Safety Awards Programs - Term Paper Example

?Running head: SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS Critical Assessment of Safety Awards Programs and Number SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 2 Critical Assessment of Safety Awards Programs Introduction Safety should always be the top priority of any organization. However, safety awards programs are faced with oppositions for reasons such as cost and effectiveness. One has to understand that an effective and solid safety program can save companies big amounts of money. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), if a safety program is successfully implemented in a company, it minimizes impact on productivity due to injury reduction, lowers premium rates on insurances, and reduces compensation expenses for injured employees (2005). Additionally, approximately $7,000 USD is the cost for non-lost time accident, $38,000 USD for disabling accident, and $1.1M USD for a workplace fatality (NSC, 2005). This is most probably why most American businesses have some sort of safety awards programs. However, the effectiveness of such programs is still the source of ongoing debate among its advocates and critics (Friend & Kohn, 2010). In this light, it is necessary for any organization to understand and recognize the positive and negative attributes of such safety awards programs to determine whether the incentive scheme is obtaining the organizational goal. Several texts on safety and management provide well-examined data on the pros and cons of incentives on performance and motivation. A number of safety professionals maintain that an incentive scheme is a significant factor in any health and safety program. However, a few individuals view the philosophy behind these incentive schemes is founded on flawed principles (Flanders & Lawrence, 1999). Critics still point out three major debatable and interconnected areas surrounding the safety awards programs --- use of monetary rewards to improve work productivity and quality, unreliable SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 3 injury reports that underreport health and safety hazards and accidents, and long-term effectiveness of such programs (Davis & Prichard, 2000). The “Carrot” Approach One major opposition against the incentive schemes is that they are considered bribery. Critics view them as “de-motivators” and underhanded attempts at control because they can induce people to create an image of safety by covering up injuries or accidents. These few individuals assert that incentives are there due to two major reasons: 1) giving away incentives makes management feel good, and 2) safety professionals resort to bribery because they do not really know how to lessen injuries and accidents (Azaroff, 2002). On a deeper perspective, there are three main bases that put incentive schemes in a bad light. First is the incorrect concept that injuries are merely results of accidents and that avoiding them deserve rewards. This standpoint does not consider that workplace injuries are usually due to a mishmash of improper behaviors, inappropriate practices or methods, and perilous environment. Second is the thought that incentives fail to recognize the real causes of accidents. They disguise and draw the attention away from the roots of the issue. Third is related to the first basis, where incentives give the idea that rewards will prompt workers to avoid behaving inappropriately (Flanders & Lawrence, 1999). Contrary to these viewpoints, safety rewards supporters believe in the “carrot” theory (Davis & Prichard, 2000). It is the way where organizations show their care for their workers by promoting safety in the workplace. Proponents of this concept also believe that long-term effectiveness can be achieved by providing monetary incentives for appropriate behavior and increased safety awareness. In agreement to this idea, attaining goals through incentives has SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 4 always been embraced by society. Incentives have always been part of people’s lives, like frequent flyer rewards, school recognition for academic excellence, stock market rewards for wise investments, or pay for performance schemes in workplaces. Whether everyone accepts it or not, incentives gain attention, influence people to achieve desired results, and make awardees feel positive (Azaroff, 2002). Injury Reporting Fewer accidents is a good thing, but David Michaels, head of Organizational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), declares his lack of confidence in reported injury rates. As mentioned under “The Carrot Approach,” safety awards programs that give away bonuses in terms of free dinners, prizes, or money for zero or even low injury reports cause workers and management to underreport accidents to have a good record on paper (OSHA, 2010). Additionally, a safety professional from Safety Performance Solutions, Scott Geller, states that these programs suppress workers from discussing their workplace accidents or injuries (Gyekye, 2010). This puts the injury-reporting program under scrutiny especially of those who oppose this as a basis for safety incentives. It enforces the idea that injury rates are no longer reliable due to the possible influence that monetary rewards have on them. The number of injuries in any organization is important in determining what actions need to be done (Hidden Tragedy, 2008). Contrary to the above-stated perceptions, there are several ways to regain the credibility of injury reports, or at least make them work toward achieving organizational safety goals. If injury reporting is established correctly in an organization, it can have a significant effect in the long-term safety goal of the company. First, safety management people should send a clear message that underreporting, or, much worse, non-reporting, is not SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 5 tolerated within the company. Second, individual awards programs can eliminate peer pressure from workers to disguise or hide an injury or accident since this eliminates the collective purpose of non-disclosure of accidents. Third, accrual-based incentives can erase the pressure of having zero-incidence of accidents because it allows participants to be still eligible despite a report of a single injury or accident. This eliminates purposeful hiding of injuries or accidents. Fourth, short-term programs can also help in giving workers a fresh start even after an accident. Lastly, avoiding the culture of having others lose their chances due to a single incident involving one employee is also something to consider (Gyekye, 2010). These strategies will avoid de-motivation and encourage a long-term culture of safety. These strategies also prove that injury reporting is not necessarily an obsolete, unreliable safety program. However, its success and its effectiveness are dependent on the style of implementation. Effectiveness The harmful effects on workers’ behavior within the company are one of the major oppositions for the effectiveness of safety awards programs. Normally, workers learn how to manipulate the program to maximize their gains without any real changes done for the purpose of safety. Additionally, it can be de-motivating to expect rewards that are delayed, or at times, not given. Overdone incentive scheme can produce a shaky ground for fairness and equality. On the other hand, insignificant incentives can be ineffective and insulting. Critics of incentive programs maintain that appropriate safety rewards programs are hard to launch and manage, and prone to disadvantages and weaknesses that challenge the desired results (Friend & Kohn, 2010). On the other hand, as stated in the previous paragraphs, effectiveness of safety awards programs is principally dependent on its administration within the company. To have a long- SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 6 term effect, these programs should be researched, evaluated, developed, and administered properly (Davis & Prichard, 2000). Failures in achieving desired outcome, such a long-term effectiveness cannot be blamed on the program itself, but on its administration. Moreover, as stated in “The Carrot Approach,” these programs do no harm, and removing them from the organization’s culture and system could create more dangers because incentive schemes are so much part of the culture (Azaroff, 2002). Recommendations There are two types of incentive schemes that can be implemented. One is the traditional, and the other is the non-traditional. Traditional incentive schemes reward workers who participate in the reduction in the number of reported of accidents or injuries. These schemes are mainly results-oriented. One example is a scheme that offers incentives when a facility or department operates within a specific period without any incidents of lost-workdays. The negative side of this scheme is the possibility of encouraging underreporting or non-reporting of accidents for the sake of receiving the rewards (Flanders & Lawrence, 1999). This also increases peer pressure as most rewards are based on the behavior of co-workers. However, this does not say that a traditional incentive program is less-effective than a non-traditional scheme. It just calls for a more careful evaluation and proper implementation. If an organization chooses to implement traditional schemes, the management should ensure that the structure will not encourage underreporting or non-reporting of accidents. Non-traditional schemes, on the other hand, reward workers who actively participate in the procedures of avoiding injuries, safe work practices, and safety-related measures. These schemes are mainly involvement-oriented. One example is a scheme that offers incentives when workers show active involvement in identifying SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 7 hazards, offering recommendations, and attending safety meetings. Contrary to traditional schemes, non-traditional programs encourage worker awareness of, and interest in, safety issues. This will help more in creating a culture of safety that will be effective on a long-term basis (OSHA, 2010). Conclusion The real problem lies not in the incentive scheme, risk of underreporting or non-reporting, or lack of effectiveness. These arguments do not validate the actual problem, but accuses the program of possible problems. The real problem is the lack of serious evaluation of an appropriate safety awards program based on the needs of the company, and the implementation of such. These stated arguments against safety awards programs are actually a domino-effect of an improperly managed incentive scheme (Gyekye, 2010). Incentive schemes should not be disregarded as unimportant, or even be viewed as a form of bribery (Azaroff, 2002). A properly established incentive program, whether traditional or non-traditional, can motivate employees towards a joint goal of creating a culture of safety within the workplace (OSHA, 2010). Risks of underreporting or non-reporting should not deter any organization from establishing a safety awards program that they deem appropriate. Integrity within the managerial level, proper cascading of information to every employee, and creating an environment of non-tolerance towards intentional cover-up of accidents or injuries --- probably even having disciplinary sanctions to those who are involved in malicious hiding of incidents of injuries --- are only some of the ways to ensure proper reporting of accidents within the workplace. What everyone should understand is every incentive scheme is bound to be successful with proper leadership and commitment from the management (Gyekye, 2010). The desired long-term SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 8 effectiveness can easily be achieved through the dedication of those involved towards creating a safe workplace environment. It is a matter of culture-building, integrity, properly placed policies, and adequate amount of motivation. SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 9 Works Cited Azaroff, L. S. (January 01, 2002). Occupational injury and illness surveillance: Conceptual filters explain underreporting. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 9, 2002. Davis, S. D., & Prichard, R. (2000). Risk management & insurance bonding for the construction industry. Alexandria, Va: Associated General Contractors of America. Flanders, M. E., & Lawrence, J. T. W. (January 01, 1999). FEATURES - WARNING! SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ARE UNDER OSHA SCRUTINY: TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT UNDER-REPORTING - According to the authors, OSHA is closely examining "traditional" safety incentive programs -- Those that are primarily results-oriented. But incentive programs are not the true problem, the authors say. Injury hiding and non-reporting are. "It is necessary to clearly distinguish between what is perceived to potentially result in under-reporting and what actually does result in under-reporting.". Professional Safety, 44, 12, 29. Friend, M. A., & Kohn, J. P. (2010). Fundamentals of occupational safety and health. Lanham, Md: Government Institutes. Gyekye, S. A. (January 01, 2010). Occupational safety management: The role of causal attribution. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 6, 405-416. National Safety Council. (2005). Safety and health code of ethics resource guide: How to implement a code of ethics for safety and health in your organization. Itasca, Ill.: National Safety Council. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2010). General Books. United States. (2008). Hidden tragedy: Underreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses : SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 10 hearing before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, second session, hearing held in Washington, DC, June 19, 2008. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Read More