How a Site Activation program changed the way leaders think about error, learning, and risk.

IIRSM Risk Excellence Awards 2026 Winner — Most Impactful Risk Research Project
IIRSM Risk Excellence Awards 2026 Winner
Quality of leadership questions 58% → 91%
Error trap recognition 68% → 79%
Of leaders would choose to use PATH again 100%
Of PATH findings were error traps, vs. 35% from Gemba walks 96%

The challenge

TE Connectivity is a global technology company. Their safety program was mature, but progress had stalled. Audits, inspections, and behavioral observation programs were no longer reducing incidents. The leadership team wanted a different approach: one that helps leaders learn from how work actually happens, spot the conditions that lead to mistakes, and move away from blame.

What was delivered

Psychology Applied delivered the Site Activation program on multiple sites in Europe and the USA to leaders from operations, HSE, engineering, and HR. The program covered four areas: PATH (a structured learning conversation), Walk-Through Talk-Through (a step-by-step task analysis), Learning Teams, and modernising accountability.

The leadership team wanted proof that the training made a real difference. Psychology Applied designed a three-part evaluation with an independent research partner (Center for Behavioral Decisions).

Leaders at a TE Connectivity Site Activation workshop

Three types of evidence

Evidence 1

Before-and-after assessment

Leaders completed a structured assessment before and after training, measuring five things:

  1. How they assign blame
  2. Whether they recognize error traps
  3. The quality of their questions
  4. Whether they prefer systemic fixes
  5. How they think about accountability

Each leader answered a different scenario version before and after, swapped across groups, to keep the test fair.

Questioning quality improved from 58% to 91%. On a separate forced-choice question, 100% of leaders chose the learning-oriented option after training, up from 83%. Error trap recognition rose from 68% to 79%. Two items showed the biggest jumps: one went from 67% to 93% correct, another from 50% to 93% correct.

Evidence 2

Tool feedback survey

Leaders rated PATH and Walk-Through Talk-Through across 12 matched questions covering usefulness for understanding work, improving work, building trust, and comparing to existing methods.

  • 100% said they would choose to use PATH again.
  • 96% said the same for Walk-Through Talk-Through.
  • In a head-to-head comparison, 86% picked PATH when they needed quick insight into a task, and 93% picked Walk-Through Talk-Through when they needed deep understanding of a problem.
  • PATH was strongest for creating open, honest conversations.
  • Walk-Through Talk-Through was strongest for finding problems in how tasks are designed.
Evidence 3

Output comparison

262 existing EHS Gemba observations were compared against 23 PATH findings and 62 Walk-Through Talk-Through findings from the training. Every finding was classified as a hazard, an error trap, or a control failure.

EHS Gemba walks mostly picked up visible things: trip hazards, spills, cables on the floor, untidy storage. 35% of Gemba findings were hazards. 37% were error traps, but mostly surface-level ones.

PATH found almost entirely error traps (96%). These were deeper problems: poor equipment design, awkward ergonomics, workload pressure, training gaps, and change-management issues. Walk-Through Talk-Through went even deeper (84% error traps), with the highest concentration of task-level problems: equipment reliability (37% of findings), physical strain (24%), and time pressure (15%).

What happened in the first month

Within one month, both sites started using the tools in their daily routines. One site rebuilt its safety Gemba walks to include PATH. Area managers at another site now run PATH conversations every two weeks.

When a serious near-miss happened with crane operations, the team used a learning-oriented interview approach from the training instead of a disciplinary process.

The employees expected us to punish them for their mistakes, but instead they found an understanding, attentive audience who listened to what they had to say. They said they felt there was no superior-subordinate relationship.
HSE Manager, TE Connectivity manufacturing site

After these conversations, workers started approaching leaders on their own to raise issues they wanted fixed. The shift from compliance to trust opened up a flow of information from the frontline that was not reaching decision-makers before.

These are great tools. We just need to make sure they remain part of our everyday lives.
HSE Manager, TE Connectivity manufacturing site

Client snapshot

Organization
TE Connectivity
Industry
Technology / manufacturing
Scope
Over 100 leaders from sites in Europe and the USA, plus multiple leadership briefing sessions
Program
4-day Site Activation (PATH, WTTT, Learning Teams, accountability)
Evaluation
Independent research partner (Center for Behavioral Decisions)
Recognition
IIRSM Risk Excellence Awards 2026 Winner

Want the full detail, or to talk through what a similar program could look like for your organization?

Start a conversation

Explore more case studies