Stories: Kate's learning programme
I included this story in a longer whitepaper for a client, but retain the right to use the story. It stands up on its own as a cautionary tale (with a happy ending) so sharing it with you here.
First steps
Kate is a warehouse manager. Her sickness absence rates were much higher than anywhere else in the organisation, so she was given a target and a budget to reduce them.
The project started well. HR provided a breakdown of reasons the warehouse staff took time off work. The longest periods of absence were for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as backache, shoulder strains, and ruptured discs.
Kate remembered that Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states “Every employer shall ensure that employees are provided with adequate health and safety training.” Lots of websites said that manual handling training is compulsory for anyone doing any handling. People must be lifting incorrectly – they needed to learn how to lift safely. She spent the whole budget on manual handling training. The training sessions appeared to go well – the trainer was engaging and did lots of practical work with empty boxes in the classroom.
At her next appraisal Kate was asked what she’d achieved. “All the staff attended manual handling, they all passed a test, and they said they enjoyed the training.” But what about the absence rates?
They hadn’t budged. The number of people taking time off for MSDs had stayed high. Where had it all gone wrong?
Where Kate went wrong
Kate should have started with a risk assessment that would identify hazardous handling tasks.
However, Kate didn’t have any staff with the competence to do a manual handling risk assessment. Perhaps this is the training need she should have identified first? Once the hazardous tasks were understood, they could look at measures to eliminate them, reduce the risk at source, and then if manual handling training was still needed, tailor it to the specific tasks.
Kate thought the problem was that people didn’t know how to lift, but the real problems were around the way the workplace was organised. Here are some other examples where training might not be the solution:
What Kate did next
Having reviewed the failure of her manual handling training programme, Kate decides the supervisors need to do manual handling assessments. Her key performance objective for them is:
- Supervisors will be able to identify relevant risk factors in the warehouse, to suggest and prioritise improvements, and to document their significant findings.
This objective involves knowledge – knowing what risk factors to look for and what improvements might be possible – and skill – being able to identify the risk factors, to prioritise and to document.
Kate was concerned that some supervisors might not see the need for any changes, and could be sceptical about the approach. She set a performance objective to demonstrate their attitude:
- Supervisors will explain to the workforce the purpose and benefits of a manual handling risk assessment.
Note that Kate set didn’t state “Supervisor will believe…” or “.. will think…”. The performance objective needs to be something visible, that demonstrates their attitude.
According to research, setting and achieving attitude outcomes is more than five times better at predicting how well training will transfer into the workplace than knowledge and skill.
What could Kate do?
Kate explained to the supervisors that she wanted them to assess manual handling hazards in the workplace. Some were keener than others, so she formed a small team to consider how to meet the performance objectives. For example, supervisors were familiar with risk assessments, so they didn’t need the trainer to explain basic terminology of hazard and risk. They studied an off-the-shelf elearning course which raised their interest in physiology and mechanics, and they wanted to understand more about that.
They found a manual handling trainer who would tailor a course to their objectives. After a classroom session the trainer walked around the workplace with the supervisors, asking them what they could see that made handling tasks more difficult, or easier.
The supervisors had two weeks to apply their training by risk assessing key manual handling tasks in the workplace. The tutor reviewed their assessments – supervisors had made great suggestions on how to reduce manual handling risks at source.
The workers had to lift bins above their heads to empty them into a badly located skip. The supervisors recommended moving the skip. Time pressures forced workers to move large, cumbersome boards on their own. Supervisors suggested a ceiling mounted handling aid to allow one person to move a board safely. There were several suggestions for other handling aids, and for reorganising storage areas to remove the need to adopt awkward postures.
Kate didn’t want to get it wrong a second time. She worked with the trainees to plan a learning programme which included elearning, classroom and on-the-job elements.
Kate’s manual handling training programme - why isn't it working?
The supervisors who had attended the training were so keen, they set up working meetings with the workers they were supervising to discuss how to implement the changes. They wanted to deliver specific training themselves, rather than use an off-the-shelf handling trainer.
But after three months Kate noticed nothing had changed. The supervisors hadn’t risk assessed any more tasks. The workers continued to be off work with MSDs. Kate called the supervisors in to ask why things hadn’t progressed.
“We ordered the handling aids we needed, but we were told there was no budget this year.”
“We haven’t had the time to reorganise the storage or the skip as we’d planned. There just isn’t enough time in a shift.”
“The other supervisors resented the time we were spending assessing; it felt like we were letting the side down.”
“The workers had been excited about the changes, but once they saw nothing was going to change from the management side, they didn’t see the point in changing what they do.”
How Kate improved transfer of learning
Once Kate’s supervisors realised their suggested control measures weren’t going to be implemented, there seemed no point to them in doing any more risk assessments. The supervisors who didn’t get involved in the risk assessment programme were able to leave work earlier than them – there was no reward for the extra effort they were putting in.
Kate met with the risk assessors to prioritise their requests.
The organisation couldn’t buy all the handling aids the different supervisors had asked for, but they settled on a smaller variety of devices which allowed them to get some discounts. Kate agreed to some shift changes so that two people could re-organise the storage and move the skip without interruptions.
The supervisors had lots of questions about specific situations. Rather than another formal course, Kate arranged for the manual handling trainer to run a question-and-answer session to focus on what they needed to know.
The supervisors who had been sceptical about the programme started to see the improvements made. Some of them asked if they could do the manual handling risk assessment training next time.
A happy ending
Over the next few months Kate continued to discuss any problems with the supervisors. She had to argue convincingly to get the funding needed to put improved measures in place. But at her next appraisal she was congratulated by her manager. “Your extra spending has been more than compensated for by the reduction in our budget for overtime and temporary staff to cover absences. Your attendance rate is now the highest in the business. First-class!”