Good Brief. Bad Results: Using Behavioral Science to Improve Your Pre-job Briefs
"Engine #1 is still running."
"Stay clear of the intake zone."
"Watch for the warning lights."
These were far more than casual reminders. On December 31, 2022, a tragic accident occurred at Montgomery Regional Airport in Alabama when an airport ramp agent was pulled into an operating jet engine. The incident took place shortly after a plane landed and taxied to the gate. Due to an inoperative auxiliary power unit (APU), the engine remained running. Tragically, minutes later, the ground crew member entered the ingestion zone of the running engine and sustained fatal injuries.
What makes this incident particularly haunting isn't just its tragic outcome - it's what preceded it. Just minutes earlier, the agent had participated in not one, but two safety briefings specifically warning about this exact hazard. The crew leader discussed the dangers of active engines, reviewed the visual warning signals, and established expectations for maintaining safe distances.
This incident forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: Why do thorough pre-job briefings sometimes fail to prevent accidents?
The answer lies not in the quality of our briefings, but in a fundamental misunderstanding of how human behavior works. Through my work in operational excellence, I've discovered that we've been approaching pre-job briefings with a flawed assumption - that knowledge automatically translates to behavior.
Understanding Human Performance: A Dual-Lens Perspective
To understand why thoroughly briefed, well-trained professionals sometimes make fatal errors, we need to examine two fundamental aspects of human performance that intersect in critical moments of workplace safety. Like two lenses bringing an image into focus, behavioral science and cognitive psychology reveal why traditional safety briefings often fail to prevent accidents.
The Behavioral Lens: Hidden Mechanics of Human Behavior
Every workplace action follows a three-part pattern known as the ABC model. Like gravity, this force shapes our actions whether we acknowledge it or not. Every workplace behavior - from the most routine task to split-second decisions - follows this pattern:
Antecedents: The Prelude to Action
Antecedents are signals—such as verbal cues, written instructions, or other prompts—that occur before a behavior. They set the stage and provide guidance on what is expected. However, antecedents alone do not guarantee the desired behavior, as people don’t always follow instructions or comply with every request received.
Behavior: The Moment of Truth:
This represents the actual action taken or decision made.
Consequences: The Behavior Shapers
These are the immediately detectable results of an act or decision. We get something we want or avoid something we don’t want and this shapes our future behavior.
Traditional safety systems often focus heavily on antecedents, such as pre-job briefs that outline expectations and potential risks, as well as warning signs, documented procedures, and verbal instructions. At Montgomery, these tools were plentiful and well - communicated. However, behavioral science shows that while antecedents are important for setting expectations, they, alone, do not drive future behavior.
Consider how we learn to drive. The driving instructor’s reminders about checking blind spots are just the starting point, but what truly cements the habit are those real-life moments—like the concerned gasp from a parent in the passenger seat when you forget, or their proud smile and “Nice job!” when you do it right. It’s those moments, (i.e., consequences immediately following a behavior), filled with emotion and connection, that stick with us and shape our future behavior far more than the initial instructions ever could.
The Cognitive Lens: The Memory Maze
Now let's add another critical dimension: how our brains process and store information.
Our brain's memory systems profoundly impact our ability to follow safety guidance. Understanding these systems reveals why even the most attentive workers might struggle to recall crucial information when it matters most.
Short-term memory functions much like the old-school smartphone's RAM (Random Access Memory). Just as RAM provided temporary working space for active applications, our short-term memory serves as temporary storage for information we're currently processing. Like RAM, it has strict operational limits:
Capacity: Our short-term memory can only handle five to nine pieces of information at once.
Duration: Similar to how RAM clears when you close applications, information in short-term memory begins to fade after about 30 seconds unless actively maintained.
Processing: Just as a smartphone slows down when too many applications compete for limited RAM, our short-term memory struggles to process new information when already handling multiple items.
Consider these limitations in the context of a typical pre-job brief. As a supervisor covers multiple hazards, procedures, and safety protocols, earlier information begins fading from memory – not because workers aren't paying attention, but because they're encountering the natural limits of human cognitive processing.
For information to be useful in future situations, it must transfer to long-term memory, where it can influence behavior in critical moments. However, this transfer doesn’t occur automatically. It relies on intentional encoding processes, including actively engaging with the material, creating emotional connections, applying the knowledge in practical contexts, and reinforcing it through consistent repetition.
A Perfect Storm in Montgomery
In analyzing the publicly available incident reports from Montgomery, I uncovered valuable insights into how behavioral science and cognitive psychology intersected at critical moments in this tragedy. While the official investigation provides the definitive findings, my background in operational excellence offers a complementary perspective on the role human performance factors may have played. By exploring the fundamental principles of human behavior and cognition, we can better understand how such incidents occur—and, more importantly, how they can be prevented in the future.
The performance system at play during this accident relied heavily on antecedents to influence behavior. Documented safety measures included multiple layers of antecedents, such as two detailed briefings, visual warnings, established procedures, and explicit verbal warnings about engine hazards.
However, there were no strategically embedded feedback systems in place to reinforce the guidance provided during the pre-job brief. In our Build a Better Brief module, we emphasize the importance of embedding deliberate, undesirable but safe consequences for noncompliance with critical pre-job brief instructions. Additionally, we advocate for designing predictable positive consequences to consistently reward compliance. These strategies ensure that workers not only understand the expectations but also experience immediate reinforcement that strengthens their adherence to key behaviors.
In my analysis, the ramp agent reportedly entered the engine hazard zone at least once prior to the fatal accident, presenting a critical moment within the ABC behavioral model. Such instances are opportunities to apply immediate consequences that can shape future behavior. Without timely negative reinforcement, the ABC model indicates an increased likelihood of unsafe behaviors recurring. These moments could have served as powerful teaching opportunities, where immediate consequences—whether corrective or encouraging—reinforced critical behaviors discussed in the Pre-job Brief. The lack of feedback mechanisms in these situations reflects a missed opportunity to leverage one of the ABC model's most impactful elements: the use of consequences to directly influence and guide future behavior.
In addition, the performance systems appeared to lack strategies to transfer critical information from the Pre-job Brief to the crew members’ long-term memories. Comprehensive safety briefings can potentially overwhelm the natural limitations of short-term memory. Consider the cognitive demands: multiple pieces of critical information delivered in rapid succession, complex safety protocols competing for limited mental bandwidth, and environmental distractions further taxing already-strained memory resources. Without immediate opportunities to apply this knowledge, crucial safety information may have remained trapped in short-term memory, unable to transfer to the more permanent long-term memory where it could influence behavior in critical moments.
The fatal moment highlights critical insights into the interaction between short-term and long-term memory. A defining characteristic of this interplay is that deeply ingrained routines stored in long-term memory often override new information in short-term memory, particularly when that information has not been adequately reinforced. Incident reports suggest the agent may have defaulted to her standard post-landing routine—a sequence of actions likely embedded through repeated practice.
Despite the thoroughness of the morning’s safety briefing, the protocols required for the abnormal conditions may have remained in short-term memory, lacking the reinforcement necessary to disrupt established patterns. This cognitive tendency, coupled with the apparent absence of immediate feedback systems or physical markers to interrupt the routine, may have allowed older, ingrained behaviors to proceed unchecked, bypassing newer safety protocols.
This underscores an essential lesson about modifying established behaviors: providing new information alone is insufficient. Successfully changing behaviors requires carefully designed interventions—such as reinforcement mechanisms and contextual cues—that can effectively compete with and override ingrained routines.
This incident offers valuable insights about the interaction between human performance and safety systems. My analysis suggests that understanding how we learn and sustain behaviors, and how we process and retain critical information, could help us design more effective safety protocols. By examining this incident through the lens of behavioral science and cognitive psychology, we may find opportunities to develop solutions that better align with natural human performance patterns.
Transforming the Pre-Job Brief: Building Better Safety Systems
My analysis of incidents like Montgomery reveals opportunities to enhance our approach to pre-job briefings. By applying insights from behavioral science and cognitive psychology, we can design briefing systems that work in harmony with, rather than against, natural human performance patterns.
Strengthening the ABC Chain
Traditional briefings focus almost entirely on antecedents - providing information about hazards and procedures. A transformed briefing system builds in consequence mechanisms that shape behavior throughout the work period.
For instance, rather than simply discussing the hazard zones around aircraft engines, teams can establish specific observation and feedback protocols. Each team member takes responsibility for monitoring a colleague's compliance with safe distances, providing immediate positive reinforcement for safe behaviors and quick corrections for unsafe ones.
This creates a continuous feedback loop, transforming safety from a morning discussion into an active, ongoing process. The social consequences of peer observation become powerful drivers of consistent safe behavior.
Engineering Memory Transfer
Simultaneously, we must ensure critical safety information transfers from short-term to long-term memory where it can influence behavior in crucial moments. This requires moving beyond passive listening to active engagement.
During the briefing, workers physically walk through their work areas, identifying and marking critical decision points. At each point, they verbally explain the hazards and required precautions to their colleagues. This multi-sensory engagement - physical movement, verbal explanation, visual marking - creates multiple pathways for memory encoding.
Building a Better Brief Process
In our Build a Better Brief leadership module, we teach clients to approach briefs with a deliberate aim to incorporate basics of behavioral science and cognitive processing.
Start with Structure
The foundation of an effective brief lies in its structure. Rather than presenting a list of hazards and controls, organize the briefing around critical decision points in the upcoming work. For example, when briefing a maintenance task, identify the specific moments where workers will need to recall and apply safety information:
"Today's compressor maintenance has three critical safety decision points. First, when entering the confined space. Second, when breaking the system boundary. Third, when reintroducing pressure. Let's walk through each moment in detail..."
This approach does more than organize information - it creates mental markers that help workers transfer crucial details to long-term memory. Enhance this transfer through active engagement techniques that transform passive listening into dynamic learning.
Example
At one facility, having workers explain hazards back to the group in their own words led to an approximate 40% improvement in hazard recognition during subsequent work activities.
The structure becomes even more powerful when combined with strategic repetition. The brain responds better to spaced repetition than single-event learning, so we guide organizations to structure their briefings with multiple reinforcement points.
Build in Behavioral Consequences
Traditional briefings end with "any questions?" Instead, build in immediate consequence mechanisms that reinforce learning and commitment. Our model includes scenario-based discussions where teams identify and explain control measures for critical tasks. This creates immediate social consequences while strengthening memory encoding through practical application.
For high consequence evolutions, we recommend allowing teams practice through verbal walk-throughs, engaging multiple senses and creating stronger memory pathways. These active participation elements ensure that safety information transfers effectively to long-term memory where it can influence behavior.
Bridge Theory to Practice
The most effective way to reduce overall risk and improve safety performance is by directly connecting key information from the pre-job brief to work execution. In my experience, traditional pre-job briefs often fall short because they are treated as standalone events rather than integral components of a continuous safety process. To address this gap, we recommend integrating pre-job brief content with specific work moments, creating multiple opportunities to reinforce behavior and enhance memory processing throughout the evolution.
For teams using Peak Performance Human Reliability Tools, this approach has proven highly effective in linking pre-job briefs to critical work activities. The module promotes deliberate integration of active reliability tools, such as the Two-Minute Rule, Pause When Unsure, and Peer Checks, to reinforce the critical tasks discussed in the pre-job brief. This seamless connection ensures that the brief remains a living, actionable part of the safety process, driving better outcomes and safer performance.
Example
A facility that implemented Peak Performance Human Reliability, including the Build a Better Brief module, reports nine consecutive quarters without safety events or consequential errors during ILI implementation. Encouraged by this success, the facility is now scaling these practices to other high-consequence operations.
The power of the methodology comes from integrating these elements into a cohesive system. Each component - structured delivery, active engagement, strategic repetition, and point-of-work integration - reinforces the others. When organizations implement these practices as an integrated approach rather than isolated initiatives, they create a powerful framework for sustainable safety performance.
Measuring Success
Traditional metrics tend to rely on tracking the “number of briefs completed”. While this has its place, quantity metrics do not provide the necessary insights on the performance discussed in this article that is necessary to ensure critical information from Pre-job Briefs are retained in long-term memory and followed in practice.
We recommend connecting observation programs to Pre-job Brief metrics to measure Pre-job Brief quality, especially in the areas discussed in this article. While this method admittedly introduces a level of subjectivity in measuring performance, the beneficial offsets suggest this remains an effective measure.
For example, trained observers can assess how effectively briefing information transfers into workplace behaviors by watching for specific indicators: workers actively discussing safety protocols during tasks, team members reinforcing key points from the morning's brief, and the consistent application of discussed safety measures. These real-time observations provide valuable insights into how well briefing content moves from short-term to long-term memory and influences actual work practices.
Furthermore, the observation process creates a powerful continuous improvement loop for briefers themselves. When observers provide immediate feedback on briefing effectiveness, it creates the type of consequence that the ABC model shows is most effective at shaping future behavior. A briefer who learns that certain approaches resulted in stronger worker engagement and retention can immediately incorporate those successful elements into their next brief. Conversely, when observers note opportunities for improvement, briefers can adjust their approach before patterns become habits. This real-time feedback cycle, grounded in behavioral science, helps briefers continuously refine their skills while providing valuable metrics on overall program effectiveness.
Moving Forward
The Montgomery incident serves as a sobering reminder that good intentions and thorough information aren't enough. Effective safety communication must account for both how humans behave and how they process information.
By understanding these fundamental aspects of human performance, we can transform pre-job briefings from a procedural requirement into a powerful tool for preventing accidents. The key lies in creating a system that not only delivers critical safety information but ensures that information transfers to long-term memory and connects directly to workplace behavior through meaningful consequences.
Your next pre-job brief isn't just an information session - it's an opportunity to create lasting behavioral change supported by robust memory encoding and clear consequences. Lives depend on how well you bridge this gap between knowledge and action.