Session No.

532

The Psychology of Safety:

Paradigm Shifts for Achieving an Injury-Free Culture

E. Scott Geller, Ph.D.

Alumni Distinguished Professor, Virginia Tech
Senior Partner, Safety Performance Solutions

Introduction
The achievement and maintenance of an injury-free workplace requires appropriate applications
of behavioral and psychological science to improve the human dynamics of an organization and
enrich the work culture. This can be accomplished by: a) cultivating actively-caring leadership, b)
improving interpersonal communication and behavior-based coaching, c) encouraging a successseeking and growth mindset, d) fostering courage, humility, integrity, and interpersonal trust, e)
promoting empathy, systems thinking, and interdependency, f) enhancing perceptions of relevant
empowerment, and g) increasing peoples self-motivation and self-directed responsibility to
actively care for safety. This presentation addresses each of these domains by explaining 25
paradigm shifts needed to optimize intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational leadership for
safety throughout a work culture.
The paradigm shifts are divided into four categories: 1) Foundation principles which
define the overall approach to addressing the human side of occupational health and safety, 2)
Personal living principles needed to exemplify the qualities of a servant leader for safety, 3)
Coaching strategies for helping others avoid personal injury, and 4) Leadership strategies for
cultivating a brothers/sisters-keeper culture in which everyone looks out for the safety of each
other, regardless of ones authority or hierarchical position in the organization. All of the
recommended paradigm shifts and methods for attaining them are based on research in the
behavioral and psychological sciences.

The Foundation
1. From Managing Behavior to Actively Caring for People (AC4P). The AC4P
principles take us well beyond behavior-based safety (BBS), and are illustrated by the
following paradigm shifts. Two recent books, one for industrial settings1 and the other for
educational settings2, document the evidenced-based principles and specific applications of
the AC4P approach reflected by the following paradigm shifts.
2. From Behaviorism or Humanism to Humanistic Behaviorism. Interventions to improve
human dynamics need to be customized per individual and situation; with an optimistic focus
on the positive.3
The method of delivering an influence technique can be more important than the technique
itself. A top-down application can actually do more harm than good by activating

psychological reactance or counter-control. Thats why we call the AC4P approach to

cultivate interpersonal compassion on a large-scale humanistic behaviorism.
This approach incorporates evidence-based principles of behavioral science to activate and
sustain beneficial change, while applying person-centered principles of humanism to assure
personal ownership and perceived empowerment. In other words, behavior-change methods
should be taught, coached, and implemented so both the benefactors and beneficiaries believe
in their effectiveness and want to support the AC4P Movement.
3. From Common Sense to Behavioral and Psychological Science. Evidence-based methods
are available to effectively address the people side of occupational safety.4 However, some
people believe dealing with the human dynamics of behavior change requires only good
common sense.5 Surely you realize the absurdity of such a premise. Common sense is
based on peoples selective listening and interpretation, and is usually founded on what
sounds good to the individual listener, not necessarily on what works.6 In contast, systematic
and scientific observation enables the kind of objective feedback needed to know what works
and what doesnt work to improve behavior.
The occurrence of specific behaviors can be objectively observed and measured before
and after the implementation of an internvetion process. This application of the scientific
method provides feedback with which behavioral improvement can be shaped.
4. From Reactive to Proactive Intervention. People naturally actively care after an injury or
crisis; proactive intervention is not natural nor easy, but its necessary for injury prevention.
Reactive AC4P behaviors are performed in crisis situations, as when someone is saved from
drowning, receives cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or is given first-aid treatment after
a cut. Such AC4P behavior is certainly important and invaluable, but consider that such
reactive caring would not have been needed if the appropriate proactive AC4P behavior had
occurred. This happens when people apply an instructive, supportive, or motivational
intervention to improve another persons desirable behavior. Such AC4P behavior is often
most challenging to perform, but necessary to prevent an injury.

Living: (Self-Focused Behavior)

5. From Complacent Competence to Continuous Improvement. Never believe you know
enough; learning and continuous improvement is a life-long venture.7 The authors teaching
of practical ways to apply psychology for solving real-world problems has progressed
significantly over the years, as he has continuously learned from ongoing research and from
his and others consulting experiences. Contrary to the illustration below, were never too old
to learn.

6. From Other-Directed Accountability to Self-Directed Responsibility. While its common

to promote safety with top-down accountability methods, an injury-free workplace requires
all employees to take personal, self-directed responsibility for injury prevention.8
Without safety regulations, policies, and external accountability systems, many more
employees would get hurt or killed on the job and on the road, and more students would be
victimized in schools. All of us, including employers, police officers, safety professionals,
and school teachers need extrinsic controls to hold us accountable to perform safe and AC4P
behavior, while avoiding risky and confrontational behavior. Why do we need such extrinsic
controls?
The desired, safe, AC4P behaviors are relatively inconvenient, uncomfortable, and
inefficient. The soon, certain, positive consequences (or intrinsic natural reinforcers) of atrisk and other undesirable behaviors often overpower our self-motivation to be as safe or
caring as possible.
Every driver know its risky to talk on a cell-phone or type a text message while driving,
yet many drivers perform these behaviors regularly. Why, because the immediate and
naturally-reinforcing consequences take priority over the low likelihood of a crash. These
risky drivers are not self-motivated to actively care for the safety of themselves and others on
the road.
Heres the key question: What can we do to overcome the human nature implied by these
profound quotations from B.F. Skinner: Immediate consequences outweigh delayed
consequences, and Consequences for the individual usually outweigh consequences for
others.9
7. From Extrinsic Consequences to Intrinsic Consequences and Self-Motivation.
Perceptions of choice, competence, and community determine self-motivation.10
Sometimes its possible for people to establish conditions that facilitate self-accountability
and self-motivation. When people go beyond the call of duty to actively care for the welfare
of others they are self-motivated to an extent. Achieving an AC4P culture requires more
people to be self-motivated at more times and in more situations.
The C-words of Choice, Competence, and Community are used by Geller and Veazie11 in
their narrative as labels for the three evidence-based person-states that determine self-

motivation. Dispositional, interpersonal, and environmental conditions that enhance these

states, presumed to be innate needs by some psychologists,10 increase personal perceptions of
self-motivation.
8. From Failure Avoiding to Success Seeking. Working to succeed rather than to avoid failure
leads to self-motivation and optimism.12
Exhibit 1 depicts four distinct achievement typologies initially defined by Covington and
Omelich.13 These four classifications have been researched to explain differences in how
people approach success and/or avoid failure.

Exhibit 1. Four person-states influence behavior and attitude.

Its most desirable to be a success seeker. These are the optimists, responding to setbacks
(e.g., corrective feedback) in a positive and adaptive manner. They are self-confident and
willing to take risks as opposed to avoiding challenges to avoid failure. They wake up each
day to an opportunity clock rather than an alarm clock. Its a mindset or attitude toward life
you can influence in yourself and others.
Failure avoiders have a low expectancy for success and a high fear of failure. They do
whatever it takes to protect themselves from appearing incompetent. They often use selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism to shield themselves from potential failure.14 These
individuals are motivated but are not happy campers. They are the students who say, Ive
got to go to class; its a requirement, rather than I get to go to class; its an opportunity.
9. From Habitual Behavior to Mindful Fluency. Habits are automatic and not accompanied
by thinking or self-talk. For safety-related behavior mindful fluency is preferred over
mindless habits.15
A habit is a behavior that occurs automatically without conscious thought. Is this the
optimal state for safe behavior? In other words, should safe behavior become habitual,
meaning its performed automatically without conscious thought?
Many behavioral-safety trainers and consultants would probably answer Yes to these
questions. In other words, many behavioral-safety instructors and consultants advocate the
use of intervention techniques to increase the fluency of behavior until it reaches a habitual
state. This is when the right (or safe) behavior occurs spontaneously without any preceding
or concurrent thought process. In other words, the performance doesnt need a mental script
to prompt or guide it. The behavior occurs almost reflexively to external stimuli or events.
Its certainly advantegous to become fluent at performing a safety-related behavior. But
theres also value to including a mental script before, during, and after safe behavior,
regardless how fluent a person is at performing the behavior. Bottom line: The ultimate

safety state is mindfully safe, whereby performers talk to themselves before, during, and after
their safe behavior.
While its obviously desirable to make safe behavior part of a refular routine, its not
desirable to conduct such behavior without thinking about it. Supportive mental scripts
before, during, and after safe behaviors can prevent mindless human errors (or brain
cramps), increase the probability of relevant discrimination and generalization, help people
shift from being held accountable to feeling responsible, and strengthen leadership qualities
needed for people to actively care for the safety and health of others.
Bottom line: Talk to yourself about your safety-related behaviors, even when the behavior
is fluent and part of a normal routine. Such mindfulness is good for your self-esteem, selfefficacy, personal control, optimism, and sense of belonging. The result: You feel better
about yourself and youre more likely to actively care for the safety and health of others.
10. From Self-Confidence to Courage, Humility, and Integrity. People need the courage to
give others behavior-based feedback, the humility to ask for and accept behavioral feedback,
and the integrity to adjust behavior according to relevant feedback.16
People sometimes hold back proactive AC4P behavior because they consider the
possibility of a negative interpersonal confrontation. Youd think people would be grateful
when someone provides them information that could prevent personal injury. This is indeed
the case in an AC4P safety culture. However, in most cultures many consider it interruptive
meddling when someone offers them feedback about their risky behavior. Mind your own
business, they think or may actually say aloud. And thats in a workplace where people are
accustomed to receiving feedback about safety, and the employees know one another. What
about offering safety-related feedback to a stranger?
Thus, while many of us care and have good intentions, good intentions are not
enough. They dont make a difference unless they result in relevant behavior. To pursue an
AC4P lifestyle, we need to act whenever our action could help others. The AC4P person
goes beyond convenient and comfortable acts of generosity and kindness. If we truly care to
make a large-scale beneficial difference in our world, AC4P needs to become a way of life
a self-motivated lifestyle, fueled by purposeful commitment.

Coaching (Other-Focused Behavior for Individuals)

11. From Efficient Communication to Effective Conversations. The five critical levels of
constructive interpersonal conversation relationship, possibility, action, opportunity, and
follow-up cannot be accomplished with efficient high-tech communication.17

Relationship Conversation
Relationship conversations are relatively easy, yet critical to developing a trusting, and AC4P
culture. Simply put, these conversations occur whenever you show sincere interest in another
person, from their home life to their challenges at school or work. This happens, of course,
when you talk about particular aspects of a persons family, health, hobbies, work processes,
or AC4P-related perceptions.
Indeed, showing genuine interest and appreciation in what a person is doing is probably
the best way to give supportive recognition. As Dale Carnegie said years ago, and echoed later
by Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson, Help people feel important at doing worthwhile
work.18 This is relationship building the foundation of an AC4P connection between
people.

Possibility Conversation
Relationship conversations often refer to an individuals past. Indeed, we build interpersonal
relationships by comparing our prior experiences and looking for commonalities. In contrast,
possibility conversations focus on the future. These conversations occur when you share
visions with another person. Leaders of the AC4P Movement are motivated by the vision of
an AC4P culture of compassion with interpersonal support predominant over interpersonal
conflict and bullying. Possibility conversations target any future situation that reflects desired
improvement in environment/engineering conditions, behavioral competence, or person-states.

Action Conversation
This is behavior-based communication. Given a vision or possibility for improvement, this
conversation focuses on what an individual or project team could do to move in a desirable
direction. The conversation might be between individuals, as in coaching, or between
members of a group.
The action conversation could define a number of different behaviors, some to continue
and others to decrease or eliminate. When these conversations occur in group meetings,
individual assignments are often needed. Also, action goals are set according to the SMARTS
acronym (for Specific, Motivational, Achievable, Relevant, Trackable, and Shared).1
This goal-setting exercise should include an accountability system for tracking progress
toward goal attainment. With work groups or teams, its usually best to monitor both
individual achievements with regard to specific assignments, and the groups progress as a
team. Next, people look for opportunities to perform their newly-defined and desirable
behavior(s).

Opportunity Conversation
So youve learned how to do behavior-based coaching, and set a goal for completing a certain
number of coaching sessions in one month. Now, its time to look for opportunities to conduct
such a one-on-one session. In some cultures this can be any situation that involves human
behavior. However, in other settings the potential participants must agree to be observed
before the process can be implemented.
Suppose an individual or a project team chooses to adopt an achievement or successseeking perspective to actively caring by tracking all AC4P behaviors performed beyond a
persons daily routine. This requires an action conversation about the types of behaviors that
indicate going beyond the call of duty, and an opportunity conversation about the various
situations that call for various AC4P behaviors.
Bottom line: A practical action plan for achieving particular possibilities includes a
definition of behaviors and situations behaviors needed to fulfill the plan (an action
conversation) and the times and places for these behaviors to occur (an opportunity
conversation). After an action plan is completed, its beneficial to celebrate small-win
achievements, and set the stage for additional action and opportunity discussions. This is the
fifth type of interpersonal conversation.

Follow-up Conversation
Its important to acknowledge the achievement of a SMARTS goal. These follow-up
conversations are rewarding, and promote a success-seeking mindset as explained in
Paradigm Shift 8. After noting the acquisition of an action/opportunity outcome, a follow-up
conversation turns to discussion of a subsequent challenge. This could include conversations
2, 3, & 4: an identification of new possibilities (2), relevant and acceptable action plans (3),
and opportunities calling for certain action (4).

Follow-up conversations target the end result or outcome of an action plan but they often
focus on the process first. In other words, its useful to have periodic follow-up conversations
to check on progress toward a designated outcome. Suppose, for example, you communicate
with a teacher or supervisor regarding a need to have more one-on-one interaction with
students or workers. After exploring possibilities, you discuss specific actions and
opportunities for meaningful teacher/student or supervisor/employee contacts. You might set
a SMARTS goal and even a follow-up reward for goal attainment. But process-focused
monitoring could also be quite helpful. In other words, it would probably be useful to contact
this teacher or supervisor periodically for follow-up conversations regarding his or her
progress toward goal attainment.
Exhibit 2 summarizes this five-way classification system, which provides an intuitive
sequence for constructive interpersonal talk. For example, action plans will be all the more
accepted and accomplishment will be all the more likely, if they are preceded by appropriate
relationship conversations. Please note, however, one type of conversation does not stop with
the implementation of the next in the sequence. Relationship conversations, for example,
continue throughout action planning, accomplishment, and follow-up. And while it makes
sense to define the behaviors in an action plan before considering opportunities, in actual
practice people look for opportunities for their action-plan behavior before performing.

Exhibit 2. Interpersonal conversations occur at one of five levels.

Actually, interpersonal communication varies unsystematically between all five
conversation types. Perhaps understanding these different conversations and their differential
objectives will contribute to increasing the quantity and improving the quality of
communications aimed at cultivating an AC4P culture of compassion. When it comes to
progressing the AC4P Movement, we cant have too many quality interpersonal
conversations.
12. From Person-Based Feedback to Behavior-Based Feedback. Feedback must be
behavior-focused and delivered with no reference to person factors (e.g., attitude, personality,
motivation, values).19
People often correct others without focusing entirely on their behavior. In other words,
the feedback delivery suggests the problem or error observed reflects more than behavior.
The child is sloppy; the student is ignorant; the athlete is lazy; or the worker is

careless. That kind of feedback delivery is not beneficial, and substantial research
demonstrates dramatic disadvantages of labeling people, even when the label is positive.20
Its easier said than done, but its essential to separate behavior from person factors when
giving and receiving feedback. Corrective feedback is not an indictment of ones personality
or an indicator of a character flaw. Feedback must not be related to an individuals attitude,
motivation, professional competence, or family history.
Feedback is only about behavior. Yes, responding well to supportive or corrective
feedback can lead to improvement in attitude, motivation, competence, and even a personstate. But the purpose of feedback is only to pinpoint desirable and/or undesirable behavior.
When this is realized by those who give and receive feedback, the beneficial outcome of
behavioral coaching is maximized. Theres room for improvement in most everything we do,
but only by receiving and accepting behavior-based feedback can we do better.21
13. From Directive Instruction to Nondirective Empathic Coaching. People are more likely
to accept and follow recommendations if interpersonal coaching is nondirective and tailored
to fit the individual and the situation.22
Empathy is not the same as sympathy. We sympathize when we express concern or
understanding for another individuals situation, but we empathize when we identify with
another persons situation and realize what its like to be in that persons shoes. Note how
the begger in the illustration connects with people by meeting them on their terms.

An empathic level of awareness and appreciation is not easy to achieve, and can only be
reached after we minimize the reactive filters that bias our conversations, and then listen
intently and proactively to the other person. Not only must we hear every word, we must also
look for feelings, passion, and commitment reflected as much in body language and manner
of expression as in the words themselves.
When you observe another persons work practices, you should try and view the situation
from that individuals perspective. When you listen to excuses for at-risk behavior or for an
injury, try and see yourself in the same predicament. What would you do under those same
circumstances? You should imagine what defense mechanisms you might use to protect your
ego or self-esteem. And when you consider action plans for improvement, try and view
various alternatives through the eyes of the other person.

Obviously, empathic listening, diagnosing, and action planning take patience.

Conversations at this level are not efficient, but they are effective. The objective is to first
learn, mostly through questioning and listening, what its like to be in the other persons
situation. Then the objective shifts to developing a corrective intervention that fits the
circumstances as mutually understood by everyone involved in the conversation. If
commitment to follow through with a specific action plan is stated, youve had a most
effective empathic conversation. You were an empathic coach.
14. From Finding Fault to Finding Facts and Asking What can I do? The appropriate
question is not, Who did that? or, What was the root cause? but rather, How can I help
or actively care?1
Several years ago, the author helped a company investigate an injury that occurred when
an employee slipped on a metal plate covering a large hole on scaffholding three stories
above a concrete floor. The worker fell through the hole, and would have fallen three stories
were he not able to throw out his arms and catch himself on the sides of the hole. He
suffered painful cuts and scrapes, but obviously the injury could have been much worse.
The primary questions addressed in this injury analysis:
Whose fault was it?
What was the root cause of this injury?
It was tempting to finger the welder who failed to secure the metal plate over the hole as
the culprit the root cause. But, that would be piecemeal and fault finding. Instead, a fact
finding, systems approach was followed. What were the environmental demands, for
example, that led to careless work by the welder? How many individuals had stepped on the
plate, noticed it was loose, and did not report their close call? (The investigation revealed that
numerous employees had been aware of the loose plate). What environmental or person
factors prevented people from reporting their close call with the loose plate? What processes
should be put in place to facilitate observing, reporting, and correcting environmental hazards
like the one contributing to this injury?
15. From the Golden Rule to the Platinum Rule. Treating others the way you want to be
treated (The Golden Rule) is not optimal because others may want an alternative treatment.
The Platinum Rule is preferable (i.e., treating others the way they want to be treated), but this
requires empathy.23
Believe it or not, the so called Golden Rule can cause more harm than good. Case in
point: When the author was in the fifth grade, his teacher called him to the front of the class
to recognize him for the excellent job he did on his homework. Afterwards, three other male
students from the class beat him up in the playground.
The teacher treated the author the way she wanted to be treated (i.e., the Golden Rule),
certainly not the way he wanted to be treated. Perhaps she was also following the
management myth, Reprimand privately and recognize publicly. That fifth grader did not
want public recognition for academic success. At the time, such behavior was not perceived
by the students as cool, and the result from public recognition was painful. Thus, in some
situations treating others the way you want to be treated is not desirable. Instead, follow the
Platinum Rule21 by treating others the way they want to be treated. But this requires
empathy as explained in Paradigm 13.
16. From Fixed Mindsets (Traits) to Growth Mindsets (States). If you believe intelligence is
malleable, you exert more effort and persist longer.24
Many personality researchers suggest we must accept the reality that people are born with
some degree of propensity to express certain personality characteristics. This is the trait or
fixed mindset perspective, and can limit ones motivation to improve. This is who I am and
I shouldnt expect more. My disposition or person-state is fixed.
To the contrary, we should realize that situations, contingencies, and interpersonal
intervention can influence the extent a particular personality trait is manifested in behavior.

Thus, a person who is naturally low on a particular personality trait can be activated to
enhance this characteristic through an environmental condition, a behavior-change
intervention, or interpersonal dialogue. For example, the students in the authors large
university classes, as well as participants at his professional development workshops, usually
inspire him to transition from his natural tendency to be shy and introverted to behave in an
outgoing and extroverted manner.
To understand the potential flexibility of personality traits, consider handedness. While
most of us have a clear preference to use one hand over the other for specific activities, we
can use the other hand when situations call for this change. It feels awkward at first, but with
practice we can get quite good with our nondominant hand. Likewise, practice can make it
feel natural to behave contrary to a personality trait. Most importantly the label we put on
ourselves and others can hinder motivation and beneficial behavior change.
17. From Labeling Achievers to Celebrating Effort. Labeling people as achievers can limit
their progress; instead focus on the effort rather than the outcome.24
Dr. Carol Dweck and her colleagues gave hundreds of early adolescents a set of ten fairly
difficult problems from the nonverbal portion of an IQ test. Afterward, all participants were
praised individually for their performance on the test, but the nature of the praise was varied
systematically. For half of the students, the praise was based on their ability. They were
each told: Wow, you got eight right. Thats a really good score. You must be smart at
this.25
The other students were each praised with a positive social label for their effort with these
words, Wow, you got eight right. Thats a really good score. You must have worked really
hard.26
Both groups scored equivalently on the IQ test. But researchers noted significant
differences in students behavior following their ability vs. effort label. All students had the
choice to work on a challenging new task they could learn from. Most of those with the
ability label rejected this opportunity. Apparently they didnt want to do anything that could
expose their flaws and call into question their talent.26 In contrast, 90 percent of the students
praised for their effort welcomed the opportunity of a challenging new task from which they
could learn.
Later, when all of these students performed less effectively on some additional more
difficult problems, their reaction to failure feedback was influenced by the prior label given
them (i.e., ability vs. effort). The ability kids felt like failures. They believed they did not live
up to their ability; and they rated the task as not fun anymore. The effort group saw in their
failure a need to try harder. They did not perceive any indictment of their intellect, and they
did not indicate a lack of enjoying the problem-solving task. Many of them said that the hard
problems were the most fun.26
After experiencing these difficult problems, the researchers gave the adolescents some
easier problems to solve. The performance of the ability-labeled students plummeted. The
effort-labeled students performed increasing more effectively. In the profound words of Dr.
Dweck, Since this was a kind of IQ test, you might say that praising ability lowered the
students IQs. And that praising their effort raised them.27
A final difference showed up when the adolescents were asked to write out their opinions
of the problem-solving tasks they completed for students at other schools. A space was
provided on this form for the students to report the personal scores they received on the
problems. To the researchers surprise and disappointment, 40 percent of the ability-labeled
students reported higher grades than they actually earned. In the authors words, We took
ordinary children and made them into liars by telling them they were smart.28
Bottom line: Focus on the process (or effort) rather than the outcome (or results) when
praising another persons performance.

Leading: (Other-Focused Behavior for Groups & Organizations)

18. From Marketed Programs to Customized Processes. The best leadership/management
consultants help organizations customize intervention processes to fit their culture rather than
sell them a quick-fix program.
How many times have you heard the expression flavor of the month leveled at a new
organizational program or process? Why does this happen? Consider how safety programs
are often introduced to potential participants. A corporate official (often a safety director)
learns about a new safety program at a conference or in a promotional flyer and orders the
appropriate materials, including workbooks, videotapes, and a facilitators guide.
Sometimes an outside consultant or trainer is hired to teach certain personnel the new stepby-step procedures. Then these employees demonstrate the new procedures to others while
on the job, and thus a new safety program is implemented plantwide. For many, this is just
another set of temporary procedures which attempt to reduce outcome numbers (recordable
injuries) and make management look good. Its commonly believed the new program wont
really work to reduce injuries, and therefore it wont be long before it will be replaced with
another flavor of the month.
19. From Training to Education/Training. Education gives the theory and rationale underlying
an intervention approach, whereas proper training uses role-playing and behavior-based
feedback to assure proper application of a particular tool, program, or intervention process.29
A flavor-of-the month attitude can result if participants are not taught the principles or
rationale behind a program, as reflected in the illustration. The employees are just trained on
how to implement the new process, and later these workers train others from a how to
perspective without a why. They were not educated about the research-based principles
and rationale from which the program emanated, and can only teach each other what to do
and not why they should do it. Thus, Dr. Deming was severely critical of on-the-job
training.30

When people learn the theory underlying a method, they develop their own belief system
to rationalize their participation. They also realize theres more than one way to fulfill a

particular mission, and they have the ammunition needed (i.e., the principles and guidelines)
to alter procedures whenever demands for refinement arise. And when employees contribute
to process improvement, they develop a sense of ownership and empowerment to sustain the
process. They become self-motivated to do the right things for safety when they understand
and believe in the reasoning behind a regulation, policy, process, or training program.31
20. From Power Imbalance to Feeling Empowered. People feel empowered when they can
answer Yes to these questions: Can I do it? (self-efficacy); Will it work? (responseefficacy); Is it worth it? (outcome expectancy).1
An operator stopping a process for safety or quality reasons provides a good example of
what it means to feel empowered. Lets say an operator believes a certain process provides
an immediate high-loss safety risk. Can he shut the process down? Sure he can. But, will it
work? Yes, a serious injury may be averted and the risk is managed by the hazard being
removed.
However, the determining factor in the employees answer to, Is it worth it? is the
expected reaction from management after the process is stopped. Applying these
empowerment lessons appropriately puts ordinary people in leadership positions that call for
competence and moral courage to do the right thing, even when no ones watching.11
21. From Root-Cause-and-Effect to Systems Thinking. Cause-and-effect cannot be determined
from surveys or interviews, only correlations. So, look for contributing factors in a system,
including environmental, person, and behavioral variables.32
A common myth in the safety field holds that injuries are caused by one critical factor
the root cause. "Ask enough questions," advises the safety consultant, "and you'll arrive at
the critical factor behind an injury." Do you really believe there is a single root cause of a
mishap, whether a close call, damage to property, or personal injury?
Conducting an injury investigation to find a root cause could make you a safety bully.33
Why, because this approach can put employees on the defensive, even preventing the
disclosure of environmental hazards or barriers to safe work practices. After all, what does
the term investigation mean to most people, as in criminal investigation? The self-talk
might be, they will ask why five times to find the person responsible for the injury and/or
property damage. Indeed, the term investigation implies fault finding rather than fact
finding.
22. From Investigating Who? to Analyzing How? Investigation implies fault-finding to
find someone to blame; instead analyze the situation to determine how the mishap occurred.31
Consider the interactive impact of environmental, behavioral, and person-based factors
that affect safety-related performance. Environmental factors include tools, equipment,
management systems, engineering design, climate, and housekeeping. Then you have the
behaviors or the actions of everyone related to the mishap. Finally, there are the personal,
internal feeling states of the people involved their attitudes, perceptions, and personality
characteristics.
Given the dynamic interdependency of environmental, behavioral, and person-based
factors in everyday events, how can you expect to find one root cause of an injury?
Furthermore, cause-and-effect relations can never be answered from the information gleaned
from surveys, discussions, or interviews. Such data enable only correlations. An analysis,
not an investigation, is needed to sort through this complex web of contributing factors. As
illustrated humorously below, performance is impacted by a complex interaction of nature
and nurture factors.

Take a systems approach in your analysis of the interactive impact of environmental,

behavioral, and person-based factors. Then decide which of these factors can be changed to
reduce the chance of another unfortunate injury. Environmental factors are usually easiest to
define and improve, followed by behavioral factors. Most difficult to define and change
directly are the person-states, but many of these internal feelings can be benefitted by
properly influencing behaviors.34
23. From Suspiciousness to Interpersonal Trust. The increasing numbers of interpersonal and
social-media scams experienced directly or vicariously have influenced cultures of
interpersonal suspiciousness rather than trust. Seven C-words reflect ways to alleviate this
problem: Communication, Caring, Candor, Consistency, Commitment, Consensus, and
Character.35
Several years ago, the author conducted a two-hour brainstorming session on interpersonal
trust wth a focus on defining ways to build interpersonal trust in a work culture. The seven
C-words defined below capture the essence of this intense discussion with graduate students
in applied behavioral science. The phrases associated with these words summarize the key
definitions given in the American Heritage (1991) and New-Merriam-Webster (1989)
dictionaries.36

Communication
How we interact with others is obviously a key determinant of interpersonal trust. What
people say and how they say it influences our trust in both their capability and their
intentions. An individual's expertise is displayed by the person's words spoken or written,
and by the confidence and credibility linked to the words. Indeed, the way something is said,
including intonation, pace, facial expressions, hand gestures, and overall posture, has as much
impact than the words themselves.
Certainly, personal feelings of trust toward another person change as the result of how that
individual communicates information. Is it possible the high-tech electronic approaches to
communication decreases face-to-face interaction and hence the development of interpersonal
trust?

Caring
When you take the time to listen to another perspective, you send a most important message
you care. When people believe you sincerely care about them, they will care about what you
tell them. They trust you will look out for their best interests when applying your knowledge,
skills, and abilities. They trust your intention because they believe you care.
You also communicate caring and build interpersonal trust when you ask questions. Not
the probing questions we sometimes give instead of actively listening, but the use of a
question to initiate conversation. Not the typical general questions we often ask people we
haven't seen for awhile. "How are you doing?" we ask, and we get the standard reply, "I'm
doing fine, how about you?"
Rather, questions targeting a specific aspect of a person's job send the signal you care
about him or her. This communication is more than a general greeting. It's a statement of
genuine interest in what people are doing and how they feel. It's especially powerful when
your words reflect concern about health and safety.
In order to show caring with specific behavior-based questions, you need to take the time
to learn what others are doing. This comes from active listening and behavior-based
observation. Its more than "Walk the talk." Its "listening to the talk and watching the
walk." This shows you care and gives you an opportunity to "talk the walk" so people will
trust your intentions.

Candor
We trust people who are frank and open with us. They don't beat around the bush. They get
right to the point, whether asking for a favor or giving us feedback about our participation.
When these individuals don't know an answer to our questions they don't ignore us or hem or
haw about possibilities. They tell us outright when they don't know something, and they tell
us they'll get back to us later. When they get back to us soon with an answer, our trust in
both their intention and ability increases.
The second dictionary definition of "candor" freedom from prejudice reflects another
important aspect of trust-building. When a person's interactions with you reflect prejudice or
the tendency to evaluate or judge another person on the basis of a stereotype or preconceived

notion about group characteristics, you have reason to mistrust this individual. You are
rightfully suspicious about this person's ability to evaluate others and in his or her intention to
treat people fairly. Even when the prejudice is not directed at you, your trust in this person
decreases. Right?

When someone gives an opinion about another person because of race, religion, gender,
age, sexual orientation, or birthplace, you should doubt this person's ability to make peoplerelated decisions. You should wonder whether this person's intention to perform on behalf of
another person will be biased or tainted by a tendency to pre-judge others on the basis of
overly simple and usually inaccurate stereotypes.

Consistency
We usually trust the intentions of people who confess openly their inability to answer our
question. Our trust in them might increase when they tell us they'll get back to us right away
with a response. But what happens when we must wait a long time for a reply? Or suppose
you never hear from them again. Now what happens to interpersonal trust? This is
consistency, a word everyone in our discussion group mentioned as a determinant of
interpersonal trust.
Perhaps the quickest way to destroy interpersonal trust is not to follow through
consistently with an agreement. A promise is essentially an if-then contingency. It
specifies that a certain consequence will follow a certain behavior. Whether the consequence
is positive or negative, trust decreases when the behavior is not rewarded or penalized as
promised.
One of the problems with punitive contingencies is that they are difficult to implement
fairly and consistently. It's easy to state a policy that anyone not using appropriate personal
protective equipment will be "written up," but it's quite difficult or impossible to carry out
this contingency consistently. What about safety incentive programs that offer everyone a
reward when no injuries occur over a designated time period and participants observe coworkers getting hurt but not turning in an injury report? Similar trust-busting effects occur

with "safe employee of the month" programs that select winners according to subjective
(nonbehavioral) criteria or dont consider everyone consistently as a potential award
recipient?

Commitment
People who are dependable and reliable are not only showing consistency, they are
demonstrating commitment. When you follow through on a promise or pledge to do
something, you tell others they can count on you. You can be trusted to do what you say you
will do. Making a commitment and honoring it, builds trust in both intention and ability.

Consensus
Demonstrating personal commitment to a mission, purpose, or goal helps to build group
consensus. When a work group reaches consensus about something, all group members agree
on a decision or course of action and are willing to support it. Leaders or group facilitators
who develop consensus among people build interpersonal trust. Consensus-building is the
opposite of top-down decision making, and is not the same as negotiating, calling for a vote
and letting the majority win, or working out a compromise between two differing sets of
opinions
Whenever the results of a group decision-making process come across as "win-lose," some
mistrust is going to develop. A majority of the group might be pleased, but others will be
discontented and might actively or passively resist involvement. Even the "winners" could
feel lowered interpersonal trust. "We won this decision, but what about next time?" Without
solid back-up support for the decision, the outcome will be less than desired. Without
everyone's buy-in and commitment we can't expect optimal participation.
There's no quick fix to building consensus. It requires plenty of interpersonal
communication, including straightforward opinion sharing, intense discussion, emotional
debate, active listening, careful evaluation, methodical organization, and systematic
prioritizing. But on important matters, the outcome is well worth the investment. When you
develop a solution or process every potential participant can get behind and champion, you
have cultivated the degree of interpersonal trust needed for total involvement.

Character
This final C-word means different things to different people. Generally, a person with
"character" is considered honest, ethical, and principled. People with character are credible
or worthy of another person's trust because they display confidence and competence in
following a consistent set of morally-sound beliefs. They are believable and trusted because
they know who they are; they know where they want to go; and they know how to get there.
All of the strategies discussed here for cultivating a trusting culture are practiced by a
person with character. Therefore, this C-word epitomizes interpersonal trust from both the
intention and ability perspective. Consider two special characteristics of people with
character.
First, individuals with character are willing to admit vulnerability. They realize they aren't
perfect and need behavioral feedback from others. To improve, they ask for feedback from
others On a scale from 1 to 10, how safe are my work practices? They know their
strengths and weaknesses, and find exemplars to model.
By actively listening to others and observing their behaviors, individuals with character
learn how to improve their own performance. If they're building a high-performance team,
they can readily find people with knowledge, skills, and abilities to complement their own
competencies. They know how to make diversity work for them, their group, and the entire
organization. They understand that group decision-making and participation benefit from

diversity, even though obtaining consensus from a diverse group is relatively cumbersome
and time consuming.
Having the courage to admit your weaknesses means you're willing to apologize when
you've made a mistake and to ask for forgiveness. There is probably no better way to build
trust between individuals than to own up to an error that might have affected another person.
Of course you should also indicate what you will do better next time, or you should ask for
specific advice on how to improve. This kind of vulnerability enables you to heed the
powerful enrichment principle from Frank Bird and George Germain Good, better best.
Never let us rest, until good is better, and better best.37
What is your trust level for a group leader who not only admits failure but continually
seeks ways to improve? This is the kind of person you want on your team. Right! You can
level with this person about your own incompetencies or insecurities without fear of ridicule
or reprisal. You trust this person will appreciate your desire to improve and will offer the
guidance you need to do better. You also trust this individual to maintain the confidentiality
of any disclosure of personal failure or vulnerability.
While admitting personal vulnerability is a powerful way to build interpersonal trust, the
surest way to reduce interpersonal trust is to tell one person about the weakness of another.
In this situation it's natural to think, "If he talks that way about her, I wonder what he says
about me behind my back." It's obvious how criticizing or demeaning others in their absence
can lead to interpersonal suspiciousness and mistrust.
"Back-stabbing" leads to more "back-stabbing," and eventually to a work culture of
independent people doing their own thing, fearful of making an error and unreceptive to any
kind of interpersonal observation and feedback. Participation wont improve nor increase in
such a culture. Start to build interpersonal trust by making a personal commitment and
implementing a team policy of no "back-stabbing." People with character, as defined here,
always talk about other people as if they can hear you. In other words, to replace
interpersonal mistrust with trust, never criticize other individuals behind their backs.
24. From Pushing Priorities to Supporting Values. Priorities shift daily depending upon
situations and deadlines, but values are stable. Safety needs to become a personal value, and
this can happen through mindful self-talk and social support regarding these paradigm shifts.
Safety is our priority. This is probably the most common safety slogan found in
workplaces and voiced by safety leaders, and by flight attendants prior to air travel. Many
signs, pens, buttons, hats, T-shirts, and notepads display this message. No wonder safety and
health professionals are surprised when the author claims safety should not be a priority. To
justify this proclamation, consider the following scenario:
Think about a typical workday morning. We all follow a prioritized agenda, often a
standard routine, before traveling to work. Some people eat a hearty breakfast, read the
morning newspaper, take a shower, and wash dishes. Others wake up early enough to go for
a morning jog before work. Some grab a roll and a cup of coffee, and leave their home in
disarray until they get back in the evening. In each of these scenarios the agenda--the
priorities--are different. Yet there is one common activity. Its not a priority but a basic
value. Do you know what it is?
One morning you wake up late. Perhaps your alarm-clock failed. You have only 15
minutes to prepare for work. Your morning routine changes drastically. Priorities must be
rearranged. You might skip breakfast, a shower, or a shave. Yet every morning schedule still
has one item in common. Its not a priority, capable of being dropped from a routine due to
time constraints or a new agenda. No, this particular morning activity represents a value
weve been taught as infants, and its never compromised. Have you guessed it by now?
Yes, this common link in everyones morning routine, regardless of time constraints, is
getting dressed.

This simple scenario shows how circumstances can alter behavior and priorities. Actually,
labeling a behavior a priority implies its order in a hierarchy of daily activities can be
rearranged. How often does this happen at work? Does safety sometimes take a back seat
when the emphasis is on other priorities such as production quantity or quality?
Its human nature to shift priorities, or behavioral hierarchies, according to situational
demands or contingencies. But values remain constant. The early-morning anecdote above
illustrates that the activity of getting dressed is a value that is never dropped from the
routine. Shouldnt working safely hold the same status as getting dressed? Safe work
practices should occur regardless of the demands of a particular day.
25. From Independence to Interdependence. We are not isolated individuals, but a collective
and interconnected community.38
Focus your efforts to optimize the system, W. Edwards Deming tells us in his best sellers
on total quality management, Out of The Crisis and The New Economics.39 Peter Senge
stresses that systems thinking is The Fifth Discipline,7 and key to continuous improvement.
And Stephen Coveys discussion of interdependency, win-win contingencies, and synergy in
his popular self-help book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,40 is founded on
systems thinking and a community perspective.
Geller and Veazie propose and explicate in The Courage Factor16 the amount of courage a
person needs to intervene on behalf of another individual decreases as the degree of
connectedness between the two people increases.
Developing a community or interdependent spirit in an organization, a classroom, or a
family unit leads to two primary human-performance payoffs: a) individuals become more
self-motivated to do the right thing, and b) people are more likely to actively care for the
well-being of others.

In Conclusion
Optimizing the people side of occupational safety requires a continuous-learning mindset,
one thats skeptical but open to considering new evidence-based proposals for intervening on
behalf of the welfare of oneself and others. The all too common top-down and punitive
approach to managing people for injury prevention reflects perpetual confusion and
misunderstanding of the human dynamics of keeping people safe. The 25 paradigm shifts
recommended in this presentation are founded on research in behavioral and psychological
science, and achieving these shifts will enable the development and sustainability of a worldclass AC4P safety culture.
However, attempts by leaders to attain these paradigm shifts will not be easy. It will
require appropriate and relevant education, training, customization, commitment, and
continual evaluation and refinement. Start small and build successively. Accept the
challenge to improve your safety culture by progressing from the traditional top-down safetycop approach to injury-prevention interventions that focus on inclusion including the
workers who have the most to gain from an injury-free workplace. And accept the fact that
occupational safety is a never-ending continuous-improvement process.
On the last afternoon of a four-day workshop delivered by Dr. Deming30, a participant
stood up and asked, Dr. Deming, youve taught us so much, and youve made it clear that so
much change is needed in our work cultures. With so much improvement called for, can we
really expect to make a difference in our lifetime? Dr. Deming, at age 91, replied, Thats all
youve got!

We do only have our brief lifetimes to make a beneficial difference in the critical human
dynamics of our work cultures. We wont do this with quick-fix aims for short-term gains.
Before attempting to advance the human side of safety, trainers, consultants and change
agents need to dedicate time and effort to learning the evidence-based principles of
behavioral and psychological science that can inform the development of effective
interventions for improving peoples safety-related behaviors, attitudes, expectations, and
person-states.

Notes
1. Geller, E.S. (2014) (Ed.). Actively caring for people: Cultivating a culture of
compassion. Newport, VA: Make-A-Difference, LLC.
2. Geller, E. S. (2014) (Ed.). Actively caring at your school: How to make it happen.
Newport, VA: Make-A-Difference, LLC.
3. Rogers, C. (1951). Carl Rogers on personal power: Inner strength and its revolutionary
impact. New York: Delacorte; Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior.
New York: Macmillan.
4. Geller, E.S. (2005). People-based safety: The source. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal
Training Technologies Corporation; Geller, E.S. (2008). Leading people-based safety:
Enriching your culture. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal Training Technologies
Corporation; Geller, E.S. (2001). The psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press; Gilbert, T.F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy
performance. Washington, D.C.: The International Society for Performance
Improvement; McSween, T.E. (2003). The values-based safety process: Improving your
safety culture with a behavioral approach (Second Edition). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
5. Eckenfelder, D. J. (1996). Values-driven safety. Rockville, MD: Government
Institutes, Inc.
6. Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power
of positive reinforcement (Second Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
7. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday/Currency.
8. Geller, E.S. (1998). Beyond safety accountability: How to increase personal
responsibility. Neenah, WI: J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
9. Chance, P. (2007). The ultimate challenge: Prove B.F. Skinner wrong. The Behavior
Analyst, 30, 153-160.
10. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum; Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R.
(1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguin
Book; Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Intrinsic motivation and self-determinism in
human behavior. New York: Plenum; Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Selfdeterminism theory and the foundation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-75.
11. Geller, E. S., & Veazie, R. A. (2010). When on ones watching: Living and leading selfmotivation. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal Training and Technologies Corporation.
12. McClelland, D.C. (1958). Methods of measuring human motivation. In J.W.
Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand;
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
13. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. Cambrdige, MA: Cambrdige University Press; Martin, A. K., & Marsh,
H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.

14. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to
noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417;
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability achievement goals, and individual
differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal
of Personality, 62, 67-85; Rhodewalt, F., & Fairfield, M. (1991). Claimed
self-handicaps
and the self-handicapper: The relations of reduction in intended effort to
performance.
Journal of Research in Personality, 1991, 25, 402-417.
15. Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16. Geller, E.S., & Veazie, R.A. (2009). The courage factor: Leading people-based culture
change. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal Training and Technologies Corporation.
17. Geller, E. S. (2006). The power of safety communication: Five types of conversation to
improve performance. Industrial Safety and Hygiene News, 40 (6), pp. 16, 19
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, N. (2002). Crucial conversations:
Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill; . Patterson, K., Grenny,
J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, N. (2005). Crucial confrontations:Tools for resolving
broken promises, violated expectations,and bad behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
18. Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people (1981 Edition). New York:
Galahad Books; Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1981). The one-minutre manager. New
York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
19. Geller, E.S. (1997). Practical behavior-based safety: Step-by-step methods to
improve your workplace. Neenah, WI: J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc.; Geller, E.S. (2005).
People-based safety: The source. Virginia Beach, VA: Coastal Training
Technologies
Corporation.
20. Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
21. Alavosius, M.P., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1990). Acquistion and maintenance of health-care
routines as a function of feedback density. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,
151-162; Geller, E.S. (1995). Safety coaching: Key to achieving a Total Safety
Culture.
Professional Safety, 40 (7), 16-22; Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & de Santamaria, C. (1980).
Industrial safety hazard reduction through performance feedback. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 13, 287-295.
22. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215; Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147; Rogers, C. (1951). Carl Rogers on
personal power: Inner strength and its revolutionary impact. New York: Delacorte.
23. Allesandra, T., & OConnor, M.S. (1996). The platinum rule: Discover the four basic
business personalities and how they can lead you to success. New York: Warren Books,
Inc.
24. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational process affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 1 (10), 1040-1048; Dweck, C.S., & Elliott, E.S. (1983). Achievement
motivation. In P. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology
(Vol. IV). New York: Wiley.
25. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, Inc.
26. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, Inc., p. 71.
27. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, Inc., p. 72.
28. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, Inc., p. 73.
29. Geller, E.S. (1996). The psychology of safety: How to improve behaviors and
attitudes on the job. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company; Geller, E.S. (2001). The
psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
30. Deming, W. E. (1991, May). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Four-day
workshop presented in Cincinnati, OH by Quality Enhancement Seminars, Inc.
31. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations 1, 5-41; Lewin, K.

32.

33.
34.

35.
36.

37.
38.
39.

40.

(1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers in group dynamics. New York:
Harper.
Geller, E. S. (1996). The psychology of safety: How to improve behaviors and
attitudes on the job. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company; Geller, E. S. (2001). The
psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Geller, E. S. (2014). Are you a safety bully? Recognizing management methods that do
more harm than good. Professional Safety, 59 (1), 39-44.
Geller, E.S. (2001). The psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,
L.L.C.; Geller, E.S. (2013). Actively caring for people: Cultivating a culture of
compassion. Newport, VA: Make-A-Difference, LLC; Geller, E.S., & Wiegand, D.M.
(2005). People-based safety: Exploring the role of personality in injury prevention.
Professional Safety, 50 (12), 28-36.
Geller, E.S. (2003). The participation factor: How to increase involvement in
occupational safety. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1991). Second College Edition. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company; New Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1989). Springfield,
MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Publishers.
Bird, F. E., Jr. & Germain, G. L. (1987). Commitment. Loganville, GA: International Loss
Control Institute, Inc.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institutes of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study; Deming, W. E. (1993). The new
economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Sutdy.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon and
Schuster, Inc.