Safety Awards Programs, Advantages and Disadvantages Term Paper

Safety Awards Programs, Advantages and Disadvantages - Term Paper Example 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 (Fland ers & 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 â€Å"Carrot† Approach One major opposition against the incentive schemes is that they are considered bribery. Critics view them as â€Å"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 m ain 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 â€Å"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 mone tary 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