Do safety incentives and rewards programs enhance safety performance and improve behavior? Some evidence suggests they do. But the evidence is not without flaws. In addition, some suggest that the beneficial effects of incentives are short-lived. Let's continue reviewing the evidence.

The Findings - & Flaws - of the Studies

[i] In "The Use of Incentives/Feedback to Enhance Work Place Safety: A Critique of the Literature," R. Bruce McAfee and Ashley R. Winn examine 24 studies on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement and feedback. The authors found a striking array of rewards and feedback programs. But the consistent variable in the approaches is that they were based on the behavior modification principle and the premise that behavior is a function of its consequences. [ii]

The authors detected some weaknesses in the studies. First of all, the central premise - that rewarded behavior is likely to be repeated - is not definitively established. None of the studies consider the long-term ramifications of safety enhancement and accident reduction. And the effects of various independent variables on employee job satisfaction and the supervisor-subordinate relationship are largely ignored.

McAfee and Winn also found the studies to be very clinical in their assessment of various incentive approaches. Seldom do we hear from the subjects on their perceptions of the incentive approach. Nor do we gain any understanding of the type of safety climate or culture within which these approaches were used. Also conspicuous by its absence is objective examination of existing safety management systems employed in the respective businesses. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that any other mid- to senior management level incentives were used to complement or support the employee-focused safety incentive approaches.

There has also been substantial examination given to alternatives to the incentive and recognition approach. The difficulty in examining the positive incentive articles seems to be that they are written in a non-critical way, leaving the reader to accept from the outset that safety incentives are, by definition, beneficial. This conclusion is treated as dogma which is not subject to question.

The Critique of Behaviorism

There are, of course, also critics of the behaviorism underlying the select approaches to incentives and rewards. Perhaps the best known of these critics is Alfie Kohn. The 'token economy' utilized in some safety studies and other behavior modification approaches, according to Kohn, is nothing more than an elaborate behavior modification plan, with markers or treats which can be traded in for gifts, given out in doggie biscuit fashion when people act appropriately.

Kohn found that when the token reinforcement is removed, desirable responses generally return to baseline or near baseline levels. In everyday language, cut off the goodies and people will go right back to acting the way they did before the program began.[iii] According to Kohn, the pervasiveness of the "do this and you'll get that" approach in the running of modern businesses is cause for concern. "The time to worry," says Kohn, "is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like plain common sense."[iv]

Kohn and other critics don't suggest that safety incentives and reward schemes are totally devoid of effectiveness. They acknowledge that rewards and punishments do induce compliance.

The problem, says Kohn, is that reinforcements based on behavioral modification approaches do not generally alter attitudes and emotional commitments. As a result, changes in behavior tend to be short-term and last only as long as the bribe or threat is present. To achieve lasting change, a business must ensure that all workers feel like they're a part of the business and take ownership in its success. Simple compliance and behavior manipulation schemes don't promote such a sense of ownership, says Kohn.[v]

Conclusion

Underlying all of this debate is a central question for safety practitioners to ponder: Isn't health and safety essentially a matter of simple compliance? The demands or rules you're seeking to comply with vary - government rules, performance standards, behavior modification schemes, etc. The approaches to compliance may also vary in terms of carrots, sticks and combinations thereof. But the common bond in each situation is getting people to do what they're told.

I find it ironic that safety people who have complained for years about the burden of complying with government regulation want the very same kind of compliance from their own workers. The goal of incentives and rewards is to gain that compliance.

So at the end of the day, it's a simple matter of compliance. . . Or is it? Next week, I'll end this series with a critical look at the issues of compliance and control in the context of practical incentive strategies.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES

[i] R. Bruce McAfee and Ashley R. Winn, "The Use of Incentives/Feedback to Enhance Work Place Safety: A Critique of the Literature," Journal of Safety Research 20 (1989): page 9.

[ii] Ibid, pp. 15-16.

[iii] Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), p. 38.

[iv] Ibid, p. 3.

[v] Ibid, p. 41.

HEROES OF WORKPLACE SAFETY
Stephanie L. Kwolek

By Glenn Demby

Stephanie Kwolek: Her invention has saved the lives of countless police officers.

Its technical name is poly-paraphenylene tetrephalamide. But its commercial name is the one everybody knows. Kevlar®. What few people know is the name of its inventor: Stephanie L. Kwolek.

Born in the Pennsylvania town of New Kensington in 1923, Kwolek grew up with a passionate love of nature. As a young girl, she spent hours collecting wildflowers, seeds, grasses and leaves in the woods and fields near her home. But she was no simple daisy picker. Kwolek assembled the specimens and elaborate descriptions into scrapbooks.

After receiving a Bachelor of Science in 1946, Kwolek wanted to study medicine. But she didn't have the money for medical school. So she decided to work for chemical giant, E.I. du Pont Nemours & Company in Buffalo. In her early work, Kwolek experimented with low-temperature processes for creating and strengthening polymers and fibers.

While in her 40s, Kwolek was asked to scope out a new generation of high-performance fibers. During this work, she stumbled upon an important discovery: Under the right conditions, paraoriented aromatic polyamides of high molecular weight form liquid crystalline solutions that can be spun into fibers of unusually high strength and stiffness. The culmination of this discovery was the invention of Kevlar®, a fabric that doesn't rust or corrode and whose light weight belies its incredible strength.

Today, Kevlar® is used as a key ingredient in a number of workplace protective devices, most notably bullet-proof vests, as well as in mooring ropes, fiber-optic cables, aircraft parts, parachutes, brake linings and even canoes.

Kwolek, who retired from Du Pont in 1986, lives in Delaware and holds 28 patents.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top