The document discusses theoretical principles for motivating employees to engage in safe work behaviors, including expectancy theory, self-efficacy, and locus of control. It also describes the Zero Incident Protocol (ZIP) safety program. ZIP aims to strengthen employee motivation and control over safety through developing an internal locus of control and focusing on how thoughts and attitudes influence safety outcomes. The concepts discussed provide insights for tapping into intrinsic motivation and promoting safe work behaviors.

1. Running head: MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES FOR SAFE
Motivating Employees for Safe Work Behavior
Karen Carleton, M.Ed.
Boise State University

2. Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................ 2
Theoretical Principles ....................................................................... 3
Expectancy Theory ............................................................................... 3
Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................ 5
Locus of Control................................................................................... 7
Zero Incident Protocol Safety Program ..................................................10
Practical Implications ..................................................................... 12
References .........................................................................................16
Appendix A: Zero Incident Protocol Principles ................................ 18
Appendix B: Workplace Learning Activity for ZIP ............................ 19

3. Motivating Employees 1
Abstract
For organizations, promoting and supporting workplace safety means
providing employees with the necessary information, resources and
incentives. For individuals, workplace safety centers on: education/training,
ensuring capacity, and most importantly, tapping into a worker‟s intrinsic
motivation. Valuable insights are gained from expectancy theory, self-
efficacy, and locus of control. These concepts are related to facilitating and
supporting employee motivation for workplace safety. Working safely is
strongly influenced by an employee‟s beliefs, choices, and perceptions, as
demonstrated by the Zero Incident Protocol (ZIP) safety program, which
involves employees‟ personally meaningful motivations and expectancies for
safety. ZIP exemplifies locus of control being used to strengthen employee
motivation and to some degree, expectancy and self-efficacy. The paper
concludes summarizing how these concepts promote safe work behaviors.

4. Motivating Employees 2
Motivating Employees for Safe Work Behavior
Introduction
Today most industrial employers are well aware of the importance of
attending to safety considerations for the people they employ. Not only do
organizations want to avoid paying higher worker‟s compensation costs for
injuries sustained at work, but they want to maintain a reputation of
corporate responsibility, and retain a happy and productive workforce. One
question that labor-intensive industries like mining and manufacturing ask is:
how can we close the gap between current and desired motivation levels for
working safely? Presuming that workplace safety needs are met in the areas
of job-related safety information, resources (e.g., adequate tools), and
meaningful incentives, the focus turns to the personal repertory of behavior
for individual employees.
On a personal level, employees must possess (or be provided with) the
relevant knowledge and skills for performing safe work. Moreover, all
workers need careful screening to ensure that they have the capacity
(physical, mental, and emotional) to work safely given the respective
conditions. Once all of these environmental and personal conditions are met,
leveraging human motivation becomes the central task. As such, there are
informative theories and concepts that assist instructional designers and
performance technologists to tap into a worker‟s intrinsic motivation to work
safely, which becomes a win-win for employees and their employers alike.

5. Motivating Employees 3
Underlying expectancy theory are employee expectations, perceptions and
motivations, which integrate well with the related concepts of self-efficacy
and locus of control. A common thread shared by these overarching
theoretical ideas “...is the attempt to explain the formation and effect of
personal expectancies for success or failure in relation to behavior and its
consequences” (Peters, 2001, p. 298). This paper will demonstrate clear ties
between these theoretical constructs and motivating safe work behavior for
employees in an organization.
Theoretical Principles
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory, developed by Victor Vroom in the 1960s, helps
explain employee motivation, particularly as it pertains to employee
perceptions of situations. These perceptions in turn affect how they behave
in response to these situations. According to expectancy theory, to effect a
high level of workplace motivation, three conditions must be met
simultaneously. First, the reward for an employee‟s task performance must
be perceived as valuable (condition of valence). Second, the reward
employees receive must be commensurate or a fair exchange for their
performance of the task (condition of instrumentality). Third, there must be
considerable likelihood of the employee receiving the reward, once the task
is performed or the goal is achieved (condition of expectancy). Notably, all
three conditions must be met to maintain a high level of employee

6. Motivating Employees 4
motivation (Huglin, 2006, slide 11). For example, to enhance safe work
motivation for oil and gas workers their employer would need to ensure the
reward for safe work is seen as valuable by each employee, as opposed to a
mass distribution of cheap trinkets for safety rewards (i.e., condition of
valence). As well, rewards should be perceived as fair in relation to the
safety milestone achieved and in comparison to other employees, thereby
maintaining a sense of distributive justice and equity in the workplace (i.e.,
condition of instrumentality). Finally, workers must be assured that they can
expect to receive their just rewards soon after reaching their safety goals, in
order for such rewards to be meaningfully appreciated (i.e., condition of
expectancy).
Nonetheless, an employee‟s risky behavior is strongly influenced by the
individual‟s perception of risk or the expectancy for injury, together with the
perceived likelihood of how serious of an injury that could be sustained in a
given situation. Much of this perception is based on how well a person thinks
they are capable of performing. For instance, critical to the risky behavior of
many young drivers, is the perceived risk of crashing a vehicle or being
caught by law enforcement is, since young adults tend to feel invincible and
unlikely to get hurt. By contrast, older drivers tend to be risk-averse drivers,
and are often less likely to share the „it won‟t happen to me‟ mentality
(Williams, & Purdy, 2005). However, experienced industrial workers often
speak of over-confidence based on having a wealth of experience which can

7. Motivating Employees 5
lend itself to mindlessness or „going on autopilot‟ instead of remaining keenly
mindful of potential workplace dangers (Gellar, 2006). An experienced
worker may be more likely to believe he or she has control over the
situation, ignoring or downplaying the significance of external factors
(Geurin, & Kohut, 1989).
Self-efficacy
Related to the expectancy theory and employee perceptions (or
personal realities), is self-efficacy, which is defined as “...a person‟s belief
that he or she can perform a certain procedure or technique. It reflects self-
confidence and a „can do‟ attitude” (Gellar, 2003, p. 8). In other words, self-
efficacy is tantamount to an employee‟s perceived self-efficacy for
preventative action (Williams, & Purdy, 2005). The notion of self-efficacy is
closely allied with expectancy, or the belief that performing a task will
produce the desired outcome. Expectancy can also be referred to as response
efficacy, or being able to choose to perform in a certain way (Gellar, 2003).
Importantly, for enhancing safety in the workplace, the power of personal
story sharing, customary in safety meetings, is an important source of
employee safety motivation (Gellar, 2003; Williams, & Purdy, 2005).
A personalized message about injuries or „near misses‟, evokes
powerful visualizations that heightens vulnerabilities. As a result, attendees
develop personal apprehension towards the dangerous work situations
discussed, and people generally become more receptive to avoidance

8. Motivating Employees 6
strategies. In short, people are „scared safe‟ since testimonials from workers
in similar work situations are very powerful (Gellar, 2003; Williams, & Purdy,
2005). Workplace safety meetings, also known as „safety shares‟ or „toolbox
talks‟, are designed to motivate and educate others and at the same time,
remind fellow workers that they are capable of performing in such as way as
to prevent similar safety incidents or accidents in the workplace (Gellar, 2003
& 2006).
A personal story can heighten employees‟ perceptions of vulnerability
so that risks become relevant, real and fear-inducing (Gellar, 2003). In fact,
„loss-framing‟ or considering what a worker has to lose by taking risks at
work, are more effective than ‟gain-framing‟ or focusing on safe work
benefits stemming from compliance (Gellar, 2003). The Zero Incident
Protocol (ZIP) does just that, by asking workers to consider „the big five‟ or
the five things they value most in their life such as family, friends, job,
health, and ability to play sports – all of which could be limited or lost as a
consequence of a workplace accident (Sentis, 2004).
The safety culture or climate of an organization, typified by the shared
perceptions and attitudes of those in the work environment, has a strong
influence on safe work behavior (Williams, & Purdy, 2005). Case in point,
when a worker feels that protecting his or her hearing by preventing noise
exposure is pointless and that hearing damage is part and parcel of the job,
he or she will feel little if any personal responsibility for taking action to

9. Motivating Employees 7
prevent hearing damage from noise exposure. In the author‟s experience,
one plant operator who shared this sentiment (despite being well aware of
the benefits of wearing hearing protection), demonstrated his poor attitude
towards his own safety, company compliance behaviors, and a lack of self-
efficacy. Thus, an employee‟s attitudes affect his or her safe work behavior
or lack thereof. In fact, an attitude-to-behavior process model views the
individual‟s response as related to his or her perception of the situation, and
also related to his or her peer group norms (Williams, & Purdy, 2005; Gellar,
2003).
The opposite of self-efficacy is „fatalism‟ or the belief in accidents
stemming from fate or naturally occurring consequences, which are
unavoidable (Williams, & Purdy, 2005). Nevertheless, organizations “...that
undertake regular OHS [Occupational Health and Safety] training/education
programs intended to raise safety culture awareness....” have been shown to
have measurably decrease fatalism and increase safer behavior based on
peer group influence (Williams, & Purdy, 2005, p. 251). Hence, motivating
safe work behavior is related to both individual self-efficacy, and whether it is
promoted by a worker‟s social network or peer group.
Locus of Control
Linked to expectancy theory and self-efficacy, is locus of control (LoC).
In organizational settings, LoC has been closely aligned with employee
motivation (Geurin, & Kohut, 1989). LoC amounts to an employee‟s beliefs

10. Motivating Employees 8
about what level of control they have over their environment and “...the
extent to which individuals attribute outcomes to their own efforts and
behaviors” (Geurin, & Kohut, 1989, p. 58). With regard to an individual‟s
psychological responses, Rotter, who proposed LoC (i.e., general expectancy)
suggests that those with a high internal LoC would believe that they have
more control over the outcomes in their lives. By comparison, those with a
stronger external LoC “... will perceive themselves [and their outcomes] to
be controlled by fate, luck or other people with power” (Bassett-Jones &
Lloyd, 2005, p. 931-932). Like expectancy theory and self-efficacy, LoC
presumes that what is most important for influencing an individual‟s
motivations and resultant behavior, is his or her perceptions and beliefs
about a situation, especially with regard to maintaining one‟s safety
(Bernardi, 1997).
There is evidence of a strong relationship between LoC, perceptions
and performance. In other words, if someone sees himself or herself as being
in control of a situation, then he or she “... will be less likely to perceive the
situation as threatening or stress-inducing....” (Chan in Bernardi, 1997, p.
1). Of course, when employees perceive themselves as having greater
control over a situation, they are more likely to be satisfied, motivated,
committed, involved and high performing, since they are unencumbered by
stress (Bernardi, 1997). Conversely, individuals who perceive little or no
control over their personal circumstances are said to be externally-locused

11. Motivating Employees 9
and are sometimes referred to as ELoCs or „externals‟. ELoCs tend to dwell
on the idea of luck or fate directing their lives, failing to appreciate elements
that they have control over. People who are internally-locused (i.e., ILoCs)
believe for the most part that they can influence outcomes of events because
most things are within their control, therefore they accept responsibility for
managing their lives, and their own safety (Bernardi, 1997; Sentis, 2004).
ELoCs by contrast, who have a tendency to blame the external environment
or others for their circumstances, do not believe they have the ability to
influence the outcomes of their own situations through individual actions
(Bernardi, 1997; Geurin, & Kohut, 1989).
Threatening to workplace safety is the notion that ELoCs who largely
feel powerless, are more likely to experience the negative effects of stress,
be less satisfied at work, and have a higher risk of quitting (Bernardi, 1997).
ILoCs, on the other hand, tend to see challenge in stressors and in turn,
effective stress management is conducive to safe work performance
(Bernardi, 1997). In fact, the „fight or flight‟ response inherited from early
humans can be triggered in response to a perceived environmental threat,
perceived lack of control over the outcome (Sentis, 2004). As a result, this
response does not support clear thinking such as taking safety precautions.
Further, when something or someone in the environment is perceived as
being more powerful than the individual, it can signify that the individual has
an external locus of control. An ILoC, on the other hand, tends to adopt the

12. Motivating Employees 10
safer, more responsible attitude of „stay and play‟, where positive energy
supports the individual‟s ability to take charge of the situation and affect its
outcome positively (Sentis, 2004). Hence, ILoCs are more likely to react
constructively to frustration, as compared to ELoCs (Anderson in Bernardi,
1997).
Notably, some research suggests female employees are more likely to
be externally locused than male employees (Bernardi, 1997; Geurin, &
Kohut, 1989). The phenomenon of female ELoC tendencies could very well be
related to systemic institutional bias inherent in organizations, and/or based
on individual experiences which can reinforce a woman‟s perceptions of her
inability to control her life‟s circumstances, including having control over
work or life stressors. Regardless of gender, research has clearly shown a
correlation between stress and perceived LoC, which has ramifications for
maintaining workplace safety (Bernardi, 1997).
Zero Incident Protocol Safety Program
Zero Incident Protocol (ZIP) is a workplace safety training program
based on a cognitive protocol designed to achieve zero safety incidents in the
workplace through thought and perceptual change (Sentis, 2007). It is a
psychologically based process for empowering people to take control of their
own safety, by providing insight into how the brain works, and the effects of
thoughts, attitudes and values on safety. ZIP is a tool to aid employees in
taking control over their thinking and emotions to improve their life by

13. Motivating Employees 11
getting the results they want, namely in the area of safety. ZIP moves
beyond the typical behavior-based safety training to unleash the power of
individual thinking (Sentis, 2007). ZIP‟s has three main purposes are to:
facilitate greater control over personal safety and well being life, explore five
thinking patterns or attitudes shown to protect individual safety, and use
brain-based tools to control one‟s thoughts and therefore influence outcomes
related to safety (Sentis, 2007).
As with everything in life, an ILoC is critical to ensuring one‟s own
safety. Examining the brutal and sometimes horrifying aspects of failing to
comply with safe work performance and take all necessary precautions is
essential, while “...[and] at the same time keep an unshakeable belief that
we will succeed in staying safe” (Sentis, 2004, p. 1). Strengthening or
developing an ILoC orientation means employees take ownership
responsibility for their own situation, so that they are „responsible and in
control‟, which is the first of five ZIP program mantras which are reiterated
throughout the training program and its follow-up. If people own their own
circumstances they can change them, and therefore stop being a victim of
situations in which they find themselves. To encourage responses that reflect
an ILoC outlook, people are advised to enter the „ILoC Room of Mirrors‟
which involves reflecting upon a series of items:

14. Motivating Employees 12
1. “What” or “How” questions enlighten me about how I am contributing
to my own situation (never asking unproductive “Who” or “Why”
questions) e.g., What was my contribution to this situation?
2. “I” or “My” statements are constructed next, with reference to the role
I have played in my current situation. e.g., How can I control myself in
this situation?
3. “Do” actions are descriptions of the behaviors I will perform to improve
my circumstances. e.g., What do I need to do? (Sentis, 2004).
As a result of entering the ILoC Room of Mirrors, employees are able to own
their own responsibility for a potentially hazardous situation at work, and
therefore they can take action to remedy the situation (Sentis, 2004).
Practical Implications
In organizations, promoting and supporting workplace safety involves
promoting a safety culture and creating a supportive peer network.
Presuming personal capacity issues have been isolated, improving employee
motivation becomes a focus for facilitating workplace safety. Expectancy
theory, self-efficacy and locus of control, illuminate how organizations can
leverage individual motivation for safe work behavior. ZIP exemplifies a
safety program with an attitude-to-behavior process, or cognitive
behavioural process (Sentis, 2007) for a mindset of safe work performance,
based on individual perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes.

15. Motivating Employees 13
In summary, to close the gap between current and desired motivation
levels, organizations need to focus on a worker‟s intrinsic motivation to work
safely, along with improving his or her expectancy for safe outcomes. A
worker‟s self-efficacy or belief in his or her ability to perform safely in a given
situation, is enhanced by ongoing safety education/training programs (Clark,
2006), strengthening an organizational safety culture, and developing a peer
support network. Encouraging and supporting an internal locus of control will
enable employees to see that they have considerable power to influence their
own safety through their own beliefs, choices, and performance (Clark,
2006). By accepting responsibility for their own safety, employees are less
likely to experience the unsafe work situations. Enhancing employee self-
awareness and continually reinforcing mindfulness of safety expectancies,
safe work performance abilities, and personal accountabilities, are criticalto
workplace safety. Of course, “there is nothing that can be done to increase
safety on the shop floor unless management wants it, originates it and keeps
supporting it” (Williams, & Purdy, 2005, p. 251).

16. Motivating Employees 14
References
Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G.C. (2005, March). Does Herzberg‟s motivation
theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development,
21(10), 929-943.
Bernardi, R.A. (1997, Fall). The relationships among LoCus of control,
perceptions of stress, and performance. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 13(4), 1-8.
Clark, R. E. (2006). Motivating individuals, teams, and organizations. In J. A.
Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology (3rd ed.,
pp. 479-497). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Gellar, E. S. (2003, February). Scared safe: How to use fear to motivate
safety involvement” Occupational Health and Safety, 6(1), 6-10.
Gellar, E.S. (2006, December). The human dynamics of Injury Prevention
(Part 3): The thinking and seeing components of people-based safety.
Occupational Hazards.
Geurin, V.T., & Kohut, G.F. (1989, February). The Relationship of Locus of
control, and participative decision making among managers and
business students. Atlantic Journal of Business, 25(4), 57-66.
Huglin, L. (2007). IPT 564: Motivation in IPT, Week 7: Process theories, Part
II, slides 8, 10-12 (October 11, 2007).

17. Motivating Employees 15
Peters, F. (2001). ARCS motivational design. In K. L. Medsker & K. M.
Holdsworth (Eds.), Models and strategies for training design (pp. 297-
317). Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance
Improvement.
Sentis. Retrieved November 3. 2007 from, http://www.sentis.com.au/
Sentis. Module 1: Creating a powerful locus of control. (Received April 18,
2004), from Sentis corporation, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 1-2).
Williams, S., & Purdy, S. (2005). Perceptions of workplace noise and safety
climate. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety. 21(3), 247-252.

18. Motivating Employees 16
Appendix A: Zero Incident Protocol Principles
The Big 5 Attitudes and Principles to
keep me safe:
Safety Control
“I’m responsible and I’m in control.”
Risk Awareness
“I see it; I manage it.”
Stress Management
“I’m feeling it; I’m channelling it.”
Operating Attitude
“How I operate drives how I operate.”
Professional Orientation
“I do it well; I make it better.”

19. Motivating Employees 17
Appendix B: Workplace Learning Activity for Zero Incident Protocol Training
“Personal Big 5”
These are the important things in my life that I
“buy” with my safe choices at work and at home:
1. ______________________________________
2. ______________________________________
3. _______________________________________
4. ______________________________________
5. _______________________________________