To Reward or not to Reward

Now that’s the question, what is the answer?

Mark Donnelly

Catching fish to eat

does not warrant a

reward!

Are you telling me that

feeding myself and not going

hungry is the reward?

Can I still

have a gift?

2 | P a g e

Almost every company now has some form of reward system for the

promotion/enforcement of safety. These programs seem to be mostly of a simplistic model;

if you don’t have an incident, then we will give you something in return. Visit most

workplaces today and you will find the total number of days without lost time injury located

on the corkboard for all to see; kind of like a friendly warning to all workers and visitors

saying; don’t DARE hurt yourself...we are near to the reward! You will even hear it at that

weekly safety meetings; going well team, we are now at 100 days for no lost time injury (as

if to think that this comment is going to make any difference to anyone who is going to

unexpectedly hurt themselves).

It should not matter how many incident free days one has, because everyday should

have the same value applied to it; go home how you arrived. MD

The other topic I feel is an issue with counting days that I have not read about (although I

am sure it has been said somewhere) is that the more incident free days that are

accumulated, the more protection of these days becomes the goal (higher the number the

less reporting etc). This switch of goal then contributes more towards an unsafe

environment. I have no research to back up my claim here, but I am sure if a study was

done, there would be a sure sign of a higher value of protection applied, relative to the

number of incident free days accumulated. I mean, many people would not be as concerned

with having lost one day of incident free time within a few days of starting the count

(project), compared to loosing 300 days of incident free time for the same event near the

end of a project.

Safety First or Numbers First - Warning AVOID ACCIDENTS!

3 | P a g e

Whilst this visible number is there to make one think about their actions is a semi-good idea

as a way to manipulate ones potential risk taking mindset, (if one did have such a risk taking

mindset), it is still an outcome-based reactive scheme. The typical one program fits all

approach for rewarding those for a period of incident free time is reactive if no

tractable/trending value has been attached to the whole process.

It’s reactive on the condition that if you do not have an injury, then you will get your

reward. This simply implies to the worker to stay out of harm’s way with no guide on how to

do it. To stay out of harm’s way is to not hurt yourself, to avoid the hazards. Up till now, I

have not yet met a single person who goes to work wanting to hurt themselves. I could stay

out of harm’s way for 3 years without reporting one hazard. I could stay out of harm’s way

for 3 years not following any common procedure. I could stay out of harm’s way for 3 years

just by being lucky. Does this warrant a reward knowing that that I have not followed any

written procedure, that I have left many near misses and hazards not advertised; that will

someday become active and cause an accident to myself or some other poor individual? No,

I don’t believe so.

4 | P a g e

Not reporting any level of event or hazard causes information to be hidden from the

corrective action process, which can lead to risks that are not being dealt with

appropriately. This type of negative behaviour needs to be measured. As I and many others

keep saying, these hazards do not go away; they will hang around until activated, they are

“hazards in waiting” and one day, your Swiss Cheese holes will shuffle around until all the

holes line up. Murphy’s law might say that; this hazard arrives a day after the workers get

their 365 day incident free award. Then you have to ask yourself, was the reward justified. If

it was justified, how did you come to your conclusion? What if the award was for 366 days

of incident free time, then the award in this case would not have been granted, because the

accident happened on the last day.

The goal of staying injury free is an innate safety incentive (be it of various levels) in all of us;

it’s much the same as the debated Zero Harm topic. It’s not proactive and it’s not reactive,

it’s just a goal, just a carrot dangling on a string. The action (doing) of eliminating hazards

and reporting near misses that could cause an incident is proactive; the “goal” is to not have

an incident. And there I feel lays the difference. Do you finish a building by starting at the

completion? No, you complete a building by putting all the bits together over time. Do you

make a safe workplace by a number of incident free days? No, you make a safe workplace

by following procedures and training, dealing with hazards and controlling risks as they

come to light; hence, the result is an incident free period.

You may have a goal to reach 365 days with no incidents, that’s a great goal to have, but to

ensure we are doing something that can reach that goal is the important part. If I want to

lose 10kg, that’s a great goal, but what I eat and how many calories I burn through my diet

period will determine if I reach my goal or not, this is the important part. These

measurements that I keep track of and write down along the way are to check my progress.

If I don’t reach my goal, I can look back at my diet and exercise program to see why I failed;

hence my reward of losing 10kg has not been justified, I did not deserve it and I have to

work harder to get it. If for some magical reason I still lost 10kg without doing anything

(eating right, exercising), the reward is nothing special, it was just expected that I would get

it.

5 | P a g e

The common issue of a safety reward program has been raised many times; the reward of a

monetary or tangible gift in return for an expected incident free timeframe (the reward for

not hurting yourself). These outcome-based incentive programs tend to cause under-

reporting or even a non-reporting working culture, which obviously have negative long term

results. Studies seem to confirm this, and I have seen it personally, and it does not matter

what industry it is in either. People tend to focus on the reward rather than the process

needed to stay injury free.

With these types of outcome based reward programs being used, why do we still seem to

see a typical rate of incidents occurring? If you think incidents are going down due to

rewards and incentives, do a little research as to why this might be the case and you might

just find that such topics as safer plant and return to work programs is the reason for the

lowering of statistical data (that’s a different topic). So safety award programs are taking

money out of a company's revenue without a meaning or significant return on investment,

because no-one in management puts any effort into asking; is the reward system actually

working or is it just an expected process that all companies do these days as a way to look as

though the company is being proactive?

If a reward is given to those who know they truly believe they have

earned it, then the reward is respected, i f on the other hand the reward is

given to those who truly know they did not deserve it, th en the reward is

not respected. MD

6 | P a g e

So, what could be a better way to implement a reward and recognition system for being

safe that may have some merit to it?

Organisations could start rewarding workers or workgroups for simply “doing”. Reward the

workers for being proactive and for participating in identifying and dealing with potential

losses. I would call this system “accumulative system recognition”. If we look at the things

we “do” that make us and our workplace safe; finding hazards, doing audits, completing and

using procedures, reporting safe and unsafe acts, then we could start to build a reward

system based around these actions; the things we do.

This type of incentive would actually involve the workers more in the success and

development of the organisation. It would make the reward more tangible instead of just

collecting the dividend at the end. If workers were more aware that their contributions

(reporting hazards and developing procedures etc) made the organisation more successful,

then they know that a better reward will be forthcoming. Now isn’t that the same goal as

the owners and shareholders, and why they work so hard and do long hrs “doing” things

that give them a better reward?

I have made two simple tables displaying two work groups. Both have the same amount of

people doing the same work; can you see what group is the safer group?

Group (A) – total number of LTI free days 365

Hazards raised that

have been

acknowledged by

management

Average timeframe

Hazards were

closed (days)

Total cost of

incidents (using

incident cost

calculator)

Total improvements

to SOPs approved

by Management

Total number of

Safe Acts observed

and acknowledged

by management

Total number of

Near misses raised

that had actions

assigned

33 2 $120,000 12 45 16

Group (B) - total number of LTI free days 365

Hazards raised that

have been

acknowledged by

management

Average timeframe

Hazards were

closed (days)

Total cost of

incidents (using

incident cost

calculator)

Total improvements

to SOPs approved

by Management

Total number of

Safe Acts observed

and acknowledged

by management

Total number of

Near misses raised

that had actions

assigned

4 13 $340,000 3 14 6

If you said group B, then I would be very worried for you and for your organisation.

7 | P a g e

Now using these tables as an example, both had 365 days of no LTI, so both get the award,

but really, should group B get the same reward or even one at all. Is group B really trying to

be safe? The figures tend to say no. In this case, luck might seem to be the factor as to why

they have not had a LTI. So what happens in this case is that the workers are laughing

behind managements back, knowing they get rewarded for “doing nothing”. This program

has then failed in its application. Again, I have seen this many times where workers don’t

even really respect that they are getting the award, because they know they have been

lucky a few times and they know they don’t do things expected by the organisation such as

report incidents. Management has no idea because they are not out there. It really is a joke.

How this type of accumulative system recognition reward method could be determined is by

this type of “doing data” that is collected. How an organisation determines the relationship

between the numbers and a reward value is totally up to them. It could be based on a ratio,

percent of, variation etc. The organisation may have set a minimum requirement for each

section just like a KPI.

Look, I think rewards programs are great and can work well, but programs of the right type.

Rewarding workers for a number of LTI free days is not what I would think is a practical or

proactive way to promote a safety culture. In a perfect world, rewards should not even be

considered necessary, because why do you need a reward for being safe? (See my penguin

cartoon on the front page)

Would you give yourself an award for feeding yourself when you’re hungry? How about

giving yourself one for sleeping each night? What about giving yourself one for not hurting

yourself at home? I think you would answer no in each one of these questions, because

each one of these leads to a collective answer of; the reward is your survival.

So, if you are looking at implementing a reward system, or if you already have one in place,

think about the criterion needed to get to the “goal” and if these are measurable. Think

about what you need to “do”, what tactics or approaches will lead to the goal. Also think

about the quality of your safety system, if it is not where it needs to be and does not offer

good training or give the worker clear direction and understanding, then implementing an

award system may not be a good idea until you have a quality system in place.