The topic of Safety Incentives, Recognition and Awareness Programs is perhaps one of the more controversial and divisive issues which safety professionals in particular, and those with some involvement in safety generally can't seem to agree on. No matter who you speak with, they'll all have an opinion, success story or horror story associated with their knowledge of 'safety incentives', and they'll be all too quick to pass along their story as representative of the current thinking on safety recognition and incentive programs specifically, and safety management generally.

In an article in the September 28, 1989 issue of ENR magazine, the company in question was offering pizza, savings bonds and jackets to employees and groups of employees, who attained the often elusive and sometimes manipulative distinction of going lost time injury free for one year. Some of the comments reflected in the article were:

"I was so frightened that I was going to spoil the record of 400 days that you can't imagine"
"Nobody wants to be the one to spoil the record"
"I think that if somebody spoils the record or gets hurt, he'll get buried in concrete so nobody will ever find out about it and they won't lose the record"

No doubt these comments were perhaps made in a half joking manner, but I can't help believe they also reflected a great deal of truth in how the safety award system in this company operated. They are, in my opinion, a serious reflection of the dysfunction which characterise many safety incentive programs in North America, and indeed entire safety philosophies.

In a September, 1996 issue of Safety & Health, an article entitled, "Can Safety Be Too Much Fun?" questioned that while some safety games motivate employees to work safely, others may do more harm than good. A most interesting point in the article noted that because of all the perceived problems associated with incentive award programs (especially the assertion that employees will not report injuries if a gift or award depends on their injury record) members of an OSHA advisory committee in the U.S. have expressed

'strong concerns that safety concerns that safety contests lead to employees not reporting work-related injuries and illnesses...part of the twist on the arguement notes that section 11(c) of the federal OSHA act, and similar provisions in each of the acts administered by the state OSHAs. provide that employees can't be discriminated against for exercising any right under the act. Since employees have the right to report that they have the right to report that they have been hurt on the job, and games that discourage the exercise of that right could be considered discriminatory. 3 That's the theory'.

So how do you go about deciding if safety incentives and awards are right for your organisation, and if they are, how should they be structured. How do you also come to grips with recognising and reinforcing good safety performance (presumably you have definitions of "good safety performance")? If these approaches are not for you, what does this say about you and your organisation? Let's examine these issues in greater detail.

No matter who you ask, almost everyone agrees that good safety performance needs to be recognised and rewarded. On that point there is general agreement. The concept of safety incentive and recognition awards has been around in one form or another for some time, yet there is very little agreement on their value, and how best, and upon which principles to base their implementation or eradication.

There's some theoretical evidence, philosophical arguments and empirical research, yet opinions on safety recognition and incentive programs still vary, and vary dramatically. Scratch a safety professional and you'll also find an opinion on safety incentives underneath. The difficult part is coming up with some consistent principles, definitions or guidelines upon which to base safety reward, incentive and recognition programs. Still greater difficulty exists in proving these programs actually result in definitive performance improvement.

In other words, can we prove a definite cause and effect relationship? Just because a recognition or reward system is set up, and injury rates go down, does this necessarily mean that the 'program' was the direct cause, or were there other factors? Conversely, if your injury rates and claims costs go through the roof, in spite of the fact that you may have a very comprehensive safety incentive scheme in place, what now becomes your problem and prime focus?

Recognising safety performance has existed under a number of different names for quite some time. Perhaps one of the best places to start is to examine the definitions and see if the words and understanding of the words actually mean what we think they mean.

Some refer to them as incentive programs, some call them recognition or safety awards programs Generally speaking, incentives are rewards with some strings attached - what some commonly refer to as the carrot and stick approach. The presumption is that if you do certain things or reach certain goals you will receive your reward. These rewards are usually financial in nature, or hold some other monetary value. Pay for performance schemes are included under these incentives programs.

Though somewhat similar, the motivational power in recognition lies mainly in its ability to appeal to an employee's sense of pride. It's the "pat on the back," the "coffee and donuts with the CEO," or the "congratulations on a job well-done" type of system. The important thing to remember about recognition is that different people like to be recognised differently. One persons plaque or trophy proudly displayed in the rec. room may be another persons basement junk. 4

But whatever the name, the primary objective has been the same: to recognise and reinforce safe performance. The difficult question centres around just what is safe performance? Is it no lost time accidents? Is it no accidents at all? Is it doing all the prevention activities right, including exhibiting the 'correct' behaviours? Is it luck? Or is it a combination of all of these things?

On to next section	Return to table of contents
HTML by Ralph Stuart	Last revised: April 6, 1997
URL: http://siri.org/library/incprog/