Introduction
A safety incentive program is defined by (Steenbergen and Gelder, 2013, p.1564), as a scheme set by an organization that rewards or recognizes the workers for their safe practice behavior or upon achieving safety performance milestones or goals. An organization usually rewards staffs who get involved in the identification of potential hazards, participate, and make suggestions towards the process of creating a constructive change in the company’s workplace safety principles. The promoters of Safety Incentive Programs have confidence that Safety Incentive Programs as a tool are an important and essential instrument for almost all business. Safety incentive tools are essential to every company, regardless of the size of the company or the industry a firm is operating in. The supporters of the safety programs implement the programs with the intention that the program maintains and builds the workers interests in ensuring they work safely. The incentive program acts as a motivation to the staff to work safer (2012, p, 35).
Discussion
According to (Mastrullo, Jones, and Jones, 2006, p. 5), safety incentive programs have a degree of peer group influence such that the program might not reduce the cases of injuries in an organization, but instead reduce the cases that are being reported. (Mastrullo, Jones, and Jones, 2006, p. 5) support this point by mentioning that the reward programmes are based on lagging indicators of safety such as injury or count rates thus causing a drop in the number of injuries being reported and not the actual accidents occurring in the organization. This argument can partly be blamed on peer influence since most employees who have minor injuries might not report their cases with the aim of getting the reward allocated for practising the safety precautions. This fact may be attributed to the influence by other colleagues who have previously received the rewards. Also, an employee may fear victimization by fellow employees in case they report their injury cases. This is because fellow employees may ostracize the person who wrecks the safety record.
Most reward programs insist on employee contribution. OSHA VPP does not only stress on employee contribution but also stresses on the crucial need for a strong safety reward program. OSHA VPP stresses on the need for a complete and effective safety reward program so that the main objectives expected of the program may be achieved. A strong reward program should be competitive enough and attainable by all the employees working in an organization (OSHAs stance on safety incentive Programs). This may in turn improve the motivation for a safety-behavior. Practically, it may not be possible to produce a safety incentive program that may reduce the cases of accidents to 0%. Also, it may not be possible to reward the employees who only observe all the safety rules. This is not possible since it may lead to none of the employees being rewarded thus leading to demotivation of the employees resulting in an inefficient labour force.
In the article, OSHA concluded that the employers have no basis claiming that programs awarding of rewards to the employees who do not report injuries I real sense make workstations safer. OSHA also mentioned the “chilling effect” where these programs have on worker reports of illnesses and job injuries (OSHAs stance on safety incentive Programs). In order for a company to ensure it gets the best out of its safety reward program, According to (The Truth About Safety Incentives), the organization must ensure it practices some or all of the following basic practices:
Ensuring management participation and support of the program over the welfare of the employees ensures that the program is implemented as a major company policy. This in turn improves the rate of employees observing the safety-behaviors making safety a priority of the organization.
Another policy is that the organization should award the behaviors that lead to the safety of the workplace and not only the performance outcome. This ensures that the organization will not only award the employees that had no injuries, but may in most cases award the employees that observed the safety procedures effectively. This may thus reduce the cases of the employee not reporting cases of accidents so as to receive the rewards of the program.
Also, involving everyone in the development of the scheme may bring long term success to the organization in terms of safety. The people being involved may include employees, managers and the shareholders. The program should also be simple to follow and ensure that the reward being offered is enough motivation for the employees to observe safety rules.
Some of the general pros of the safety reward program include; an increase in the safety awareness; employees tend to value the recognition by the management; safety becomes an important factor of the company and improves the public relations between the management and the employees. On the other hand, the major disadvantage of the recognition program is that the program rewards the wrong behavior of not reporting accident cases (Hickman, 2007, p.77).
In conclusion, establishing safety incentive programs basing on lagging incidents may not assist in making the work place safer. It is better to establish a safety incentive program that rewards basing on the measures recorded before accidents occur. In the case of the leading indicator program, the program depends on the leading indicators of safety like safety inspections. An example is like the ones entered on SafetyNet. In general, using leading indicators is a more reliable method since it evaluates the safety on-site and also evaluates as to whether or not the employees ought to receive an incentive.
Reference
OSHAs stance on safety incentive Programs (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2012/09/01/OSHAs-Stance-on-Safety-Incentive- Programs.aspx
The Truth About Safety Incentives: | OSP Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ospmag.com/issue/article/092008-Truth
Steenbergen, R. & Gelder, P. (2013). Safety, Reliability and Risk Management Esrel 2013. City: CRC Pr I Llc.
Hickman, J. (2007). Impact of behavior-based safety techniques on commercial motor vehicle drivers. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board.Mastrullo, K., Jones, R. & Jones, J. (2006). The electrical safety program book. Sudbury, Mass. Quincy, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers National Fire Protection Association.
