This follow-up is where your reputation in the company is built. After a few such returns, workers will start to report problems to you themselves — because they know that there will be no penalty, but a joint search for a solution. This is the beginning of a real safety culture.
4. No blame culture: how to speak without blaming
A language that opens and a language that closes
No blame culture is not a culture without responsibility. It says "blame is not the first thing we look for." The first thing we look for is understanding.
| A language that closes | A language that opens |
|---|---|
| „"Why aren't you wearing your helmet?"“ | „"What stopped you from putting it on today?"“ |
| „"You violated the instruction."“ | „"At what point does the instruction not fit what is happening on the ground?"“ |
| „"This shouldn't have happened."“ | „"What made this possible?"“ |
| „"Never do that again."“ | „"What needs to change so it doesn't happen again?"“ |
Distinction between error, violation and intentional act
Human error — an action that was not intentional. The worker did not know he was wrong. The correct answer is almost always systemic. Sanction here is both unfair and counterproductive.
At-risk behavior — the worker knew the rule, but judged the risk acceptable. This is the territory of personal contact. A sanction only makes the behavior more covert.
Reckless behaviour — deliberate disregard with full understanding of the risk. Sanction here is not only permissible — it is mandatory.
Reference: Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability. Ashgate; Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
5. Provocation as a method of independent thinking
Socratic questions in the workplace
The conclusion that a person reaches on his own is remembered as his own. The conclusion that is told to him is remembered as someone else's. Someone else's conclusion is applied while the boss is looking. One's own — even when no one is looking. This is where the difference between conformity and culture lies.
OHS: How long does such an operation take on average?
Worker: A minute, a minute and a half.
OHS: And how many such operations do you perform per shift?
Worker: Around 30–40.
OHS: So about an hour of your shift in that noise level?
Worker: When you put it that way, it turns out yes.
OHS: Do you know at what accumulated exposure time permanent damage begins?
Worker: I haven't done any calculations like that, but now that I think about it...
OHS: What does this tell you about „short“ operations?
The specialist did not say „you must wear earplugs.“ He did not quote a regulation. He asked five questions that allow the worker to discover his own blind spot.
"What if..." scenarios„
You take the real situation and branch it into 3–4 alternative scenarios. You don’t say what would have happened; you ask what could have happened. The result is that the worker constructs a picture of the risk for himself—a picture that he has built with personal effort and therefore accepts.
6. Two practical examples
Case 1 - Welding work in a mechanical engineering company
Context. Welder with 22 years of experience. Systematically works without a face shield during short operations. Three previous warnings from a previous OHS specialist — zero lasting result.
The new approach. The specialist learns from the shop nurse that the welder complains of „dry eyes“ in the evening. The conversation begins not with a statement of the disorder, but with a question: „How does your vision feel at the end of your shift lately?“
After 10 minutes of conversation: „From your experience, what has the strongest impact on the eyes in our work?“ The welder comes to the answer himself: UV radiation and hot particles. „And when you do the short welds?“
Pause. And then: "Now that you mention it, I guess I should put on my shield then too."„
Result. Consistent wearing of face shield in all operations for 6 months. Welder starts paying attention to two younger colleagues. One conversation — change in a small group.
Case 2 — Loading and unloading activities in a logistics warehouse
Context. Worker, 26 years old, 8 months in the company. Found climbing onto an electric pallet truck to reach a box 2.3 m away. The folding ladder is at the end of the corridor.
The approach. The specialist doesn't say anything about the violation itself. He waits, then asks: "How many times have you had to do this today?" After a conversation, it turns out: the ladder is inconveniently located, the pace does not allow for repeated walking to it. It is not an individual violation - it is a symptom of a systemic problem.
„What would help change this?“ The worker suggests himself: „If the ladder is in the middle of the hallway…“
Result. Changing the layout of the stairs within a week. The case is discussed in a meeting not as an individual violation, but as an example of a systemic failure. The worker, ready for a sanction, becomes an informal source of signals about other situations in the warehouse.
7. How to measure the effect of personal contact
The number of workplace accidents is a poor indicator of the quality of your conversations—it measures what has already happened. You need to measure leading indicators:
- Number of workplace safety talks conducted — not briefings, but specific conversations with specific people (4 lines: name, date, topic, key takeaway).
- Number of voluntary near-miss reports per period. When this indicator increases, it almost always means that confidence is increasing. An increase in signals is good news.
- Average time from problem occurrence to reporting. The shorter, the more mature the culture.
- Share of alerts where the worker proposes a solution themselves — a direct metric for independent thinking.
- Number of cases where personal contact revealed a systemic problem, not an individual violation.
Reference: HSE (UK) — Step-by-step guide to developing process safety performance indicators (HSG254); ICAO safety performance indicators in aviation safety.
Conclusion
Personal contact with workers is not an addition to a safety management system—it is a tool without which the system runs on empty. You can have the best written procedures and the most up-to-date risk assessments. If there is no thought-provoking conversation between you and your workers, those documents will not change behavior.
Change starts with you and the way you walk into the shop tomorrow morning.
Practical next steps for the next 30 days
- Before each conversation, take 10–15 minutes to prepare. Workload, recent incidents, who is standing in front of you.
- Change the beginning of the conversation. Instead of a finding, an observation without evaluation or a question about the context.
- Introduce the three-second silence rule. Write down what else the worker said in those three seconds.
- The next time you encounter a violation, ask yourself: Error, risk violation or intentional gross violation? Act differently for each of the three types.
- Start measuring one leading indicator. Recommendation: number of voluntary near-miss reports per month. Track it for three months.
- Go back to a worker you had a difficult conversation with a month ago. Not to check in—to chat. "I'm dropping by to see how things are going."„
Leave a Reply