"Shouldn't the perceived need to create a special incentive program become a big red flag that something isn't quite right about the company's management skills or style?"

By Dean B. Wisecarver

Many companies have initiated safety incentive programs. In my 30 plus years of safety management consulting, I've seen a huge variety of such programs. I've also seen articles and recommendations from other safety consultants extolling the value and benefits of such programs. But, alas, I've never seen such a program actually work for more than a short time.

One might ask, “If such programs don't really work, why do so many companies still try them?” To understand, one needs to consider the intent of incentive programs, especially safety incentive programs. These programs are intended to motivate employees to exhibit on-the-job behaviors that don't seem to be occurring naturally or routinely. While this seems innately logical, it is equally logical to believe that these programs are intended to inspire employees to behave in a way that the company's existing management style apparently cannot. Shouldn't the perceived need to create a special incentive program become a big red flag that something isn't quite right about the company's management skills or style?

One must wonder -- if management can't inspire employees to perform correctly and safely without the additional expense and administrative hassles of an incentive program, what else about the employees' behavior isn't as effective as it should be? Will management create still more incentive programs to correct other performance areas?

Certainly, there are many subtle issues involved here, and many reasons safety incentive programs lose impact, too many to cover in this brief article. To cut to the center as quickly as I can, I offer this true story:

At a seminar of executives from rural electric cooperatives, we were discussing the importance of recognizing people routinely for the good things they do on the job. One manager said he recognized the need for “positive reinforcement” and said his cooperative has a program of positive reinforcement, actually a safety incentive program. He went on to explain the program provides any line crew worker who goes through the entire year without having a disabling injury with a day off with pay and dinner for two at the area's finest restaurant.

Upon further discussion, I finally asked the group to think about a sample scenario. Assume the incentive just described is in effect. A lineman is called out after hours to handle an emergency outage. It is January 20, cold, snowing. He's just been pulled away from the warmth of his home and family. How many of you believe that, while he's out there doing his tasks in the cold of January, he will be thinking about that day off with pay and dinner for two that he could earn on December 31? Nobody raised his or her hand. Then I asked, when do you believe he will actually be thinking about that reward - when will it actually influence his behavior? The answer was sometime around December 15th, if he makes it that far without an injury!

Then I changed the scenario. What if we modified the incentive and establish that if he makes it through the entire year without a disabling injury, he gets a cash bonus of $20,000. Now, same situation - he's out on a trouble call after hours on January 20. How many of you believe he will be thinking about the incentive and that it will affect his behavior as he goes about his tasks? Every executive raised his or her hand.

What's happening here? Why does changing the size of the reward change things? I suggest it is because the size of the reward is directly proportional to the time frame over which the incentive will actually affect behavior. That is, the longer the time we want to influence an employee's behavior, the larger the reward must be. Everyone tended to agree with that assessment.

Okay, if we change the time frame from an entire year to something shorter, can we accomplish the same result with smaller and smaller rewards? In other words, is it logical that the smaller the time frame over which we want to influence an employee's behavior, the smaller the reward needs to be? Yes, all believed that made sense.

Now comes the clincher! If we are really astute, capable managers and supervisors and we remember to recognize and thank that fictional lineman for doing his job well and according to our desires and expectations, and do so virtually every day, would he not see that as a reward? And in so doing, could we not accomplish the same influence on his behavior we were trying to accomplish using special incentives? Is it possible that by being good managers and supervisors, by understanding that we can affect behaviors by recognizing the basic human need for positive feedback, we can eliminate the need for special incentive programs? Lots of blank stares, followed shortly by nodding heads as this concept took root. (You can find our article on positive feedback, just one of many aspects of really good management style, previously published in the Oct-Nov-Dec, 2001 issue of RE-marks, by using in the "Archive" button above.)

Based on my experience, I have formed a strong opinion that companies should strive to spend available resources on things that directly support their core business. This means I believe the time and money spent on implementing and administering a “safety incentive program” would be much better spent on training and developing good mangers and supervisors, something that directly supports everything the company is trying to do.

Please understand - I recognize there are companies, and yours may be one of them, that have excellent management skills and style and also have safety incentive programs. My intent here is not to undermine existing programs or suggest that any company that has an incentive program must have management deficiencies. I am intending to encourage companies who may be contemplating incentive programs because they are having safety or other performance problems to look closely at the alternatives. If management skills and style are the real cause of the problems, I don't believe a special incentive program will improve things for more than a brief time.

One final thought. Some of you reading this, who may accept the principle presented but may already have an incentive program in place, face a potentially difficult situation. How do you eliminate an existing program without sending employees the wrong signals about your interest in their safety performance and without creating the appearance you are “taking something away?” This is a legitimate issue and we have given it much thought. There are some ways to rekindle the effectiveness of an existing program (although I still believe a company that does this is spending resources on something that only indirectly supports its core business). Perhaps in a future article I will address this issue. If you want to discuss this sooner than that, or if you wish to take issue with what I have suggested in this article, please write to me at dean@synebar.com. I always welcome your feedback, suggestions, ideas, and even criticism.