Topless - because it works, it works

The inspector I am accompanying interrupts the work in a friendly but firm manner. The man climbing down the ladder has just installed a cable on the ceiling of a future shopping center. He is not wearing safety shoes, hearing protection or safety goggles, and the cables to his equipment are lying across the access routes, to name just a few things that are immediately noticeable.

Shaking hands, friendly greeting. My companion identifies himself as an inspector, the man reacts with relief, and then comes the sentence that has bothered me ever since: «I know, I know. But I'm the boss, after all, you check my employees, and I keep a close eye on my people. Those three over there, they carry everything. I'm the boss, it's not about me.»

Shortly afterwards in the conversation, it becomes clear that he has instructed his employees to wear PPE - not so that nothing happens to them, but so that no fines are incurred in the event of an inspection. He sees himself as being outside of this logic.

What is surprising in this scene is nevertheless something fundamental: PPE is worn here as protection against consequences. Perhaps a rare reason, but certainly not an isolated case.

So let's ask the question again: Why does someone not wear PPE? The knee-jerk answer is often: Convenience. Carelessness. Too little awareness. These explanations are not wrong, but - let's be honest - they have been outdated for decades. What is actually often behind it is more complex and usually much more interesting psychologically.

The group determines behavior more efficiently than any regulation

Adherence to social norms (compliance) is not a phenomenon of individuals. Whether a norm is adhered to or not is determined by our social relationships. If you arrive at a construction site in the morning and see that the boss is «topless» and the foreman is not wearing a helmet, you need a strong sense of self-protection to put it on anyway.

Social norms regulate behavior more efficiently than regulations because they do not require external enforcement. Anyone who violates them does not risk a fine, but rather alienation, perhaps even exclusion. For most people, these 'social costs' are more tangible than abstract accident risks.

This means that instructions addressed to individuals and aimed at individual misconduct are not effective here. Not because the content is wrong, but because it misses the actual control mechanism. If you want compliance, you have to reach everyone in the group - and within the group, especially those whose behavior is considered a role model and a benchmark.

Reactance: Why rules sometimes have the opposite effect

There is a psychological effect that rarely occurs in debates about occupational health and safety, although it can be observed constantly in everyday life: reactance. When people feel that their freedom of action is being restricted or that they are being patronized, they react with resistance - sometimes in exactly the opposite direction to the desired change in behaviour.

For experienced professionals who have been doing the same job for twenty years, a new rule, a tour of inspection or an overly direct instruction can have precisely this effect. In this case, «I know what I'm doing» is not an excuse, but an emphasis on professional identity.

And this is the only way to explain why protective measures such as the obligation to wear bump caps are sometimes rejected by representatives of co-determination as harassment for employees.

Tip: Regulations that presuppose competence and address personal responsibility generate less counter-pressure than those that signal control and mistrust.

«Professionals don't need that»

PSA can also signal the following: I may be new here, I don't know the risks, I don't trust myself. In occupational groups with a strong professional identity, wearing protective equipment is sometimes linked to an implicit message: That you need it shows that you need it.

This reading is not irrational, but can once again be traced back to the already described shaping of social norms in groups, which determine whether someone is part of the team or not.

«There is really only one reason why PPE is not worn: Because it's possible.»

The reverse is also interesting: in some cultures, consistently wearing PPE is a mark of quality and a sign of professionalism. «We work safely» can also mean that. And those who don't wear PPE are simply «outside» and not part of the team. Managers play a key role in shaping these social norms, together with the team members who are looked after.

Tip: Instead of working through the PSA refusers with painstaking diplomacy, energy is better invested in good cooperation between the manager and the role models in the team. Advantage: The employees who then follow follow on their own initiative and not because of a rule.

Safety fatigue: When too many signals say nothing

There is a condition that researchers describe as 'safety fatigue' and which can be observed in practice in many places: people switch off. They don't do this out of indifference, but because the amount of information, regulations, notices, instructions and reminders has reached a level at which the brain stops processing them individually.

If you walk past countless warning signs every day, at some point you will no longer see them. This is because the brain filters out repetition in order to free up capacity for something new. In environments with a high level of regulation, this is exactly what often happens: Employees prioritize themselves, according to their own criteria, and what is taken for granted often falls away first.

Safety fatigue is a direct consequence of often well-intentioned overdriving and arises as a so-called «unintended consequence». More signs and warning signs do not solve the problem. Surprising formats that generate attention and, above all, communication that not only informs but also triggers people to think or think for themselves are also helpful.

The blind spot in management

Back to the construction site. What the man from the ladder describes sounds like a pragmatic solution - and in his own logic, it is. He has understood the system: Checks are primarily for the employees, and if PPE is not worn, confirmation, warnings and even an increase in premiums are threatened according to implementation procedures. So he admonishes his colleagues to wear PPE, because that prevents trouble. That's it. You could now say: It doesn't matter why PPE is worn, the main thing is that it's there. But if there are no external factors in such situations (e.g. because checks are not expected at night), then the PPE quickly ends up somewhere else.

There are again findings from research on the special situation in small and very small companies: especially in small companies, when owners simply work in a team, the awareness that one's own behavior shapes the social interaction of all is often lost. If the boss works «topless» because it works for a short time, then it works for everyone else too. It is a public statement about what is considered normal in this company. And it doesn't happen on purpose, it happens because the leadership role is lost as a cultural reinforcer in everyday life at eye level.

Management in small and micro businesses is therefore often more challenging than management in large companies with regulated hierarchies and a large occupational safety department. In a joinery or hairdressing salon, the boss wears many hats in a figurative sense. They need more role awareness, reflection and the ability to read their own behavior as communication - and to ask: What am I saying about occupational health and safety with my behavior without saying a word?

So what's the problem?

There is actually only one reason why PPE is not worn: because it is possible. What lies one level below this «enabling», and the many ways in which it can be made impossible again, is what makes our work in prevention so exciting.

The future may also lie in AI-supported access and control systems that recognize the PPE on the person as incomplete and can then prevent access to certain work areas. This is already state of the art in large companies or on Asian construction sites. However, our hairdresser on the corner is unlikely to install a camera system at the washbasin that blocks the tap as long as he is not wearing gloves. Or will he?

Our man on the ladder would certainly do well to rethink his world view of occupational safety and his role in it and to be more aware of his opportunities to exert influence. The inspector I accompanied planted a seed for this in the conversation. What I learned once again: For all the hype about technology and progress, it's still primarily people who influence people.