Gravina, N., Cummins, B., & Austin, J. (2017)

Overview

  • Commentary by E. Scott Geller published in Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) 37:3$–$4 , pp.339–346.

  • Central question: “Is traditional Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) sufficient for sustaining process safety, or must we add clear language and the concept of person-states?”

  • Motivating disasters & dates:

    • NASA Space Shuttle Challenger explosion – 1986.

    • Deepwater Horizon oil spill – 2010.

  • Immediate context: special JOBM issue on process safety following the “call” by Bogard et al. 2015 to examine contingencies underlying the normalization of deviance.

Background & Context

  • Process Safety = preventing low-frequency, high-impact industrial disasters.

  • Normalization of Deviance (Vaughan 1996): Gradual acceptance of rule-breaking as normal.

  • Three-term contingency (behavioral ABC)

    • S^D \;:\; R \;\rightarrow\; S^R_{+/-}

    • Crucial for analysing & redesigning safety behaviors.

  • Articles in the special issue tackle the above via distinct behavioral lenses.

Summary of Contributing Articles

  • Bogard, Ludwig, Staats, & Kretchmen 2015

    • Issue framing; stress on analyzing contingencies leading to deviance.

  • Ludwig 2017a, 2017b

    • Describes complex interlocking meta-contingencies in process-safety systems.

  • Hyten & Ludwig 2017

    • Examine complacency as behavioral pattern; introduce the avoidance paradox (absence of immediate reinforcement for safe acts).

  • Lebbon & Sigurdsson 2017

    • Behavioural variability, shortcutting, habituation, and short-cut reinforcement.

  • McSween & Moran 2017

    • Extend Behavior-Based Safety (BBS) from frontline to boardroom; reinterpret Heinrich’s Triangle.

  • Gravina, Cummins, & Austin 2017

    • Leadership’s influence on process safety; argue for behavioral-science literacy among executives.

  • Rodriguez, Bell, Brown, & Carter 2017

    • Integrate human factors, fluency-based training, and behavioral systems analysis; map to dispositions like competence, attention, attitude, risk perception.

Language & Terminology Concerns

  • Technical Jargon Barrier

    • Academic prose may be inaccessible to CEOs & safety practitioners.

  • Inconsistent or Problematic Terms

    • “Accident” ⇒ implies chance ➜ replace with injury, fatality, property damage.

    • “Incident” ⇒ sometimes sounds trivial.

    • “Behavior analysis” vs. “Behavioral science” vs. “Applied behavioral science”.

    • Misuse of positive reinforcement

    • Proper def.: pleasant consequence that increases the preceding behavior.

    • Supportive feedback ≠ positive reinforcer if behavior does not subsequently increase.

    • Leader (transformational) vs Manager (transactional)

    • Leaders evoke discretionary, self-motivated acts (Daniels & Daniels 2014).

Concept of Person-States

  • Person-state = temporary dispositional condition (e.g., self-motivation, complacency).

  • Critics (Crowell & Anderson 2004) label such constructs “mentalistic” or “explanatory fictions”.

  • Geller argues person-states can function like establishing operations (EOs) (Michael 1982):

    • Alter the value of consequences.

    • Evoke behavior even in the absence of explicit external reinforcement.

  • Examples of activating person-states:

    • Self-determinism (Deci & Ryan 1995)

    • Self-persuasion (Aronson 1999)

    • Self-motivation (Geller 2016b)

Establishing Operations & Self-Directed Behaviour

  • Without extrinsic accountability, professionals (e.g., Blue Angels pilots, astronaut Jim Wetherbee) still review errors & seek feedback.

  • Hypothesised internal motivators: satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs

    • \text{Autonomy}

    • \text{Relatedness}

    • \text{Competence}

  • Feedback enhances perceived competence, sustaining behaviour in absence of S^R_{+}.

  • Therefore, cultivating certain person-states can offset the avoidance paradox and complacency.

Bridging OBM with Psychological Science

  • Geller notes Skinnerian pessimism about societal change (Skinner 1987) and Chance’s challenge “prove Skinner wrong”.

  • Immediate vs delayed consequences & individual vs collective consequences (Chance 2007) still dominate behaviour.

  • Psychological constructs can enrich OBM without abandoning empirical rigor.

Four Additional Principles Proposed by Geller

  1. Changeable person-states (self-persuasion, self-direction, self-accountability, self-motivation) can trigger behaviour absent extrinsic contingencies.

  2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs connects person-states to rewarding consequences.

    • Satisfying higher-order needs (esteem, self-actualization) fuels self-motivation.

  3. Self-Transcendence (Maslow 1971) sits atop the revised hierarchy.

    • Acts benefitting others (e.g., enforcing safety) reinforce self-transcendent motives.

  4. Helping Others Is Reinforcing

    • Safety behaviours that protect co-workers fulfil social acceptance & self-actualization, becoming intrinsically rewarding.

Implications for Practice

  • Practitioners should:

    • Adopt consistent, lay-friendly language.

    • Map behavioural interventions to both three-term contingencies and desired person-states.

    • Use feedback systems that enhance competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

    • Design recognitions that appeal to self-transcendence, not just external rewards.

    • Train leaders (not merely managers) to inspire discretionary safety behaviour.

    • Replace terms like “accident” with behaviourally precise descriptors to emphasize preventability.

References Cited in the Commentary (Selective)

  • Aronson 1999 – Self-persuasion.

  • Baum 1994 – Behaviourism overview.

  • Biglan 2015 – The Nurture Effect.

  • Bogard et al. 2015 – Call on process safety contingencies.

  • Chance 2007 – Challenge to prove Skinner wrong.

  • Crowell & Anderson 2004 – Critique on person-states.

  • Daniels & Daniels 2014 – Measure of a leader.

  • Deci 1975; Deci & Ryan 1995 – Self-determination theory.

  • Foti & Boyd 2016 – Leadership & followership.

  • Geller 1996–2017 – Multiple works on safety & actively caring.

  • Hyten & Ludwig 2017 – Complacency analysis.

  • Lebbon & Sigurdsson 2017 – Behavioural variability.

  • Ludwig 2017a, 2017b – Meta-contingencies in process safety.

  • Maslow 1971 – Self-transcendence.

  • Michael 1982, 1993 – Establishing operations & ABA concepts.

  • Rodriguez et al. 2017 – Human factors integration.

  • Ryan & Deci 2000 – Intrinsic motivation.

  • Skinner 1987 – Pessimism about behavioural solutions.

  • Vaughan 1996 – Challenger decision.

  • Watson & Tharp 1997 – Self-directed behaviour.

Key Take-Away Formulae & Models

  • Three-term contingency: S^D \;:\; R \;\rightarrow\; S^R_{+}

  • Establishing operation influence: EO \;\rightarrow\; (S^D \;:\; R \;\rightarrow\; S^R_{+/-}) – where EO modifies consequence value & response likelihood.

  • Maslow (revised): \text{Physiological} \rightarrow \text{Safety} \rightarrow \text{Love/Belonging} \rightarrow \text{Esteem} \rightarrow \text{Self-Actualization} \rightarrow \text{Self-Transcendence}