Classroom training in food and workplace safety, despite its necessity, is not enough to produce the expected results. Experience shows that front-line workers continue to make mistakes, sometimes critical ones, even after classroom training and successful testing seemingly confirmed comprehension of the key learning objectives. The incorporation of knowledge gained from classroom training and consistent application of it in day-to-day operations is a commonly misunderstood facet of training. An employee who attends classroom lectures and scores well in examinations is presumed to comprehend the training’s subject matter. Yet if food safety protocols and procedures do not translate to appropriate employee behavior on the line, knowledge may fade just as quickly as it does for college students who cram for a final exam and inevitably forget most of what they studied within days after taking the test.
Companies generally acknowledge the need for follow-up or refresher training to remedy bad habits and inconsistent employee behaviors, but all too often they lack the time and/or resources to reconvene a classroom training session. Inability to measure or ensure the retention of food safety and quality knowledge exposes the food manufacturer or processor to potential major risks and failure to achieve compliance to the satisfaction of the FDA, USDA, or third-party auditors. The FDA’s own study corroborates the idea of ineffective training as a contributing factor to recent food recalls.
Many companies rely on front-line supervisors to ensure food safety programs are followed and to correct non-compliances, even though they may lack supervisory training and adequate tools. These responsibilities along with refresher training “on the fly” require more documentation and a greater time commitment than some supervisors are afforded or skilled to deliver. For effective management, supervisors are expected to document and track employee mistakes in each worker’s personnel file. Unfortunately competing responsibilities to assure production goals are met tend to take priority over refresher training. In this typical scenario, what is lost is the ability to coach employee behaviors that consistently keeps the focus on safe practices. In fact, overlooking the importance of behavioral change through coaching is to ignore a leading indicator of food safety and quality compliance.
The Impact of Behavior
Focusing on behavior in the workplace is nothing new. Behavioral theorists as well as progressive supervisors and executives have long understood that behavior has a powerful impact on accomplishment and goal achievement. The role of behavior has certainly not escaped the scrutiny of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which often assesses it in agency audits. One does not need a plethora of statistics to prove that a motivated and engaged workforce is more likely to dedicate itself to successful outcomes than employees who are disengaged and feel no sense of teamwork or commitment. Employees’ lack of motivation stems from a variety of factors common to the food processing and manufacturing industry: ineffective or lack of training, supervision and support, challenging work conditions, and complex and changing job responsibilities.
The goal has always been to influence behavior on a daily basis so that food safety, workplace safety, and compliance are in the forefront of everyone’s priorities on the plant floor. Annual refresher training is simply inadequate to insure a robust organizational culture. An employee’s high examinations score will not guarantee application of the same concepts months later. Without a routine focus on food safety, employees may not recognize the importance of their role or the depth of their accountability in achieving safety and compliance. Behavior has to be routinely observed, corrected when needed, and validated.
Attorney Shawn Stevens, who has represented some of the largest food producers in the U.S., understands the importance of behavior and worker attitudes. “When there is an absence in the culture to continuously motivate employees to do better, it is called complacency, and with it comes risk,” Stevens says. “There has to be a commitment to supporting employee programs that highlight the importance of food safety.” Further, Stevens believes there can be no excuse for failing to conduct recurrent training to keep employee behavior focused. “When it comes to food safety, it has to be continuous,” he says. “There should never be anything like a bare minimum—it is unacceptable.”
Understanding the driving forces behind behavior can help plants achieve compliance, but many QA/QC professionals lack this particular training. Each plant has its own operational culture that employees learn through experience, observation, and instruction. To positively influence their operational culture, it is essential for food safety professionals to assure the consistent execution of food safety protocols, including adequately addressing unacceptable behaviors. Additionally, it is incumbent upon frontline supervisors to verify that workers are exhibiting appropriate, consistent behaviors in support of the plant’s food safety and quality programs.
Study and Survey Findings
The role of behavior and the use of coaching to influence a safe and productive process that facilitates compliance were tested in a comprehensive study. The results show that the approach works. Within the last few years, a U.S. study and a global survey have also provided data on both as a means for attaining compliance.
In 2012 and 2013, Robert Meyer, a food industry expert for more than 40 years, developed a study to examine whether a methodology could be established to sustainably influence and change the behavior of front-line food production workers. Specifically, the study concentrated on the use of supervisory coaching that could drive employee performance to sustain food safety practices. Meyer conducted the study at four U.S. food production plants in the Midwest, South, and West Coast. Production processes that required improvement were identified at each location, as were the standards for measuring effective job performance. Each one of those standards was sequenced into process steps that were then broken down into a sequence of effective behaviors. Finally, supervisors were required to conduct corrective observations through the use of detailed checklists that contained the steps and actions necessary for compliance. The supervisors immediately initiated corrective actions when they discovered non-compliance activity.
Compliance levels were measured in three steps of the study at each of the facilities: pre-training, post-training, and after corrective observations. The statistics are quite revealing:
- The average pre-training compliance level was only 68 percent, certainly far below what should be considered acceptable;
- Post-training compliance increased to 82 percent—a higher figure, but one that still leaves room for improvement; and
- After three corrective observations, the compliance rate jumped to 94 percent on average for the participating facilities.
One can safely conclude based on the study’s findings that behavior can be positively influenced to achieve safe food production. The same is true of increased productivity—an improvement noted by management at each of the four locations. Most of all, the findings from Meyer’s study indicate that behavior qualifies as a leading indicator of a company’s compliance.
Results from the 2014 Global Food Safety Training Survey provide more insight about the growing recognition of behavior and coaching as essential tools for compliance. The worldwide survey developed by Campden BRI in the U.K. along with several partners, including BRC Global Standards, The Safe Quality Food (SQF) Institute, SGS in Geneva, Switzerland, and Alchemy Systems, was submitted to 25,000 global food processors and manufacturers. Its purpose was to help companies compare and benchmark their training protocols with their counterparts worldwide.
Survey questions covered all aspects of food industry training including budget, training activities, deficiencies, and compliance issues. Data from respondents revealed a surprising number of audit deficiencies due to employee failure to either understand or apply concepts taught in the classroom. However for the first time, the survey looked into measuring sustained and positive food safety behaviors through coaching. Responses indicated an increased reliance on coaching, as respondents apparently recognized the importance of influencing behavior on the floor.
But can behavior, or anything else for that matter, be considered a leading indicator? Yes, according to a February 2014 article in EHS Today, a publication covering environmental, health, and safety issues. The article reported on a Carnegie Mellon University study determining that “75 percent in the variation in the frequency of safety incidents can be explained by the information derived from safety inspections and observations.” Author Griffin Schultz notes that based on the study, employee behavior “can provide information about both the direct and indirect causes of future safety incidents.” Schultz’s conclusion: Safety leading indicators can be determined through inspections and observations. It’s a finding that can and should be applied to observations of employee behavior in critical food safety and quality activities.
Coaching Through Technology
Management may be reluctant to get supervisors involved in coaching for several reasons. It can be time-consuming and work-intensive due to the heavy volume of record keeping that coaching necessitates. Then there is the question whether supervisors have been adequately trained to be coaches. How do they know specific questions to ask, let alone act upon? Leave it to today’s technology to provide an answer. One example is a tablet-based app developed to provide supervisors with customized templates enabling them to ask the right questions and conduct corrective observations. All the data is instantaneously entered in the employee’s file, saving supervisors considerable time and paperwork required for manual data entry.
Plants that are applying this technology have seen improvements as supervisors recognize the value of these tools. “Initially, our supervisors thought this was one more thing that would take away from their other responsibilities, but the automated tracking is making it easier and faster for them,” says Esmeralda Garcia, training supervisor for OSI Industries, a global food provider. “Also our workers understand and accept that this is a safety element, and that was a critical point that has influenced their behavior.” Garcia says the technology has made coaching much easier and less work intensive because “it is easy to identify problems, make adjustments, and see the positive results.”
Leading indicators are important because they represent meaningful barometers of each company’s current food safety compliance status. The OSI experience shows coaching can have a powerful impact on food safety and quality. Successful employee coaching as part of a well-developed behavioral change program offers tangible and intangible returns on investment— tangible in that companies will have reduced their risk exposure as well as help assure they are staying in compliance and intangible in that employees are accountable for their behaviors. Quality assurance and training officers should consider routine employee observations and coaching as a food safety leading indicator program—a vital step for keeping product, workers, and consumers safe.
Dunn Nelson is a microbiologist and vice president of technical services for Alchemy Systems, Austin, Texas. Reach her at [email protected].
ACCESS THE FULL VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE
To view this article and gain unlimited access to premium content on the FQ&S website, register for your FREE account. Build your profile and create a personalized experience today! Sign up is easy!
GET STARTED
Already have an account? LOGIN