By Melanie Mornard
Mornard and Associates
Last October, Render published an article on safety within the rendering industry compiled from a safety survey. The article mentioned that one difference between companies with good safety records and those with poor records was the presence of incentive programs and behavior-based safety programs. Now it’s time to take a look at the pros and cons of incentive programs, explore what contributes to an effective one, and finally, discuss behavior-based initiatives.
Incentive Programs
All of us are familiar with incentive programs and have experienced them all our lives. I remember hearing, “If you want to go to the dance, you’d better get your room cleaned,” and “I’ll give you one dollar for each ‘A’ on your report card.” Of course, that was back when a dollar was a lot of money.
Teachers gave out grades, or wrote, “Good job!” or “Great improvement” on essays or test sheets. Scouting and sports groups gave prizes for fund raising activities and badges and trophies for completing requirements or winning contests. Even the prison system uses the incentive of time off for good behavior.
If these incentive programs have produced the desired behavior, then it should be a “no brainer” that incentive programs should be a part of every safety program, shouldn’t it? Well, not to everyone.
In an article by Bill Sims Jr. in the October 2000 Occupational Health and Safety magazine, it was reported that in 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Waste Management of Ohio under section 1904.2(a) of the recordkeeping standard for having a safety incentive program and fined them $65,000. The citation maintained that Waste Management coerced employees to go against medical authorities in order to falsify medical records.
Alfie Kohn, author of Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, believes that recognition and incentive programs can actually have an adverse effect on a company. He believes rewards:
• Punish, sometimes unfairly, the people who don’t win rewards;
• Destroy relationships and undermine cooperation between workers;
• Take attention away from the reasons for poor performance; and
• Discourage workers from taking risks, leading them to do only what is needed to win an award – no less and no more.
These statements are in line with one rendering company in the Midwest that discussed their previous incentive program in last fall’s safety survey. The goal was to beat 118 days without a loss time accident, their previous record. If they made their goal, the employees would receive a catered lunch.
Three times the employees came within two days of meeting their goal when an accident occurred. The result of this incentive program was a disgruntled group of employees who were deeply resentful of the injured workers and who no longer believed a safe working environment was possible.
If the above statements are true, then why do the rendering plants with incentive programs also have good safety records? The answer lies in the type of incentive programs offered and how they are structured.
There are essentially two types of incentive programs. The first is the traditional program that link rewards solely to the reduction in the number of accidents or illnesses reported. These programs may reward employees whenever a facility goes a certain length of time without a lost-workday accident, or when they reduce worker compensation claims.
The problem with traditional incentive programs is that they might dissuade employees from reporting accidents to gain the reward. In addition, rewards are based on the safe actions of fellow employees.
E. Scott Geller, a leading authority on behavior-based safety, states that it’s unrealistic to base a safety program on zero accidents. While extremely rare, there are people who have been in accidents where all the factors contributing to the injury could not be anticipated, controlled, or prevented. In addition, even the most safety conscious person can occasionally have what Geller calls a “brain cramp.” Have you ever walked into a room and forgotten why you were there? Or driven through a stop sign that “suddenly” appeared? These are examples of brain cramps, and when they happen, we think, “Now that was dumb!”
Incentive programs based solely on zero reportable accidents can also punish employees who have been making remarkable improvements. At a safety conference, one employee talked about how unfair his company’s program was. As he said, “We busted our butts to eliminate safety hazards, wear our PPE [personal protective equipment], and attend training. We went almost a whole quarter without a single accident. Then one of the guys slipped. There went our reward. Why even bother?”
Even with all of these negatives, rendering plants that have some type of incentive program for the most part subscribe to the traditional approach. If the employee has no loss time accidents, he will earn a reward. Several plants have also included property damage as part of the incentive program, believing that every time there is damage to property, there is always the possibility for an employee injury as well.
In two of the plants that completed last fall’s safety survey, management staff receives a cash bonus if there are no loss time accidents during the year. Unless the bonus is also tied into proactive safety behaviors, this incentive could present a problem during an OSHA audit. A supervisor could be seen as hiding injuries or encouraging people not to report an injury or seek medical care because, “It’s not that bad.” After all, he doesn’t want to lose a bonus over a pulled muscle or minor burn.
So, should all traditional incentive programs be scrapped? No. A traditional safety program could be a fine first step – especially when you are aware of the potential pitfalls of injury hiding and are actively working to assure that underreporting doesn’t become an issue.
One company in the safety survey said they had policies and procedures in place, provided personal protective equipment, and did extensive safety training but were still having many accidents. They decided recently to totally revamp their safety program, beginning with strengthening their citation policy, training the entire plant in SafeStart principles, and establishing an incentive program. The company’s current incentive program is based on having no property damage or reportable injuries during a specific period of time, but as the safety manager said, “This is just the beginning. It was designed to be a ‘wake up call’ for our employees. We wanted to break the accident cycle we’d found ourselves in and we fully expect to quickly move to a safety awareness incentive program.” The manager also mentioned he was aware of the potential for injury hiding with the current program and the supervisors and employees were charged with assuring this didn’t happen.
The second type of incentive program is the non-traditional. These programs link safety incentives to active involvement in safety related activities, such as attendance at safety meetings, participation in problem-solving committees, completion of safety training, safe work practices, safety observation, and near miss reports. The main goal of both programs is the reduction of injuries and subsequent worker compensation costs. But as you can see, the emphasis is quite different. In the traditional program, the total emphasis is on zero accidents, while in the non-traditional approach other safety related activities are equally as important. Safety improvement is seen as a process, not a final destination.
Since the emphasis is on safety awareness, these incentive programs can also be fun. One rendering plant has a Bingo program and each month the employees are given a card marked with safety activities instead of numbers. As employees complete these activities, they mark off their cards. Each employee who completes a Bingo is eligible for a drawing at the end of the month.
Another plant plays “Safety Lotto.” Each Monday a safety question is posted and the employees have a week to research the answer. On Friday, an employee is randomly selected. If they answer correctly, they win a $100 gift certificate. This plant also has a program called “Safety SEEC’er.” If a safety committee member witnesses an act of safety above and beyond normal procedure (i.e., stopping a fellow employee from an unsafe act), they hand the employee a five-dollar token good at a local restaurant. This helps to keep employees focused on safety behaviors.
Behavior-Based Safety Programs
While these programs are good, and certainly a step up from the traditional approach to incentive programs, they still don’t separate the good programs from the great ones. These companies realize that to be successful, it’s necessary to concentrate on the unsafe behaviors that cause accidents in the first place.
While there are many companies that provide behavior-based safety programs, we’ll focus on three of the most common: STOP (Safety Training Observation Program); SafeStart; and Total Safety Culture.
STOP and SafeStart are two programs mentioned by rendering plants during last fall’s survey. Equal numbers of plants had incorporated the two programs and all of the plants reported success. Both of these programs incorporate a video with five workbooks. STOP has four initial workbooks and a refresher book done six months to a year later. The SafeStart program has five workbooks and is currently developing a refresher manual.
Both programs suggest one- to two-hour sessions, completing one workbook each week, and stressing practice between sessions. You can, however, lengthen or shorten the times between sessions if necessary. Both programs can also be done as guided self-study programs for new employees. The philosophy between them is slightly different, however.
The STOP program, distributed by DuPont Safety Resources, begins with the basis that all injuries and occupational illnesses can be prevented. The focus is on safety awareness and the program is designed to get employees thinking about safety in all aspects of their job. There are 11 safety principles stressing the personal responsibility every employee has for their own safety. While off-the-job safety is mentioned, the main thrust of this program is on-the-job safety.
With the STOP program, employees are taught two main techniques: self-observation and total observation. Self-observation is a way of monitoring yourself while you do your job. Before doing a task, employees use their “mind’s eye” to visualize how they will perform the job. They think about how they did it in the past and how they plan to do it now. Then they compare the two to make sure the job is being done safely.
Total observation is a more in-depth approach, using all your senses to make sure your work area is safe. With this method, you look above, below, behind, and inside, listen and smell for unusual sounds and odors, and feel for unusual temperatures and vibrations. When you combine these two methods, you have a powerful tool for developing a safe environment and safe work practices.
For more information on the STOP program, check out DuPont’s Web site at www.dupont.com/stop.
SafeStart, produced by Primedia Workplace Learning, is a behavior-based safety program that has the underlying theme, “accidents are preventable.” The program emphasizes that 98 percent of accidents are caused either because a person has been rushing, is frustrated or tired, or is simply complacent. These states lead to critical errors that increase the potential for an accident. The key is to learn what causes accidents and new ways of approaching safety. This program gives the employee the tools to prevent injuries.
While the STOP program emphasizes on-the-job safety, SafeStart looks at the potential for accidents on the job, while driving, and at home or involved in leisure activities. Employees look at the four hazardous states – rushing, frustration, fatigue, and complacency. These states can cause or contribute to eyes not on task, mind not on task, being in the line of fire, or loss of balance, traction, or grip which increases the risk of injury. Employees learn where they personally are most vulnerable, and then learn methods of recognizing when they are in that state and what they can do to prevent the potential accident.
In addition to the five workbooks, SafeStart is working on a refresher manual and they expect to release it sometime this year. Materials are available in Spanish as well as several other languages. They also have a quarterly magazine with teaching tips and ways to keep the program going after training. For more information, log onto www.safestart.com.
The final program is Total Safety Culture, developed by E. Scott Geller, PhD, and founder of Safety Performance Solutions. Those who have heard him speak at safety council conferences and other safety events have been impressed with his approach to safety.
Geller believes that the only way to eliminate, or rather, reduce accidents since there is no such thing as eliminating accidents permanently, is to identify and remove the barriers to safety. A total safety culture is developed that closes the gap between company safety values, intentions, and actual behavior in a plant.
In a total safety culture, employees are a major part of the solution and consequently feel responsible not only for their own safety, but the safety of their co-workers as well. This is accomplished through a behavior-based approach summed up with the acronym, DO IT(1):
D = Define critical target behavior(s) to increase or decrease;
O = Observe the target behavior(s) during a preintervention baseline period to set behavior-change goals, and perhaps to understand natural environmental or social factors influencing the target behavior(s);
I = Intervene to change the target behavior(s) in desired directions;
T = Test the impact of the intervention procedure by continuing to observe and record the target behavior(s) during the intervention program.
As you can see, this is a more involved program. But because it aims at identifying and eliminating those at-risk behaviors and situations that lead to accidents, it is an extremely effective program. Their Web site is www.safetyperformance.com.
The cost of this program depends on which of the many tools offered you use. Safety Performance Solutions offers a number of assessment tools, videos, books, and consulting services designed to assist a company to implement this program. It requires tremendous commitment on all levels, and initially is time consuming.
On the other hand, how much is spent each year on worker compensation costs, replacing injured workers, and property damage? For a rendering company that already has the basic safety program in place, one of these programs might be the next step in their safety program.
Reference:
1. Geller, E. Scott. 1996. Working Safe. Chilton Book Company. p. 89.
June 2004 Render