BW Staff RewardsBetter Work, rewarded

HomeBlogIncentives and leave

Program design

Designing Incentives That Do Not Punish People For Taking Leave

Some of the most popular incentive rules are the ones most likely to blow up. Usually because they attach a reward to not using an entitlement.

Published 7 April 2026 Reading time 9 minutes Category Program design

Every so often a client asks us to configure an attendance bonus. Points for a month with no unplanned absence. It sounds reasonable, it is easy to measure, and operations managers love it because absence is the thing that ruins their week.

We say no, and this is the explanation we give.

The General Test

A rule is a problem if a reasonable person could describe it as a penalty for doing something they are entitled to do. Reframe the rule as its inverse and see how it reads.

The same rule, stated two ways
How it is pitchedWhat it also says
Points for perfect attendanceYou lose money if you take sick leave
Team bonus for zero incidentsYour workmates lose money if you report one
Points for staying past rostered finishUnpaid overtime, with a prize attached
Points for not taking a breakSkip your entitlement, get a voucher

The right-hand column is what people hear. It is also, roughly, how it will be characterised if it ever ends up in front of someone who assesses these things for a living.

Attendance

Sick leave is a statutory entitlement. Personal and carer's leave exists because people get ill and because people care for others who are ill. Attaching a financial reward to not using it produces two outcomes, both bad: people come to work sick, and people with a chronic condition or caring responsibilities are systematically worse off.

In a food business or an aged care setting the first outcome is a direct operational risk, not just an ethical one.

An attendance bonus is a policy that pays people to infect their colleagues. That is not a rhetorical flourish, it is the mechanism.

Safety

Team incentives for a clean incident record are the same shape. The reward is not for being safe, it is for the absence of reports — and the cheapest way to produce an absence of reports is to not report.

Peer pressure does the rest. Nobody wants to be the person who cost the crew their bonus in week eleven of a twelve-week run.

The alternative is to reward the leading indicators instead of the lagging one:

  • Completing a safety module or refresher
  • Submitting a hazard report — yes, rewarding the report itself
  • Attending a toolbox talk
  • Completing a pre-start check on time

These are all things a worker controls directly, they all increase safety rather than increasing silence, and they are all easy to verify.

Output And Hours

Points attached to units produced, sales volume, or hours worked start to look like a variable component of pay. Whether that is a problem depends on the award or agreement, but the general principle is that remuneration for work performed belongs in payroll, where it is visible, superable where applicable, and counted correctly for leave and termination.

Moving a portion of it into a points system means it is none of those things. We will not configure it, and if a vendor offers to, that is worth a second thought.

What Works Instead

The rules that hold up over time have three properties: the worker controls the outcome, the outcome is genuinely good for the business, and nobody is worse off for exercising a right.

Rules that hold up
RuleWhy it works
Peer recognition, with a reasonControlled by the giver, costs little, high frequency
Covering a shift at short noticeRewards a discretionary favour, not an obligation
Completing a certificationVerifiable, permanent, benefits the worker too
Service milestonesAutomatic, universal, impossible to game
Hazard reports submittedRewards the behaviour you actually want more of
Referral that passes probationClear, dated, and genuinely valuable

Two Practical Safeguards

Even good rules need guardrails.

  1. Publish eligibility before the period opens. Rules announced afterwards are read as rules invented afterwards, and the argument that follows costs more goodwill than the points were worth.
  2. Cap the sender, not the receiver. Limiting how much recognition one person can send stops gaming without penalising the person who genuinely gets recognised a lot.

If you want the full list of what our platform will and will not configure, it is on the eligible products page, including the exclusions we apply regardless of what a client asks for.

Have a rule in mind?

Send it to us. We will tell you plainly whether it can be configured and why.