A "consequence" is anything that occurs as a result of something that happens. Another way to express it is to think it in terms of cause and effect: the initial behavior is the "cause," and the consequence is the "effect." For every cause, there is an effect. The effect may be something that affects you internally, externally, or both.
In each example below, the initial behavior or action is the cause: the reaction or response is the effect or consequence. Let's look at some examples:
Not in the workplace. It's important to understand there is no such thing as "no consequence" for an action. You cannot NOT have a consequence. For instance, if a supervisor thanks a worker for making a safety suggestion, the supervisor's recognition is a consequence (positive). If the supervisor ignores the worker who made the safety suggestion, the "act" of ignoring is also a consequence (negative).
If employee safety performance meets or exceeds the standards set by the employer, you know consequences are effective. When employees meet or exceed performance standards, some sort of positive recognition should follow. On the other hand, if employees make informed choices not to comply with the company's safety performance standards, some sort of appropriate corrective action should follow.
There are various strategies for using positive and negative consequences in for form of rewards and recognition to influence employee safety performance. Let's take a look at three forms of recognition that from most-effective to least-effective.
Positive Recognition occurs when the recognition of performance is perceived as a positive consequence (a carrot). (e.g., a hand shake, thank-you, or promotion). To receive positive recognition, employees will work hard to not only comply, but to achieve excellence. Positive recognition is best in producing performance excellence and a world-class safety culture. If a supervisor actively recognizes excellence, the supervisor will get excellent performance.
It's important to know that "desired" performance may not always be safe performance. Unfortunately, this may be true in safety cultures where it is more important to work fast than safe. In this instance, working fast takes top priority over safety. Prioritizing safety down is especially true when the employer is under pressure to finish a project on time. Here are some examples showing how perceived positive recognition can increase both safe and unsafe behaviors:
Important criteria to remember about positive recognition include:
Negative Recognition occurs when the recognition of performance is perceived as a negative consequence (a stick). (e.g., yelling, discipline, or termination). To avoid negative recognition, employees will work to comply, but little more. If the supervisor actively uses this negative recognition strategy, employees will respond negatively in thought and action.
Important criteria of negative recognition include:
Once again, the outcome is dependent on the performance that the employer wants. Hopefully, the employer values safety, but that's not always the case. Here are some examples that show how negative recognition can increase both safe and unsafe performance:
One of the most common reasons recognition programs fail is because they have formal policies and procedures that create one employee being deemed the winner (Employee of the Quarter, etc.) and many losers.
In such formal programs, both positive and negative recognition of performance occur at the same time. They reward one employee for being first, best, or most improved. In safety recognition programs like that, the one lucky winner receives positive recognition (usually a certificate and framed photo on the wall and a parking space), yet at the same time, everyone else receives, unintentionally, no recognition at all. They walk away from the recognition ceremony with all sorts of negative thoughts and feelings because they perceive themselves as losers. Everyone may be equally valuable to the company and performed at or above expectations, but since the "policy" said there can be only one winner, positive recognition is withheld from the majority of employees. Sadly, the result is one winner and many losers. We've all probably experienced this kind of recognition program, so you know what we're talking about.
The best strategy is a recognition program that is criterion-based and recognizes everyone who meets the criteria for recognition. The goal is to have many winners who all meet or exceed management expectations. There are many safety recognition programs which offer incentives: some incentives work and some don't. Here's a short list of proven successful safety recognition programs with incentives that, if administered correctly, can work for the company:
Have you ever been ignored for safety performance or achievement that you believe should be recognized? It doesn't really matter why you have been ignored: you don't like it.
Ignoring employee performance is a response and actually a common form of recognition. You might think that ignoring employee behaviors is actually withholding a consequence, but it's not, because there is no such thing as "no consequence, every response, including ignoring, is a consequence. In fact, ignoring desired behaviors in the workplace is worst response you can have because it leads to the extinction (elimination) of desired behaviors.
Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of extinction:
Without the expectation of consequences, accountability has no credibility and will not be effective. In other words, no consequences - no accountability. Consequences need to be appropriate as well as effective. This is the element with which everyone is probably most familiar. Unfortunately, in some companies, consequences are either not appropriate, not effective, or both.
Negative consequences are justified when the person administering discipline has fulfilled their own accountabilities first. Positive consequences are justified any time employees meet or exceed expectations. Here's an important principle (I call it the 5-R principle):
The more Regularly you Recognize and Reward, the more Rarely you'll have to Reprimand.
It's critical to understand that before administering progressive discipline, managers and supervisors exercise real leadership when they first ask five important questions to how well they have fulfilled their own obligations to employees. Doing this is important to make sure they are actually justified in administering corrective actions. The negative impact on the company if employees are disciplined inappropriately can be dramatic over time.
The good news is that determining if discipline is appropriate doesn't have to be difficult. When conducting a self-evaluation, managers and supervisors can use the " STARS" acronym to the right to help them remember their five basic safety obligations to employees. Let's take a look at each of the five obligations:
If managers and supervisors can honestly answer "YES" to each of the above five questions, it may be appropriate to administer discipline because the five basic leadership obligations have been fulfilled. However, if they cannot honestly answer "yes" to each question, then an apology would be in order, and a promise to make personal and system improvements (provider better training, resources, expectations of enforcement, supervision and leadership).
In the examples above, a more severe level of discipline would be in order for the supervisor because the supervisor, in effect, gives permission for all employees to violate the safety rules. Consequently, the negative impact on the safety of employees has the potential to be much greater when the supervisor violates a safety rule.
On the other hand, if a supervisor or manager does something positive, the net impact will likely be greater than that of one of his or her employees. Consequently, more significant positive consequences would certainly be appropriate.
To build a high level of trust between management and labor, accountability must be applied consistently at all levels of the organization: up and down, and across functions. Every supervisor and manager must be held accountable in the same fair manner consistent with employees. If labor perceives the accountability system as applying only to them, they will naturally consider it unfair: the primary failure mode for accountability systems.
Evaluation of the accountability system, as with all systems, should be a continuous process. Although, as a supervisor, you may not be responsible for formally evaluating the accountability system, it's good to know that someone is. Usually, the safety coordinator and safety committee are involved in this activity. In some "state-plan" states, like Oregon, the safety committee is required by law to conduct an evaluation of the employer's accountability system.
The process usually involves three levels of activity:
OSHA looks primarily for two program elements when evaluating an employer for accountability: Policy and consequences. OSHA does not mandate or require specific recognition/disciplinary procedures: That's the responsibility of the employer. But, an effective accountability policy that is written and communicated should be in place. Make sure your company has a written policy that addresses accountability, including the three key components.
If you believe there are weaknesses in your employer's accountability system, make sure to take notes on the behaviors and conditions you see in the workplace that may be pointing to accountability system policies, plans, processes, and procedures that are inadequate or missing.
Click on the "Check Quiz Answers" button to grade your quiz and see your score. You will receive a message if you forgot to answer one of the questions. After clicking the button, the questions you missed will be listed below. You can correct any missed questions and check your answers again.
One of our favorite speakers, Kevin Burns talks about how safety leaders define responsibility and accountability. Kevin Burns is a management consultant, safety speaker and author of "PeopleWork: The Human Touch in Workplace Safety."