What should happen to the small proportion of individuals whose unsafe acts are justly considered culpable?
Below we summarize in a very simplified way what psychologists know about the effects of reward and punishment in the workplace. The principal issue here is the effectiveness of “sticks and carrots” in enhancing the likelihood of desired behavior and reducing the chances of unwanted behavior.
|
Effects of Rewards and Punishment on Behaviors |
Immediate | Delayed |
| Reward |
Positive Effects |
Doubtful Effects |
|---|---|---|
| Punishment |
Doubtful Effects |
Negative Effects |
Rewards are the most potent means of changing behavior, but they are only effective if delivered close in time and place to desired behavior.
Delayed punishments have adverse effects: they generally do not lead to improved behavior and can induce resentment in both the punished and the could-be punished.
The cells labeled DOUBTFUL EFFECTS mean that, in each case, there are opposing forces at work. Hence, the results are uncertain. But other factors strongly favor punishing the few who commit egregious unsafe acts. In most organizations, the people on the front line know very well who the “cowboys” and the habitual rule-benders are. Seeing them get away with it daily does little for the morale or the credibility of the disciplinary system.
Watching them get their comeuppance is not only satisfying but also reinforces where the boundaries of acceptable behavior lie. Moreover, outsiders are not the only potential victims. Justified dismissal protects the offender’s colleagues. Perhaps more than other possible victims, they are likely to be endangered by the person’s repeated recklessness or negligence. Their departure makes the work environment safer and encourages the workforce to perceive the organizational culture as just. Justice works in two ways:
Severe sanctions for the few can protect the innocence of the many!
Source: Managing the risks of organizational accidents by James Reason, 1997
