The challenges to conventional safety thinking, coupled with the advent of pressure in the workplace to be more efficient and competitive have forced many in the safety field to evaluate just how effective or useful these recognition and incentive programs are. It is not a black and white issue. For some they apparently work. Others detest them. Yet despite all the controversy incentive and recognition can still play an important part of your safety management process. It's important to take the time to seriously ask, just what is it we want this program to do for us, and how best can it be done? For those looking to implement a system, or if you're thinking about revising your present system, the following guidelines can help you develop a system which will stand a greater chance of acceptance and success:

While the decision to use or not to use safety incentives or recognition is only one which can be made by you and your organisation, if you should decide they are for you there are some guidelines which should help guide your decision to make it a right one. In a 1989 study of safety program evaluations, researchers McAfee and Winn explained that specific rewarded behaviour may improve, while other safe behaviours may deteriorate. In contrast, if avoiding accidents is rewarded, then all the behaviours that contribute to it are also rewarded and maintained. the best solution seems to be a balance of both activities and statistical results.

E. Scott Geller offers a number of suggestions for how to go about structuring safety incentive programs, with particular emphasis on measurable observable 'behaviours' as the key to the success of the system.

• The behaviours required to achieve a safety award should be specified and perceived as achievable by the participants
• Everyone who meets the behavioural criteria should be rewarded
• It's better for many participants to receive small awards than for one person to receive a big award
• The rewards should be displayed and represent safety achievement. Coffee mugs, hats, shirts, sweaters, blankets or jackets with a safety message are preferable to rewards that will be hidden, used or spent
• Contests should not reward one group at the expense of another
• Groups should not be penalised or lose their rewards for failure by an individual
• Progress toward achieving a safety reward should be systematically monitored and publicly posted for all participants. 34

It's interesting to note that this type of approach being promoted by Geller and other behaviourists will work in an organisation which has adopted a behaviour-based approach to safety, where the organisation develops an inventory of 'at risk' or 'unsafe' behaviours and samples the workplace to determine the % of safe behaviours observed on any given shift, day or week. Newfoundland Power does believe that both employee and management attitudes and behaviours impact on safety, but we have not committed to a behavioural approach, and I would venture to say this would be a difficult thing for us to achieve, based on current realities.

We have opted for more of a cognitive approach to safety management, attempting to develop policies, practices, procedures and systems which, in our opinion, make for a well-rounded safety management system. We strive to involve all levels of employees and management in the prevention process, and help ensure a positive safety climate, while at the same time ensuring legislative compliance and a due diligence focus. Is it the right approach? At this point in time we consider it the right approach, and right now it works for us, as we are attempting more and more to rationalise what we do, why we do it, and the benefits it will bring. As a company which has committed to a corporate effectiveness approach (similar in principle to TQM) we want to ensure that the direction in which we are moving as a company from a safety perspective is consistent with the direction where the rest of the organisation is going. As such, our corporate philosophy and principles from a TQM perspective states, 'the effectiveness process shall compliment and support efforts aimed at improving workplace safety and health'. At the end of the day I think we have a very good idea of where we want to be and how to get there.

Research which I have been able to access also suggests that the behaviourist approach to safety seems to have its roots deeply planted in the U.S., with the work of a number of American psychologists apparently seeing an opportunity to apply their trade to the industrial safety movement. While I haven't conducted any research of my own, discussion with collegues indicate their discomfort with the word 'behaviour approach', as it is sometimes perceived as a controlling approach, based on psycological attempts to manipulate human behaviour. Also, a number of labour groups I have spoken with have difficulty with the behaviour modification concept, and consider this American approach to be totally inconsistent with the issues of the right to participate, the right to refuse and the right to know, as fundamental principles of Canadian OH&S safety legislation.

On to next section	Return to table of contents
HTML by Ralph Stuart	Last revised: April 6, 1997
URL: http://siri.org/library/incprog/newapproach3.html