The execution, maintenance or inhibition of a conduct is based on a subjective analysis of the "costs and benefits" of the consequences for each of these cases. In this analysis, if the benefits outweigh the costs of a conduct or behavior, this will be maintained over time by simple positive feedback. However, the evaluation, being subjective, is exposed to a degree of error or eventual deviations from the standards, which, when produced in a work environment, can increase the probability of accidents.
All our behaviors are determined by the result of an internal evaluation that the subject makes of the environment (and its activators) and its eventual consequences. That is, the conduct is subject to the evaluation of its costs and benefits. If the benefits that the consequence of a behavior will bring are greater (for the person and their environment) than the associated costs of emitting it, then the behavior tends to continue, since it receives a source of feedback in itself (benefits).
However, since the reflection prior to the emission of a behavior is subjective, since each of us evaluates the environment from our experiences, interests, motivations and expectations, so we add to the analysis the possibility that there are different versions or definitions of what that could be considered as “cost” or “benefit”. For practical purposes, then, we can say that there will be a
“real cost” and a “perceived cost” of attending the activators, as well as a “real benefit” and a “perceived benefit” of the consequences.
The "real cost" is the feasible cost of being measured or quantified, observed and agreed by more than one observer, while the "perceived cost" is the level of "loss" that the person "feels" in a given situation by following an activator.
For example, if two people lost a $ 1,000 (Chilean) bill, it is possible that one of them does not give importance to the fact, since its commercial value (real cost of loss) is not very significant, even when the other A person can literally "suffer" for losing an object that for him has a high emotional and significant content, because it was his first ticket or for other reasons (perceived cost of loss).
As we can see, the “objective” loss in the previous example is the same in both cases under the gaze of an external observer. However, the “perceived” (subjective) losses are different, so in this case it is possible to speak of “perceived costs”.
The same goes for benefits. There are real and perceived benefits. In this case, for example, for a worker, receiving a scholarship for their children can be a great benefit (perceived benefit), even when the actual amount of the scholarship (actual benefit) is not very significant in the eyes of a third party.
What is "real" in these cases is determined by what is intersubjective, socially accepted or feasible to be compared with some validated standard metric. The "perceived" is subjective and determined by the personal assessment of each person.
A person who achieves a lower-than-expected production bonus (real benefit) (profit perceived as insufficient), even though to achieve it he had to work hard (high perceived cost) or simply meet the standards according to his boss (real cost). In this example, the worker obtained a real benefit, but it is less than the amount he considers fair, undervaluing it. Continuing with this example, the subject can evaluate that the bonus obtained is less (low perceived benefit) than the effort expended to achieve it (high perceived cost), so he thinks that it is not worth maintaining the level of performance.
In other words, high perceived cost v / s low perceived benefit = decreased performance.
When we demand better performance at work, but we do not adequately reward them, we generate in the worker the sensation that the perceived cost increases over the real benefits, impacting motivation and finally performance in a way contrary to what was expected. The same occurs when people are required to implement changes in their business units, which are not successful if the change constitutes a high cost for people (generally perceived cost, since it is an area of work climate or perceptions).
When a behavior has consequences whose perceived benefit is high, it will continue over time. But make no mistake, this does not mean that this behavior is standardized and often it is often unsafe or poor quality and productivity.
Crossing the street, for example, through an unsuitable area has a high potential risk of being run over (high real cost). However, many people cross in this sector because it is more comfortable, less tiring and faster than crossing the walkway that is 50 meters away (high perceived benefit). This creates a "perceived" feeling that the aforementioned costs outweigh the benefits of acting safely.
In other words, high perceived benefit v / s low perceived cost = maintenance of the conduct issued.
This determines a powerful behavior activator, which leads people to underestimate risk and oversize their own abilities. Result: people cross the street where they shouldn't.
All that has been said regarding the examples indicates that the person, prior to carrying out a behavior, evaluates the environment, the consequences, the background based mainly on their experience and makes a decision valued from the benefits to obtain v / s its costs. As all this process is carried out by the person from their particular subjectivity, then the decisions are made in the realm of the "perceived" and not of the real, insane decisions, by the way, from the external gaze of a third party.
Even people can assume “real costs” to the extent that they value the consequences of their actions as greater perceived benefits, whether in the long term, in terms of amounts of resources or because they are superior or ethical interests and motivations. This is reflected in several examples:
- The Formula 1 racer who, even when he has crashed several times, drives racing cars again, the ecological activist who is constantly imprisoned for defending native forests or hunting endangered animals, the criminal who assumes prison terms for some months, aware that what you earn by cheating is "more" than you can earn by working, and also that the temporary prison sentence is not a significant punishment. The person who continues to cross the street even though he or she has been slightly run over by a couple of Sometimes, because it allows getting to work earlier. The boss who allows his workers to perform tasks recklessly because it involves more production. The person who undervalues a burn on the hand for wanting to work without gloves because it is more comfortable.
In other words, high perceived benefit v / s low perceived cost = maintenance of the conduct issued.
It sounds strange to think that these things happen, mainly because they escape the standard of social (or organizational) behavior and especially because the assessment is done by an outsider. However, the formula is clear: when the consequences bring "perceived benefits" greater than the "perceived costs", the behavior is maintained. Clearly then, if we want to develop changes in people's behavior, they will have to perceive that its consequences have costs greater than benefits.
We will not obtain optimal results, both in prevention and in other disciplines, if we try to teach workers to identify real costs of their consequences, if they do not make sense to the person. It is like trying to move through data, when in the words of R. Nixon "… you have to convince yourself with reason and move with emotion." This would explain the failure of some security interventions that involve people.
Increasing the perception of cost, together with the increase in the perception of benefit are the keys to perform behavioral control in workers. But this requires that leaders know what are the sources of motivation, interests and expectations of each employee in the company. It also requires that the organization have defined the different standards of behavior according to the functions performed by the subject, on which the degree of deviation and its eventual costs can be determined, along with the benefits of its adjustment or the execution of outstanding performances..
