- Email: [email protected]
Participatory training: A method to achieve workplace improvements
Safety Science, Vol. 23, No. 2/3, p. 167, 1996 Copyright Q 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon
Printed in the Netherlands. All rights reserved 092%7535/96 $15.00 + 0.00
SO9257535(%)00037-9
PARTICIPATORY TRAINING: A METHOD TO ACHIEVE WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS
Center for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA), Copenhagen, Denmark
This type of action-oriented training should be seen as an alternative to the more traditional expertise-consulting approach of ergonomist-consultants. Participatory training, as tested by the author in several workplaces, proved itself to be a way of making concrete improvements and enabling these actors to solve similar problems in the future. The dialogue and discussions between company actors (management, professionals, foremen, workers) were needed to break down resistance to change and allow human resources to develop applicable and sustainable solutions. Several reasons could explain the obstacles that impeded dialogue, and different techniques were developed to encourage good dynamics between actors, most notably by establishing certain ground rules that applied from the start of the group training sessions. The most important were the following: (I) all the people concerned by the work stations being studied were part of the group and had to participate actively; (2) discussions were based on practical work experience; (3) all the viewpoints brought forth by participants were legitimate. One of the instructor’s roles was to stimulate and achieve quality dialogue. Once the actors’ acceptance of these conditions was guaranteed, the training programme could be developed. In general, the programme’s objective was to bring about concrete improvements in the workplace, within the context of the training programme but also for the future. The training sessions referred explicitly to the participants’ work conditions, and teaching methods encouraged their initiatives. Lectures on different themes were forbidden, even on those concerning risks and established procedures, as this way of communicating knowledge had no place in group dynamics. Most of the session time was devoted to an analysis of their problems and the development, as a group, of appropriate and efficient solutions. With this in mind, several tools and teaching aids were developed: checklists, teaching methods (brain storming) and action planning. This approach has been validated in different work contexts: intra-company training in large organizations (e.g. municipalities) or smaller companies. It was likewise provided by the personnel of occupational health departments in different environments. These experiences led participants to make concrete improvements to their workplace. Once the training was finished, several companies demons~ated they had the tools to deal, by themselves, with current and future problems in the workplace. This approach is nonetheless not very conceivable in organizations where there are conflicts or lay-offs. 167
Pergamon
Printed in the Netherlands. All rights reserved 092%7535/96 $15.00 + 0.00
SO9257535(%)00037-9
PARTICIPATORY TRAINING: A METHOD TO ACHIEVE WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS
Center for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA), Copenhagen, Denmark
This type of action-oriented training should be seen as an alternative to the more traditional expertise-consulting approach of ergonomist-consultants. Participatory training, as tested by the author in several workplaces, proved itself to be a way of making concrete improvements and enabling these actors to solve similar problems in the future. The dialogue and discussions between company actors (management, professionals, foremen, workers) were needed to break down resistance to change and allow human resources to develop applicable and sustainable solutions. Several reasons could explain the obstacles that impeded dialogue, and different techniques were developed to encourage good dynamics between actors, most notably by establishing certain ground rules that applied from the start of the group training sessions. The most important were the following: (I) all the people concerned by the work stations being studied were part of the group and had to participate actively; (2) discussions were based on practical work experience; (3) all the viewpoints brought forth by participants were legitimate. One of the instructor’s roles was to stimulate and achieve quality dialogue. Once the actors’ acceptance of these conditions was guaranteed, the training programme could be developed. In general, the programme’s objective was to bring about concrete improvements in the workplace, within the context of the training programme but also for the future. The training sessions referred explicitly to the participants’ work conditions, and teaching methods encouraged their initiatives. Lectures on different themes were forbidden, even on those concerning risks and established procedures, as this way of communicating knowledge had no place in group dynamics. Most of the session time was devoted to an analysis of their problems and the development, as a group, of appropriate and efficient solutions. With this in mind, several tools and teaching aids were developed: checklists, teaching methods (brain storming) and action planning. This approach has been validated in different work contexts: intra-company training in large organizations (e.g. municipalities) or smaller companies. It was likewise provided by the personnel of occupational health departments in different environments. These experiences led participants to make concrete improvements to their workplace. Once the training was finished, several companies demons~ated they had the tools to deal, by themselves, with current and future problems in the workplace. This approach is nonetheless not very conceivable in organizations where there are conflicts or lay-offs. 167