<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Example of Incentives Gone Wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong</link>
	<description>Putting Safety First</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:58:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=9732</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Effective Safety Incentive Programs &#124; Health and Safety Risk Management</title>
		<link>http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-160709</link>
		<dc:creator>Effective Safety Incentive Programs &#124; Health and Safety Risk Management</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safetyxchange.org/?p=4428#comment-160709</guid>
		<description>[...] that the concept of incentives is inherently flawed. I’ll render a quick sketch of that view. READ MOREDon’t Incentivize Workplace SafetyLet’s say you work for one of these companies that has heavy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] that the concept of incentives is inherently flawed. I’ll render a quick sketch of that view. READ MOREDon’t Incentivize Workplace SafetyLet’s say you work for one of these companies that has heavy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SAFETY INCENTIVES &#124; SafetyXChange</title>
		<link>http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-197</link>
		<dc:creator>SAFETY INCENTIVES &#124; SafetyXChange</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safetyxchange.org/?p=4428#comment-197</guid>
		<description>[...] would like to respond to the excellent article on safety incentives by Wayne Pardy in the January 28, 2009 issue of SafetyXChange. [Lincoln: insert link] The idea of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] would like to respond to the excellent article on safety incentives by Wayne Pardy in the January 28, 2009 issue of SafetyXChange. [Lincoln: insert link] The idea of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nsisock</title>
		<link>http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-181</link>
		<dc:creator>nsisock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safetyxchange.org/?p=4428#comment-181</guid>
		<description>I personally feel it is the type of safety incentive program a company uses as opposed to safety incentive programs in general.  We have been using the same safety incentive program at our facility for over 12 years and it still works.  Our program is based on employee involvement in reporting hazards.  Each employee, whether office or union, has the opportunity to submit a safety hazard suggestion form and forward it to the safety department.  Each suggestion is looked at individually and response on the necessary action is communicated back to the employee. Any employee who submits a suggestion is eligible for a gift card randomly chosen by our safety committee bi-montly.  This not only involves all employees but it gives them a chance to make suggestions on correcting the problem also.  Two years ago we incorporated our near miss program into this incentative.  It opened up a new door.  Safety incentives should be pro-active based on the employees understanding of the company safety rules and policies.  We started this program during our initial stages of VPP certification and are hoping for another 12 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally feel it is the type of safety incentive program a company uses as opposed to safety incentive programs in general.  We have been using the same safety incentive program at our facility for over 12 years and it still works.  Our program is based on employee involvement in reporting hazards.  Each employee, whether office or union, has the opportunity to submit a safety hazard suggestion form and forward it to the safety department.  Each suggestion is looked at individually and response on the necessary action is communicated back to the employee. Any employee who submits a suggestion is eligible for a gift card randomly chosen by our safety committee bi-montly.  This not only involves all employees but it gives them a chance to make suggestions on correcting the problem also.  Two years ago we incorporated our near miss program into this incentative.  It opened up a new door.  Safety incentives should be pro-active based on the employees understanding of the company safety rules and policies.  We started this program during our initial stages of VPP certification and are hoping for another 12 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hank Roberts</title>
		<link>http://www.safetyxchange.org/financing-safety/incentives-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-180</link>
		<dc:creator>Hank Roberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safetyxchange.org/?p=4428#comment-180</guid>
		<description>I agree that we do not motivate people: motivation is internal.  However, we know -KNOW- that behavior which is rewarded tends to be repeated.  One of the problems in most &quot;incentive programs&quot; (and I hate that term, it is a misnomer) is that we fail to recognize that rewards are subjectively valued rather than objectively.  But there is nothing inherently wrong with rewarding desired behavior: what produces the failures you describe is incorrectly designing and applying programs for those rewards.  

Most of the &#039;behavioral programs&#039; applied in the workplace are actually based on a false premise which dooms them to fail: they presume that changing behaviors will produce a change in attitude (thinking).  Exactly the opposite is true.  

Personally, I&#039;ve seen some effective &#039;incentive programs&#039;, but they were more often designed and tailored to the specific work situation, and were part of a larger program designed to move Safety forward rather than being the key element in behavior change.  

That said, I&#039;d agree that most of the programs being tried are unsuccessful on any serious scale: they&#039;re poorly designed and consequently doomed to prove the Law of Unintended Consequences.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that we do not motivate people: motivation is internal.  However, we know -KNOW- that behavior which is rewarded tends to be repeated.  One of the problems in most "incentive programs" (and I hate that term, it is a misnomer) is that we fail to recognize that rewards are subjectively valued rather than objectively.  But there is nothing inherently wrong with rewarding desired behavior: what produces the failures you describe is incorrectly designing and applying programs for those rewards.  </p>
<p>Most of the 'behavioral programs' applied in the workplace are actually based on a false premise which dooms them to fail: they presume that changing behaviors will produce a change in attitude (thinking).  Exactly the opposite is true.  </p>
<p>Personally, I've seen some effective 'incentive programs', but they were more often designed and tailored to the specific work situation, and were part of a larger program designed to move Safety forward rather than being the key element in behavior change.  </p>
<p>That said, I'd agree that most of the programs being tried are unsuccessful on any serious scale: they're poorly designed and consequently doomed to prove the Law of Unintended Consequences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

