The Science of Stubbornness: Why Workers Stick to Inefficient Practices
In workplaces across industries, certain processes and practices persist simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” While experience and tradition can be valuable, blindly following outdated methods can create inefficiencies and even compromise health and safety. Understanding learned behaviour and its psychological influences can help us challenge the status quo, improve workplace safety, and drive efficiency. However, our brains often work against us, reinforcing habits and norms that no longer serve us. Only by recognising these patterns and questioning them can we break free from ineffective traditions and create a safer, more productive work environment.
The Power of Learned Behaviour
Learned behaviour is a fundamental part of human psychology. From early childhood, we absorb social norms, expectations, and conditioned responses that shape our actions. In the workplace, these learned behaviours can manifest in unquestioned routines, resistance to change, and conformity to unsafe or inefficient practices.
One of the most well-known (albeit likely fictional) examples of learned behaviour is the “monkey ladder experiment,” where a group of monkeys was conditioned to avoid climbing a ladder for fear of punishment. Even after the original group was replaced, new monkeys continued to enforce the rule—despite never experiencing the punishment themselves. While this exact experiment has never been formally documented, real studies confirm that learned behaviour can persist in similar ways.
How Our Brains Work Against Change
Several psychological experiments have demonstrated how deeply ingrained behaviours and social pressures influence decision-making, often to our detriment in safety and efficiency.
1. Conformity: The Solomon Asch Experiment (1951)
Asch’s experiment showed that people tend to conform to group opinions, even when they know the group is wrong. When participants were asked to compare line lengths, many gave incorrect answers simply because they saw others doing the same. In workplaces, this tendency can prevent employees from speaking up when they see unsafe or inefficient practices. If no one questions a flawed procedure, the entire team may continue following it, despite clear risks.
2. Obedience to Authority: The Stanley Milgram Experiment (1963)
Milgram’s study revealed how people obey authority figures even when doing so causes harm. Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to another person, and many continued increasing the shocks despite clear distress from the recipient. In a workplace setting, this suggests that employees may follow unsafe instructions from supervisors without question. If a manager enforces an outdated or risky practice, workers might comply rather than challenge authority, even if they recognise the danger.
3. Conditioning and Fear: John B. Watson’s Little Albert Experiment (1920)
Watson demonstrated that fear can be conditioned through association. A baby named Albert was exposed to a loud noise whenever he saw a white rat, causing him to develop a fear of all furry objects. In the workplace, employees may similarly develop resistance to change based on past negative experiences. If speaking up about safety concerns once led to being dismissed or ignored, workers may hesitate to raise issues in the future, even when conditions change.
4. Group Reinforcement: The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Zimbardo’s infamous experiment showed how quickly people adopt roles and conform to expected behaviours. In the workplace, this means that safety culture is shaped by the group. If a team tolerates risky behaviour or inefficiencies, new employees will adopt the same practices—even if they would have acted differently in another environment.
5. Learned Helplessness: G.R. Stephenson’s Monkey Study (1967)
Stephenson’s research demonstrated that past punishments create a long-term avoidance response. Monkeys that were previously punished for an action stopped attempting it, even when the punishment was removed. In a workplace, employees who have faced criticism for questioning procedures may stop trying to improve processes altogether, resigning themselves to the status quo.
Breaking Free: The Need for Awareness and Action
To improve workplace safety and efficiency, it is essential to recognise when learned behaviours are holding us back. Here’s how we can counteract these psychological tendencies:
Encourage Open Communication – Foster an environment where employees feel safe to voice concerns without fear of criticism or retaliation. Regular toolbox talks and safety meetings should include discussions about questioning procedures and suggesting improvements.
Challenge Tradition with Data – Use evidence to justify changes. Instead of accepting “this is how we’ve always done it,” present facts showing why a new approach is safer or more efficient.
Empower Employees to Speak Up – Supervisors should actively seek input from workers on the ground, as they often have firsthand knowledge of inefficiencies or risks. Reward and acknowledge those who suggest positive changes.
Provide Psychological Safety – Ensure that employees know their concerns will be taken seriously and that questioning procedures is a sign of engagement, not defiance.
Implement a Continuous Improvement Culture – Regularly review processes to ensure they are still effective. Just because something worked in the past does not mean it is the best approach today.
Final Words: Awareness Leads to Change
Our brains naturally resist change, and social pressures reinforce outdated practices. However, by understanding the psychological mechanisms behind learned behaviour, we can actively challenge them. In occupational health and safety, the cost of complacency is too high to justify doing something simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Awareness of our own biases and histories is the first step toward breaking free from ineffective traditions and building a safer, more efficient workplace.
By fostering a culture of questioning, improvement, and safety, we can ensure that we are not just following the past—but actively shaping the future.
