Safety Awards Programs, Advantages and Disadvantages Term Paper

Safety Awards Programs, Advantages and Disadvantages - Term Paper ExampleAdditionally, approximately $7,000 USD is the cost for non-lost eon 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 get some sort of preventative 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 fixate 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 remarkable factor in any health and safety program. However, a few individuals view the ph ilosophy poop these incentive schemes is founded on flawed principles (Flanders & Lawrence, 1999). Critics still point out three major debatable and integrated 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 pose people to create an image of safety by covering up injuries or accidents. These few individuals exert that incentives are in that location 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 (A zaroff, 2002). On a deeper perspective, there are three main bases that put incentive schemes in a bad light. First is the senseless concept that injuries are merely results of accidents and that avoiding them deserve rewards. This standpoint does not consider that workplace injuries are normally due to a mishmash of improper behaviors, inappropriate practices or methods, and perilous environment. Second is the thought that incentives run down 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 front 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 excessively believe tha t long-term effectiveness can be achieved by providing monetary incentives for appropriate behavior and change magnitude safety awareness. In agreement to this idea, attaining goals through incentives has SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAMS 4 eer been embraced by society. Incentives have always been part of peoples lives, like frequent flyer rewards, school recognition for academic excellence, deport market rewards for wise