1. Background and problem statement
Delivery construction project does not emphasize merely time, cost,
quality as performance criteria, client broaden their concern to
advocate site safety as importance of human being (Plebankiewicz 2010).
Thus, development and promoting occupational safety in construction
industry have been conducted by cooperative endeavors from all
stakeholders as intrinsic criteria (Plebankiewicz 2010; Zavadskas et al.
2010). In Thailand, both governmental and non-governmental agencies are
responsible for encouraging and promoting the implementation of safety
management system through enforcement of occupational safety regulation.
Thus, every construction in Thailand has to be intergraded safety
program into daily operations in order to improve safety performance.
Although Thailand has cooperative agencies to promote occupational
safety in construction industry, there is still a backlog to reach the
desirable outcomes, even occupational accidents in downward trend
(Siriruttanapruk, Anantagulnathi 2004).
To understand the causes of accidents, many researchers have
investigated and developed scientific safety management and technical
actions in order to reduce accident and injury in the workplace (e.g.
Hale, Hovden 1998; Heinrich et al. 1980). A series of studies has
indicated that people are the predominant reason for problems (e.g. HSE
2002; Mullen 2004). Thus, understanding the relevant determinants within
an organisation that act upon workers with respect to safety is
important to develop and guide an organisation in improving safety
performance.
It is necessary to note that not only people are acknowledged as
contributing factors. Since organisational factors shape the context
that contributes to at-risk work behaviour, they are also significant
contributors to human errors in safe work behaviour (Papazoglou,
Aneziris 1999). Reason (1997) clearly indicated that in the most cases,
unsafe practices are influence by latent conditions before producing a
loss. According to Reason's Swiss Cheese model, latent conditions
include major organisational factors and local workplace factors, which
are recognized as the major contributors significantly leading to
accidents. Several efforts have been made to define and determine the
body of knowledge linked between management and organisation that are
vital for organisation safety effectiveness.
The importance of organisational factors in safe work behaviours
has been acknowledged. However, the influence of organisational factors
in area of work behaviour in construction industry has rarely been
examined. It could be stated that this study has an original
contribution to the existing body of knowledge. For this reason, first
step of systematic approach for assessing the influence of
organisational factors must adequately identify the relevant
organisation factors. Accordingly, the questions are what organisational
factors should be taken into account and how these influence the
behavioral enactions. The brief explanations of related mechanisms
should be subsequently provided. Thus, our aim in this research is to
identify important organisational factors influencing safe work
behaviours. The implications of these findings will be further used to
quantify and investigate the role of organisational factors as an
integral feature of safety intervention. The research proposition which
describes the underlying process for achieving the proposed objective is
as follows: "Certain phenomena, where underlying mechanisms and
their structures interact within a built environment, explicitly and
implicitly influence work behaviours in the workplace".
2. Identifying organisational factors
Authors aim to classify appropriate organisational factors. This
can be done in terms of process or analysis approach (Osborn et al.
1983; Jacobs, Haber 1994). According to the analysis approach presented
by Osborn et al. (1983), categories consist of 8 factors within two main
dimension e.g. governance, context, environment, design, innovation,
quality, efficiency, and compliance. This perspective is based on the
development of organisational structure.
Apart from the organisational analysis approach, Jacobs and Haber
(1994) introduced a viewpoint to determine valid relationships between
organisational factors and safe work procedure. It attempts to determine
how an organisation works, as opposed to how it is structured. The
organisational process approach identified 20 factors within five main
dimensions: culture, communication, decision making, administrative
knowledge, and human resource administration. Since the success or
failure of the whole organisation is dependent upon the interaction of
all departments, what affects one part of the organisation at a
particular time will also affect others. These parts function and are
administered by a collection of 'systems' and
'sub-systems.' Therefore, this study uses the viewpoint of
Jacobs and Haber (1994) to determine how an organisation and its people
interact within their environment. Thus, this study uses the viewpoint
of Jacobs and Haber (1994) to determine how an organisation and its
people interact within their environment, since the success or failure
of the organisation is dependent upon the interaction of all
departments. This study proposes 22 organisational factors. These
include organisational culture, ownership, safety culture, leadership,
personnel selection, reward system, resource allocation, communication,
management commitment, coordination of work, formalization,
organisational knowledge, empowerment, cent ralization, goal
prioritization, organisational learning, technical knowledge, time
urgency, problem identification, role/responsibilities, performance
evaluation, and training. Their definitions are presented in the
appendix.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research paradigm and case justification
The realism paradigm and the case study approach are chosen to
fulfill the stated objective (Perry, Sobh 2006). Additionally, it has
been suggested that realism research is more suitable for exploring
certain phenomena resulting from the interaction of underlying
mechanisms and structures within certain complex matters for deeper
understanding of its "how" and "why" situations
(Healy, Perry 2000). However, the main concern of any research should be
using the proper paradigm, and therefore the set of reliability and
validity test should show the paradigm on which the research is based.
This study will use the quality criteria proposed by Healy and Perry
(2000).
3.2. Data analysis
Typically, data analysis for case study approach has not been well
developed. Yin (1994) suggests two generic strategies for handling data
analysis of case study, developing a case description and relying on
theoretical propositions. Data analysis in this study is based on the
latter approach. The propositions formulate the blueprint for examining
its design. When using pattern-matching analysis, the empirical pattern
bears comparison with a predicted result which is expressed in the
proposition. The concurrence of the two reinforces the internal validity
and the proposed propositions. The more cases are added, the more the
strength will be (Yin 1994).
3.3. Unit of study
Construction organisations in Thailand were selected as our unit of
study. There are 2 groups of respondents. First, authors interviewed 6
Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) managers from different
organisations, who experienced risk management and risk work behaviour
reduction intervention. Second, frontline workers from 3 high-rise
building projects in Bangkok of selected organizations are also asked to
join in-depth interview in order to reflect the reality from shop floor,
especially 2 and 3rd operatives involved in accidents on current
projects.
4. Results and discussion
Identifying the key important organisational factors is vital to
improving the efficiency of promoting safe work behaviours and
intervention, by providing safety officers with fewer factors to watch
over and the context in which they would appear. Based on interviews and
reviews the company's documents, case descriptions, cross-case and
within-case analysis are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The key variables
are discussed below.
4.1. Communication
Several HSE managers participants also strongly felt that such a
two-way communication process constitutes trust from consultative safety
activities among different stakeholders in projects, since it can create
a mutual understanding of risk and help to resolve conflicts that may
arise concerning risk management decisions (Choudhry, Fang 2008). To
quote an HSE manager in Thailand: "Keeping open and honest
communication greatly supports the risk management in a
cross-disciplinary team as well as consultative. By breaking down the
conventional hierarchical style, we can gain the benefit of our
people's ideas and knowledge sharing. Such open communication
builds commitment to our safety goal as well as also establishing trust.
These help support compliance with risk control and any safety
initiatives".
Most of operatives indicated that safety messages are mainly
communicated by visual cues rather than verbal communications. They
reveled that caution signs does not work well. Instead, the verbal
communication from supervisor yields better motivation safe behavior
rather than using visual cues. A manager communicates and sets a tone
and expectation for an organisation by expressing the institutional
vision through empowering the message as a corporate value (Kines et al.
2010). Hence, this is therefore a major challenge and responsibility of
safety professionals. A frontline manager or supervisor should adopt a
role as communication champion because their perception of the safe work
behaviour and attitude may have a direct effect on subordinate's
work behaviour and also an indirect effect by indicating
management's commitment to safety (Choudhry, Fang 2008). To ensure
the attainment of communication goals, such indicators as the status of
the safety professionals, the importance of training, and the effect of
safe work behaviour on promotion and reward should be determined with
certain caution.
4.2. Safety culture
Most HSE managers agreed that safety culture is important for
consistently handling work behaviours and sustaining safety awareness.
Culture sets the tone for everything in the entire organisation as well
as making a sense of identity and creating an essential link between
members in organisation and its mission (Fang et al. 2006; Richter, Koch
2004). Moreover, culture strengthens commitment to attaining
organisational goals and establishes direction through clarification and
reinforcement of the standards of behaviour (Manzey, Marold 2009).
According to case studies, operatives also revealed that they weigh the
importance of safety value from meaningful actions of management. Such
management participation helps them develop a sense of ownership
(Lingard, Rowlinson 2005).
However, HSE managers explained that it is not easy to change the
pre-set unique characteristics of individuals owing to differences of
their own backgrounds. Nevertheless, most HSE managers felt that strong
culture could gradually influence and make their values become
harmonious through the perceived milieu and the way people function in
it. Workers perceive their social environment and surroundings as
establishing a culture, so that an expression of the values and norms in
the workplace makes them acknowledge the acceptance and standards of
safety being performed (Vecchio-Sudus, Griffiths 2004). As its
implication situationally exhibits the importance of safe work
behaviors, employees will eventually recognize and foster the required
safe work behaviours. An HSE manager in Thailand said: "When our
people take risks for production targets or for any reason, frontline
management investigates and considers how and why they do not follow
procedure. This management action explicitly states that risk is
unacceptable. These practices could govern work behaviours. On the other
hand, if frontline management turns blind eye or gives praise when
people accomplish tasks by violating safety rules, it means that
frontline management has nonverbally stated that it is OK. This risk
work behaviour will continue".
4.3. Empowerment
HSE managers revealed that decentralized controls are adopted for
handling the competitive arena. Manipulation of values and beliefs still
incorporates implication for safety as part of organisational
motivation. Rather than attempting to control workers, empowerment is an
approach that enables the individual to control his environment and
accomplishes self-determination (Arocena et al. 2008). According to
case, management include and allows team members to play a major role in
planning, executing, and monitoring corrective measures while they give
advice and support to the team on the shop floor. However, managers of
HSE still make a few decisions themselves. The organisation acknowledges
and values the importance of individual safety and competency as key
assets for bringing competitive advantages to the organisation. Owing to
empowerment and learning on board, workers will be more alert and have
more confidence in their ability to perform work safely. Thus, it is
apparent that the motivational effect of empowerment in safety will
depend upon the features of the work environment (Hedlund et al. 2010).
The workplaces with the high level of mutual commitment, delegation of
authority and greater autonomy are more likely to be low-accident
workplace (Zacharatos et al. 2005; Torner, Pousette 2009). However, in
this study only 1st operatives reported the implementation of
empowerment scheme. To quote an HSE manager in Thailand:
"Accordingly, workers are freely allowed to raise safety concerns,
suggestions and has right to stop work whenever they found suspicious
incidences. Peer-to-peer observations help us maintain safety awareness
of workers. We also use the intrinsic rewards of meaningful work and the
opportunity to learn and growth. Diversity of workforce on site will
pool their area of expertise to achieve at procedures that are better
than one could come up alone. Thus self control of employee's work
behaviours at workplace and continuous learning will be arrived'.
4.4. Management commitment
It is apparent that perceptions of the manager's safety
attitude and work behaviours directly affect workers' behaviors
(Manzey, Marold 2009; Michael et al. 2005; Vecchio-Sadus, Griffiths
2004). Most HSE managers revealed that through visible and active
activities, management commitment also has an essential symbolic
function - both formal and informal actions show the workers how
concerned management is about their safety and well-being, which will
constitute the membership's perception of the importance of safety
and dominant commitment to safety as an organisational value rather than
as a priority, because a priority might change based on urgency,
customer need, or other external factors, in which case safety will not
always the most important priority. Similarly, frontline respondents
expressed that they weigh the importance of safety concern from
substantive action of management. Visible efforts from management
exhibit deeper values and shared understanding held by management
(Geldart et al. 2010; Fernandez-Muniz et al. 2007; Michael et al. 2005).
Langford et al. (2000) found that when employees believe management
cares about their personal safety, they are more willing to co-operate
to improve safety performance. In addition, such meaningful management
actions in support of safety help to create the positive working
environment that motivates safe work behaviour and raises safety
expectations (DeJoy et al. 2010; Mohaghegh, Mosleh 2009b). Under such
circumstances, these will enable employees transform from only
compliance-based behaviour to safety citizenship behaviour; that is
intending to work more than what is simply prescribed by safety
regulations (Gvekye, Salminen 2007; Mearns, Reader 2008). Langford et
al. (2000) also reported that employees are more willing to co-operate
to improve safety performance when they believe management cares about
their personal occupational safety.
4.5. Leadership
Most HSE manager revealed that active role of leadership strongly
influences the safe work behaviour of their subordinates. Safety
performance will improve where the role of the leader is recognized and
the leader makes employees acknowledge the importance of safety (Lu,
Yang 2010; Clarke, Ward 2006). Thus, the more, the positive safety
leadership (i.e. motivation and concern from senior manager), the
better, the compliance behaviour and safety participations (Lu, Yang
2010; Tharaldsen et al. 2008). Most HSE managers of this study suggest
using both formal compliance and value-based orientations to enrich both
intrinsic and extrinsic employee motivations. According to case,
operatives also expressed that they are more willing to participate and
comply with safety-related issues when supportive and participative
atmosphere are perceived. As commitment increases at the managerial and
individual levels, this enables open communication and worker
participation in which top-down communication integrates with bottom-up
suggestions. Embracing compliance and commitment simultaneously fosters
a supportive and participative atmosphere across hierarchy. Leadership
is important to success of the performance of construction projects
(Enshassi et al. 2009). Leader may encourage participation of safety by
using a combination of these influence tactics.
4.6. Organisation learning
HSE managers support the available findings that the employees who
have requisite knowledge regarding to safe work behaviour have shown
greater compliance with safety rules and regulations (Gyekye, Salminen
2009; Hodson et al. 2004). Cooper and Phillips (2004) also reported that
the perception of employees on the importance of safety training could
be applied as contributory in predictive model on the actual level of
safety behaviour. According to frontline from case studies, operative
revealed that hands-on practice from experienced workers is useful for
seasonal and in-experienced workers. This approach is favorable to gain
apprentice feedback (Kaskutas et al. 2010). Furthermore, case studies
showed that HSE managers from organisation that pays high attention to
continuous learning yields better performance. Operatives of this
organisation are more likely engaged in identifying and solving
problems. This important feature consistently sustains the
membership's awareness and competency on a continuing basis as
organisational learning. Several HSE managers strongly agreed that
learning enables the creation of an organisational environment that
supports human development to meet the expectation of organisational
adaptability, and to avoid stability traps and complacency. HSE managers
also suggested that boosting and maintaining safety awareness
essentially requires organisational learning to encourage participation
between the frontline workforce and the organisation through Behavior
Based Safety or incident report scheme.
4.7. Reward system
Even frontline operatives from case study revealed that they felt
more motivate when using tangible reward campaign on site, most HSE
managers advised caution in using monetary incentives with respect to a
reporting system. Such a reward scheme may encourage fewer incident
reports with the aim of getting the best safety records, or it may
encourage more inappropriate reports with the aim of getting a high
number of reports (Nielsen et al. 2008; Sgourou et al. 2010). To
overcome these potential problems, the incentive scheme must include a
verification process.
HSE managers also argued that "the most important issue is how
strongly the worker is intrinsically motivated rather than motivated by
tangible benefit". They suggest a so-called "intrinsic safety
motivation". When people realize importance of their own safety,
which makes them better able to care for their own families, these
motivated people will make different decisions from those who lack this
desire (Hedlund et al. 2010). However, important concern with certain
safety initiatives is that they may improve safety only temporarily.
Difficulties arise in using rewards because behavioral modifications
occur in a finite period of time. This short-term improvement is not
likely to the desired work behaviours (Lingard, Rowlinson 2005). An HSE
manager of construction organisations in Thailand said:" Using
merely 'carrot and stick' seems like seducing workers into
complying with safety regulations as well as participating in certain
safety initiatives. This will hardly cultivate internal motivation or
consistently maintain safe work behaviour. Instead, using intrinsic
motivation coupled with extrinsic motivation yields better results. This
makes workers recognize how important their well-being is to themselves
and their families".
As aforementioned, empirical findings of previous researches from
various industry contexts reported that work behaviours are triggered by
certain organisational factors such as inconsistent messages from
management. According to this study, available evidences from previous
findings, opinions and explanations from professional safety experts who
are responsible for developing the safety management system of
construction organisations and promoting safe work behaviours in
workplaces in Thailand draw the conclusion of contributories. These
seven factors are key organisational factor only in the context of
construction organisation including communication, safety culture,
empowerment, management commitment, leadership, organisation learning
and reward system.
Apart from selected important factors, not all factors were
identified as important factors for helping risk work behaviour
reduction, promoting safety compliance or encourage safe work
behaviours. Time urgency, centralization, goal prioritization and
formalization were identified as less important in influencing risk work
behaviours. In this context, most participants in our cases felt that
every operation has adequate time for appropriate planning owing to
severe consequences of risks, as well as centralization may be not
capable for handling volatile workplace and complex situation.
Previously discussed, safety is acknowledged as corporate value rather
priority because priority might be changed based on urgency, customer
need or other external factors and then safety will not always the most
important priority. Therefore these were not identified as contributing
factors. As supportive functions, such factors as coordination of work,
organisational knowledge and personnel selection were recognized as a
lower priority with respect to their influences on worker's
behaviours. Their implications for safety might be considered as part of
administration and received low priority with respect to safe work
behaviour. In addition, not only the duty to perform the activity of
worker has been assigned, but also worker's competency for
fulfilling safety responsibility has to be ensured prior to commence
work. To avoid redundancy, role and responsibility, technical knowledge,
training and performance evaluation can be acknowledged as part of
learning. And also ownership was excluded because it could be particular
part of culture. Lastly, role of team building can be though of as part
of empowerment. Thus, it was excluded from list.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Results identified seven important factors: communication, culture,
management commitment, leadership, organisational learning, empowerment,
and reward system. These findings affirm and validate implications of
factors from previous publications as well as providing the additional
explanations of identified factors. Accordingly, the influences of
organizational factors on safe work behavior of construction industry
have never been determined. Empirical findings from case study show that
contributing determinants can be expected to be influential at different
levels. It is necessary to note that considering the influences of
organisational factors could be perform as a multi-level mechanism
(Klein, Kozlowski 2000; Mohaghegh, Mosleh 2009a). Thus, a majority of
such investigations often breaks down the models into three main levels
(organisational, workgroup and individual levels) with different
viewpoints and underlying theories. It could establish that four
contributing factors at the top level are associated with safe work
behaviours: communication, safety culture, leadership, and management
commitment. Since these factors are identified at the top level, they
can describe motivational effects and supports within and between
workgroups and individuals. At the workgroup level, such social
characteristics as group norm, team autonomy, and group cohesiveness
particularly affect and influence individual values and beliefs
regarding safety (Kines et al. 2010; Torner, Pousette 2009). Hence,
hypothetical causal model could be formulated by proposed constituent
factors and then determined by using path analysis.
Disparity in the influences of causal relationships could be
determined by quantitative approaches such as inferential statistic
(e.g. Structural Equation Modeling, SEM) or probabilistic model (e.g.
Bayesian belief network). For example, SEM determines regression for
each variable as a dependent on others which the model indicates are
causes, by comparing the observed correlation matrix of variables
against proposed hypothetical casual model. Accordingly, selection of
approaches is based on available data. Either deterministic or
stochastic approaches allow researchers diagnose and quantify the
influences of contributing factors to at-risk work behaviours. As
consequences of mathematical model developments, differences of the
influences of organisational factors will be taken into account when
considering interventions to reduce risk work behaviour or to promote
safe work behaviors. The obtained results and explanations should
further enable the safety professionals provide strategy and guidelines
to improve safe work behaviors by considering the certain implications
of contributing factors.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/13923730.2011.604538
Appendix
Questions for semi-structure interview
1. To what extent do you agree that (each) organisational factors
could influence the workplace (at-risk and safe) behaviours? Why?
2. Do you agree that proposed organisational factors are adequate
for investigation of their influence on reduction of risk behaviour of
workers? Why?
3. Do you agree that proposed organisational factors are adequate
for investigation of their influence on promoting safe behaviour of
workers? Why?
4. Do you agree that organisational elements are the important
factors for success of behavioural interventions?
References
Arocena, A.; Nunez, I.; Villanueva, M. 2008. The impact of
prevention measures and organisational factors on occupational injuries,
Safety Science 46(9): 1369-1384. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.09.003
Choudhry, R. M.; Fang, D. 2008. Why operatives engage in unsafe
work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites, Safety
Science 46(4): 566-584. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
Clarke, S.; Ward, K. 2006. The Role of Leader Influence Tactics and
Safety Climate in Engaging Employees' Safety Participation, Risk
Analysis 26(5): 1175-1185. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.x
Cooper, M. D.; Phillips, R. A. 2004. Exploratory analysis of the
safety climate and safety behavior relation, Journal of Safety Research
35(5): 497-512. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.08.004
DeJoy, D. M.; Della, L. J.; Vandenberg, R. J.; Wilson, M. G. 2010.
Making work safer: Testing a model of social exchange and safety
management, Journal of Safety Research 41(2): 163-171.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.001
Enshassi, A.; Mohamed, S.; Abushaban, S. 2009. Factors Affecting
the Performance of Construction Projects in The Gaza Strip, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management 15(3): 269-280.
doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.269-280
Fang, D.; Chen, Y.; Wong, L. 2006. Safety climate in construction
industry: a case study in Hong Kong, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management ASCE 132(6): 573-584.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(573)
Fernandez-Muniz, B.; Montes-Peon, J. M.; Vazquez-Ordas, C. J. 2007.
Safety culture: Analysis of the causal relationships between its key
dimensions, Journal of Safety Research 38(6): 627-641.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.09.001
Geldart, S.; Smith, C. A.; Shannon, H. S.; Lohfeld, L. 2010.
Organizational practices and workplace health and safety: A
cross-sectional study in manufacturing companies, Safety Science 48(5):
562-569. doi: 10.1016/j .ssci.2010.01.004 Gvekye, S. A.; Salminen, S.
2007. Workplace safety perceptions and perceived organisational support:
Do supportive perceptions influence safety perceptions?, International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 13(2): 189-200.
Gyekye, S. A.; Salminen, S. 2009. Educational status and
organizational safety climate: Does educational attainment influence
workers' perceptions of workplace safety?, Safety Science 47(1):
20-28. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.12.007
Hale, A. R.; Hovden, J. 1998. Management and culture: the third age
of safety. A review of approaches to organisational aspects of safety,
health and environment, in A. M. Feyer and A. Williamson (Eds.).
Occupational injury: Risk, prevention and intervention. 1st Ed. CRC
Press, 129-165. doi:10.1201/9780203212493.ch11
Healy, M.; Perry, C. 2000. Comprehensive criteria to judge validity
and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3(3): 118-126.
Hedlund, A.; Ateg, M.; Andersson, I.-M.; Ros?n, G. 2010. Assessing
motivation for work environment improvements: Internal consistency,
reliability and factorial structure, Journal of Safety Research 41(2):
145-151. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2009.12.005
Heinrich, H. W.; Petersen, D.; Roos, N. 1980. Industrial Accident
Prevention: A Safety Management Approach. 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York. 468 p.
Hodson, M.; Lapenta, D.; Rogers, S.; Nace, N. 2004. Hand in hand:
an interdisciplinary team approach to education improves compliance in
an Acute Rehabilitation Setting, American Journal of Infection Control
32(3): E104-E105. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2004.04.155
HSE 2002. Strategies to Promote Safe Behavioras Part of a Health
and Safety Management System, Contract Research Report 430/ 2002, UK. 75
p.
Jacobs, R.; Haber, S. 1994. Organisational processes and nuclear
power plant safety, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 45(1-2):
75-83. doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(94)90078-7
Kaskutas, V.; Dale, A., M.; Lipscomb, H.; Gaal, J.; Fuchs, M.;
Evanoff, B.; Carpenters' Joint Apprenticeship Program Instructor
Team. 2010. Changes in fall prevention training for apprentice
carpenters based on a comprehensive needs assessment, Journal of Safety
Research 41(3): 221-227. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2010.01.006
Kines, P.; Andersen, L. P. S.; Spangenberg, S.; Mikkelsen, K. L.;
Dyreborg, J.; Zohar, D. 2010. Improving construction site safety through
leader-based verbal safety communication, Journal of Safety Research
41(5): 399-106. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2010.06.005
Klein, K. J.; Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. Multilevel Theory,
Research, and Methods in Organisations: Foundations, Extensions, and New
Directions. 1st ed. Jossey-Bass Inc. 544 p.
Langford, D.; Rowlinson, S.; Sawacha, E. 2000. Safety behavior and
safety management: its influence on the attitudes in the UK construction
industry, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 7(2):
133-140. doi:10.1108/eb021138
Lingard, H.; Rowlinson, S. 2005. Occupational Health and Safety in
Construction Project Management. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis. 464
p.
Lu, C.-S.; Yang, C.-S. 2010. Safety leadership and safety behavior
in container terminal operations, Safety Science 48(2): 123-134.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.05.003
Manzey, D.; Marold, J. 2009. Occupational accidents and safety: The
challenge of globalization, Safety Science 47(6): 723-726.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.01.013
Mearns, K. J.; Reader, T. 2008. Organisational support and safety
outcomes: An un-investigated relationship?, Safety Science 46(3):
388-397. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.002
Michael, J. H.; Evans, D. D.; Jansen, K. J.; Haight, J. M. 2005.
Management commitment to safety as organisational support: Relationships
with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees, Journal of
Safety Research 36(2): 171-179. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2005.03.002
Mohaghegh, Z.; Mosleh, A. 2009a. Incorporating organisational
factors into probabilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical
systems: Principles and theoretical foundations, Safety Science 47(8):
1139-1158. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.12.008
Mohaghegh, Z.; Mosleh, A. 2009b. Measurement techniques for
organizational safety causal models: Characterization and suggestions
for enhancements, Safety Science 47(10): 1398-1409.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.04.002
Mullen, J. 2004. Investigating factors that influence individual
safety behaviour at work, Journal of Safety Research 35(3): 275-285.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.011
Nielsen, K. J.; Rasmussen, K.; Glasscock, D.; Spangenberg, S. 2008.
Changes in safety climate and accidents at two identical manufacturing
plants, Safety Science 46(3): 440-449. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.009
Osborn, R. N.; Olson, J.; Sommers, P. E.; McLaughlin, S. D.;
Jackson, M. S.; Scott, W. G.; Connor, P. E. 1983. Organisational
analysis and safety for utilities with nuclear power plants, Vol. 1. An
organisational overview. NUREG/CR-3215, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
prepared for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983 August. 75 p.
Papazoglou, I. A.; Aneziris, O. 1999. On the Quantification of the
Effects of Organisational and Management Factors in Chemical
Installations, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 63(1): 33-45.
doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00013-1
Perry, C.; Sobh, R. 2006. Research design and data analysis in
realism research, European Journal of Marketing 40(11/12): 1194-1209.
doi:10.1108/03090560610702777
Plebankiewicz, E. 2010. Construction Contractor Prequalification
from Polish Clients' Perspective, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16(1): 57-64. doi:10.3846/jcem.2010.05
Reason, J. T. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
1st ed. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company. 252 p.
Richter, A.; Koch, C. 2004. Integration, differentiation and
ambiguity in safety cultures, Safety Science 42(8): 703-722.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2003.12.003
Sgourou, E.; Katsakiori, P.; Goutsos, S.; Manatakis, E. 2010.
Assessment of selected safety performance evaluation methods in regards
to their conceptual, methodological and practical characteristics,
Safety Science 48(8): 1019-1025. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.11.001
Siriruttanapruk, S.; Anuntakulnathi, P. 2004. Occupational Health
and Safety Situation and research Priority in Thailand, Industrial
Health 42: 135-140. doi:10.2486/indhealth.42.135
Tharaldsen, J. E.; Olsen, E.; Rundmo, T. 2008. A longitudinal study
of safety climate on the Norwegian continental shelf, Safety Science
46(3): 427-439. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.006
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, Journal of Safety Research 40(6):
399-409. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2009.09.005
Vecchio-Sadus, A. M.; Griffiths, S. 2004. Marketing strategies for
enhancing safety culture, Safety Science 42(7): 601-619.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2003.11.001
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied
Social Research Methods). 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications, Inc. 192 p.
Zacharatos, A.; Barling, J.; Iverson, R. D. 2005. High-performance
work systems and occupational safety, Journal of Applied Psychology
90(1): 77-93. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.77
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J. 2010. Risk
Assessment of Construction Projects, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16(1): 33-46. doi:10.3846/jcem.2010.03
Bhanupong Jitwasinkul (1), Bonaventura H. W. Hadikusumo (2)
School of Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of
Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
E-mails: (1) st104707@ait.ac.th (corresponding author); (2)
kusumo@ait.ac.th
Received 16 Mar. 2010; accepted 29 Nov. 2010
Bhanupong JITWASINKUL. Graduate student in the Construction,
Engineering and Infrastructure Management in the School of Engineering
and Technology at Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. His research
interests include the project management, occupational health and safety
issue.
Bonaventura H. W. HADIKUSUMO. Associate professor of Construction,
Engineering and Infrastructure Management in the School of Engineering
and Technology at Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. He is
associate dean for promotion. His research interests include the project
management issues, particularly in construction business and
construction site improvements. Some areas in construction IT
application and simulation in which he is interested are project
visualization, intelligent agent system, knowledge management tool,
web-based project management and system dynamics simulation.
Table 1. The perceptions of implications and descriptions of
organisational factors deployed in each case
Case A B
Organisational Culture Clan Market
Ownership Almost fully Partial
Safety Culture Fully focused Almost fully
Leadership Transformational Transactional
Personnel Selection Diversify Well defined
Reward system Performance and Performance based
Participation based
Resource Allocation Fully Almost fully
Communication Open Almost open
Management commitment Fully Almost fully
Coordination of Work Standardization Standardization
Formalization Prescribed Prescribed
Organisational Recognized Almost recognized
Knowledge
Empowerment: Almost fully Partial
Centralization Decentralization Partial
decentralization
Goal Prioritization Congruence Congruence
Organisational Learning Fully Almost fully
Technical Knowledge Documentation Documentation
Time Urgency Not often Not often
Problem Identification Employee involved Partial involved
employee
Role/Responsibilities Well defined Well defined
Performance Evaluation Performance focus Performance focus
Training Mandatory Mandatory
Case C D
Organisational Culture Market Market
Ownership Almost fully Almost fully
Safety Culture Fully focused Fully focused
Leadership Transformational Transformational
Personnel Selection Diversify Well defined
Reward system Performance and Performance based
Participation based
Resource Allocation Fully Almost fully
Communication Open Open
Management commitment Fully Fully
Coordination of Work Standardization Standardization
Formalization Prescribed Prescribed
Organisational Recognized Almost recognized
Knowledge
Empowerment: Almost fully Partial
Centralization Decentralization Partial
decentralization
Goal Prioritization Almost Congruent Congruence
Organisational Learning Fully Almost fully
Technical Knowledge Documentation Documentation
Time Urgency Often Not often
Problem Identification Employee involved Employee involved
Role/Responsibilities Well defined Well defined
Performance Evaluation Performance focus Performance focus
Training Mandatory Mandatory
Case E F
Organisational Culture Market Hierarchy
Ownership Partial Partial
Safety Culture Almost fully Almost fully
Leadership Transformational Transactional
Personnel Selection Diversify Well defined
Reward system Performance based Performance based
Resource Allocation Almost fully Almost fully
Communication Open Formal and
centralized
Management commitment Fully Almost fully
Coordination of Work Standardization Standardization
Formalization Prescribed Prescribed
Organisational Almost recognized Partial recognized
Knowledge
Empowerment: Partial Very few
Centralization Partial Centralization
decentralization
Goal Prioritization Congruence Almost Congruent
Organisational Learning Almost fully Partially
Technical Knowledge Documentation Experienced Staff
Time Urgency Not often Not often
Problem Identification Partial involved Partial involved
employee employee
Role/Responsibilities Well defined Well defined
Performance Evaluation Performance focus Performance focus
Training Mandatory Mandatory
Table 2. Case profiles and implications of selected organisational
factors from frontline operatives
Operative 1
respondents
Employee Skilled worker
Job Title:
Age & Gender: 36-Male 15 years of work experience.
Project profile 73-storey residential and commercial tower.
Site accident None.
Perceived Management often participates in safety
management activities. Large amount of budget sufficiently
commitment: allocates to safety-related activities, safety
guard e.g. fall protection installation in this
high-rise building project. Required and essential
safety gears are provided. Full-time safety
officers and safety staffs are available on site.
Communication Importance of safety is reminded by daily safety
practices: talk. Specific hazard discussion of every work
trade is conducted weekly. During regular site
visit, management exhibits their safety concern
and explains their expected results. Management
gives constructive feedbacks to set the tone and
provide expectation.
Leadership in Commitment-based supervisory style is utilized.
Effect: Operative are regularly motivate to involve in
safety committee, report hazards and unsafe envi-
ronment to supervisor and etc. Safety supervisors
are approachable when required. Some operatives
are nominated as safety gang leader that help
safety officers monitor site safety. Good
cooperation and support could be done through
safety supervisors and gang leaders, who act as
middleman.
Development of Most of workers think about their own safety
Safety rather taking risk for production target
culture: attainment. Operative illustrates safety conscious
through their compliance with safety regulation,
active caring between each other, participating
report schemes and safety meeting. Gang leaders
help and guide others, especially seasonal
workers, perform task safely. Thus, only few
violate and deviate safety standard for their
convenience.
Empowerment: Workers are principally involved in planning,
implementation and monitoring of preventive and
proactive measure on site. Management and staff
provide support and guidance to work team but make
few decision them- selves.
Reward system Tangible rewards are periodically granted to
in place: person who is voted by supervisors. Safety staffs
are success in making workers acknowledge their
importance of well-being.
Training and New arrival must be brush up on safety knowledge
Education and introduce the safety regulation. Specific
provided: training for special work is given if required.
Hands-on practice from experienced workers is
mainly utilized as on-the- job training.
Operative 2
respondents
Employee Electrician
Job Title:
Age & Gender: 22-Male 4 years of work experience.
Project profile 38-storey residential building.
Site accident 1 LTA case of electrical shock during electrical
installation.
Perceived Limited budget allocates to safety tasks. At
management least, PPE are available. Even management
commitment: demonstrates safety concerns. Safety priority
often trade off with production goal.
Communication One-way communication is commonly utilized by
practices: using safety signs. Safety issues are communicated
by weekly morning talk.
Leadership in Compliance-based supervisory is adopted as main
Effect: supervision scheme. Establishment of joint safety
committee has been used to gain suggestion and
encourage participation from frontline. However,
limit number of staff is difficult to coverage
many subcontractor personnel.
Development of Supervisors turn an eye blind when scheduled over-
Safety run. Substandard practices often found due to
culture: care-less enforcement. Many seasonal and
inexperienced workers do not accept ownership of
safety. They do not much care for their well-
being. Most of them lack of skill and knowledge
about safety. It is difficult to develop and
maintain attitude toward safety.
Empowerment: Workers are not involved in planning,
implementation and monitoring of any safety
programs.
Reward system Tangible incentive encourage workers to
in place: participate safety activities.
Training and There is just only once safety training during
Education orientation for new comers. Rehearsal of
provided: trainings has not been taken. On-the-job learning
from coworkers is main scheme.
Operative 3
respondents
Employee Carpenter
Job Title:
Age & Gender: 32-Male 5 years of work experience.
Project profile 30-storey residential tower.
Site accident 1 LTA case of finger fracture during fall
protection installation.
Perceived Management is reluctant to participate safety-
management related activities. Only 2 safety officers are in
commitment: charged for taking care safety of 300 workers
Due to limited budget, overburden safety
officer could not regularly inspect and monitor
large-scale project.
Communication Safety messages are communicated by signs
practices: and posters. Reminding safety issues are weekly
communicated during morning talk.
Leadership in Supervisor does not emphasize on listening to
Effect: the workers as well as taking their suggestions
on board
Also, supervisor does not express that workers
value their contribution to safety of the team.
Development of Production target is the first priority. Safety
Safety policy is just the paper. Supervisors do not
culture: promote an open atmosphere for reporting
accidents. It is hardly get workers to accept
ownership of safety.
Empowerment: Similar to 2nd operative, workers just comply
with provided plan.
Reward system Incentive scheme was not initiated.
in place:
Training and Only informal training is provided for new
Education worker. Refreshment has not been taken
provided: