OHS Canada 25th Anniversary Best Editorial

The Power of Persuasion

January/February 1990

Motivating workers to wear personal protective equipment requires a delicate balance of positive and negative motivators.

By: Robert Ryckman

The image of an employer desperately searching for an effective program to convince workers to wear personal protective equipment seems mcongruous, if not downright ludicrous. Why would right-thinking individuals need encouragement to protect themselves from injury? Logic suggests that the basic instinct for survival would compel us to seek every available means to avoid damage to our bodies. And yet, time and again personal protective equipment (ppe) is found lying unused within arm's length of workers vulnerable to injury.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines motivation as the process of causing a person to act. Motivation can produce either positive or negative effects@ Positive motivators encourage workers to take positive action, such as wearing ppe. Negative motivators promote negative actions such as refusing to wear it.

Before a health and safety professional can convince workers to use ppe, it is essential to understand the factors that motivate resistance to the equipment. As in any problem-solving situation, the key to success is identifying the real problem, not simply the most apparent symptoms. In this case, the refusal to wear ppe is merely a symptorn. The real problem is the negative motivation that causes workers to risk their health.

Experience shows that the sooner a worker sees the results of an action, the stronger is the motivation to modify future behaviour accordingly. Workers exposed to such acute hazards as welding arcs, molten metal electrical shock, poisonous substances or corrosive liquids are unlikely to resist using ppe. The obvious and immediate consequences of inadequate protection far 6utweigh the negative motivation involved.

But for others who work without proper protection, in environments where the hazards are less acute, an accidentor illness-free health record tends to reinforce t e negative motivation. Being required to wear equipment that may be cumbersome and uncomfortable to protect against hazards that appear insignificant provides wor with an immediate reason not to wear the equipment. What many workers fail to realize is that old-fashioned luck or an extended latency period between exposure and the onset of disease usually has more 0 do with the absence of accident or illness than a low hazard level does.

Employers can use two strategies to counteract the effects of negative motivators: understand and attempt to minimize the negative aspects of wearing ppe, and provide positive rnotivation through education and training. A comprehensive personal protective equipment program listing, all types of ppe used in a company should bejointly developed by union and :management representatives. The program should incorporate various levels of reinforcement and worker support, beginning with education and training.

Negative motivation

Five strong negative motivators discourage workers from using ppe. It is essential that management identify each of these forces and establish a cornprehensive approach to address them.

Lack of training. A worker may have little or no knowledge of the hazards a workplace presents, and therefore may not recognize the need for ppe. Even if the hazards are understood, lack of training in the selection, use, and proper care of ppe may contribute to worker confusion about what protective equipment to wear or when protection has been compromised.

Proper training is the first step in any ppe program. workers should be taught the nature and degree of the hazards faced on the job, and the specific ppe necessary to protect against them.

Educating workers how to select ppe that is adequate for particular jobs is also critical. Safety professionals sometimes assume that workers understand more about workplace hazards and the terminology used to describe them than they actually do. For example, when choosing a respirator, the average worker may not necessarily recognize that paint "fumes" are really organic vapours and may select an inappropriate respirator. If the worker uses a piece of equipment not suited to the task and suffers negative health effects, he or she may conclude that protective equipment doesn't work and therefore there is no point to wearing it. Workers must be educated about the technical terms found on any ppe packages that outline use restrictions and guidelines.

How to maintain equipment so that it continues to deliver an adequate degree of protection must also be included in any education program. If equipment is not properly maintained and provides a decreasing amount of protection or task interference, there is a great temptation to remove it. One of the main reasons workers avoid wearing safety glasses, for example, is that the lenses are not clean or are so severely scratched that wearing the glasses impairs vision. Making supplies for regular cleaning easily accessible to workers could help reduce this negative motivator, but workers also need to be educated and encouraged to use them.

If workers have had a negative experience with ppe in the past, encouraging them to try it again can be difficult. Many negative experiences can be attributed to inadequate hygiene coupled with poor training. For example, a worker may have suffered an irritated ear canal or infection caused by volatile chemical substances or abrasive materials in the atmosphere being transferred to the worker when putting in earplugs. Workers need to be taught that inserting plugs with clean hands is essential. Providing an opportunity for workers to practice the procedures they learn through "hands-on" instruction is an invaluable teaching aid in all aspects of training.

Discomfort. The most frequent complaint from workers who wear ppe is of discomfort. Safety glasses can cause headaches, respirators can be hot and irritating to the face, ear plugs may cause ear aches or infection, and hard hats are usually heavy to wear. There is no denying it. Ppe can be uncomfortable. Education is the first step to overcoming this negative motivator.

Fortunately, equipment manufacturers are aware of these long-standing complaints about ppe, and many are addressing them in new equipment designs. Discomfort can be reduced if workers are allowed to select equipment from a range of models that provide equal protection. Offer equipment that provides both adequate protection and a degree of comfort. For example, lightweight disposable or reusable respirators may be selected if they are approved for the specific hazard. Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) or suppplied-air respirators blow clean air into the facepiece, which reduces the effort required to breathe and creates a cooling effect. Allowing workers to select the models they prefer will help overcome resistance to ppe and increase acceptance.

Increased Stress. Ppe that makes a job more difficult to perform or requires increased energy levels to wear, will discourage its proper use. Negative pressure respirators make breathing more difficult. This means workers must increase their efforts to perform the same amount of work, which places a heavier load on their cardiovascular systems. Protective clothing designed to be impermeable to chemicals or shield against radiant heat, places an increased energy demand on the worker and increases heat stress.

Gloves reduce dexterity and sensitivity to touch which can make intricate tasks difficult to perform. Productivity and quality control suffer as worker frustration and stress increase. Uninformed workers weigh the short-term pain against the less apparent long-term benefits and see a dubious gain. Still, personal protective equipment must be selected first to provide adequate protection and second to minimize physical and menw stress on the worker.

If stress cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by other means, schedule rest breaks and encourage workers to use them. Properly scheduled breaks provide temporary relief from stress. This can even increase productivity over the full shift.

Safety Hazards. Ppe designed to protect workers from one hazard may actually increase the risk of an accident from another hazard. Impaired vision, reduced communicating ability and reduced agility are the most common problems. Respirators reduce downward peripheral vision, increasing the risk of tripping. Full farepiece respirators reduce lateral vision, and exhaled air from some respirators, particularly the disposable or reusable type, tends to fog safety glasses and impair vision. Sweating can also fog safety glasses and goggles.

Cumbersome protective clothing may restrict movement and increase reaction time. Baggy protective clothing presents a tripping hazard and may get caught on projecting objects. These secondary hazards make it essential that protective equipment be matched correctly to the physical demands of thejob and the worker. Conduct a physical needs analysis for each hazardous occupation. If essential ppe creates safety hazards, then budget additional time to complete the task.

At times, Protective equipment creates hazards more serious than those it is designed to protect against. Such hazards could include the potential for protective clothing to be caught in moving machinery Parts or metatarsal guards on safety boots to catch on ladder rungs. If the hazard posed by ppe is much more severe than the jobrelated hazard, consider forgoing ppe for that particular task. However, safety Professionals should try to exercise their creativity in solving this kind of problem first.

In one case, a worker spray painting on a high scaffold was required to wear eye protection to guard against residual Paint spray. However, the glasses quickly became coated over, effectively blinding the worker and exposing him to a severe fall hazard. The safety professional replaced the safety glasses with a peel-off mylar strip that could be changed whenever vision became poor.

Peer Pressure. To some workers the use of personal protective equipment, particularly respirators, is psychologically unappealing. Workers may feel that maintaining a "macho" image is more important than safeguarding health. The attitude that "I'm a man, I can take it" is very real in many workplaces. The individual level of tolerance to a hazard such as an irritating atmosphere then becomes a measure of manhood, and the use of ppe considered "winipy."

Emphasis on health hazards does little to encourage this type of worker to wear ppe. The most successful approach in this case is to develop the perception that refusing to wear ppe is socially unacceptable. The proper use of ppe may be encouraged by reinforcing the idea through education and example that the smart professional worker is one who is concerned about personal health.

Positive motivation

Once negative motivators are clearly understood and attempts have been made to minimize them, positive motivation can be used to reinforce the message. The most effective, least expensive and, ironically, the least used positive motivator is motivating through example. All too often, senior management visiting the production floor neglect to wear appropriate protective equipment. It is ironic that often the more senior the management representative, the less ppe is likely to be used. Workers cannot be expected to take a ppe program seriously if executive managers wander through hazardous areas without the equipment made mandatory by management decree.

An improved health and safety record is also a strong positive motivator. The key is to ensure that this information is readily accessible to all workers. Posting reduced accident statistics, holding open discussions on the plant floor, sending personal letters to workers and using internal communications vehicles all serve to counteract negative motivators and encourage the use of ppe.

Although a simple strategy, the personalization of ppe has proved to be another positive motivator. Allow workers to paint their names on hard hats or sew them on protective clothing. Allow them to select their own preferred style of safety glasses. Incentive plans incorporating awards, special recognition and gifts as positive motivators have been tried with varying degrees of success. Health and safety professionals are divided in their opinions of these programs. Their responses vary from enthusiastic support to vehement opposition. Poor worker attitude, union antagonism or bad management are usually blamed for the failure of incentive programs. The success of an incentive program is usually credited to good employee relations, well-run joint health and safety committee systems or specific individuals. And while all these factors play a role, they are superficial to the success or failure of a safety incentives plan. The most important factors lie deeper. The balance of negative and positive motivators must be examined carefully.

Balancing positive and negative

If workers don't understand the need for personal protective equipment, if they find it irritating and uncomfortable to use, and if they face higher levels of stress, it is highly unlikely that a cap bearing the company logo is going to persuade them to change their minds. To be effective, positive motivators, such as incentives, must outweigh the negative motivation. Rewarding the use of ppe will succeed only if it is considered adequate compensation for the increased stress, and is used as part of a comprehensive ppe program. A comprehensive program may incorporate a reward system, but beware of superficial progress the key to success lies in changing attitudes, not in extrinsic rewards.

There may be workers who, for some inexplicable reason, simply refuse to wear personal protective equipment in the required area. Occupational health and safety legislation in all jurisdictions requires management to provide appropriate personal protective equipment and ensure that workers use it. It's not acceptable under the law to simply shrug if workers refuse to wear ppe. Legislation also requires that workers use the ppe provided. If all efforts to encourage worker compliance fail, management may have no choice but to use threats of discipline. Discipline should be administered through a written multi-phase program developed jointly by tabour and management.

Strong-arm tactics are obviously a last resort for an employer frustrated by worker apathy and escalating workers' compensation costs. Although the law requires that a worker be forced, if necessary, to wear ppe under hazardous conditions, the heavy-handed approach is seldom successful under normal conditions. Understanding what motivates workers, eliminating the negative and reinforcing the positive through education and training is a solid plan to motivate workers to wear ppe.