As the term would imply, participative management consists of worker involvement in management matters.  This does not mean that management abdicates its responsibilities or its authority.  It is simply that management decisions are made with direct input by workers.  Thus, participative management consists of management that is not purely dogmatic or authoritarian.

There are many benefits for management to allow or encourage worker input into management decisions.  First of all, workers may present options that otherwise might not be thought of by management.  With more solutions being offered for management's consideration, the final decisions of management will be based on more thorough information and a greater number of options.  The adage that "two heads are better than one" is at the foundation of participative management.

A second advantage of worker involvement in management matters is that the final decisions of management will be more readily accepted by workers when they know that their ideas were considered when the decisions were made.  Thus, the decisions of management do not appear to be dictates of superiors without due consideration being given to the views of the workers.  In addition, changes can be more easily implemented if workers were involved in the formulation of the change.   Since the workers feel that they have had an influence on management decisions, they will have a greater acceptance of changes that impact them. Essentially, the workers will regard their input as a form of investment in the ideas that are eventually formalized into work-related or administrative procedures.  This will help workers to "buy into" changes or innovations that are to be made in the work place.

While the advantages of participative management are considerable, this approach must not be abused.  For example, if management requests input from workers, the managers will do well to seriously consider the ideas that are presented.  Some managers formulate their decisions and then approach workers for their input, knowing full well that the ideas of the workers will not be considered.  Such managers may use this procedure as a ploy to make the workers think that their ideas are seriously considered by management, and that this in itself will help gain the worker's acceptance of the decisions of management.  This tactic will be regarded as manipulative by the workers and resentment may be greater than if an overtly authoritarian approach had been used.

It is important to realize that workers do think about their jobs, and that they are capable of making valid and valuable suggestions that will improve productivity.  Since these ideas represent such a wealthy resource, the problem is in developing a means by which these ideas and thoughts can be systematically brought to management's attention.  For the suggestions and ideas of workers to be freely forthcoming, a great deal of trust and respect must exist between management and the workers.  This might be established with greater ease if a formal mechanism existed for the submittal, acceptance and evaluation of worker input.  Some of these will be discussed (Source: Money and Motivation, by William F. Whyte, Harper & Brothers, 1955, New York).
 
 

 SUGGESTION PLAN

Suggestion plans, also referred to as the suggestion box system, have existed for many years. Under the traditional suggestion plan, a worker with an idea or thought will describe the suggestion on a suggestion form and place the paper in the suggestion box.  The worker's identification must be included on the suggestion form.  The suggestion forms are periodically removed from the suggestion box or boxes and reviewed by a suggestion committee appointed by management.  The suggestion committee will review the suggestions and consult with management before making decisions to accept any suggestions.

For every suggestion that is accepted a cash award is made.  If a suggestion is accepted but does not result in any identified cash savings, the suggestion will result in a nominal award of $5, $10 or $20.  If savings are realized in labor costs, management will make an attempt to estimate the total savings that will be accrued by the company in 6 months or a year.  The employee making the suggestion is than given a predetermined percentage of the estimated cost savings.  As might be well imagined, the payout for an employee may be substantial (several thousand dollars in some cases).

When the suggestion plan works well, the cost savings will far exceed the costs entailed in administering the suggestion plan.  In short, without the plan, management would lose because cost savings would not be realized and some employees would be denied their added earnings.  Despite the value of suggestion plans, some apparent shortcomings must be presented.  These include the following:

1. Emphasis is placed on the contributions of the individual.  An individual reward is given for each individual's idea.  Some of these ideas will affect several workers or an entire department.  If this adjustment is perceived as being potentially threatening to some workers and may result in resentment, the worker may be reluctant to offer the suggestion.  Some ideas that are offered may be rejected simply because they have not been fully developed. This development might be more readily accomplished if the worker discussed the suggestion with other workers and management.  This type of discussion could be helpful in stimulating additional ideas.  Under the suggestion plan, with the award being given to an individual worker, such discussions are not encouraged by the system and do not occur very frequently.

2. The compensation for some suggestions may seem small or even ridiculous to some workers.  This may occur when the value or benefits of a suggestion cannot be easily quantified, but when the merits are obvious.

3. Supervisor-worker relations might be strained by suggestions offered by workers.  Some supervisors might be concerned that management might wonder why the supervisor did not offer a suggestion, feeling that the suggestions of workers are interpreted as an indication of supervisor incompetence.  If workers sense this attitude of their supervisor, they may be reluctant to offer a suggestion if they are fearful of some type of retaliation against them.  This problem can be averted to some degree if the supervisors are recognized for the suggestions offered by their subordinates or if they are involved in the process in some way.

4. There is the ever-present problem of the ownership of the ideas.  Some ideas may have existed for a long period of time before someone actually puts the suggestion on paper.  While ideas might be fully developed by a single individual, in many cases the ideas come to a fuller and more complete fruition when discussions about possible changes are held with several workers.  If an idea has been discussed among workers and then is formally written up and submitted by an individual worker, resentment may very well develop among the other workers.  Another worker or other workers may feel that their idea was stolen.  Some suggestions probably began as one worker's idea that was subsequently modified by another worker.  If this type of climate develops, workers will be reluctant to discuss their ideas with anyone, before submitting them as suggestions.  Unfortunately, the ideas may not be regarded as worthwhile if they have not been properly developed.  Obviously, it must be recognized that some suggestions may be the result of contributions of more than one person.  Encouraging all contributing workers to sign their names to suggestions may alleviate some of the resentment that might otherwise occur.

5. Some suggestions might relate to complex matters that, if accepted, would impact other divisions or other departments.  When this occurs, the individual worker may not be in a position to know or understand all of the nuances of a particular suggestion.  Consequently, the worker's suggestion may not appear to be practical.  This could be resolved simply by maintaining an open dialogue between a variety of individuals that are involved.  This will help to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together.  The suggestion plans seem to discourage this type of dialogue since ownership of the idea might be lost if it is discussed.

6. Suggestion plans tend to be depersonalized in that they require all suggestions to be communicated in writing.  Some workers do not have highly-developed writing skills.  Their suggestions might not be understood or they may be reluctant to even offer a suggestion simply because of the requirement that suggestions be in writing.  The written requirement becomes a barrier to communication.  This could be avoided by permitting other forms of presentation of suggestions.
 

SCANLON PLAN

The Scanlon Plan is quite different from the traditional suggestion plan.  To begin with, there is not individual pay-off.  As a result, the Scanlon Plan relies on a different type of motivation.  The individual is expected to offer suggestions with everyone realizing a benefit from the suggestion.  The individual does not receive a singular award as with the traditional suggestion plan.  The primary individual benefit comes from the recognition received from fellow workers and management.  Thus, there is no potential conflict between personal benefits and the adverse impacts that a suggestion might have on others.

Under the Scanlon Plan, the initiative for suggesting ideas is not placed on a single individual.  In fact, a more formalized system is used for the discovery, development, and implementation of suggestions.  In a production plant, each department would be represented by a production committee that will review suggestions.  The members of the committee will be appointed and will include a worker and a supervisor.  The committee will meet at least once a month to discuss possible suggestions for improvement.  If so desired, additional workers can be asked to review certain suggestions.  Ideas that are considered worthy and are easy to implement will be discussed directly with supervisors and implemented.  When suggestions warrant consideration at a higher level, the suggestions are forwarded to the screening committee.

The screening committee will consist of three workers and three management representatives.  This committee will review those suggestions appealed from the production committee and it may also generate suggestions within the committee.  A report is made to each production committee concerning the disposition of every suggestion that was submitted to the screening committee.  The screening committee does not make decisions on suggestions, but it will make recommendations to management.  Since upper level managers are on the screening committee, it can be assumed that recommendations are given serious consideration.

When profits are enhanced by a particular idea, the Scanlon Plan will devise an appropriate means by which these profits can be shared by the workers and the company.  Generally, some type of predetermined arrangement is made concerning these distributions.

Under the Scanlon Plan, suggestions are put into written form by the production committee. Thus, despite the formal structure that appears to exist, much of the success of the plan lies in the informal discussions that take place between production committee members and the workers.  While the structure of the Scanlon Plan is as described above, some specific examples will be given to illustrate how the system can eliminate some barriers.

* When a plan was just being initiated in a pressroom, a suggestion was offered that waste paper was to be discarded flat for salvage purposes rather than in a crushed fashion.  The workers were reluctant to implement the idea (they recognized its obvious merits) because they felt this was a ploy on the part of management to keep track of how much paper was wasted by each worker.  To show that this was not the case, it was suggested that the waste paper be placed in flat form on pallets located in general areas.  When the waste paper generated could not be traced to individual workers, there was no difficulty in getting the cooperation of all workers.  While a similar suggestion might have been made under a traditional suggestion plan, the real implementation problem that had to be overcome was that of worker acceptance.

* In another plant, management wanted to implement a change in its plant by using conveyors.  Management simply posted a notice that the change was being made with no explanations being offered.  To the delight of the workers, the idea failed.  Later, management tried again to implement a change to the use of conveyors to facilitate certain transport problems.  This second attempt occurred just after the Scanlon Plan had been introduced.  A blueprint of the proposed plan was posted.  No suggestions were offered as workers stated they could not understand the blueprint.  A scale model of the conveyor was then made, but no suggestions were offered.  Then one day, one of the managers was discussing the proposed layout with a few of the workers.  He began to criticize the proposal in several respects.  As he offered these criticisms, the other workers began to offer their ideas.  These ideas were recorded and submitted to the production committee.  A drastic change was made in the conveyor layout and the conveyor introduction met with no resistance.  Once the workers saw that management truly wanted their input, they felt comfortable in offering criticism.  This entire process was effective in eliminating resistance to the change and it resulted in an improved modification to the plan.

* In another plant, economics was the source of the problem.  This occurred in a publishing company that estimated that its internal costs of producing a particular workbook amounted to $21.55 while its competitors could do the job for $15.90.  This large cost differential was given serious consideration. When several departments got together to discuss the matter is was found that a large component of the cost was in overhead.  The policy was to charge a fixed overhead rate per book.  This was not realistic when the volume of units produced was increased.  Since the book order was for 2 million books, recalculation of the true costs came to $15.40 per book, a competitive price. With the large volume, the overhead costs were diminished considerably per unit.  The matter was easily resolved when all affected parties got involved. Note that these cost figures were not shared openly between departments prior to the introduction of the Scanlon Plan.

* In one plant where steel cylinders were fabricated, it was the standard procedure to machine the metal part, press the stop button, wait for the rotating cylinder to come to a complete stop, and then measure the cylinder with a micrometer.  One of the workers suggested that some sort of brake should be added to the machinery in order to reduce the time of waiting until the cylinder came to a complete stop and could be "miked."  Management was sympathetic with the idea but found that a speed control would cost over $1200.  Not being deterred, the worker and the supervisor discussed the problem with an electrician who came up with a way of supplying a source of d.c. current directly to the motor windings and using a shot of d.c. as a brake. The modification cost was $15.25 per machine and two hours of an electrician's time.  The change was implemented plant-wide with approximately one hour being saved in each day on each machine.  Note that this idea would not have come to fruition without the involvement of several people with different skills.

* In another plant workers complained about not being able to get materials in a timely fashion.  When a new order was received, they would set up their machines, only to find that they did not have the materials with which to proceed.  The head of the expediting department was concerned about this and began to examine past records.  Shortly thereafter, a meeting was held and the head of expediting promptly announced his research findings.  He disclosed that he had reviewed a wealth of time slips which showed "running time", "delays", etc.  He reported that the delays were minimal and that there was no need to consider the problem further.  After a lengthy silence, one of the workers spoke up.  He said that for years it has been taken for granted that delays are not to be reported.  When a delay occurs, it is reported as part of the running time so the actual delay times are absorbed by the reported "running time."  In other words, the reports did not represent any valid factual information.  Workers were led to believe that they would get into trouble if they showed large amounts of delay time.  Furthermore, workers announced that this had been the standard practice for several years.  Although this in and of itself did not solve the delay problem, it did point out a major shortcoming of an established control system.  The system was to be used to (1) plan production efficiently and (2) evaluate the performance of various individuals and units of the plant.  These objectives were obviously viewed as being in conflict.  Workers were simply falsifying the records in order to protect themselves.  Management could make no valid assumptions when basing decisions on the time slips.  Honest reporting can only be expected when individuals are certain that reprisals against them will not occur. Workers and management must have a common objective before a system can be effective.

From reports of plants using Suggestion Plans and those using the Scanlon Plan, indications are that more suggestions are rejected under the suggestion plans.  This can probably be explained by the fact that ideas can be more fully developed under the Scanlon Plan prior to actual evaluation.  Since the Scanlon Plan encourages informal discussions among various levels of personnel, the impractical suggestions are probably weeded out rather that having them formally evaluated.  In other words, the Scanlon Plan causes ideas to be evaluated in an informal manner in which they are either rejected or enhanced and developed before being formally submitted.

The Scanlon Plan has many advantages.  It fosters a growth in the cooperation between labor and management.  It strengthens the competitive position of companies.  Changes can be more easily implemented.  With the increased trust of labor and management, restrictions on production can be eliminated.  An overriding advantage is that all the workers benefit from the plan in terms of direct pay-offs.

INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN (SCANLON PLAN)

There are various ways that the Scanlon Plan might be implemented.  In fact, it is ideal to customize the plan to be implemented for the specific conditions that exist.  As a result, the term "Scanlon Plan" does not refer to a specific model of participative management, i.e., the term refers to basic principles that are followed rather than to an exact format or policy that is to be implemented.

One of the early efforts to implement the Scanlon Plan in a work setting took place at Lapointe Machine Tool Company.  In this plant, the plan that was implemented was developed by the joint efforts of the local union president and his committee, Joseph Scanlon, and management.  At the crux of the plan was the computation of the means by which resultant profits would be distributed to workers.  The plan stated, "For each 1 percent of increase in productive efficiency as reflected in production value, a 1 percent participating bonus will be paid to each employee working under the Plan."  This meant that 100 percent or all of the labor cost improvement would be paid out to the participating members.  The benefit for the company was that the overhead would be spread over the increased production.  In this plant, all employees (workers, foremen, superintendents, engineers, and low-level managers), except top managers, shared in the bonus.  Top managers were excluded as they already had a bonus system of their own based on sales.

At the Lapointe plant, the employees shared in the bonus based on the percentage increase in productive efficiency.  Thus if the productivity was 20 percent above the baseline production for a given month, everyone would receive a 20 percent increase in pay.  Thus, a worker earning $1200 a month would receive a bonus of $240 and an engineer earning $2500 a month would receive $500.  Workers on the piece rate system had their wages increased in proportion to their regular pay.  Note that the workers were not rewarded on an individual basis but instead they worked under a group incentive.  In addition, considerable flexibility was added in that the bonus computation scheme was modified several times by negotiation between labor and management.

It was recognized that flexibility must exist in the plan for it to be successful.  The bonus might logically be based on the ratio of labor costs to production value.  However, technological advances might reduce labor costs without increasing the productive efficiency of the workers.  Wage increases might also have a direct effect on the ratio.  A change in the product mix produced by the plant might similarly cause the ratio to change.  Thus, modifications to the computation were found to be necessary at times.  Eventually, a reserve fund was established (for the hard times) by setting aside half of the first 15 percent of any bonus for any month in order to sustain it.  Thus, the downtime on machinery causing a deficit in any given month could be compensated from the reserve fund.  At the end of each year, the funds remaining in the reserve fund were distributed to all the employees.

There were 16 months out of 58 in which no worker pay-off occurred.  To a large extent, the cause was that the workers had been so productive that they had "worked themselves out of a job."  The large backlog that initially existed was eroded by the increased productivity. When this occurred, one option was to lay off some of the workers in order to permit some of the workers to remain employed plus earn a bonus.  This option was not favored.  It was agreed that no bonuses would be paid during the lean period.  The engineers, who traditionally took their vacations during a designated month, agreed to defer their vacations until production demands were restored.  In the meantime, management worked on increasing sales.  The noteworthy aspect of this situation is that the workers, represented by the union, were willing to take a reversal on their compensation (no bonuses) when they were directly involved in the process.  Management was open about its situation and the workers accepted the bad news with a resolve to stay in the system.  In a few months, sales were back up and renewed prosperity was realized by the workers and the company.  In addition, their mutual respect and trust was strengthened.
 

GOAL SETTING

Task performance appears to be influenced by conscious goals, intentions, desires, and purposes.  The premise is that an individual's ideas will influence what is done (Source: "Toward A Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives," by Edwin A. Locke, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 3 (1968), pp. 158-173).  Goals are regarded as causal factors in behavior.  Goals may influence or even initiate behavior.  The link that is of primary interest is that of conscious goals or intentions and task performance.  While all actions may not be directly related to conscious goals, research has been conducted to determine the extent that behavior can be explained by conscious goals or intentions. Unintentional behavior also exists and may be of several types: non-conscious actions that are a consequence of efforts to achieve a conscious objective (not thinking of foot movement when playing badminton), behavior that fails despite the intentions of achieving a certain goal (hitting the tennis ball into the net), actions that conform to an unstated objective that accompanies conscious behavior (being asked to name models of cars and then naming only those manufactured in Great Britain), and actions not normally under the control of the individual (muscle contractions, glandular secretions, etc.).  In other words, in pursuing a goal, other sub-goals might also be attained, unconscious behavior may occur, or failure can also result.

Most research relates to setting simple goals in which the development of new skills and making long-terms plans and strategies is not necessary to achieve the goals.  Most research studies have consisted of performing tasks in which the objective was to achieve some type of goal. The tasks were typically those types in which effort and concentration were considered to have a direct effect on the success of the results.

Much research has been concerned with goals (or intentions) and task performance. Research has shown the existence of a direct relationship between the level of difficulty of a goal and the observed level of performance, i.e., hard goals produce a higher level of performance and easy goals produce lower levels of performance.  Other studies examined the influence of specific and quantifiable goals whether the goal was assigned by others or if it was set by the individual.  In all cases, the harder the goal the higher the level of performance.  Although the individuals with very difficult goals reached their goals far less often that individuals with very easy goals, the performance of those pursuing the higher goals were always at higher levels.

Another study found that individuals who were asked to increase their performance by 25 percent consistently performed better than those who were instructed to increase their performance by 5 percent.  Another study found that when individuals set their own personal goals that related to their own past performance the performance of those with higher goals was consistently above those with the lower goals.

An interesting finding resulted from a study in which goals were assigned to individuals and where individuals were asked to set their own personal goals.  It was found that hard assigned goals led to higher levels of performance only when the goals were assigned before the individuals had set their personal goals.   It was concluded that once a personal goal is set, the individual seems to reject the assigned goal.

It is often alleged that production norms set the levels of productivity in some places of work.  When this occurs, a common goal that is accepted by the workers seems to dictate work rates.  It must be recognized that these work norms are not all bad.  While it is true that these norms may restrain increased productivity, it is also argued that in some instances they sustain productivity.

Research has also been conducted on the influence of the definition clarity of the goal.  This is typified by subjectively stated goals such as "do your best" and by objectively stated goals as "try to do X units in the next day" or "increase your productivity by 15 percent."  In almost all cases, individuals trying to achieve a specific hard goal performed better than those who were trying to "do their best."

In a related study of pursuing specific goals versus "doing their best," it was observed that performance tended to be fairly consistent among all individuals in the first few minutes of performance on a 20-minute task.  However, as the work period progressed, the individuals with specific goals performed better than those trying "to do their best."  Similar results were obtained on tasks requiring 1-1/2 hours.  This shows that in the early stages of a task, performance is generally about the same.  The hard and specific goals appear to enhance and prolong the performance effort.

In summary, maximum or improved performance is realized when goals are objectively defined (they can be measured) and when the goal is high but attainable.  The means by which goals are defined may influence actual performance.  With the proper creativity, managers might be able to successfully implement the research findings with the result of added productivity.
 

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
 

Positive reinforcement is one means that has been successfully utilized by firms to increase worker productivity (Source: "Behavior Modification on the Bottom Line" by W. Clay Hamner and Ellen P. Hamner, Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 1976.).  As might be suspected, a positive reinforcement program places a maximum emphasis on reinforcement and makes a minimum use of punishment.  This is based on the premise that punishment causes individuals to feel controlled and coerced.  Positive reinforcement does not delve into the psychological attitudes of workers that cause certain behaviors, but rather the focus is on the reward mechanisms that cause workers to act the way they do.  The emphasis of positive reinforcement programs is on the results rather than on the process.  In other words, such programs are practical in their orientation and do not have a strong theoretical base.

The development of positive reinforcement programs consists of four stages.  The first stage consists of defining the behavioral aspects of performance and conducting a performance audit.  Thus, to have an effective first stage it is an asset to have a formal performance evaluation program.  Once the behavioral aspects are defined, it is possible to identify areas in which improvement can be made.  This is of particular importance as the improvement can be measured or quantified if clear definitions of performance exist, i.e., objective criteria should exist for the proper evaluation of performance.  It is also easier to convince managers that improvement is needed.  Once managers see the need for improvement, it is an easy task for get them to cooperate in implementing a positive reinforcement program.  The audit may prove valuable in that often the need for improvement does not exist until it is seen that performance is not optimal.

The second stage of developing a positive reinforcement program consists of developing and setting specific goals for each worker.  Many programs fail primarily because they do not have specific goals.  Goals should be expressed in such terms as "decrease employee turnover by 50 percent" or "meet all production deadlines."  Vaguely stated goals should be avoided, e.g., "increased loyalty to the company" or "increased worker satisfaction."  The goals should relate in real terms to those measures defined in the performance audit.  The goals should be set at a reasonable level, somewhere between the current situation and some ideal state.  Managers should set production goals.  However, it is one thing for managers to set goals and it is another for the workers to accept them.  One approach that helps to gain worker acceptance of goals is to have workers participate with management in setting them.  This process not only helps gain the acceptance of the goals by workers, but this also motivates workers to establish and pursue their own goals.

The third stage of a successful positive reinforcement program consists of workers keeping records of their work.  This is essential for self-feedback which is a source of continuous intrinsic reinforcement.  The worker can assess performance relative to the specific goal and also relative to previous performance.  For this to be effective, it is valuable to have a short time interval over which performance is measured.  Weekly or daily goals are preferred to monthly or quarterly goals.  If failure occurs for an interval, the worker can quickly hope to obtain positive reinforcement in the next interval.  If the intervals are too long, failure will have a negative impact as it will be difficult to focus on the next long interval in hopes of success, i.e., the goal may seem too remote to be a strong motivator.

The fourth stage is considered the most important component of a positive reinforcement program.  At the end of a performance interval, the supervisor reviews the self-feedback report of each worker and any other measures of performance that the company may maintain (sales reports, quality control reports, etc.).  The supervisor then praises the positive aspects of each worker's performance.  This extrinsic reinforcement should strengthen the desired performance.  On the other hand, withholding praise for substandard performance should give the worker an incentive to improve the level of performance in that area.  Since the workers have a self-feedback mechanism, they will be readily aware of their own work performance deficiencies, making criticism by the supervisor unnecessary.  The negative reinforcement will be self-induced while the positive reinforcement will be obtained from internal and external sources.

While praise is the means of positive reinforcement that was mentioned above, other forms of positive reinforcement can also be used.  Other reinforcers that can be used include money, recognition, freedom to select job tasks, opportunity to see oneself become more important or useful, and power to influence coworkers and management.

Several companies employ positive reinforcement programs.  Some of these companies boast of having tremendous success with their programs.  For example, General Motors implemented a plan in one of its plants where an unacceptable number of plant rules were being violated.  The plan in the GM plant gave workers the opportunity to clear their violation records by going through varying periods of time without committing further shop violations.  This plan resulted in a reduction by two-thirds in the number of punitive actions taken for shop-rule violations during a three-year period.  Grievances were reduced by 70 percent in the same period.

Emery Air Freight also implemented a successful positive reinforcement program.  It linked positive reinforcement with feedback.  All managers and supervisors were trained through self-instructional, programmed instruction texts- one on reinforcement and one on feedback. No formal off-the-job training was needed.  After the texts had been studied, the supervisors were encouraged to apply what they have learned.  Some specific areas that the company addressed are noted as follows:

*  One program was instituted when customer service on the telephone was running at 60 to 70 percent of standard.  The implemented program focused on feedback and reinforcement.  Within three months the level of service was at 90 percent and continued to be maintained at that level.
*  Several offices installed a program in which specified planned reinforcements were provided when targeted levels of shipment volume were requested by customers.  All offices with the program increased revenues substantially.
*  Another program, focused on measuring dimensions of certain lightweight shipments to rate them by volume rather than by weight, also used reinforcement and feedback extensively.  This proved to be very successful in the company.

An Emery spokesperson was adamant in stating that positive reinforcement programs are not fads.  The programs have been successful far too long to simply echo the "Hawthorne effect."  However, a flaw was recognized in the program.  John Emery stated, "Inasmuch as praise is the most readily available no-cost reinforcer, it tends to be the reinforcer used most frequently.  However, the result has been to dull its effect as a reinforcer through its sheer repetition, even to risk making praise an irritant to the receiver."  This problem was countered by encouraging the managers and supervisors to expand their reinforcers beyond praise.  Emery began to use other reinforcers including formal recognition such as public letters and letters sent to the homes of workers.  Some workers were given particularly enjoyable tasks after successfully completing less enjoyable ones.  Reinforcers included sending invitations to business luncheons and meetings, delegating responsibility and decision making, and granting special worker requests (time off or other deviations from normal procedure) in exchange for performance.

A positive reinforcement program was also implemented by Michigan Bell-Operator Service. The general manager said, "We have found through experience that when standards and feedback are not provided, workers generally feel their performance is at about the 95 percent level.  When the performance is then compared with clearly-defined standards, it is usually found to meet only the 50th percentile in performance."  Further it was observed "when standards are set and feedback provided in a positive manner, performance will reach very high levels- perhaps in the upper 90th percentile in a very short period of time."  The company also noted that when the positive reinforcement was discontinued, performance returned to the levels that existed prior to establishing the feedback.

One experiment conducted by Michigan Bell Operator Service showed that when goal setting and positive reinforcement were used in a low-productivity inner-city operator group, service promptness (time to answer a call) went from 94 percent to 99 percent of standard.  In addition, the average work time per call (time required to give information) decreased from 60 units of work time to 43 units of work time, the percentage of work time completed within ideal limits went from 50 percent to 93 percent of ideal time (standard was 80 percent of ideal), and the percentage of time operators made proper use of references went from 80 percent to 94 percent.

A positive reinforcement program was also established in Michigan Bell-Maintenance Services.  The division superintendent with a department of 220 employees (maintenance, mechanical and janitorial services) recognized that worker morale was generally good but that performance had been below the objectives that had been established.  In some cases the objectives were ambiguous and in others they were nonexistent.  A four-stage program, as described earlier, was implemented.  Significant improvement was observed in all areas, including safety, service, cost performance per hour, attendance, worker satisfaction and cooperation, and worker satisfaction with the supervisors.

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company implemented a program focused on work attendance.  Positive reinforcement was provided in the form of an attendance bonus system. Workers received one extra day off for each ten weeks of perfect attendance.  Chronic absenteeism and lateness was drastically reduced, and the employees expressed considerable satisfaction with the system.  In another division of the company, the implementation a similar system was flatly rejected.  The problem was that some had "strong anti-Skinnerian feelings, sensing that positive reinforcement is overly manipulative."

A unique program was implemented at General Electric that was focused on teaching male supervisors how to interact and communicate with minority and female employees and on teaching minority and female employees how to become successful by improving their self-images.  The program was eventually expanded to focus on the relationship between supervisors and employees in general.  The reinforcement technique used was behavior modeling.  The employee would be shown a video of a model (someone with a similar background and position-that is, male or female, black or white, subordinate or superior) who was performing in a correct or desired manner.  The "student" would then be placed in a role-playing situation in which the desired behavior was to be emulated.  The "student" was instructed to act in the successful or desired manner shown in the film.  Positive reinforcement was given each time the goal of successful display of behavior occurred in the role-playing session.  This method has been used on more than 1000 supervisors in the company.  This resulted in increased productivity, increased self-esteem of employees, and EEO objectives being met.

Weyerhaeuser Company has had considerable experience with the implementation of positive reinforcement programs.  The purpose of a program described by G. P. Latham of the Weyerhaeuser Human Resource Research Center was threefold: (1) Instill in managers the philosophy that the "glass is half-full rather than half-empty".  Managers are to minimize criticism and to maximize praise and hence fixate both the manager's and the employee's attention on effective job behavior.  (2) Teach managers that praise by itself may increase job satisfaction, but that it will have little or no effect on productivity unless it is made contingent upon specified job behaviors.  Telling an employee that a good job is being done in no way conveys to the worker what is being done correctly.  "Blanket praise" may inadvertently reinforce the very things that the worker is doing in a mediocre way.  (3) Teach managers to determine the "optimum schedule for administering a reinforcer-be it praise, a smile, or money in the employee's pocket."  The monetary incentive was found to improve productivity noticeably in some work groups.  One work group experienced an increase in productivity of 33 percent with the monetary incentive.  However, one work group had an 8 percent decrease in productivity.  This points out the need to measure and document the effectiveness of any human resource program.  What works in one situation may spell disaster in another.

The City of Detroit employed a bonus system for its sanitation workers engaged in refuse collection.  The bonus system was based on savings gained in productivity (reduction in paid man-hours per ton of refuse collected, reduction in the total hours of overtime, increase in the percentage of routes completed on schedule, and increase in effectiveness as related to cleanliness).  A bonus pool was established and the sanitation workers shared any savings on a 50-50 basis with the city.  Each worker's portion was determined by the number of hours worked under the productivity bonus pool, exclusive of overtime.  This program was a success with huge savings being computed by the city.  Citizen complaints about refuse collection decreased dramatically.  The unions representing the workers have questioned the computation of the amount of the savings being distributed to the workers.  While this type of dispute was expected, both the city and the customers agree that the program has worked.

B. F. Goodrich implemented a positive reinforcement program that included goal setting and feedback.  This took place at the plant in Avon Lake, Ohio which was suffering from poor productivity.  Goals were established concerning scheduling, targets, costs, and identified problem areas.  This program started with specific information being given to each foreman on a once-a-week basis.  In addition, daily meetings were held to discuss problems and to describe how each group was doing.  For the first time the foreman and their employees were told about costs that were incurred by their group.  Charts were published that showed area achievements in terms of sales, costs, and productivity as compared with targets.  Films were made that showed top management what the employees were doing, and these films were shown to the workers so they would know what management was being told.  One advocate of the program said the program was a resounding success as "productivity has increased 300 percent over the past five years.  Costs are down."

ACDC Electronics implemented the classical positive reinforcement program as outlined earlier with the four stages of development.  That program was very successful.  The company experienced a profit increase of 25 percent over the forecast, a $550,000 cost reduction on $10 million in sales (a return of 1,900 percent on the investment in the positive reinforcement program), a reduction in turnaround time on repairs from 30 to 10 days, and a significant increase in attendance.  Despite the success, implementation was not without problems.  Most obstacles arose with managers.  "With some managers there were problems of inertia, disbelief, lack of time to implement, interest, difficulty in defining output for hard-to-measure areas, setting standards, measuring past performance, estimating economic payoffs, and failure to apply all feedback or reinforcement principles."

While positive reinforcement programs have demonstrated dramatic results in various companies, experience from these examples also shows that a perfect model does not exist. For a program to be successful, it must be tailor-made for the particular situation.  What works in one work setting will not necessarily work in another.  The reinforcers that are used must have sufficient power to strengthen behavior, the reinforcers must be administered contingent on the desired level of performance, and the program must be established in such a way so that it is possible to establish a reliable training procedure for inducing the desired response patterns.  An important aspect of a successful program is feedback.  With feedback, the worker can be reinforced intrinsically (meeting a personal goal or surpassing past performance levels) and extrinsically (being reinforced for meeting a stated objective).

AWARDS AND INCENTIVES

Awards and incentives tend to be regarded as components of positive reinforcement programs.  However, with the manner in which some award and incentive programs are carried out, they are not as complete as some of the programs described as positive reinforcement programs.

In construction firms, it is common to encounter a variety of award and incentive programs. There are two broad categories into which the actual nature of the award (incentive) can be grouped.  One consists of recognition awards that are used as incentives for selected personnel in the firm, and the other generally consists of incentive awards that can be earned by anyone that attains a specified goal.
 

Recognition Awards

Recognition awards are generally available to only managerial personnel, i.e., field workers are very rarely included.  For example, a superintendent or project manager on a construction project may be guaranteed a percentage of the job profits that are realized in excess of those originally planned.  Some awards may be focused on maintaining a good safety record on the project.  Since the awards can be substantial (often amounting to several thousand dollars), they do provide a considerable inducement for the achievement of specified objectives.  Awards may consist of vacations with all expenses paid, expensive wrist watches, mountain bikes for the award recipient and spouse, camping gear, etc.

While monetary awards are the most prevalent, other awards that are tailored to the individual have much more lasting meaning.  For example, a superintendent who is to be given a special award for safety performance may be given an award that is considered special by that superintendent.  If the superintendent is a collector of scale models of construction equipment or if the superintendent is a model train enthusiast, a suitable choice of an award will be readily apparent.  However, the tailored awards are generally presented as a surprise.  Surprise awards are generally considered to be awards and are not really incentives.  An incentive exists when performance is to be encouraged by the existence of an award.  For an incentive to exist, individuals must know about the award prior to performance.  In many cases, awards are given as a consequence of performance. Furthermore, the award must consist of something that is valued by the potential recipient. While surprise awards may not be incentives at all, they can be a strong expression of gratitude for the services rendered by the recipients.  The benefit realized by a company from the awards is not realized in the performance that is altered prior to the award. Instead, the awards, particularly if they are substantial or prized by the recipient, serve as an element of recognition and appreciation.  Such awards may have their greatest impact after they have been received.  Individuals see that exemplary performance is recognized and appreciated and this motivates the award recipients to continue to live up to the standards that they have established.  For those who observe the awards being received, they have an added incentive to strive to attain the level of performance of the award recipients.  This after-the-fact influence on or modification of behavior makes these awards more indirect as mechanisms of positive reinforcement.  Nonetheless, they can be very effective.

Incentive Awards

The second type of awards or incentives are designed as true mechanisms of positive reinforcement.  They tend to be designed on a broad-basis for many workers.  On construction projects, incentives may be established to reinforce such behavior as good safety performance or continuous work attendance.  The awards tend to be somewhat modest because of the large number of awards that are given.  The awards may consist of such items as trading stamps, pocket knives, hard hat decals, belt buckles, chilly bins, wind breakers, baseball caps, etc.  Some awards are specifically made for the company with the company logo incorporated in the award.  Some companies have logos that are tailor-made for the specific project.  Some companies award points to each worker that has exhibited a given behavior for a given time interval.  These points can accrue from interval to interval. The points can be used to purchase items from the "company shopping catalogue."  The points earned in one time interval (typically about a month) may be sufficient to "buy" such items as a coffee mug or tumbler emblazoned with the company logo.  If additional points are accrued, a chilly bin might be purchased.  Other items (most with the company logo) may include jackets, pocket watches, fishing gear, car accessories, boots, etc.

For these award systems to be successful, the awards must be able to influence behavior. In some cases, the awards are designed to simply sustain behavior.  If a single award is used, it is imperative that the nature of the award be carefully selected.  The award must have general value among all the workers.  For example, baseball caps may he highly desired by some workers, but may have little appeal for others.  Also, when a single award is used, experience has shown that the award must frequently be changed.  That is, the "gimmicks" may be short-lived and will not continue to influence behavior after a given period of time, i.e., after everyone has a baseball cap, workers will not strive to earn a second one with the same enthusiasm.  Experience seems to show that if a single type of award is used the award should be changed about every 6 months.  It has also been suspected that if the goal for award attainment is too easy or if the award has little perceived value behavior may not be altered by the award.

Positive reinforcement programs, with the four stages of development, are not followed judiciously with all award and incentive programs.  This shortcoming should be recognized in some of these ventures.  Simple awards may not be as effective as well-developed programs which address performance audits, goal-setting, record keeping, and positive reinforcement.  The value of award and incentive programs should be able to be assessed. If a viable return is realized from a program, the award and incentives should be sustained.