National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Observation Techniques
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Specific BBS Techniques." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23193.
×
Page 23

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

15 Activators/Prompts Prompts or cues can be verbal or written messages (such as stickers, posters, signs, and slogans) and are generally much easier and less expensive to implement than other BBS techniques. Using Prompts Geller, Johnson, and Pelton (1982) suggest the following in the use of prompts: (1) state the prompt in proximity to the opportunity to perform the response, (2) specifically state the desired response, (3) make the desired response convenient, and (4) state the response in polite, non-demanding language. Moreover, Geller (2001) recommends the following six prin- ciples for increasing the impact of prompts: • Specify behavior. Signs with general messages (i.e., drive safely) and no specification of a desired behavior that should be performed have little impact on actual behavior. A sign that refers to a specific behavior (i.e., please buckle-up) can be beneficial. However, too much specificity can bury a message. Overly complex signs are usually overlooked. • Maintain salience with novelty. Even well-worded signs lose their effectiveness over time. Most signs will lose their impact over time, an effect termed habituation (i.e., people learn to not respond to an event that occurs repeatedly over time). By altering the design or colors in the sign, managers can maintain novelty. Figure 6 shows how the presentation of a safety sign can be altered to reduce habituation. • Vary the message. Just as changing the design or coloring of the sign can maintain novelty, so can changing the wording of the sign. Figure 7 shows an example of how to vary the message in a safety sign. Specific BBS Techniques Please Buckle-Up Please Buckle-Up Figure 6. Example of how to add novelty to a safety sign. Please Buckle-Up Please Buckle-Up We Care Figure 7. Example of how to vary the message in a safety sign. • Involve the target audience. When individuals contribute to safety, they take ownership of and make a commitment to increase safety. Let employees select target behaviors, choose safety slogans, and design the signs. • Activate close to response location. The most effective signs occur at the time and place the target behavior should occur. A “please buckle-up” sticker placed in the vehicle is more effective than a “please buckle-up” poster placed in the driver’s lounge. • Implicate consequences. While prompts have been shown to be effective with relatively simple, convenient behaviors, more complex behaviors are likely to require more intrusive interventions, such as rewards. Incentives or disincentives are prompts that signal the availability of a reward or penalty contingent on specific behaviors. Effectiveness While there are no published studies that assess the effec- tiveness of prompts in directing driving and non-driving behaviors with CMV drivers, there is a voluminous amount of research that shows prompts are effective in increasing safety belt use across a variety of settings (Berry et al., 1992; Cox, Cox, and Cox, 2000, 2005; Scheltema et al., 2002). Using prompts to increase safety belt use is an ideal application because this behavior is relatively simple and convenient.

16 education programs for new drivers were pre- and post-trip inspection (75.8%) and completing paperwork (25.8%), while the two most prevalent driving behaviors worked on were driving inattentively (54.8%) and speeding (54.8%). In-house programs employ the following teaching tech- niques to train and educate drivers: • Classroom. Knowledgeable professionals or former drivers instruct new hires on the rules of the road, usually in a lecture/discussion format (Horn and Tardif, 1999). Increas- ingly, interactive computer teaching programs (e.g., CD- ROMs) are replacing classroom lectures. These programs are very cost efficient and present the information using a multimedia experience (Ryder, 2000). • Practice range. Experienced drivers instruct new hires how to handle a truck and allow them to experience driving the vehicle on a closed-off driving course/range. The training vehicle usually has three to four extra seats in the sleeper cab so the trainer can teach several other new hires through feedback, observation, and commentaries (Horn and Tardif, 1999). While still in its infancy and too expensive for wide- spread adoption, virtual reality training simulators offer a tantalizing glimpse into the future. Simulators are able to monitor each driver’s performance and create a database to help classify each driver’s style, and training sessions can be standardized and repeated. Further, simulators can throw drivers into dangerous driving situations and poor weather or road conditions where tricky maneuvers are required, all in a risk-free environment (Gordetsky, 2000; Robin et al., 2005). • On-the-road driving. This technique is similar to the prac- tice range, except new hires drive on the road with other vehicles. This technique may include the instructor and new hire going on long-haul trips (Horn and Tardif, 1999). Although safety practitioners and fleet safety managers usually refer to training programs as encompassing training and education, the distinction between the two should not be lost. Training entails imparting knowledge, skills, and infor- mation to another individual on how to perform certain tasks correctly and safely. Education entails imparting a rationale to another individual on why they are performing the task or behavior. People think and reason and, therefore, want to know more than just the “how,” they want to know “why.” An effective training and education program for CMV drivers not only will provide drivers with valuable safety skills, but also will present them with a rationale for performing those safety skills. A training program can be only as good as the individual conducting the training. Carriers need to develop effective and qualified trainers. Trainers need to be able to identify weak spots in drivers’ skills and know how to address those Further, safety belt use among CMV drivers is very low. An FMCSA (2003) study of CMV driver safety belt use estimated overall safety belt usage among CMV drivers at 48% (com- pared to overall vehicle usage rates of 79%). Large national fleets averaged a usage rate of 54% while independent and local fleets were estimated to be 44%. Bergoffen et al. (2005) provides a review of commercial driver safety belt use, includ- ing BBS practices to increase use. Training and Education Programs Background Training and education are the foundation of industrial safety. Unfortunately, the demand for commercial drivers has outpaced what driver training schools are currently producing, and companies are left to hire inexperienced and untrained drivers. Given the increasing demands on CMV fleets to deliver goods and services coupled with new technological innovations and congested roadways, effective training and education programs are critical elements in any fleet’s safety- management system. This inability of driver training schools to keep pace with demand requires companies to become more dependent on in-house training and education. These programs must be tailored for not only novice drivers, but also experienced drivers who require additional education and training because of poor driving habits and unfamiliar- ity with new technology. In CTBSSP Synthesis 5, Staplin et al. (2004) reviewed commercial driver training program content and strategies, as well as the training directed toward various specific driving skills and knowledge areas. Entry-level training of CMV drivers is widely regarded as deficient in relation to the safety requirements of the job. Only 31% of entry-level truck drivers receive adequate entry-level training (FHWA, 1995). This poor level of training among entry-level truck drivers has pressed many motor carriers to rely heavily on their own training programs with new hires. For example, almost all fleets in the I-95 Corridor Coalition Coordinated Safety Management study (Stock, 2001) reported training new drivers in company polices and procedures. In addition, 75% required new drivers to train with an experi- enced driver before driving solo, 23% required attendance at defensive driving courses, and 83% of respondents rated their in-house training programs as important to carrier safety. In-house training programs for new hires typically focus on • Administrative policies and procedures, • Equipment loading and operation and customer rela- tions, and • Driving safety and skills training. Survey respondents in this synthesis indicated the two most prevalent non-driving behaviors emphasized in training and

17 weak spots. Moreover, trainers need to be able to objectively grade each driver’s performance. The Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference (ITCC) has developed a week-long program for driver trainers. The ITCC program teaches motivational techniques, constructive criticism, and guid- ance in the mental aspects of being a trainer (Wiggins, 1990). See Appendix D for examples of training and educa- tion presentations. Retraining and Education Programs for Experienced Drivers Although unsafe drivers should be terminated from employ- ment, retraining may be appropriate for marginal drivers. Retraining may reduce turnover rates, crash rates, and oper- ating costs. Bad driving habits may develop over time, with or without the driver’s knowledge. The goal with retraining is not to punish the driver, but rather to help the driver improve his or her driving behavior. It is estimated that retraining marginal drivers can save fleets $5,000 to $6,000 in recruit- ment, drug-testing, and Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) qualification costs per driver (Siegel, 1992). Training and Education for Dispatchers Pay and time away from home are two triggers related to high driver turnover, yet when a driver moves to another fleet he or she usually receives similar pay and time away from home. Drivers’ attitudes toward dispatchers may be another trigger that influences their decision to remain with the fleet. A study conducted by Keller and Ozment (1999) provided evidence that dispatchers who are friendlier and respond more effectively to driver concerns have resulted in lower driver turnover rates. The study suggests that training for dis- patchers must extend beyond traditional task orientation to include interpersonal relations with drivers and driver problem-solving (Keller and Ozment, 1999). A Cautionary Note: Training and Education Is Necessary But Not Sufficient Training and education programs have long been consid- ered the standard for reducing vehicle crashes. Some training programs are geared only toward drivers obtaining their CDL. Other programs focus on increasing psychomotor skills and physiological functions and mastering traffic situations. The rationale behind training and education programs is that increased driving skill will translate into safe driving, thereby reducing crashes and their associated injuries and fatalities. However, many driving behaviors (such as use of safety belts and speed selection) are performed intentionally. While edu- cation increases knowledge, the expanded knowledge does not always result in behavior change (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2001). On the surface, drivers are aware that driving without a safety belt and faster than the speed limit is wrong, yet these behaviors still occur with some fre- quency (NHTSA, 2004). While both knowledge and skills may be necessary components for safe driving, they are often not sufficient. The point is that training and education pro- grams should not be implemented as a stand-alone safety- management technique. BBS and other safety-management techniques should be incorporated into a comprehensive CMV safety program to achieve desired results. Peer Observation and Feedback A popular BBS technique is peer observation and feedback (Geller, 2001; Krause, 1997; McSween, 1995), which involves both the individual performing the target behavior(s) (i.e., the observee) and a peer (i.e., the observer) who observes the behavior, records information based on these observations on a behavior checklist, and delivers feedback to the observee. In transportation, peer observation may occur during a ride- along or in a static environment, such as when a driver inspects his or her vehicle or is loading/unloading cargo. Peer observation is usually planned and consensual. With the permission of the observed driver, the observer watches him or her perform a particular task and/or group of tasks. Each of the safety behaviors involved in a task is recorded by the observer as either “safe” or “at-risk” on the checklist. For example, a lane change involves several behaviors: (1) activat- ing a turn signal, (2) checking mirrors for other vehicles, and (3) slowly merging into the new lane. Whether each of these behaviors was performed safely is recorded on the checklist and serves as a point of discussion during the feedback ses- sion between the observer and driver. The feedback is intended to support the safe behaviors observed and to offer construc- tive and corrective feedback regarding any at-risk behavior (Daniels, 1999; Geller, 2001). See the section on feedback below for a discussion of various feedback methodologies. Benefits of Peer Observation and Feedback Having fellow workers conduct the peer observation process with each other is beneficial for several reasons (Boyce and Geller, 2001; Krause, Seymour, and Sloat, 1999). First, it may increase workers’ sense of personal control and ownership by actively involving them in the safety process. When indi- viduals feel they are involved in something, their commit- ment and motivation to remain involved increases (Geller, 2001). Second, individuals who are similar to each other (e.g., in job title) generally make the greatest impact when attempting to influence behavior because they view each other as more likeable and trustworthy (Cialdini, 2001). If drivers

18 know their peers are observing them for the sake of keeping them safe, as opposed to some ulterior motive (i.e., punish- ment), it will help to maintain a positive attitude toward the safety process. Trust in co-workers was found to be one of the greatest predictors of success in BBS programs in a study of 20 organizations (DePasquale and Geller, 1999). Third, fellow workers are most familiar with job tasks—another reason why trust may be strongest amongst peers. When the driver knows the observer is experienced in the same line of work, he or she will value that person’s opinion more than that of someone who may have never actually completed the task themselves. Finally, another benefit of peer observation is that it is less expensive than hiring someone external to the working environment or having someone else within the organizational hierarchy conduct the observations (Geller, Roberts, and Gilmore, 1996). Since peers are often in the same environment, they can observe performance more closely and more often than can most supervisors, managers, or out- side consultants. Static Environments Static environments such as loading bays, delivery ware- houses, garages, and vehicle inspections may be the most applicable settings to conduct peer observations. Again, the process is the same (recording observations of whether behav- iors were performed safely), but the target behaviors change. For example, a peer can watch a co-worker perform a vehicle inspection of his or her vehicle and record observations of behaviors like checking tire pressure, etc. Safe lifting behaviors (bending legs, keeping the object close to the body, keeping the spine in alignment) can be observed and recorded when a driver is handling cargo. Finally, in the example of getting in and out of the vehicle, a peer could observe whether each step is used, if the observee uses the handrails, etc. Mandatory Peer Observation and Feedback As mentioned previously, peer observation is generally vol- untary. However, sometimes participation is mandatory. In a survey of employees from 20 organizations using BBS obser- vation and feedback, DePasquale and Geller (1999) compared responses between those involved in voluntary versus manda- tory programs. Employees in a mandatory BBS program reported higher scores on several questions related to BBS suc- cess than those involved in voluntary programs. For example, compared to those involved in a voluntary program, those involved in mandatory programs reported significantly higher rates for giving and receiving positive feedback, significantly lower rates for giving and receiving negative feedback, more trust in co-workers and management, and greater overall satisfaction with the BBS process. Feedback Once the observation and recording of behaviors on a checklist is complete, the observer gives the observee feedback. As stated previously, feedback should support the safe behav- iors observed and offer constructive and corrective feedback regarding any at-risk behavior (Daniels, 1999; Geller, 2001). The manner in which the feedback occurs can vary widely. For example, feedback can be written, verbal, private, public, indi- vidual, group, or some combination of these. In addition, feedback may include prompts or consequences (e.g., praise, reward, punishment). The type of feedback (i.e., individual, group, or combination of the two) should match the goal. People who set a group goal should receive feedback about the group’s performance. Conversely, people who set individual goals should receive feedback about their individual perform- ances (Locke and Latham, 1990). Alvero, Bucklin, and Austin (2001) reviewed the feedback literature from 1985 to 1998 describing 64 applications of per- formance feedback in occupational settings. In their study, they classified different types of feedback and factors related to effectiveness. Key results of this review follow: • Medium: The most consistently effective medium was a combination of written feedback, graphs, and verbal feedback. • Privacy: A combination of public and private feedback was more effective than either alone. • Content: Interventions involving feedback paired with antecedents (prompts) produced the most consistently effective results. Does feedback motivate people? Bandura (1986) suggested that dissatisfaction with one’s prior attainments can motivate increased effort and vigilance. Without goals, individuals do not have a standard with which to compare prior behavior; without feedback, individuals do not have information to gauge progress toward the goal. For example, if a driver is given feedback that he or she performed an at-risk driving behavior, does that imply he or she will alter his or her sub- sequent behavior? If the individual has no related goal, then behavior will not change. Conversely, if the same individual sets a specific safety goal but receives no feedback on his or her performance, there is no way of assessing if the behavior is moving in the desired direction. It is the combination of goals and feedback that allow people to evaluate and appraise their behaviors (Bandura and Cervone, 1983). In a study involving an instrumented car and feedback on different driving behaviors, Locke and Bryan (1969) found that participants improved only on those driving behaviors for which the experimenter assigned goals. Similarly, Cer- vone and Wood (1995) presented participants with feedback

19 and goals, only a goal, or only feedback. Participants in the goal-plus-feedback group outperformed both the goal- and feedback-only groups in managing a simulated business orga- nization. It appears the combination of both a specific goal and feedback regarding one’s performance toward the goal are most successful for behavior change. Driver Self-Management/ Self-Observation Geller and Clarke (1999) suggest a self-management approach to increase safety-related work behaviors when peer-to-peer coaching is not feasible or is impractical. A self- management intervention motivates employees to choose the safe alternative and holds them accountable for select- ing the safe alternative. Similarly, when Knipling, Hickman, and Bergoffen (2003) reviewed effective safety-management techniques for CMV drivers, they also suggested that self- management may be one of the most applicable BBS tech- niques for CMV drivers. As stated in Knipling et al. (2004), the benefits of self- management techniques have been demonstrated in numer- ous clinical settings; however, the advantages of using self-management techniques to improve safety-related work behaviors have only recently been evaluated. The authors reported three published studies that successfully used self- management techniques with bus divers (Olson and Austin, 2001), short-haul truck drivers (Hickman and Geller, 2003b), and CMV drivers (Krause, 1997). Self-Management Strategies People have self-regulatory capabilities allowing them to motivate and regulate their behavior through internal stan- dards and self-evaluation of their behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997). The process of self-regulation follows the general order of (1) self-observing one’s behavior; (2) comparing the behav- ior to some personal standard, norms, and/or behavior of others; (3) determining the value of the activity; (4) attribut- ing control of the performance to be within or external to one’s self (i.e., “was I responsible for the behavior or not?”); and (5) reacting positively or negatively toward the self with rewards or penalties (Bandura, 1997). These rewards or penalties can be tangible (such as money) or intangible (such as self-statements like “I did a good job”). As reported in Knipling et al. (2004), five self-management strategies are required for optimal behavioral improvement: (1) prompt management, (2) social support, (3) goal setting, (4) self-monitoring and self-recording, and (5) self-rewards. Prompt management involves identifying environmental, behavioral, and personal factors that precede the occurrence of safe and at-risk behaviors. Strategies are then employed to eliminate antecedents that precede at-risk behaviors and add prompts that will increase the probability of safe behaviors. Goal setting can increase the impact of a self-management intervention. Goals should be set by the individual, focused on specific behavior, set high yet achievable, and include tracking of progress (Geller, 2001). The techniques of self-monitoring, feedback, and goal set- ting may fall short if implemented separately but will gener- ally be effective if combined into a complete self-management program. Locke and Latham’s (1990) review on the effective- ness of goal setting found that combined effects far exceeded individual ones. Self-monitoring may lack the accuracy and reliability of external observations, as well as the context of standards of acceptable behavior. Indeed, people have to learn how to observe and record their own behavior. The accuracy of self- monitoring can be influenced in several ways. Bandura (1986) states, “since people’s attentiveness to their ongoing behavior fluctuates widely, they are not always all that self-observant” (p. 337). As many safety-related driving and non-driving behaviors are repetitive and habitually performed, concurrent events may compete for attention and result in inaccurate self- observations. If possible, employees should be provided with both objec- tive feedback reflecting their actual safety performances and personal feedback from self-monitoring. The addition of objective feedback is beneficial for two reasons: (1) employees can compare actual and self-reported safety performance to increase the accuracy of their self-observations, and (2) objec- tive feedback provides an accurate evaluation of program effectiveness. The addition of other sources of feedback in conjunction with self-monitoring may be most beneficial in the early stages of the self-management program as drivers learn how to observe their own behavior. The self-management for safety (SMS) model in Figure 8 displays the three necessary components of a successful self- management program (i.e., self-monitoring, goal setting, and objective feedback). Self Monitoring Objective Feedback Goal Setting Self Management Figure 8. The SMS model.

Implementing Self-Management Programs Recording the occurrence of safe and at-risk behaviors provides an objective record of current safety performance, while charting progress toward reaching specific goals pro- vides feedback on accomplishment and identifies areas for improvement. Regularly engaging in the self-monitoring and self-recording of specific behaviors is also a key component of self-management (Kazdin, 1993). Ludwig and Geller (1997, 2001) suggest that involving par- ticipants in the selection of target behavior(s) will increase the effectiveness of self-management programs. They compared the behavioral impact of goals chosen by workers versus goals assigned by management on one targeted and two non- targeted behaviors. The participative goal-setting had a posi- tive effect on both the targeted and non-targeted behaviors, while assigned goal-setting only affected the targeted behav- iors and negatively impacted some non-targeted behaviors. Once target behavior(s) are selected, a self-management strat- egy is developed. Certain strategies are available (see above), and the success of self-management is positively correlated with the number of strategies used (Watson and Tharp, 1993). While drivers should be involved in developing their own self-management strategies, the inclusion of goal-setting and the self-monitoring and recording of behavior are essential components. In general, the greater the frequency of self- observing and recording, the greater the impact (Baker and Kirschenbaum, 1993). Summary Self-management is most applicable where peer observa- tion and feedback is impossible. Most other types of BBS pro- grams do not lend themselves to solitary workers. Because most employees who operate a vehicle as part of their job duties work alone, and because of the large human and economic costs associated with large-truck crashes, there would be great potential benefit from research on developing practical self- management techniques for CMV drivers. If self-management activities can be integrated with other job activities, fleet safety managers would have an effective tool for improving safety- related behaviors that occur when there is little or no oppor- tunity for interpersonal observation and feedback. Consequences: Rewards and Penalties Based on Behaviors and Outcomes Behavioral consequences include positive reinforcement for good behaviors (rewards) and punishment or penalties for bad behaviors. This section examines the application of rewards and penalties to CMV driving. In addition, positive or negative consequences for CMV drivers may be based on driving behaviors per se (process based) or on involvement in crashes, violations, or other incidents (outcome based). This section examines these approaches and their relative effec- tiveness in driver management. Monetary consequences for outcomes or processes are likely to be influential safety-management systems because economic factors are one of the most important determinants of behavior in CMV drivers. This contention is supported by Belzer, Rodriguez, and Sedo’s (2002) analysis of pay and safety in CMV drivers. They found that increasing drivers’ pay decreased the likelihood of drivers working more hours and vice versa. Further, for every 10% more in mean driver compensation, carriers experienced 9.2% fewer crashes. As stated in Knipling, Hickman, and Bergoffen (2003), CMV drivers are usually paid by the unit distance (mi or km), not per hour or load delivered. Thus, at-risk behaviors may, unfortunately, be fostered by economic factors (Wilde, Sac- comanno, and Shortreed, 1996). Intuitive logic suggests that if economic factors motivate CMV drivers to drive unsafely, then economic factors may be necessary to offset these behav- iors. Indeed, incentive/reward programs are very popular among CMV fleets. In a study conducted by Barton and Tardif (1998), 28 of the 40 (70%) trucking firms had an incentive/ reward program. An incentive/reward safety program strengthens the moti- vation for people to behave safely. The incentive is a pre- announced reward to potential recipients provided they meet some specific level of performance (Barton and Tardif, 2002). The reward, which can be anything from cash, gift certifi- cates, or recognition, is given to the recipient when the level of performance (i.e., goal) is attained. This distinction is nec- essary because, initially, the incentive is enough to alter behavior. Yet, if no reward is given contingent on the speci- fied goal, performance will not move in the desired direction (Geller, 2001). Creation of a Successful Incentive/ Reward Program While many fleets use incentive/reward programs as part of their overall safety packages, less is known about which ele- ments are necessary to develop and administer an effective approach. Companies and fleet safety managers wishing to implement an incentive/reward program with their fleets should read Barton and Tardif (1998), whose report outlines the steps needed to develop, administer, and implement an incentive/reward program. The following paragraphs sum- marize key elements described in their research: • Creating a solid foundation: policy, budget, manage- ment responsibility, employee involvement. Effective 20

21 programs have strong commitment from top management and owners. Employees must believe management cares about the objectives of the incentive program. Develop- ment of a sufficient and realistic budget which will also include provisions for long-term growth is also critical. Most successful programs designate a safety manager super- visor to coordinate all aspects of the program. Employee involvement is critical; they should be involved in all aspects of the process (e.g., recommendations on promotion, goals, reward selection, and participation). • Forming a team to drive the program. Teamwork is essen- tial for program longevity and success. The team should meet regularly and consist of members from all areas of the company to discuss problems, solutions, and action plans. The team should meet regularly with top management to assess progress. • Expecting the program to evolve. Few programs will meet success on their first attempt. Companies must be willing to make changes to improve and refine their pro- grams. Employee feedback is critical for this evolution to occur. • Developing a communication plan. The incentive/reward program must be understood by all employees. Employees should know how the program works and how they can earn maximum benefits. The employee manual should include a copy of the rules and dedicated meetings should be scheduled to discuss any issues. • Preparing for negative feedback. A small number of employees may respond negatively to the program. They may have tried a similar program, without success, at another fleet, or they may see the program as exploitation. Time and effective communication usually silences these critics. Once management has answered these drivers’ questions and they see other drivers being rewarded, they may also be motivated to join the program. • Designing rewards. While management sets the budget for the program, recipients need to be actively involved in deciding on the types of rewards and in designing the structure for the reward system. Rewards can be based on individual performance, group performance, or both. Common rewards include cash, recognition, merchandise, special assignments, promotions, and celebratory events. When deciding on these types of rewards, the incentive/ reward coordinator should always consider the following elements: – Perceived value (should be high but not too high; see fur- ther discussion below in “What Should be Rewarded”) – Duration of performance (e.g., 10 years of targeted per- formance should be 10 times the reward) – Fairness and consistency – Attainability (goals should be set at high but attainable levels to avoid discouragement) – Graduated rewards (considered better than “all or nothing”) – Tax implications – Involvement of drivers in the program so they feel ownership – Assessment time periods (keep them relatively short; e.g., quarterly) – Immediacy of rewards (delayed rewards are less effective) • Implementing the program. Once program details have been finalized, develop an action plan for implementation. The employee manual should be developed and distributed to all employees and should include the policy statement, objectives, operating procedure, communication routes, types of rewards, and easy-to-understand rules of the pro- gram. Companies should be prepared for potential negative reactions and effects and address them as they arise. Incentive programs should be evaluated regularly to ensure effectiveness. Typically, the evaluation is a before-and-after comparison of costs and benefits. However, an incentive/ reward program usually takes 6 to 12 months before becom- ing fully effective. Rewards versus Penalties Most safety professionals agree that rewards are better than penalties in increasing motivation to perform safety-related behaviors for the long term (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Short- reed, 1996; Barton and Tardif, 1998, 2002; Geller, 2001). Giv- ing something valued contingent on success (e.g., money, extra privileges, or recognition for crash-free driving) is bet- ter than taking away something valued contingent on failure (e.g., docking pay, removing privileges, or negative recogni- tion for crashes or violations). Use of penalties can create a climate of resentment, uncooperativeness, and antagonism. Labeling people with undesirable characteristics may prompt individuals to behave as if they had these characteristics (i.e., self-fulfilling prophecy). Further, penalties may motivate individuals to engage in the very behavior the company is try- ing to prevent because they feel they are being controlled; this behavior is sometimes called counter-control or reactance (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed, 1996; Geller, 2001). In contrast, using rewards creates an atmosphere where indi- viduals strive for success (Geller, 2001) and their behavior is molded or shaped in that direction. This is not to say that penalties should never be used or that they are ineffective in reducing unwanted behaviors. In fact, they can be very effec- tive in reducing specific unwanted behaviors. However, most BBS programs accentuate increasing safe behaviors when possible. Kalsher et al. (1989) compared an incentive/reward to a disincentive/penalty program at two large Navy bases. At one

Navy base, a direct and delayed incentive/reward program was implemented whereby observers would record the license plate numbers of vehicles in which drivers were buckled-up. The license plates were then entered into a public drawing and prizes were raffled off. At the other Navy base, employees were told if they were caught driving without their safety belts they would lose their base driving privileges. Both programs signif- icantly increased safety belt use, but the disincentive/penalty program was more effective than the incentive/reward pro- gram in increasing safety belt use among base employees. However, further review of the data revealed the disincentive/ penalty program was effective only when officials were visibly present; otherwise, there was no change in safety belt use. Per- haps the superiority of disincentives in this case was due to their greater magnitude (i.e., automatic loss of driving privi- leges compared to being entered in a raffle, a relatively weak and uncertain reward). As the above study illustrates, penalties can be more effec- tive than rewards under some circumstances. However, pun- ishment in general has several adverse consequences, such as (1) inhibiting learning and constructive interaction, (2) aggres- sion, (3) apathy, and (4) reactance or counter-control. The Kalsher et al. (1989) study demonstrated that disincentive/ penalty programs are likely to motivate drivers to wear their safety belts, but only when they believe they are being observed. The authors hypothesized that drivers may react to these inter- ventions by wearing their safety belts when they believe they are being observed, but taking them off soon after to regain feel- ings of control. What Should be Rewarded While some safety professionals suggest using outcome- based measures (i.e., crash-free miles) in determining rewards (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed, 1996; Barton and Tardif, 1998, 2002), others suggest that process-based measures (i.e., specific safety-related driving behaviors) should be used to determine rewards (Geller, 2001). The most com- mon outcome-based measure in CMV operations is the per- mile or per-kilometer rate of “preventable” crashes. Typically rates vary from 0.5 to 3¢ per mi/km. Additional bonuses may be awarded for any driver having no crashes (preventable or not) (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed, 1996; Barton and Tardif, 1998). Opponents of outcome-based measures sug- gest this type of approach rewards and motivates individuals to neglect incident reporting. If having an injury or a crash causes one to lose a reward, there is pressure to avoid report- ing an injury or crash. Barton and Tardif (1998) and Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed (1996) suggest using some form of penalty for underreporting of crashes or injury to combat “cheating.” Also, this type of approach does not inform indi- viduals about what they need to do to reduce the likelihood of injuries and crashes (Geller, 2001). As crashes are rare occurrences, it is quite possible that many drivers who fre- quently engage in at-risk driving behaviors are still rewarded because they are not involved in a crash. Process-based measures reward individuals for performing specific safety-related behaviors, such as following at a safe distance, wearing safety belts, or maintaining safe driving speeds. These types of process-based measures specify which behaviors the individual should perform (Geller, 2001). Oppo- nents of process-based measures suggest that these programs are cumbersome and difficult to implement, and that all safety- related behaviors cannot be rewarded (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed, 1996; Barton and Tardif, 1998). Furthermore, without OBSM devices, observation of each driver’s behav- ior is difficult. Yet, the BBS research literature suggests that increases in targeted safety-related driving behaviors can lead to increases in non-targeted safety-related driving behaviors. This phenomenon is termed response generalization (Ludwig and Geller, 1997). The phenomenon of response generaliza- tion allows safety professionals to target a few specific driving behaviors with benefits across many more non-target behav- iors, thus a less cumbersome application. Krause and McCorquodale (1996) argue against the use of incentive/reward programs for increasing safety performance. They believe incentive/reward programs harm safety per- formance objectives, extract a high bottom-line cost, are ridiculed by employees, and distort expectations (i.e., employ- ees come to see incentives as “entitlements”). They believe these programs sometimes reward the wrong behaviors and the wrong individuals. Further, they believe incentive/reward programs drive reporting of injuries and crashes underground, and the use of rewards fosters reliance on extrinsic (cash or other items) rather than intrinsic reinforcement (an internal pride or satisfaction with one’s work). While Krause and McCorquodale (1996) make cogent argu- ments against the use of incentives, the problems they refer to may be indicative primarily of poorly planned and imple- mented incentive/reward programs. No incentive/reward pro- gram is perfect—even the best programs may reward the wrong behaviors and the wrong individuals at times. How- ever, this is not ordinarily the case. Moreover, the use of rel- atively small, yet meaningful, incentives induces individuals to alter their behaviors and attitudes without the risk of large inequities. When incentives are kept relatively small, individ- uals justify their behavior change to internal causes rather than external causes (i.e., “I’m driving the speed limit because I want to be safe—not to earn a reward.”). Rewards can be kept relatively small indefinitely; the use of ever-increasing incentives shifts behavioral and attitudinal change to external causes (Wilde and Murdoch, 1982; Geller, 2001). For exam- ple, a 1¢ per-mile safety bonus would result in a crash-free, 100,000-mile-per-year driver receiving $1,000 annually or 22

23 $250 quarterly. This amount is tangible and meaningful, but not so high that gross inequities might be created by flaws in the system. Effectiveness Outcome-Based Measures A few published studies have shown the effectiveness of outcome-based rewards. LaMere et al. (1996) used an incentive/ reward program for the safety performance of truck drivers and found a 27.3% reduction in the frequency of crashes. The transportation division (600 power units) of a German food company had a 14% reduction in culpable crashes and a 25% reduction in all crashes following the introduction of an incentive/reward program, and maintained this reduction over several years. Direct crash costs were reduced by more than two-thirds at this plant during that time span (Wilde, Saccomanno, and Shortreed, 1996). Barton and Tardif (2002) reported on a trucking fleet (80 power units) that reduced the number of annual crashes by 25% and experienced a benefit- cost ratio of 3.8 to 1 after implementing an incentive/reward program. Process-Based Measures Incentives/reward interventions have been successful in increasing safety belt use across diverse settings (Elman and Killebrew, 1978; Rudd and Geller, 1985; Geller et al., 1989). Hickman and Geller (2003b) found significant reductions in two safety-related driving behaviors (overspeeding and extreme braking) with short-haul truck drivers using a com- bination of rewards and BBS techniques. Incentives have been used successfully with pizza delivery drivers to increase targeted safety-related driving behaviors. These studies also discovered beneficial behavior change in non-targeted safety- related driving behaviors. While pizza delivery drivers are not true commercial drivers, they are under similar time con- straints. They represent a high-risk group because of their age and lack of driving experience (Ludwig and Geller, 2001). Conclusion Research has shown that incentive/reward programs, used in combination with other safety-management systems, have been beneficial in reducing crash rates and the costs. Unfor- tunately, no study has assessed the comparative effectiveness of an incentive-reward program based on outcome or process measures for CMV drivers. Yet, there is an existing body of literature available for CMV safety managers to consult on how to plan, implement, and evaluate incentive/reward pro- grams. Barton and Tardif (1998, 2002) provide excellent rec- ommendations for implementing successful incentive/reward programs. Following these recommendations helps safety managers avoid the pitfalls associated with unsuccessful incentive/reward programs.

Next: Survey Method and Results »
Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program (CTBSSP) Synthesis 11: Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers explores various strategies designed to increase safety-related driving behaviors and decrease at-risk driving behaviors of commercial motor vehicle drivers. The report also examines innovative and successful behavior-based safety practices in commercial vehicle settings.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!