Identifying construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety

Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Identifying construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety Dylan Hardison a, Michael Behm b,⇑, Matthew R. Hallowell c, Hamid Fonooni d a

East Carolina University, 200 Science & Technology Bldg., Greenville, NC 27858, United States East Carolina University, 231 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, United States c University of Colorado at Boulder, 428 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309-0428, United States d East Carolina University, 233 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, United States b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 4 March 2013 Received in revised form 7 October 2013 Accepted 16 December 2013

Keywords: Supervisor Competency Construction Delphi

a b s t r a c t Construction supervisors are crucial to eventual site safety performance. In the United States, the OSHA 30-hour training is becoming the de facto standard for supervisor safety competence. A literature review of recommended supervisor safety competencies reveals gaps when compared to the OSHA 30-hour training contents. We address this gap by identifying the necessary knowledge-based safety competencies that are most important for the front-line construction supervisor and prioritizing them for the first time. A Delphi process confirmed that knowledge of pre job planning, organizing work flow, establishing effective communication, and of routine and non-routine work tasks are highly important competencies for the construction supervisor to possess. Construction organizations who utilize the 30-hour training for supervisor safety competence must recognize its limitations and ensure supervisors are equipped with these additional competencies to effectively manage site safety. Government agencies should also recognize the policy limitations of requiring the 30-hour training for supervisors. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Impacting construction site safety is a difficult and multidimensional task. Influences on eventual site safety develop from multiple sources. Often, the responsibility for construction site safety is delegated by upper-level management to the line-level or site supervisor/foreman (Swuste et al., 2012; McVittie et al., 2009; Mohamed, 2002). Early work by Hinze (Hinze and Gordon, 1979; Hinze and Parker, 1978) demonstrated that the foreman’s attitude towards safety programs and the psychological environment they create positively impacts injury rates. Recently, research during the London 2012 Olympics construction projects revealed that supervisor competence enhanced effective site safety practices and is a key to broader construction industry impact (Finneran et al., 2012). A site supervisor/foreman, for the rest of this paper, will be referenced as ‘‘supervisor,’’ who is defined as a planner, organizer, and facilitator of daily construction management systems (Shohet and Laufer, 1991). The importance of the construction supervisor for proper implementation of safety and health programs on construction sites has long been given attention (Huang et al., 2004; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Hinze and Gordon, 1979; Hinze and Parker, 1978). Hinze and Gordon (1979) revealed that, if safety programs are to be effective, the psychological ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 252 328 9674; fax: +1 252 328 1618. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Behm). 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.12.013

environment of workers must be considered. They emphasize the need for supervisor training to develop a managerial style congruent with enhancing the psychological environment. Hinze (1981) also found that supervisors that openly showed respect for workers and incorporated their suggestions also had safer work crews. Building on this work, Shohet and Laufer (1991) found that enhanced planning by the construction foreman/supervisor leads to improved productivity and safety at the construction site and Lingard et al. (2012) found that supervisors are more likely to have a significant impact upon safety, compared to top managers and safety managers. In the United States, one of the most common methods of training supervisors is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 30-hour training. The OSHA 30-hour construction outreach class is a voluntary hazards-based class intended for personnel with supervisory authority over workplace safety and health (OSHA, 2011). This outreach course covers OSHA policies, procedures, and standards, as well as construction safety and health principles (OSHA, 2011). The training objectives of the 30-hour outreach training include scope and application of the OSHA construction standards 29 CFR 1926, with special emphasis being placed on the recognition, avoidance, abatement, and prevention of workplace hazards (OSHA, 2011). Roelofs (2012), in a report for The Center for Construction Research and Training, recommended that all supervisors possess OSHA 30-hour training. The Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Act (2009) requires all construction supervisors to complete

46

D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53

the OSHA 30-hour training within 15 days of hire and renewal every 5 years. The American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations Basic Elements of an Employer’s Program to Provide a Safe and Healthful Work Environment specifies that supervisors shall be trained to carry out safety and health duties and that the OSHA 30-hour course can be used for supervisory training (American Society of Safety Engineers, 2013). It is clear that OSHA safety training has become a standard of safety training for supervisors and is used to define competence with respect to safety management. Although literature supports the importance of the supervisor to construction site safety and health performance, the necessary supervisor competencies are not clear. We question the practice of defaulting to the OSHA 30-hour training for supervisors. In this study we address this gap by identifying the necessary knowledgebased safety competencies that are most important for the frontline construction supervisor and prioritizing them for the first time. This is our contribution to the body of knowledge. A comprehensive list of knowledge-based safety competencies was developed from a literature review. Using a Delphi process with a panel of construction safety experts, we refined our results to the top fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies. This paper provides insight to management of construction organizations by defining the necessary knowledge that a line-level supervisor must possess to effectively manage safety on construction projects.

2. Literature review We focused our literature review on identifying and describing knowledge-based competencies that are necessary for the frontline construction supervisor to effectively manage site safety. Each of the competencies identified are discussed in the following paragraphs. 2.1. Establishing effective communication Safety communication between employees and supervisors is vitally important and possesses the potential to have positive effects on safety performance within the organization (Burke et al., 2011; Torner and Pousette, 2009; Dinsdag et al., 2008; Leather, 2007; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Langford et al., 2000; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). For example, Odiorne (1991) suggests that employee’s safety performance should increase when the supervisors explain all operating procedures and consequences of unsafe behaviors and when there is organizational commitment to continually improve work processes and to mitigate risks to reasonable levels. 2.2. Leader member exchanges A very large body of literature has shown that exchange relations (e.g., interpersonal interactions and relationships) between employees and supervisors are vitally important to the safety performance of an organization (Burke et al., 2011; Lingard et al., 2009; Torner and Pousette, 2009; Dinsdag et al., 2008; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Simard and Marchand, 1994). For example, Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) suggest that when an organization attempts to demonstrate that it values and cares for its workers, employees should perceive proactive management support to the raising of safety concerns. Supervisors must strive to establish positive exchange relations among employees in efforts to improve job performance, job satisfaction, and safety performance (Michael et al., 2006).

2.3. Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks Lingard et al. (2009), Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) and Manuele (2008) found that high numbers of accidents occur when non-routine work tasks are being performed. Thus, a supervisor’s leadership in the implementation of pre-job planning meetings and job hazard analyses is key to preventing serious accidents that occur due to unusual and non-routine work (Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009; Manuele, 2008). This planning process should be completed before the work commences; occupational safety and health hazard exposures are to be assessed and operational changes should be planned for ahead of time (Manuele, 2008). 2.4. Knowledge and application of effective team building skills It is vitally important that the supervisor build a positive atmosphere for their employees (Swuste et al., 2012; Lingard et al., 2009; Peterson, 1999; Hinze, 1981). Team building skills can have a positive effect on building a pleasant atmosphere for employees to work in and will help create a willingness to consider new ideas that may help establish a mindset of safety on the job (Swuste et al., 2012; Lingard et al., 2009; Peterson, 1999; Hinze, 1981). 2.5. Monitoring and responding to employee stress levels Work-related pressures primarily arise from conflicting job demands, extreme time pressures, and incentives, which promote maximizing productivity by cutting corners and risk taking (Leather, 2007; Langford et al., 2000). It is important for the supervisor to monitor and respond to their workers’ stress levels to maintain job satisfaction and improve employee safety behaviors (Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al., 2004; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Peterson, 1999; Hinze, 1981). 2.6. Directing worker tasks and responsibilities It is especially important for the supervisor to be competent in the methods of directing worker tasks and responsibilities in a manner that the operating line can be effective (Michael et al., 2006; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). Delegating worker tasks and responsibilities is a key component to increasing the safety performance of the line level work force (Murugappa and Srinivasan, 2007; Michael et al., 2006; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). 2.7. Disciplinary procedures and conflict resolution Disrespectful or unprofessional attempts by a supervisor to change worker behavior or performance have the potential to undermine a positive work atmosphere (Peterson, 1999). However, it is important for the supervisor to understand that, when corrective action must be taken, there are effective and ethical ways to reprimand employees for unsafe actions (Peterson, 1999). Conchie et al. (2011) and Odiorne (1991) suggest that a supervisor must facilitate relationships between employees and must possess the authority and knowledge of understanding disruptive behaviors in order to resolve conflict and discipline when necessary. 2.8. Job planning and organization of work flow Construction supervisors are the individuals who are expected to be proficient in solving work-related problems as they arise (Peterson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). Failure to plan for dynamic daily work activities creates conditions that can lead to injuries because the worksite is unpredictable and there is task uncertainty


(Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009; Peterson, 1999). For this reason it is important that supervisors manage the progression of the work flow in efforts to better manage productivity, quality, and safety (Leather, 2007). 2.9. Methods of safety promotion The way that supervisors demonstrate the value of safety within their organization shows the supervisor’s true commitment (Lingard et al., 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al., 2004; Peterson, 1999). It is important for supervisors to portray their commitment to safety through active participation in safety planning, allocation of proper resources, and recognizing safe work behavior (Lingard et al., 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al., 2004; Peterson, 1999). When supervisors visibly participate in safety policies workers see safety as an overriding organizational priority (Peterson, 1999). 3. Methods 3.1. List of competencies Due to the large number of educational skills that make supervisors competent to manage safety on construction sites, we focused only on knowledge-based competencies that can be addressed through training. Training in this case is classroom,

hands-on, or a combination thereof that is to be administered to the supervisor in efforts to build a better understanding of managing safety related to the topic being addressed through the training session. Table 1 contains a comprehensive list of knowledge-based competencies that we identified in our review of literature accompanied by their respective citations.

3.2. Delphi process Once we established a comprehensive list of supervisor competencies, we used the Delphi method for prioritization. Our research purpose was to identify the most important knowledge-based competencies for front-line construction supervisors. The Delphi technique is a structured and interactive process for gaining the consensus of a panel of industry experts on a particular topic (Smith et al., 2011; Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979). This technique utilizes survey based research that is administered through subsequent rounds of data collection that include controlled and anonymous feedback (Smith et al., 2011; Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979). In this study, we developed survey-based questionnaires that were delivered to an expert panel. Panelists were asked to rate the relative importance of the supervisor competencies from Table 1 and, through an iterative process, review the opinions of their counterparts in an effort to achieve consensus. The instrument and process were reviewed

Table 1 Comprehensive list of knowledge-based competencies. Competency – supervisors are to be competent in the following topics 1. Establishing effective communication

47

Sources

Burke et al. (2011), Torner and Pousette (2009), Dinsdag et al. (2008), Leather (2007), Hopkins (2005), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Langford et al. (2000), Hofmann and Morgeson (1999), Peterson (1999), Simard and Marchand (1994) and Odiorne (1991) 2. Establishing positive leader/member exchanges Burke et al. (2011), Lingard et al. (2009), Torner and Pousette (2009), Dinsdag et al. (2008), Michael et al. (2006), Huang et al. (2004), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Hofmann and Morgeson (1999), Peterson (1999), Simard and Marchand (1994), Odiorne (1991) and Hinze (1981) 3. Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks Lingard et al. (2009), Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) and Manuele (2008) 4. Knowledge and application of effective team building skills Swuste et al. (2012), Lingard et al. (2009), Peterson (1999) and Hinze (1981) 5. Assessing employee stress levels Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Leather (2007), Huang et al. (2004), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Langford et al. (2000), Peterson (1999), Hinze (1981) and Hinze and Parker (1978) 6. Directing worker tasks and responsibilities Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Murugappa and Srinivasan (2007), Michael et al. (2006), Hofmann and Morgeson (1999), Peterson (1999) and Odiorne (1991) 7. Disciplinary procedures and conflict resolution Conchie et al. (2011), Peterson (1999) and Odiorne (1991) 8. Job planning and organization of work flow Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Manuele (2008), Leather, 2007, Peterson (1999) and Odiorne (1991) 9. Methods of safety promotion Lingard et al. (2009), Leather (2007), Huang et al. (2004), Gillen et al. (2002) and Peterson (1999) 10. Understanding of OSHA policies/concepts OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 11. Knowledge and application of electrical hazards OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 12. Knowledge and application of fall protection OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 13. Identification of ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 14. Identification of ‘‘Caught in between’’ hazards OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 15. Health hazards in construction OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 16. Managing safety and health OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 17. Contractors safety and health program OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 18. Personal protective and lifesaving equipment OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with items 19–32 19. Stairs and ladders OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 20. Concrete and masonry OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 21. Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 22. Steel erection OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 23. Hand and power tools OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 24. Fire prevention and protection OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 25. Welding and hot work OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 26. Signs, signals, and barricades OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 27. Materials handling, storage, use, and disposal OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 28. Scaffolding OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 29. Excavations OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 30. Powered industrial vehicles OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 31. Ergonomics OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour 32. Motor vehicles, mechanical equipment and marine operations; OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour Rollover protection structures and overhead protection

48


and approved by the East Carolina University Institutional Review Board Office (# 12-000571).

When individuals within a group are allowed to converse about the study, bias may potentially harm the results of the study when trying to get the panel members to agree on a particular issue (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979). The Delphi technique best addresses this type of bias by controlling dominant influence of particular panel members and by maintaining the anonymity of the participants (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979).

achievement or experience categories and possess a minimum of eighteen (18) total points in order to qualify for participation. Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) suggest that participants score eleven (11) points using this qualification system. In efforts to keep this study specific to the construction industry we required that panel members have a minimum of seven (7) years professional experience in the construction industry (i.e. seven (7) years’ experience relating to, suitable for, or engaged in the construction industry). Setting prequalification requirements at eighteen (18) total points allows this research project to fit both the requirements recommended by Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) and meet the minimum requirement of seven (7) years professional experience.

3.4. Panel member selection

3.7. Number of participants

The Delphi technique differs from other forms of survey-based research because participants must meet a pre-determined level of criteria to be involved (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). ‘‘In the Delphi process the most important facet of a panel member is their level of expertise,’’ (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010, p. 101). In efforts to assure a healthy balance of academic and professional experience, panelists were required to meet predetermined construction safety and health criteria in order to validate their subject matter expertise and participate in the study.

Previous research suggests using 10–12 panelists for Delphi studies (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). For the course of this study, fourteen (14) panelists were utilized in efforts to account for a potential two (2) panelists to dropout from the study. In order to be fair to all potential expert participants, the first fourteen (14) suitable candidates that submitted the invitation letter within the two week time frame were selected and the posting was removed from the LinkedIn site.

3.3. Reducing bias

3.8. Invitation responses 3.5. Access to research participants In order to gain access to a pool of construction industry safety professionals, efforts were placed into study invitations delivered through the American Society of Safety Engineers Construction Practice Specialty list serve on LinkedIn.com. The group had over 2900 members in August 2012. In a LinkedIn.com posting potential panel members were asked to download an invitation document from the cloud server, complete the questionnaire that outlined the qualifications for participation, and return it to the researchers via email. 3.6. Prequalification system A point system is used for the classification of experts because it allowed for flexibility with respect to both academic and field experience. We utilized the point system proposed by Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) for Delphi techniques in construction management research. In order to meet a minimum level of qualification using the point system shown (Table 2), it is suggested that panelists score at least one (1) point in four (4) different

In the two weeks following the original posting on LinkedIn.com, fourteen (14) social media users responded to the posting and submitted their document containing their completed qualification questionnaire and were classified as construction safety experts according to relative point system previously described. Tables 3–6 summarize the demographics of the group members. 3.9. Round 1 Participants were asked to reduce the randomized comprehensive list of knowledge-based competencies to a reasonably attainable number during the first round of data collection. During Round 1 participants were emailed the competencies and asked to select the twenty most important of the thirty-two available knowledge-based competencies. Participants had to weigh the cost and benefit of each potential selection in efforts to make a judgment about the most important twenty (20) knowledge-based competencies. Participants were asked to select each of their individual twenty (20) selections and to provide a brief 1–2 sentence

Table 2 Criteria for selection of expert panel members (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). Achievement or experience

Points (Each)

Years of professional experience

7 (minimum of 7 points) 3

Professional registration such as Professional Engineer (PE), Licensed Architect (AIA), Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Associated Risk Manager (ARM) Invited to present at a conference Member of a nationally recognized committee Chair of a nationally recognized committee Peer-reviewed journal article (Primary or Secondary Writer) Faculty member at an accredited university Writer/editor of a book Writer of a book chapter Advanced Degrees: BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Total

0.5 1 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 4 18 Required

49

D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53 Table 3 Average points based on categories of experience. Category of experience

Number of participants within this category

Percent of participants within this category (%)

Years of professional experience per participant (required 7 years minimum) Participants holding professional registration such as Professional Engineer (PE), Licensed Architect (AIA), Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Associated Risk Manager (ARM) Participants invited to present at a conference Participants who are an active member of a nationally recognized committee Participants that are an active chair of a nationally recognized committee Participants who author peer-reviewed journal article (Primary or Secondary Writer) Participants serving as a faculty member at an accredited university Participants who are a writer/editor of a book Participants who are a writer of a book chapter Participants holding BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Participants holding MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Participants holding Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)

14 12

100 85.71

13 12 5 4 2 1 1 11 9 2

92.86 85.71 35.71 28.57 14.29 7.14 7.14 78.57 64.29 14.29

explanation of each selection. These explanations for each selection were compiled and used as feedback in efforts to allow the groups’ collective insight to weigh in on the individual perspectives of participants during ‘‘Round 2.’’ Participants were not asked to order rank the selections because of the impracticality and burdensomeness the request would have placed on participants. Round 1 lasted for two weeks.

when an exact level of the consensus is reached in Delphi.’’ Smith et al. (2011), however, used a predetermined consensus level of 80%. The results of Round 2 show that the group is 94% stable (1 change in the top 15 from Round 1). The consensus level was 82% (average % selected of top 15). Table 8 shows the top 15 knowledge-based safety competencies for the construction supervisor.

3.10. Round 2

4.3. Comments

During Round 2, the comprehensive list of knowledge-based competencies from Round 1 was ranked in order of importance to allow the panelist to better understand which knowledge-based competencies were most important based on the collective insight of the group. Panel members were asked to review the compilation of feedback along with graphical representation of the values based on the completion of Round 1 and to denote fifteen (15) selections by placing an ‘‘X’’ into the column beside each of their individual selections. Panelists were also asked to provide a brief 1–2 sentence explanation for each selection only if the collective insight from the group caused the panelist to change his/her mind about a particular decision. Round 2 lasted for two weeks.

During the Delphi process all participants have a chance to review the anonymous comments of research participants. These comments are beneficial to the research because they provide feedback that is necessary with respect to achieving consensus. The statements below show individual participants’ original comment along with accompanying the reason for change in professional judgment. This is particularly important to note as controlled feedback is the Delphi technique’s unique process of tightening a group’s consensus.

4. Results 4.1. Round 1 Table 7 shows the top twenty (20) knowledge-based competencies selected by the expert panel in Round 1. Participation for the first round was 100%. 4.2. Round 2 All fourteen participants completed the Round 2 questionnaire. As the results show, the collective insight of the group influenced individuals’ decisions in Round 2 and increased overall consensus. The two methods used to determine when to stop a Delphi process are stability and consensus (Holey et al., 2007; Dajani et al., 1979). Stability is based on the percent of change of variables within the top fifteen competencies between two subsequent rounds; consensus is measured by averaging the percent chosen values of each competency within the final top fifteen selections (von der Gracht, 2012; Dajani et al., 1979). Holey et al. (2007, p. 52) found that ‘‘There is no general agreement in the literature that defines specific criteria to use to determine when consensus has been achieved, i.e., when to stop a Delphi study. Evidence on the evaluation of Delphi consensus is limited; researchers have not yet described how to determine

Competency – Effective communication Participant One Round 1 – Participant did not provide comment in round one as it was not selected. Round 2 – ‘‘I decided to change to ‘‘effective communication’’ instead of my prior answer of ‘‘Effective Team Building’’, as team building could be considered a subset of communications. Good communication is critical to avoiding errors and mishaps on the jobsite.’’ Competency – Managing health hazards Participant Two Round 1 – ‘‘The health hazards in construction is an up-and-coming topic and may lead to additional regulations.’’ Round 2 – ‘‘I did not select this one again. Although extremely important, as an industry we do not have our arms around this topic, so how can we expect our supervisors to.’’ Competency – Managing health hazards Participant Three Round 1 – Participant did not provide comment in round one as it was not selected. Round 2 – ‘‘I changed my mind – while traumatic acute hazards like falls or struck bys are more or less managed many construction supervisors and employees are not accepting of their exposure to health hazards. I am thinking of a great supervisor who said, when I pointed out that a material might be asbestos, said ‘I don’t care about that’. He changed his mind because his company told him to. This should also include ergonomics for preventive of cumulative trauma disorders.’’

50


Table 4 Percentage based on educational level. Category of experience Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

of of of of

participants participants participants participants

Percentage (%) holding holding holding holding

no post secondary education BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)

21.43 78.57 64.29 14.29

Table 5 Average years of experience among educational levels. Educational level Participants Participants Participants Participants

holding holding holding holding

Average years of experience no post secondary education BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)

Table 6 Demographics of the panel members’ construction sector. Industry sector

Count

Count (%)

Construction industry consultation Commercial/industrial construction Industrial mechanical fabrication/installation Water treatment/waste water treatment facility construction Construction safety and health training services No response from participant

4 4 1 1

28.57 28.57 7.14 7.14

1 3

7.14 21.43

32.0 24.6 25.4 22.8

standard, panelists were asked to give comment on their opinion of whether or not they considered the OSHA 30-hour training to be sufficient knowledge-based safety training for the front line construction supervisor. Panelists’ comments are as follows: No. 30-hour is only basic general knowledge that should be required of every supervisor. Need full understanding of safety program and site specific safety plans. No. It solves the compliance side not the overall quality of leader. OSHA 30 should be part of every supervisor though. No, the OSHA 30 is a good start; a baseline training program that needs to be expanded upon for front line supervisors.

4.4. Follow-up questions Although we met our consensus and stability goals after Round 2, several questions remained. The following questions were emailed to the panelists to gain insight on the research process and lessons learned.

Absolutely not, although it is a great starting point. The 30-hour is somewhat general in nature and cannot be expected to address the specific hazards faced by most front liners. Greater depth of training and focused training based on hazard analysis would be appropriate. I’d consider the 30-hour to be a minimum requirement, but certainly not sufficient.

(1) Comments about the Delphi process and lessons learned? (2) Do you consider the OSHA 30-hour outreach training to be sufficient knowledge-based training for the front line construction supervisor? Please answer yes or no and provide reasoning.

No, just the 30-hour card (or 10-hour card) is not enough, but it is better than nothing: The front line supervisor also needs to know the safety program and policies of their employer. Legally, the acts and knowledge of the supervisor is imputed to the company and they need to know that.

Several reminder emails were sent out in the three weeks following Delphi implementation but only eleven of the fourteen potential panelists responded to the follow-up questions. Panelists commented on the Delphi technique as follows: I have used DELPHI in the past and it is a neat way to arrive at consensus and great choice for this type of research. I believe this to be a beneficial way to summarize and prioritize things based on multiple professional’s opinions and experience. Wish some of my professional colleagues were a little more forthcoming in their support of a given knowledge base so their rationale for support might be better able to sway a position. I actually liked the process as it was interesting to see what colleagues thought about each topic. Gaining consensus helps improve the final product. Good process, serves more to reinforce than to learn. In efforts to attempt to gain insight on the panel members opinion about the OSHA 30-hour training being an industry

30-hour is a minimum any foreman or superintendent should have. . . I recommend that supervisors take the Safety Trained Supervisor certification thru Board of Certified Safety Professionals. Also, the OSHA 10/30 program is severely broken. . . that program must be overhauled (like they are currently doing to the online 10/30) and should be more closely regulated as there are more bad and/or unqualified 10/30 instructors than good. Most lie about their experience as nobody verifies. . . any 90% of the students are out just to get a card. No, not by itself. 30-hour should be a minimum qualification for supervision in a construction company committed to safety. However, specialty competency training in excavation, confined space, scaffold, fall protection and other issues should also be included in the training matrix for supervisors. Yes and no. In addition to the technical knowledge provided thru 10–30 hr training, supervisor must have training to direct and manage those she/he supervises. No. I consider the OSHA 30 to be very minimum basic requirements for a Construction Supervisor’s necessary safety knowledge. Need also knowledge gained from On-the-Job Training and experience,


and some mid level – advanced courses on applicable topics as well before requiring workers to perform tasks that could leads to serious injury to themselves or others. No. This is a good foundation to build from but would not be sufficient. This is evident in the fact that half of the top six competencies would typically not be a focus of the OSHA 30-hour. Yes, but not as a stand-alone safety discipline. All my field people at all levels have the OSHA 30-hour but they also have me as the Corporate Safety Manager to make interpretations/decisions. The 10-hour may give them knowledge of hazards, the 30-hour helps then understand how the hazard exists and what to do to mitigate.

4.5. Limitations The primary weakness of this study lies in the bias of participant invitation. Only one method of participant invitation was used. All invitations were distributed within a singular social media page. Although social media is a great medium to gain access to construction industry experts, multiple sources should have been used in efforts to obtain a more balanced panel of research participants. In future research, efforts that allow for a broader panel of construction safety experts should include using multiple sites on LinkedIn.com and other means of outreach to reduce bias. 5. Conclusions This study provides insight on additional competencies that should be included among the 30-hour OSHA training topics for the construction site supervisor. If management expects construction supervisors to be effective at managing construction site safety, supervisors must possess both the baseline 30-hour training and other competencies relating to pre job planning, organizing of work flow, establishing effective communication, and a knowledge of routine and non-routine work tasks. 5.1. Policy impact Nevada state law requires construction supervisors to complete the 30-hour OSHA training. The 30-hour OSHA training, as

51

identified through this Delphi study, is not sufficient knowledgebased training for the construction supervisor because it is insufficient in addressing communication, risk control, pre job planning, and leader/member exchange training. Research participants viewed the 30-hour training as a minimum requirement for supervisory training. Although OSHA stresses that the 30-hour training is only a foundation in which competency is to be built, it would be beneficial to the construction industry as a whole if OSHA would provide the necessary resources to employers that explain the true underlying causes of construction accidents. OSHA should include communication, risk control, pre job planning, and leader/member exchange training to the construction supervisor through some form of additional non-mandatory supervisory training. Construction organizations who utilize the 30-hour training for supervisor safety competence must recognize its limitations and include the competencies identified here to ensure supervisors are equipped to effectively manage site safety. 5.2. Education impact Many undergraduate construction management college curriculums include the OSHA 30-hour training as a prerequisite to graduation. Gambatese (2003) surveyed construction and civil engineering programs and found an emphasis on OSHA regulations; the OSHA 30-hour certification is earned in 61% of the courses, while OSHA 10-hour certification is earned in 28% of the courses. As a standard construction industry practice students are often placed into supervisory positions upon college graduation. With respect to identifying hazards, the OSHA 30-hour is a good training tool. However, the 30-hour training is insufficient in educating construction supervisors on the causal factors of construction accidents and should not be considered the ‘‘de facto’’ for construction industry safety training. 5.3. Competency limitations Competency alone will not positively affect construction site safety. For example, if the supervisor is competent in pre job planning, but does not have the opportunity to provide input due to schedule constraints or project estimate limitations, the knowledge will obviously not be effective. Conchie et al. (2013) suggest

Table 7 Upper twenty (20) knowledge-based competencies selected in ‘‘Round 1’’ with accompanying percentages of selection. Percent selected (%)

Upper fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies

100

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

93

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Excavations’’

86

Establishing effective communication Knowledge of effective pre job planning and the organization of daily work flow Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Caught in Between’’ hazards Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Scaffolding’’

79

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors’’ Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards Knowledge of managing health hazards in construction

71

Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks

64

Competent Competent Competent Competent

57

Directing worker tasks and responsibilities Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Welding and hot work’’

50

Methods of safety promotion

and application of electrical hazards and application of fall protection of their contractors safety and health program of use and selection of personal protective and lifesaving equipment

in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Stairs and ladders’’ in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Hand and power tools’’ in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Fire prevention and protection’’ in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Materials handling, storage, use, and disposal’’

52


Table 8 Top fifteen knowledge-based competencies selected in ‘‘Round 2’’ with accompanying percentages of selection. Percent selected (%)

Upper fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies

100

Knowledge of use and selection of personal protective and lifesaving equipment Knowledge of effective pre job planning and the organization of daily work flow

92

Knowledge and application of electrical hazards Knowledge and application of fall protection Knowledge of their contractors safety and health program

85

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Caught in Between’’ hazards Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards Establishing effective communication

77

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Scaffolding’’ Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Excavations’’

69

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors’’ Knowledge of managing health hazards in construction Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Stairs and ladders’’

62

Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Fire prevention and protection’’

providing training that equips supervisors with the necessary interpersonal skills in how to approach employees about safety, but caution that supervisors need a supportive environment or they will not be effective. Similarly, Bhattacharya and Tang (2013) caution that while supervisory practices and leadership styles of middle managers make a difference in terms of promoting employee participation, successful supervision requires that conditions for employee participation in OHS management are created and maintained. Kines et al. (2010) recommend that in order to be effective, supervisors need to be trained not just in their safety communication with workers, but also in communicating to their superiors. In other words, competent supervisors are not enough to ensure site safety; upper management support with open lines of communication is required for these competencies to be effective.

5.4. Future research It would be of value to evaluate which knowledge-based competencies construction supervisors/foremen feel are most important with respect to improving the safety performance of construction sites under their daily supervision. Utilizing results from such a study, emphasis may be place on blending the judgments of both construction safety experts and the judgments of the individuals who face the challenges of occupational health and safety on a daily basis. Furthermore, replicating this study in other high hazard industries may potentially validate the theoretical concepts of accident prevention and safety management as they apply to the line level supervisor.

References American Society of Safety Engineers, 2013. American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations. Basic Elements of an Employer’s Program to Provide a Safe and Healthful Work Environment. ANSI/ASSE A10.382013. ASSE: Des Plaines, IL. Bhattacharya, S., Tang, L., 2013. Middle managers’ role in safeguarding OHS: the case of the shipping industry. Safety Sci. 51 (1), 63–68. Burke, M., Smith-Crowe, K., Salvador, R., Chan-Serafin, S., Smith, A., Sonesh, S., 2011. The dread factor: how hazards and safety training influence learning and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 (1), 46–70. Conchie, S., Taylor, P., Charlton, A., 2011. Trust and distrust in safety leadership: mirror reflections? Safety Sci. 49, 1208–1214. Conchie, D., Moon, S., Duncan, M., 2013. Supervisors’ engagement in safety leadership: factors that help and hinder. Safety Sci. 51 (1), 109–117. Dajani, J.S., Sincoff, M.Z., Talley, W.K., 1979. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 12, 83–90.

Dinsdag, D., Biggs, H., Sheahan, V., 2008. Understanding and defining OH&S competency for construction site positions: worker perceptions. Safety Sci. 46 (4), 619–633. Edum-Fotwe, F., McCaffer, R., 2000. Developing project management competency: perspectives from. Int. J. Project Manage. 18 (2), 111–124. Finneran, A., Hartley, R., Gibb, A., Cheyne, A., Bust, P., 2012. Learning to adapt health and safety initiatives from mega projects: an Olympic case study. Policy Practice Health Safety 10 (2), 81–102. Gambatese, J., 2003. Safety emphasis in university engineering and construction programs. Int. eJ. Constr. . Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., Vaccaro, D., 2002. Perceived safety climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers. J. Safety Res. 33 (1), 33–51. Hallowell, M., Gambatese, J., 2010. Qualitative research: application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1), 99–107. Hinze, J., 1981. Human aspects of construction safety. ASCE J. Constr. Division 107, 61–72. Hinze, J., Gordon, F., 1979. Supervisor–worker relationship affects injury rate. ASCE J. Constr. Division 105, 253–262. Hinze, J., Parker, H., 1978. Safety: productivity and job pressures. J. Constr. Division 104, 27–34. Hofmann, D., Morgeson, F., 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (2), 286–296. Holey, E., Feeley, J., Dixon, J., Whittaker, V., 2007. An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7 (52), 16–52. Hopkins, A., 2005. Safety, Culture and Risk. CCH Australia Limited, North Ryde. Huang, Y., Chen, P., Krauss, A., Rogers, D., 2004. Quality of the execution of corporate safety policies and employee safety outcomes: assessing the moderating role of supervisor safety support and the mediating role of employee safety control. J. Business Psychol. 18 (4), 483–506. Kines, P., Andersen, L., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K., Dyreborg, J., Zohar, D., 2010. Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication. J. Safety Res. 41 (3), 399–406. Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., Sawacha, E., 2000. Safety behavior and safety management: its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manage. 7 (2), 133–140. Leather, P., 2007. Safety and accidents in the construction industry: a work design perspective. Work Stress: Int. J. Work Health Organisations 1 (2), 167–174. Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Blismas, N., 2009. Group-level safety climate in the Australian construction industry: within-group homogeneity and between-group differences in road construction and maintenance. Constr. Manage. Econom. 27 (4), 419–432. Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Blismas, N., 2012. Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety responses mediate the relationship between perceptions of the organizational safety climate and incident rates in the construction supply chain? Constr. Manage. Econom. 138 (2), 234–241. Manuele, F., 2008. Advanced Safety Management Focusing on Z10 and Serious Injury Prevention. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. McVittie, D., Vi, P., Eng, M., 2009. The Effect of Supervisory Training in Lost-Time Injury Rates in Construction. Construction Safety Association of Ontario. Michael, J., Guo, Z., Wiedenbeckt, J., Ray, C., 2006. Production supervisor impacts on subordinates’ safety outcomes: an investigation of leader–member exchange and safety communication. J. Safety Res. 37 (5), 469–477. Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G., 2009. The role of production and teamwork practices in construction safety: a cognitive model and an empirical case study. J. Safety Res. 40 (4), 265–275.

D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53 Mohamed, S., 2002. Safety climate in construction site environments. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 128 (5), 375–384. Murugappa, K., Srinivasan, A., 2007. How do shop-floor supervisors allocate their time? Int. J. Prod. Econom. 105 (1), 97–115. Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2009. Chapter 618 – Occupational Safety and Health. Mandatory OSHA-10 and OSHA-30 Training. NRS 618.983, Requirements to obtain completion card; expiration and renewal of completion cards. Retrieved from . Odiorne, G., 1991. The new breed of supervisor: leaders in self-managed work teams. Supervision 52 (8), 14–17. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2011. Outreach training program construction industry procedures. OSHA, Arlington Heights, IL. Retrieved from . Peterson, D., 1999. Safety Supervision, second ed. American Society of Safety Engineers, DesPlaines. Roelofs, C., 2012. Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of a Massachusetts Construction OHS Training Rule. A report for The Center for Construction Research and Training. Silver Spring. .

53

Shohet, I.M., Laufer, A., 1991. What does the construction foreman do? Constr. Manage. Econom. 9 (6), 565–576. Simard, M., Marchand, A., 1994. The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident prevention and effectiveness in occupational safety. Safety Sci. 17 (3), 169– 185. Smith, C., Zaslawski, C., Zheng, Z., Cobbin, D., Cochrane, S., Lenon, G., Loyeung, B., Meier, P., Walsh, S., Changli, C., Zhang, A., Zhu, X., Bensoussan, A., 2011. Development of an instrument to assess the quality of acupuncture: results from a Delphi process. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 17 (5), 441–452. Swuste, P., Frijters, A., Guldenmund, F., 2012. Is it possible to influence safety in the building sector?: a literature review extending from 1980 until the present. Safety Sci. 50 (5), 1333–1343. Torner, M., Pousette, A., 2009. Safety in construction – a comprehensive description of the characteristics of high safety standards in construction work, from the combined perspective of supervisors and experienced workers. J. Safety Res. 40 (6), 399–409. von der Gracht, H.A., 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 79, 1525–1536.