In the evolving landscape of workplace safety, few debates have been as persistent and polarising as the one between Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) and the “New View” approaches. The New View, which includes Safety Differently, Safety II, Human and Organisational Performance (HOP), and Resilience Engineering, has gained traction for its systemic, human-centered perspective. It challenges traditional safety paradigms that focus on error, compliance, and individual behaviour as root causes of incidents.
One of the most frequent targets of critique from New View advocates is BBS. It’s often portrayed as outdated, punitive, and misaligned with modern safety thinking. But is that a fair assessment? Or are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
As someone who has practiced New View principles long before they had a name, I believe the dichotomy between BBS and New View is not only false, but is counterproductive. These approaches are not opposites. In fact, when used thoughtfully, they can complement each other in powerful ways.
The Real Issue: Misuse, Not Method
Much of the criticism directed at BBS stems from how it has been implemented, rather than what it fundamentally is. In many organisations, BBS has been reduced to a surveillance tool; a way to count infractions, reward compliance, or punish deviation. This version of BBS is shallow, transactional, and often harmful. It shifts responsibility for safety onto frontline workers while ignoring the systemic factors that shape their behavior.
But this misuse is not inherent to BBS. At its core, BBS is about observing behaviour in context. It’s about understanding what people do, how they do it, and why. When done well, BBS is not about catching people out; it’s about learning from their actions and supporting them to work safely.
Behaviour as a Window into the System, Like Your Car’s Fuel Gauge
One of the most underappreciated strengths of BBS is its potential to serve as a feedback loop for upstream controls. Behaviour doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It emerges from the interaction between people, tasks, tools, environments, and organisational systems. When we observe behaviour, we’re not just seeing individual choices – we’re seeing the output of the system.
For example:
- If workers are taking shortcuts, perhaps the procedure is unworkable or time pressures are too high.
- If they’re improvising, maybe the tools are inadequate.
- If they’re distracted, the workload might be too high, the environment too chaotic, or the work is unfulfilling.
Behavioural observations can surface these systemic issues – if we’re willing to look beyond the behaviour itself. This is where BBS can align beautifully with New View thinking. Instead of treating deviations as violations, we can treat them as adaptations worth understanding.
Supporting Attentional Focus
In high-risk environments, maintaining attentional focus is critical. Distraction, complacency, and mental drift can increase vulnerability to error. BBS, when framed positively, can help workers stay mentally engaged with their tasks. It’s not about hypervigilance; it’s about mindfulness.
This is especially true when BBS is embedded in coaching conversations, peer observations, and reflective practice. In these contexts, BBS becomes a supportive tool, not a monitoring mechanism. It encourages workers to reflect on their actions, anticipate risks, and stay present.
This kind of engagement is protective. It helps workers navigate complexity, manage uncertainty, and make sense of dynamic conditions. And it aligns perfectly with New View principles, which emphasize learning, adaptation, and resilience.
The Role of Supervision and Observation Quality
We know that supervision and observation improve safety, but only when they’re done well. Poor-quality observations can reinforce power imbalances, drive surface compliance, and erode trust. But high-quality observations, like those that are collaborative, curious, and contextual, can build psychological safety, enable learning, and strengthen relationships.
BBS can be a vehicle for this kind of engagement. It can help supervisors understand the realities of work, and help workers feel seen and supported. When observations are conducted with empathy and curiosity, they become opportunities for dialogue, not judgment.
This is where BBS and New View can intersect meaningfully. Both approaches value understanding work as it is actually done. Both recognise the importance of relationships, trust, and learning. And both can contribute to a culture of safety that is proactive, inclusive, and adaptive.
Integrating BBS into a Systems-Based Safety Model
Rather than discarding BBS, we should integrate it into a broader, systems-based safety model. This means:
- Using BBS data to triangulate with incident reports, near misses, and worker insights. Behavioural trends can provide early warning signals, highlight emerging risks, and validate other sources of information.
- Linking behavioural patterns to organisational factors like workload, design, leadership, and culture. Behaviour is shaped by context. Understanding that context is key to meaningful improvement.
- Treating deviations not as violations, but as adaptations. Workers often adjust their behaviour to meet operational demands, manage constraints, or compensate for system weaknesses. These adaptations are rich sources of learning.
In this integrated model, BBS becomes a tool for inquiry, not enforcement. It helps us see how the system is working, or not working, at the sharp end. And it complements New View approaches by providing granular, real-time insights into frontline work.
A Place for Both: Complementary, Not Contradictory
New View safety thinking has rightly shifted our focus upstream. It has helped us see safety as an emergent property of complex systems, not a product of individual compliance. It has encouraged us to learn from success, understand variability, and design for resilience.
But that doesn’t mean we should abandon tools that help us understand behaviour. BBS, when used thoughtfully, can complement New View approaches. It can support attentional focus, enable coaching, and provide valuable feedback. It can help us connect the dots between system design and frontline experience.
The key is not to choose between BBS and New View. The key is to use both wisely, in balance, and with a clear understanding of their strengths and limitations.
Final Thoughts: Bridging the Divide
The safety field doesn’t need more polarisation. It needs integration. It needs tools and frameworks that work together to create safer, more resilient systems. BBS and New View are not enemies. They are different lenses through which we can understand and improve work.
By bridging the divide between these approaches, we can move beyond blame, beyond compliance, and beyond simplistic models of causality. We can build safety cultures that are curious, compassionate, and committed to learning.
So let’s stop asking whether BBS or New View is “right.” Let’s start asking how we can use both to better understand work, support workers, and create systems that are truly safe.