Great discussion! I also have extensive training and experience in adult learning and neuroscience, and it is a constant source of frustration to see how much training is limited to "what" and not enough emphasis on "why". If people don't understand "why", how can we expect them to apply information intelligently or make good decisions about it?!?? Even more concerning is that if we don't take them through the reasoning and "why" behind a safety requirement, they are likely to insert their own ideas and assumptions, which may take them into unsafe territory.

One of the challenges is that so many people have been trained and assessed as "competent" based on inadequate instructional design and flawed competency assessment tools. All too often training perpetuates the narrow focus on "what", with the unspoken "why" being something along the lines of "Because it's a regulatory requirement" or "Because it's Health and Safety" - which, of course, doesn't really explain much of anything for anyone! How do we go about breaking this cycle of mindless indoctrination??

We also have to start realising that a so-called subject matter expert (SME) is not automatically a good trainer. "Training" focuses too much on just the inputs. "Learning" focuses on outcomes and requires much deeper understanding of human factors such as neurological and psychological elements. Too many SME 'trainers' just think it is about "downloading" information. Even some attempts at getting learners to interact will fail if learners are not engaged and the trainer is not listening and responsive to the needs of learners (for example, I have been delivering training in circumstances where there was lack of trust and underlying resistance to their managers. I paused the training delivery to put this discussion on the table and clear the air before trying to proceed with our agenda).

Making matters worse is that too many training providers rely on the lowest level of competency, which is essentially being able to remember and repeat something - using assessments with obvious multiple choice answers that don't require any real processing or thinking, just regurgitating data. Multiple choice answers are easy to mark and more likely to get a 'pass' result so the provider will get paid, but being able to select the right option presented to them on a plate doesn't really verify understanding, and it often doesn't translate to workplace behaviours.

If more training was designed and delivered according to best practices in instructional design and based on understanding meaningful competency requirements (a per Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning, for example), with assessments aimed at genuine competency outcomes rather than just ticking a box to move on to the next thing, we might start making some headway.

I agree with Sheri;
Getting the answers correct on a multi-choice test given by their trainer, during a training session is not competent, it is trained (how many times and different ways should we test understanding?).

We should not expect truly competent people to follow a process or procedure just because 'they will be in trouble with H&S' if they don't. If we can educate them as to the 'why' when they do take process or procedure shortcuts they understand the limitations and risks of those shortcuts.

I'm lucky that my industry takes competency vs training very seriously, but we still have trainers and assessors out there who don't get it. We have deliberately made procedures less prescriptive and more about freedom to think and act within a critical risk control framework.

Thanks guys. Very interesting.
Organisations are keen to be able to prove that their people have been trained against the SOPs. The proof is completed written assessments (by individuals, pairs or even groups). It gives them (some) confidence that they know the SOPs. This is a practical response and should satisfy WorkSafe in the event of an incident, as it is in line with the HSWA requirements.
What references would you recommend, particularly along the lines of the training that your organisation undertakes, Stephen? I have the opportunity (in Lockdown) to have a think and design learning that satisfies the PUBC's requirement to follow the SOPs but also to be more creative in exploring, with practical activities, the 'Why".
I am using cards that describe the procedure steps; quiz; scenarios suggested by the learners; case studies from incident reports and media; looking at taking videos of their work out in the field. I do not want the learners writing or having set discussions. Its got to be practical. It will not touch LLN either.
Just interested in short, practical activities that I can incorporate into a competency framework.

I'm curious here - is your SOP a
Safe Operating Procedure, or a
Standard Operating Procedure

Or is there no difference?

Yes (no difference), that's the added complication: work instruction and Safe Operating Procedures.
So, trying to make it short enough so that the workers will read (and follow?) the steps but include the safety points too. Then design practical, engaging learning on the SOP and the 'Why".
Good fun!

I don't know your industry; therefore, I could be miles off the mark.
A standard operating procedure (work instruction) is just that, an instruction to do the work in a standard fashion.
There is no why, other than why must I do this? Because it is a matter of fact; if I don't follow this instruction, it is a fact - I won't have a job (intentionally said without any PC-ness to be satirical).

By all means, develop a standard operating procedure (work instruction); it sounds like you have the necessary skills to write a dam good one! But once it is written, get the workers to tell you and/or the management why they need to do it safely. Only they can do this. Listening to your workers say why they will do it safely will prove their safety competence. Your job is to assess their competence in doing the job - as per the standard operating procedure.

The 'why' is personal; the 'why' cant come from a procedure or a form - it has to come from the person it affects.

The kajonk operator knows why he doesn't stick his hand (or another appendage) in the kajonk machine. Explaining that in a procedure only will insult his intelligence and unconsciously removes self-awareness.

My view (which is often questioned) is simple - Attempting to combine a standard operating procedure with a safe operating procedure will only cause confusion and complication and will fail at the first opportunity.

Good points Robb, so thank you.
I am just going to:oncentrate on the significant risks. It is a balancing act.
In learning (hate 'training') we do get the learners to tell us what the hazards and their risks are. But always looking for ideas on how to engage the learners.
Thanks again.

This is taking the approach of work as designed. Safety is about work as done. Using S.O.P's for training puts everyone to sleep. Use your supervisors to assess and train for competency

Yes, but kajonk operators still stick their hand (or another appendage) in kajonk machines.

Robb, you are so right that this transcends SOPs, JSAs, SWMS, (insert acronym of your choice here), etc. which only deal with the how. The 'why' must be personal and authentic to the worker which is why it is magnitudes harder to establish than procedural safety (which still relies on the worker following instructions).

In my opinion we should ignore all the peripheral hazards and minimal risks, and focus on what kills or maims us, and ensure those controls are solid as as far up the hierarchical chain as possible.

Yes, but kajonk operators still stick their hand (or another appendage) in kajonk machines. — Stephen Small

Which keeps us employed - the kajonk operator is our 'why.'
hehe :-)

@Mark Jennings
A couple of suggestions that I'm using more often:

Drop the "Safe" or "Standard" so the 'instructions' become just an Operating Process or Procedure (OP). This creates a wider view of presenting the activity/activities being described IMHO.

Create three documents. First, one similar to a Unit Standard to outline the activity so the learning outcomes are clear - the 'why' becomes clear also. Second, the OP and then modify to match the learning outcomes. And third, a training plan that relates to the the learning outcomes and OP (I have modified all three documents at times). What I have ended up with is the why, the what and the how. For me, I have learned to separate the why from the benefits using this method.

Again, my ramblings

Sounds good to me Keith.

And of course we need to take into consideration how people learn new concepts, skills etc and present the material in a way they can absorb, retain and then use it in the way we intend.

When i was conducting training, all the important concepts would get both a verbal and written explanation, accompanied by pictures, diagrams, video and if at all possible some hands on.,

What does it take to make key messages stick in worker safety training?

Another thought about training - a slight side track, but still relevant..... I have just made this realisation in organising learning content for an online induction process and reference library. It might mitigate some of the challenges of getting key messages across in training.

Neuroscience, instructional design and various learning methodologies recommend following a structured learning process. In my training, we were taught to plan training using thus sequence: WHY, WHAT, HOW, WHAT IF / WHAT ELSE, which would then naturally segue into the next step, following the same sequence. (Which means we really need to be a lot clearer about the intended outcomes and plan accordingly, for maximum effectiveness - but that's a whole other topic!).

This model suggests that learners are typically naturally attuned to one or more of these questions, with the majority of learners falling into the WHAT quadrant. But if a learner (like me!) is a WHY learner, they need to understand the purpose and context of the content before they can attend to information. If you don't give them the WHY at the start, they will be distracted as they try to figure it out - and it is even more disastrous if you haven't figured out the WHY and articulated it clearly in the training! So the sequence has been developed to most naturally meet the needs of all learners.

By way of a side note, I have also found that most engineers seem to live in the WHAT IF / WHAT ELSE quadrant - they tend to clean up any ambiguity as they seek clarity and certainty by querying specific examples. If there is any 'exception to the rule', they will find it and put the rule to the test! Trainers can sometimes see this type of learner as being confrontational or difficult because they challenge and question everything, but they actually do all of us a great service by helping to clarify concepts.

What I have started doing when putting online content together is to start with some questions for the learner that relate to the key messages we want them to get from the learning module. So rather than following that old formula of "this is what I am going to tell you, here it is, and now I am going to tell you what I have told you" (although it must be said that repetition has its place!), we can "prime" the learner to seek those messages during the module. Questions are like little 'hooks' or 'magnets' - the unconscious mind will naturally and effortlessly look for those answers and feel a sense of satisfaction when they discover them. And then they are much more likely to have the answers when it comes to the assessment, without requiring oversimplification of the assessment.

Having said that, to be effective, questions need to be clearly articulated, simple (avoid long sentences and dependent clauses), direct (avoid passive voice!), and focused on one key message for each question.

What might be possible if we made safety training more meaningful and effective?

One SOP format I saw had a why column, with both Quality and Health and Safety notes in it. There was an instruction such as "place guards over the edges", and a why column saying "because they are sharp and you'll cut yourself!" I might implement that on the next SWMS I write up.

There is a world of difference between a Standard Operating Procedure, and a Safe Operating procedure.
Standard Operating Procedures arose from Quality Management, and seek to ensure there is a consistent methodology and output (which in itself ensures safety)
While a Safe Operating Procedure (well, all that I've seen at least) only look at how to do the job safely.

Why do they have to be separate??
McDonald's, for example, develops its Station Operation Checklists (SOCs) with both procedural and safety considerations. It just meant that when I was delivering their safety training, I had to pull out the safety points and highlight the reasoning behind the requirements.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I meant.
They're not separate, but a standard operating procedure will convey safety information, as well as other, standardized procedures. So, your example of McDonalds is a Standard Operating procedure.

It depends on how prescriptive the SOP is.
If you have to undertake steps in prescribed order then not following the order is a breach of the SOP (and probably unsafe). However if the order does not matter and we let workers operate safely within the SOP framework it is a different story.

I have seen many SOPs that have no safety information, only how to undertake the task!

That definitely depends on the context of the organisation.
I have an aviation background, where a disproportionate amount of the controls are procedural in nature. Even if the exact order of the steps doesn't have any safety implications, carrying them out in the same order every time ensures that nothing gets missed.
Think of making a cake - you can mix the ingredients in any order, but if you don't follow the order they are listed in the recipe, the chances of missing one are increased.

"Even if the exact order of the steps doesn't have any safety implications, carrying them out in the same order every time ensures that nothing gets missed".
I agree totally - my comment above was about SOPs without safety 'why's.
The problem is those un-enlightened ones who audit (and eventually prosecute) us, seem to believe that if you don't follow an SOP sequence explicitly, then you are not doing it safely.

However, some things have to be in logical progression - in aviation one tends to rotate off the runway before raising the undercarriage!

Some aren't quite so obvious though.
SOP's that I develop also set out who is responsible for what, including what the client is responsible for (such as notifying neighbours of helicopter operations).