Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Development of a frontline H&S leadership maturity model in the T

construction industry
David Oswald , Helen Lingard
⁎

School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Building 8, Level 8, 360 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Construction frontline leaders have a crucial role in ensuring safe and healthy work practices occur where risks
Participation of accidents are highest. To create a framework for understanding and monitoring where improvements can be
Foreman made, a frontline health and safety (H&S) leadership maturity model was developed. The research methods
Leadership involved conducting over 100 h of participant observation at four construction sites, followed by conducting four
Safety
one-hour focus groups at these sites, which were all in Australia. Six key areas in which frontline leadership
Supervisor
behaviour can have a H&S impact emerged from the data: the foreman and subcontractor supervisor relation-
ship; the leadership styles of the foreman and supervisor; the foreman and workers relationship; the sub-
contractor supervisor-to-supervisor relationship; the workgroup communication; and the relationship between
the frontline leaders and H&S advisors. The three-stage model is the first known construction frontline H&S
leadership maturity model, which can be used as a practical tool for industry, as well as providing theoretical
insights into the ways in which frontline leaders’ influence H&S performance at the ‘sharp end’ of operations
within construction projects.

1. Introduction social phenomenon could complement the psychologically-focused re-

At the top of the organisational hierarchy, corporate leaders often
publicly state that health and safety (H&S) is their top priority.
Similarly, at the frontline, workers operate without the intention of
being hurt; yet accidents in the construction industry remain high in
comparison to many other industries. Frontline leaders act as key
conduit through which messages are transmitted, both in terms of the
hierarchy (i.e., between top-level managers and workers), and the en-
vironment (i.e., between office-based and site-based personnel).
In H&S leadership construction research, Wu et al. (2016) pointed
out that previous work merely investigated the single-level relationship
between safety leadership and safety performance, ignoring the lea-
dership interaction between different project stakeholders. Typically
work on safety leadership has been undertaken from a psychological
perspective (see, for example, Barling et al., 2002; Kelloway et al.,
2006; Zohar, 2002a), focusing on how leaders’ behaviours and actions
influence the safety of their workgroups. Yet, the multi-contractor,
transient, fragmented, and socially and technologically complex nature
of the construction industry raises questions about whether safety lea-
dership should be viewed more holistically, as an interactive social
ecosystem. This consideration is based on a sociological, rather than a
psychological, perspective. Understanding leadership behaviour as a
search studies that have previously been conducted.
In wider H&S research, previous studies have attempted to map the
factors influencing H&S effectiveness as progressive developments be-
tween a state of immaturity (deemed to be poor for H&S) to a state of
maturity (deemed to be good for H&S). For example, maturity models
have been developed in relation to hazard recognition (Albert et al.,
2014), worker engagement (Lawani et al., 2017), H&S consultation
processes (Ayers et al., 2013) and safety culture (Fang and Wu, 2013;
Lingard et al. 2014). The aim of this research study was to develop a
maturity model describing the progression of features of frontline lea-
dership that were identified as being relevant to H&S. This model has
the potential to be used for analytical and practical uses in both aca-
demic and industry contexts.
Maturity models articulate progressive stages of development
within an organisation or a process. They establish multi-dimensional
criteria and describe varying states of maturity with reference to these
criteria (Becker et al., 2009; Wendler, 2012). The application of a
maturity model is not restricted to a particular domain (Wendler,
2012), and such models can be used as either improvement or assess-
ment tools (Maier et al., 2012). As an improvement tool, organisations
can analyse, plan and plot their progression sequentially through the
stages of maturity over time by building on the strengths and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: david.oswald@rmit.edu.au (D. Oswald).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.005
Received 16 November 2018; Received in revised form 29 April 2019; Accepted 5 June 2019
Available online 11 June 2019
0925-7535/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
addressing weaknesses identified at lower levels of maturity (Fleming,
2001).
Westrum’s (2004) model distinguished three organisational types,
reflecting different levels of maturity, i.e.: pathological, bureaucratic
and generative types. This schema was later expanded to five stages,
with the introduction of reactive, and proactive types, as well as the
replacement of the ‘bureaucratic’ descriptor with the term ‘calculative’
(see Hudson, 2001, 2007). Within the field of H&S, various safety
culture maturity models have been presented for many industries (see
Filho Goncalves and Waterson, 2018), including air traffic control
(Gordon et al., 2007), oil and gas (Filho et al., 2010), healthcare
(Jabonete and Concepcion, 2016) and construction (Ayers et al., 2013;
Lingard et al. 2014).
The construction industry arguably represents a unique workplace
setting, which is characterized by competitive processes, an ever-
changing work environment, harsh working conditions, the extensive
use of subcontractors and long supply chains that can all contribute to
increased H&S risk. To fully understand such a complex workplace
setting, the development of maturity models of aspects of H&S could
present useful assessment and improvement tools for crucial areas, such
as frontline H&S leadership, in the construction industry. It is argued
that understanding the progressive states of maturity in relation to
specific aspects of the organisation’s behaviour, for example frontline
leadership, are lacking in more general models of the over-arching or-
ganisational culture.
2. A participatory management perspective on H&S
Management behaviour has drawn the attention of academics as it
tends to be the root cause of accidents (Fang et al., 2015). Participatory
management is when employees are empowered and participate
through being involved in the decision-making process. In early work,
Kanter (1981) warned that there are challenges with participatory
management including that: it is time-consuming; managers can resist
giving away their power; organisational members may have knowledge
gaps; and there are certain internal group dynamics that need to be
negotiated. However, later work (e.g. Peterson and Hillkirk, 1991;
Bluestone and Bluestone, 1992) stated that participative management
practices have positive effects on work performance and work sa-
tisfaction. From a H&S perspective, Clarke and Ward (2006) reported
that there were few studies that suggest how leaders could interact with
subordinates to enhance safety performance.
Traditional H&S management approaches involved attempting to
control and constraint undesirable H&S behaviours (Langford et al.,
2000). Within this management approach there is a focus on safety
compliance, which Neal et al. (2000) define as the activities that in-
dividuals carry out to establish workplace safety. Dekker (2017) has
argued that traditional approaches to H&S are not well suited to socially
and technologically complex modern organisations. Hence, there has
been a shift towards engaging the workforce through participation and
empowerment, as opposed to attempting to control and constrain
worker’s behaviours. Neal et al. (2000) describe safety participation as
behaviour that does not directly contribute to an individual’s personal
safety, but helps to create a safe work environment. Martínez-Córcoles
et al. (2011) recommended that safety participation can detect rule
inconsistencies, identify misunderstood procedures, and promote
awareness of safety critical information and issues.
The evolution of complex sociotechnical systems has led to in-
creased levels of top-down safety procedures and more limited man-
agement of H&S (Rocha et al., 2015). This has created situations where
in the case of unexpected events, rule compliance can be difficult or
impossible to achieve (Dekker, 2003). The limitations of top-down
approaches to managing H&S have become more widely recognised.
For instance, previous research on top-down H&S training approaches
used to communicate H&S information to migrant construction workers
(with low host-country language skills) found that: induction videos are
675
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
little understood (Pink et al., 2010); and that simply translating training
videos into workers’ own languages was not deemed worthwhile
(Oswald et al., 2019). Lingard et al. (2015) instead found that a par-
ticipatory video approach, in which workers were directly involved in
the process of making videos about how to work safely, offered a deeper
and more effective way of engaging workers in understanding healthy
and safe work practices and disseminating important H&S information.
Various other participatory-based approaches have reported success,
such as, for: addressing workplace hazards (Yazdani et al., 2015);
practical H&S problem solving (Kawakami et al., 2004); and, pre-
venting occupational diseases (Kuorinka and Patry, 1995). Burke et al.
(2006) also found that H&S training methods that required active
participation resulted in greater knowledge acquisition and injury
prevention than traditional methods.
3. H&S management at the frontline
Construction site managers can positively influence safety when
they: undertake continuous planning and coordination, are role models,
monitor work, and proactively correct deviations (Grill and Nielsen,
2019). Frontline leaders (foremen and supervisor) are typically under-
neath the site managers in the hierarchal structure. The following lit-
erature review focuses on typical managerial functions including:
planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling (Griffin, 2000)
for frontline H&S leadership.
3.1. Planning, organising and staffing
The construction frontline leaders are the planners, organisers and
facilitators of daily management systems (Hardison et al., 2014). They
are more likely to have a significant impact on H&S than the organi-
sation’s senior managers or H&S managers (Lingard et al., 2012). This
could be explained through frequency of interactions, as workers at the
frontline have limited interactions with senior managers or H&S man-
agers at a worksite, but will usually receive daily instructions from their
supervisors. Indeed, a large body of evidence has demonstrated that
leader member exchange (LMX) between employees and supervisors
are extremely important for safety performance (see, for example,
Dinsdag et al., 2009; Lingard et al., 2009; Simard and Marchand, 1994).
These informal interactions develop social norms within the work-
group, and are very powerful, proximal and relevant to workers (Fugas
et al., 2011). Hence, frontline leaders act as a critical link for translating
the H&S messages surrounding ‘what senior management really wants’
and are heavily involved in the creation of social norms that can pro-
duce sustained safe behaviours or behaviour change.
Fang et al. (2006) found that providing enough safety resources,
such as human resources and equipment, was important for con-
structing a positive safety climate. While staffing might be more ap-
plicable to senior leaders, who can provide necessary resources and
visibly demonstrate commitment to H&S (Flin and Yule, 2004), front-
line leaders still must optimise their staff and equipment. Frontline
leaders, such as supervisors or foremen in construction, can also orga-
nise, participate and encourage employee involvement in H&S in-
itiatives (see Flin and Yule, 2004). The practices of frontline leaders are
the strongest predictor of workers propensity to adopt H&S initiatives
and to comply with H&S rules (Simard and Marchland, 1995, 1997).
The extensive subcontracting in the construction industry has been
found to having adverse H&S influence (Manu et al., 2013). Many of the
supervisors in construction are in a managerial position for a sub-
contractor, and hence it has been recommended they have compe-
tencies in: pre-job planning, organising of work-flow, establishing ef-
fective communication, and understanding of routine and non-routine
tasks (Hardison et al., 2014). Jenschke et al., (2017) found those
foremen whom were trained in a toolbox program reported there were
higher levels of workgroup cooperation within subcontractors. This
training focused on organising pre-job and coming work tasks, as well
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
as enhancing foremen’s H&S knowledge. Such H&S competencies and
capabilities have been found to substantially enhanced the effectiveness
of site H&S practices (Finneran et al., 2012).
3.2. Leading
Leadership behaviours have been classified by type and character-
istics, most significantly in the distinction drawn between transforma-
tional and transactional leadership (see Bass, 1990). Transformational
leadership is believed to have four facets, including: charisma or
idealised influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation,
and individualised consideration. Transactional leadership has three
facets: contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and man-
agement-by-exception-passive. Within the field of H&S, most research
has focussed on the effects of transformational leadership in the
workplace (see, for example, Barling et al., 2002; Conchie and Donald,
2009, Kelloway et al., 2006 & Zohar and Luria, 2004). Some researchers
have suggested that safety-specific transformational leadership can be
treated as a facet-specific aspect of leader behaviour. Thus, leaders who
demonstrate safety-specific transformational leadership ‘take an active
and inspirational approach to safety issues, serving as good models of
safety behaviour and encouraging others to work in a safe manner’
(Kelloway et al., 2006: 78).
However, while the focus has been on transformational leadership,
there have also been important findings demonstrating the impact of
transactional leadership behaviours in relation to H&S. For example,
Clarke (2013) undertook a large meta-analysis and found that active
management-by-exception (a facet of transactional leadership) is ef-
fective in work environments where there is a strong emphasis on error
management, including in safety-critical organisations. Also, Zohar
(2002b) revealed that contingent reward (as another facet of transac-
tional leadership) was been linked to worker involvement and fewer
safety-related incidents; and Martínez-Córcoles and Stephanou (2017)
linked active transactional leadership with safety performance beha-
viours, including safety participation.
H&S leadership behaviours at supervisor level can be both trans-
formational, such as encouraging employee involvement in safety in-
itiatives, and transactional, such as participating in workforce safety
activities (Flin and Yule, 2004). These safe leadership behaviours can
encourage worker participation in safety activities and initiatives. Innes
et al. (2010) found that supervisor transformational leadership posi-
tively predicted workers’ H&S participation, but not their H&S com-
pliance. Instead of compliance, transformational leadership is typically
associated with discretional H&S behaviours, such as extra-role beha-
viour, safety citizenship and participation (Christian et al., 2009;
Clarke, 2013). The effect of positive transformational leadership on
safety citizenship behaviour depends on the extent to which workers
can trust their supervisors (Conchie and Donald, 2009). Amongst
workers who had more than one job, Innes et al. (2010) revealed that
transformational leadership in one job was unrelated to workers’ H&S
performance in other jobs; suggesting the effect of transformational
leadership on H&S participation is leader-specific.
3.3. Controlling
Traditional approaches to managing H&S are associated with con-
straining and controlling workers’ behaviour, enforcing H&S rules and
establishing tighter processes through bureaucratic systems. At the
frontline, while it is still important for effective foremen to closely
monitor worker performance, and provided workers feedback about
their work practices (Mattila et al., 1994); overly constraining and
controlling workers’ behaviour is at odds with contemporary H&S
thinking. Sherratt et al. (2013:633) explained that the theoretical shift
away from traditional approaches and towards empowerment, con-
sultation, participation and personalisation directly challenges ‘the old
realities and practices’ of H&S management by countering traditional
676
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
top-down approaches. However, despite legal responsibilities for
workers to be represented and consulted in relation to H&S, the extent
to which consultation is done effectively at construction sites varies. In
some instances, it is done well, but in many circumstances, consultation
is superficial and limited to relatively trivial matters (Ayers et al.,
2013).
Control also involves setting standards and measuring performance.
The measurement of H&S is complex and challenging, as unlike other
project goals, success could be determined when nothing undesirable
happens (i.e. the avoidance of accidents). This limitation has prompted
the inclusion of leading indicators (see, for example, Hallowell et al.,
2013) to also measure positive actions, as opposed to only measuring
lagging indicators (e.g. accidents). The creation of appropriate health
indicators is less developed than safety indicators, which can provide an
indication into the state of safety of an organisation (Oswald et al.,
2018a). Management control actions should react to trends in both
leading and lagging measures of H&S to help prevent an undesirable
event or avoid a recurrence at the frontline.
4. Research methodology
Ethnography is the systematic study of people and cultures, through
description of a specific group of people in their natural setting, typi-
cally through participant observation as a main tool (Phelps and
Horman, 2010). Ethnography aims to provide rich, holistic insights into
people’s views and actions of the location they are situated in, through
the collection of detailed observations and interviews (Reeves, 2008).
Organisational ethnographers strive for an appreciation of the
complexities of everyday organisational life (Koot, 1995); not through
the administration of questionnaires created and analysed in an office,
but by going out into the field where it is possible to be close to the
action (Ybema et al., 2009). Hence, while questionnaires have the
benefit of being able to precisely measure different leadership styles,
ethnographic approaches can explain the workplace social environment
in a more holistic and contextualised manner to capture leadership
actions and interactions that are relevant to H&S performance. These
complementary research approaches have been advocated within the
field of construction safety. For instance, Zou et al. (2014) warned that
there could be a gap in construction safety between the direction taken
by researchers and the practical needs of the industry; and Oswald et al.
(2018b) questioned the dominance of traditionally construction safety
research methods, which have not holistically captured social aspects
that influence safety.
The everyday leadership behaviours undertaken by the frontline
supervisors are H&S relevant, including their: coordination with other
subcontractor trades, communication within their own workgroups,
and relationship with the principal contractor foreman and H&S ad-
visors. While these behaviours may seem normal ‘everyday’ practices to
those involved and immersed in the worksite situation, the way that
supervisors resolve problems, interact with and engage others, seek
advice and communicate information can shape H&S at the frontline.
While it may seem self-evident, the ordinariness of the daily lives of
construction workers is where the complex social engagements of H&S
lie, yet those deeply immersed in the workplace context may not be
aware of the social processes that shape their H&S practices (Ybema
et al., 2009). The relevant H&S behaviours can then be analysed and
understood in a way that can inform the development of a frontline H&
S leadership maturity model.
4.1. Data collection
Participant observation is the main tool within the umbrella term of
‘ethnographic methods’, which has included techniques such as, inter-
viewing, focus groups, observation, and document analysis (Kawulich,
2005). Each of these methods can provide insight into the social context
of the work environment. In this study, participant observation was
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
supplemented with four focus group discussions (one held at each of the
four participating construction sites). The two data collection methods
used in the study is discussed below.
Participant observation took place at four construction sites. The
researcher spent time observing frontline leaders and conducting short
informal conversations with people at different levels within the orga-
nisation. The use of two or more researchers observing can reduce
threats to internal reliability. Yet as is often the case with ethnographic
research, it is too time consuming for participation of most lone re-
searchers, never mind multiple investigator teams (LeCompte and
Goetz, 1982). This was the case in this study, as funding was not
available for multiple research observers. During these conversations
the researcher would ask open-ended questions relevant to the research,
such as: ‘how is safety communicated at the frontline?’ Following dis-
cussions, initial fieldnotes were typed onto the researcher’s mobile
phone at appropriate moments, as this ‘fit in’ with the natural setting,
and was less obtrusive than using other methods, such as a pen and
clipboard, to record data. Visible note-taking using a paper and pen
could generate distrust between the researcher and the participants
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007), or influence the effectiveness of
data generation in the natural setting, as participants would be con-
stantly reminded they were being studied (O’Reilly, 2012). This use of
low-inference descriptors (see LeCompte and Goetz, 1982) where basic
observational data is captured at opportune moments in the field can
help reduce internal reliability threats. To ensure valuable data was not
lost, the initial fieldnotes were written up more extensively at the
earliest available moment once the researcher had left the site.
The researcher also used organised safety walks as a way to access
all areas of the site, as well as undertaking more informal safety
walkarounds. Over a six month period, approximately 100 h of parti-
cipant observation data was collected across the four construction sites.
During this period, the researcher used ‘participant researchers’ (see
LeCompte & Goetz), where informants were used to confirm observa-
tions, and offer insights on the interpretations made. They were used in
ad hoc discussions on site, were requested to give feedback on the
maturity model itself, as well as in the focus group discussions.
The focus groups were conducted following the end of the ob-
servation period to allow for further collection of rich, detailed data to
provide context, the perspective of site-based personnel and a more
holistic understanding of issues being studied (Carey and Ashbury,
2016). While out-with the scope of this paper, a questionnaire survey
measuring various leadership behaviours was undertaken, which pro-
vided an initial point for opening discussion. Thereafter, observed be-
haviours the participant researcher had witnessed were raised to re-
ceive feedback and input from participants. The four focus groups
ranged in size from four to ten, with participants included foremen,
supervisors, leading hands, site engineers, H&S advisors, shop stewards,
and workers at each of the four sites. Participants’ explanations and
reflections about frontline H&S leadership were explored in one-hour
long audio-recorded sessions.
4.2. Data analysis
A thematic analysis of the data was used to provide a ‘bird’s eye
view’ (Aronson, 1994) of the frontline, and identify relevant beha-
viours, interactions and patterns that were relevant to and had an im-
pact on H&S. The analysis consisted of six stages: familiarisation with
data; generating initial codes; searching for common themes; reviewing
themes; defining and naming themes; and producing the final analysis
(Braun and Clarke, 2006).
The thematic analysis revealed six themes of frontline H&S leader-
ship (see Fig. 1). Thereafter, a framework was used to categorise the
themes, based on Westrum’s (2004) three organisational types: patho-
logical, bureaucratic and generative. These were used in the develop-
ment of a maturity model. As this is the first known construction H&S
leadership maturity model, a three-stage model, rather than a five, was
677
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
also adopted. Construction frontline leaders were not well-familiarised
with the terms ‘pathological’, ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘generative’. Hence,
the three stages were used in a language that practically, site-based
construction personnel could relate to; and theoretically, is grounded in
contemporary construction thinking related to participatory manage-
ment. The three stages are:
• Lacking in H&S participation. Resistant to achieving required H&S
standards;
• Adopts a cooperative approach. Tries to meet required H&S standards;
and
• Actively participating in H&S. Strives to achieve H&S outcomes that
are above minimum requirements.
Aligning with Westrum’s model (2004), the least mature stage
(lacking in H&S participation) is when there is low participation, where
H&S information not sought or withheld, and there is a fear and hos-
tility. In the middle stage, (adopts a cooperative approach) there is
modest cooperation, with focus on H&S compliance and meeting ex-
pectations. In the most mature stage (actively participating in H&S)
there is high participation, with a focus on improvement, sharing risks
and accomplishing standards that are above and beyond compliance. It
is worth noting that it can be the case that organisations may have
different levels of maturity, within the same dimension. For example,
within the leadership behaviour component (see Table 2 in 5.2),
foremen/supervisors could communicate health and safety rules that
must be complied with (adopts a cooperative approach); but when H&S
issues are identified, they are often overlooked and unresolved (lacking
in H&S participation).
The most mature leadership stage (i.e., actively participating in H&
S), is representative of the shift in contemporary theoretical thinking in
construction H&S towards personalisation, ownership, and participa-
tion (Sherratt et al., 2013); and away from traditional approaches (see,
for example, Langford et al., 2000) that view H&S as being narrowly
focused on regulations and compliance. The results relating to these six
aspects of frontline leaders’ behaviour and the points of difference be-
tween less mature and more mature interactions, are reported in the
following section.
5. Results
This ‘bird’s eye view’ is depicted in Fig. 1, which identifies six im-
portant sources of frontline leadership influence within the typical
hierarchal structure of the construction site. The H&S relevant features
of frontline leadership related to the following aspects of the frontline
leaders’ behaviours within the social context of the site environment:
• A: The foreman and subcontractor supervisor relationship;
• B: The leadership styles of the foreman and supervisor;
• C: The foreman and workers’ relationship;
• D: The subcontractor supervisor to supervisor relationship;
• E: The workgroup communication; and
• F: The relationship between the frontline leaders and the H&S ad-
visors.
For clarity within the following results sections: the site manager is
a site leader of the principal contractor; the foreman is a frontline
leader of the principal contractor; the supervisor is the head frontline
leader of a subcontractor; and a leading hand is a frontline leader of a
subcontractor.
5.1. Foreman & supervisor relationship (A)
The relationship between the foreman and supervisor was a crucial
link between principal contractor and subcontractors for negotiating
expectations about how work should be performed (see Table 1). Where
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

Fig. 1. The hierarchal structure of the construction frontline with six highlighted H&S-relevant aspects of frontline leaders’ behaviour.

the relationship was in conflict, communication was typically one-way
(i.e., with the principal contractor foreman telling the subcontractor’s
supervisor what to do), there was resistant to meeting the H&S ex-
pectations of the principal contractor; and the use or threat of en-
forcement was required. These were elements associated with the least
mature stage of H&S leadership in which relationships were tense and
there was little participation in H&S. One foreman explained that the
management of supervisor personalities was one of the greatest chal-
lenges they faced:
‘Managing the drawings is not the hard bit, it’s managing the people. The
drawings are there, they can be s**t, but they are still there. It’s managing
the personalities, and some of the [subcontracted] supervisors can be
difficult.’
Foremen who used their authority in an autocratic manner could
damage relationships with subcontractors, which were not seen as
being good for H&S. As one H&S advisor explained, mimicking of a
foreman:
‘[I] Don’t care how much extra work it is, this is what you’re doing ‘cos
I’m the foreman and this is what you’re doing… That’s going to end in
tears every time.’
On rare occasions the researcher observed conflict between the
subcontractors’ supervisors and principal contractor foremen, when
strong relationships had not been established, and there were clashes
concerning H&S expectations. This sometimes resulted in the threat
that all subcontractor workers would have to be re-inducted, which
would significantly disrupt productive work and cost the subcontractor

Table 1
The foreman and supervisor relationship maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

Health and safety communication between the foreman and
supervisor is one-way and directive (and sometimes
hostile). The foreman tells the supervisor what to do in
relation to health and safety, and the supervisor is
sometimes resistant to instructions
The foreman and supervisor have different and conflicting
health and safety expectations. The supervisor believes
expected standards are unrealistic, impractical and
unachievable. Issues are unresolved, creating a poor
working relationship
The foreman and supervisor engage in two-way
communication about health and safety. The supervisor
responds positively to principal contractor health and
safety requirements
Differences of opinion are resolved effectively
The foreman and supervisor work together to meet
health and safety requirements. There is an agreement
that principal contractor’s expected standards are
appropriate and achievable. Issues are identified and
resolved so work can proceed
The foreman and supervisor actively discuss work
processes to identify the safest and healthiest ways of
working. Communication is respectful and productive
The foreman actively listens to supervisors’ suggestions
for health and safety improvement
The foreman and supervisor have a shared
understanding of the need to achieve high health and
safety standards. Both agree health and safety standards
should be the highest that can possibly be achieved.
They work together to identify health and safety
improvement opportunities

678
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

considerable amounts of lost time (and most likely, also money). This
threat was not made lightly and was not the preferred course of action.
Neither was it necessary when harmonious relationships were estab-
lished between the principal contractor foremen and the sub-
contractors’ supervisors. At the other end of the maturity continuum,
the foreman-supervisor relationship was collaborative, with respectful
communication, and a shared understanding of H&S expectations. An
example was described by a subcontractor leading hand, who explained
how the foreman in his area facilitated H&S planning, collaboration and
innovation:
‘The foreman suggests new ways of doing things to me. And will let us
suggest the way we want to work too. That way of working over there,
that was our SWMS [Safe Work Method Statement]. Went to the
foreman, they checked it out and were happy. And we were happy ‘cause
it’s how we are used to doing it. For apartment buildings, a lot of the
methods are similar which does make it easier.’
Another subcontractor leading hand stated:
‘The foremen here are good, they understand unplanned events can
happen. For example we were delayed cause we needed a piece of
equipment that we couldn’t get anywhere in Australia! But they didn’t
beat us up like other builders would, they try and help.’
The importance of communicating with subcontractors’ supervisors
about H&S was also acknowledged, particularly in ensuring effective
planning and coordination of work in relation to other adjacent or inter-
related trades. A foreman explained:
‘Talking is absolutely key. As a foreman you get assigned a leading hand
or supervisor from each subcontractor and you have to communicate
with them, let them know what is going on around them so they can plan
their works. Organisation is essential. Then the work is done efficiently
and safely.’
Hence, a good foreman-supervisor relationship involved collabora-
tive and respectful communication, in which foremen were seen to
consult with, listen to and help subcontractors, rather than tell sub-
contractors what to do and impose context-free requirements without
consultation or consideration of the work context and subcontractors’
specialised technical knowledge.
5.2. Leadership behaviours of foremen and supervisors (B)
The individual leadership behaviours of both the foremen and the
supervisors were also important for H&S (see Table 2). In a less mature
environment, subcontractors’ supervisors were sometimes not present
at the worksite, as they often had responsibility for work conducted at
multiple construction sites. The subcontractors’ supervisors’ absence
was evidence of a laissez-faire leadership style and would necessarily
impede their ability to engage their workers in H&S activities. One
leading hand stated:
‘The guys [workers] are my eyes and ears out there. It makes a real
difference if you get their suggestions and feedback. If you get them in-
volved, there are things that I didn’t think about or didn’t see that I can
fix, or raise at the committee meetings. The safety guys here are good for
that, when they address everyone at the pre-start they explain the works
going on, the controls, things to look out for that have happened before.
And then ask the guys if there is anything they want to raise. Most just
nod along and don’t care, but it just takes one or two to say something
and the rest perk up, “oh yeah, that’s an issue,” and they are involved.
They are then more likely to take in the safety messages.’
A subcontractor supervisor explained that being proactive and
planning work before commencement are important behaviours for
frontline leaders:
‘…all the planning, all the safe systems of work, all the handrails in all
the right places, everything needs to be ready to carry out the work safely.
That is doing it right.’
However, some subcontractor supervisors in less mature environ-
ments would try and ‘get away with safety if they could’. As one H&S
advisor explained:
‘They [subcontractors] are not going to set up all the systems they need
for an hour’s work if they don’t have to. They will try and hide things,
until they get caught, and then say, “oh yeah, I was going to tell you
about that” … were they hell! We keep employing the same sub-
contractors so they should be used to our expectations and what we want,
but sometimes it doesn’t feel like that. The last resort is to get them all in
the shed and give them a slap.’
The principal contractor foremen would always be present on site
(as they were employed to work full time at the sites). They were ty-
pically expected to go a step further than the subcontractor leaders, by
providing a model example of expected H&S behaviours. For instance, a
H&S advisor explained:
‘We [principal contractor] need our guys [frontline leaders] to lead by
example. If we aren’t wearing or doing the right things, what hope do we

Table 2
Leadership behaviour maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

Foremen/supervisors do not lead by example. They do
not set high standards for health and safety or
actively plan and monitor the way work is done
They provide little feedback relating to health and
safety aspects of work.
Identified health and safety issues are often
overlooked and unresolved
Foremen/supervisors communicate health and safety
rules that must be complied with
They monitor the way work is being done and provide
negative feedback when rule violations occur
Identified health and safety issues are discussed and
resolved in an appropriate timeframe
Foremen/supervisors are proactive in planning work, and
ensuring high health and safety standards are maintained.
They lead by example and demonstrate a strong commitment
to achieving the highest health and safety standards
Health and safety rule violations are identified and
corrected. When appropriate, they offer positive feedback
about good health and safety performance. They use
consultative processes proactively to identify areas for
health and safety improvement

Foremen/supervisors are inconsistent in their response
to health and safety. They sometimes turn a blind
eye to corner cutting in relation to health and safety
It is clear from their actions that health and safety
are less important than other project objectives, such
as cost, time and quality
Foremen/supervisors do not ‘walk the talk’ in
relation to health and safety
Foremen/supervisors demonstrate positive health and
safety leadership behaviours in most instances
Health and safety are understood to be non-negotiable
aspects of work. However, mixed messages can
sometimes be given; for example, if work is behind
schedule
Foremen/supervisors personally follow, and ask others
to follow, health and safety rules
Foremen/supervisors consistently demonstrate positive
safety leadership behaviours in all situations
Health and safety are treated as the highest priority in all
circumstances. Strong messages are provided that health and
safety must never be compromised, no matter what else is
happening in a project
Foremen/supervisors consistently reinforce their
commitment to health and safety through their behaviours
and interactions with workers

679
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

have with our subbies?’
The principal contractor, a large multi-national company, was also
perceived to experience higher levels of socially-imposed expectation
relating to the maintenance of H&S standards in comparison to the
smaller, less prominent subcontractors. As one principal contractor
construction worker observed:
‘We are such a big company and they take it [safety] seriously. At the
end of the day, one photo and you can be done these days, so it’s not
worth it.’
While supervisors needed be proactive and plan, foreman needed to
be vigilant in monitoring H&S in a consultative manner. One sub-
contracted leading hand explained:
‘The [previous] foreman was always on top of it [H&S], but now he’s
gone. It wasn’t as bad as it is now. If he had an issue he would call me up
and say, “can you sort this out on level 23?” or whatever. I would be like,
“sure, I didn’t know that [mess] was there.” I would add it to my list and
get it sorted when I could. We are on 5, 6 sometimes 7 floors, so I don’t
know what’s going on all of them all the time. I don’t get those calls now,
and this [poor housekeeping] is the result.’
An important leadership behaviour involved intervening without
causing confrontation and conflict by approaching problems in a non-
threatening consultative manner. One H&S advisor stated:
‘I think we [principal contractor] can be more positive with the way we
intervene. Start with a positive, then say what you want improved, then
end with a positive. That is much better than “put your hardhat on”.
People skills are so important.’
doing bits of his job, because he can’t. That is not the image we want. It’s
not helpful for anyone. But it does mean that these guys [supervisors] are
critical. And you are hoping they are communicating messages down,
and communicating the way you want them.’
While the foreman did not have direct communication with workers
in relation to daily tasks, having a respectful relationship with the
workers was still important. This would reduce the risk of conflict when
interventions were needed in relation to H&S issues that arise and need
to be resolved in the dynamic construction environment. These issues
did not require resolution through the subcontractor supervisor, how-
ever their effective resolution hinged on good interpersonal relation-
ships between the foreman and the workers. As one site manager ex-
plained:
‘I mean, the foreman is out there everyday walking around, chatting to
the blokes, general you know, just on a personal level as well. If they see
things that aren’t right, it’s not just going up and telling them off. It’s
actually chatting to them and hey you could do this better or do it this
way. I think that works. I mean, I try to get out on the job as well, and
have a general chat to people and you know, “how was your weekend,
how was that, look can you fix this up.” So it’s not just going up and
saying, “hey, do this, you’re not doing this right.” It’s just having that
conversation as Tom [construction worker] said earlier, treating them
like a human being. That’s the way it is.’
Showing respect to the workers and demonstrating care for H&S was
an important aspect of the foreman-worker relationship, as one sub-
contractor worker explained:

Displaying positive leadership behaviours were important for both
the foreman and the supervisors. These included: physically being
present to undertake proactive leadership behaviours, to lead by ex-
ample, to encourage two-way H&S discussion with workers, and to
make H&S interventions in a positive manner.
‘I’m not going to get inspiration from a foreman walking around and I
don’t expect him to give it [inspiration] to me. But if they show a little bit
of care about safety then – it’s one thing saying do the right thing. It’s
another thing whether they actually give a s**t whether you’re doing the
right thing or not, you know. So, I think care comes into it.’

5.3. Foreman and workers’ relationship (C)
The subcontractor supervisors acted as a mediator between the
principal contractor’s foreman and workers (see Table 3). One H&S
advisor explained how H&S messages were more effective when de-
livered to the workers by their own immediate supervisor:
‘It’s better coming from the supervisor. He knows them [the workers]. He
has an interpersonal relationship with them. I’m just some random
principal contractor dude. So it’s much more likely to be effective if it
comes from the supervisor. And we don’t want to be seen to be doing his
job, or confusing, or directing his workers. We don’t want to be seen to be
Developing a mutual and respectful relationship was also ac-
knowledged to be important by foremen, as one explained:
‘The basis of that is if you understand the guys, and the guys understand
you, and you have a bit of respect there both ways, you’ll end up getting
this [strong relationships]… You get on with each other and you know,
you’re a half-decent human being, the guys will want to do it.’
Hence, in less mature environments foremen were not familiar with
subcontracted workers and had little interaction with them. In contrast,
in more mature environments, foremen would frequently interact with
workers, treat them with respect, and actively demonstrate they care
about H&S.

Table 3
The foreman and workers' relationship maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

The principal contractor foreman is not ‘visible’ on-site and
rarely interacts with workers
Workers do not know who, from Principal contractor, is in
charge of their work area
The foreman is seen as heavy-handed and sometimes instructs
workers to work in certain ways without consulting the
supervisor
Workers are resentful and suspicious of the foreman, who
is regarded as interfering
Workers are aware of, but have little interaction with,
the principal contractor foreman.
As a result, workers do not know what the foreman’s
health and safety expectations are
The foreman is respectful of supervisors when engaging
with workers
Unless an immediate health and safety issue or rule
violation is observed, instructions are discussed with
supervisors
Workers accept that the foreman has a legitimate role
to play in ensuring health and safety standards are
maintained
Workers know who the principal contractor foreman
in charge of their work area is
The foreman regularly visits the site and has got to
know workers by name
Workers have an understanding of the foreman’s
health and safety expectations
The foreman is respectful of supervisors when
engaging with worker
The foreman works well with the supervisor, and has
got to know the workers
Workers understand the foreman is concerned about,
and committed to protecting, their health and safety

680
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

5.4. Communication and coordination between subcontractor supervisors
(D)
The subcontractor supervisors needed to communicate with one
another and coordinate the work activities of different trade-based
workgroups to ensure H&S was maintained in the dynamic construction
site environment (see Table 4). The following fieldnote provides an
example of this:
I [the researcher] was on a safety walk when I observed an electrical
trade supervisor intervening with a supervisor of different subcontractor
trade. He picked up the cable that stretched a few metres across the site
before tapering down into the level below. After a short and calm ex-
change of words, the electrical supervisor walked away. The electrical
trade supervisor later explained to me: ‘…there are six levels here…
Because of all these levels, it is about keeping on top of everything, so
there is a bit of extra care and communication needed. Like that cable
shouldn’t be going down a level – that shouldn’t happen because if there’s
an emergency, and you need to turn the power off, you need to get down
a floor.’ The electrician supervisor shared his tacit knowledge with an-
other subcontractor to discourage the practice adopted by another sub-
contractor of running electricity cables between levels of the same
building.
Communication between supervisors was encouraged by the prin-
cipal contractor foreman as a more efficient way of understanding and
resolving H&S issues that arise frequently in the constantly changing
construction site environment. As a foreman explained:
‘Sometimes I would say “look, it’s going to be quicker if you just ring Dan
[subcontractor supervisor], instead of ringing me.” Because then I’ll go
off and try and find Dan. I said if you guys, “if you need something done
and it can be done without my involvement, just give each other a call.
You know what to do, you don’t have to involve me… if it doesn’t need
my involvement, just give each other a ring and you guys can sort it out
and if it does need my involvement then give me a ring and I’ll step in and
see what I can do.”’
The supervisor-to-supervisor relationships were also strengthened
when they agreed to shared equipment and machinery, as well as
communicating and sharing H&S knowledge. This coordination was
confirmed as important, as evident in the following discussion that
occurred during one of the focus group sessions:
H&S advisor: ‘Yeah I think cooperation’s one of the key things. I just, it
fixed little things as well. Like I was at a meeting a while ago and the
elevator work platform association were there and they were sprouting on
about subcontractors sharing equipment … I said it then prevents another
scissor lift being transported into site, another plant induction having to
be done, another piece of equipment that possibly gets in the way. I said I
support these sharing arrangements, provided the operators are doing the
necessary checks and balances, which I expect everyone to do anyway.
But it was interesting that another level of our industry were actually
opposed to it because all they see is a lack of revenue. All they’re in-
terested in is if Barry [Subcontractor supervisor] has to go and hire a
scissor lift for a half hour task, they’re going to get a full day rate for it,
delivering in, delivering out, it’s costing 500 bucks before you know it.
Whereas they lend it to him for half an hour, there’s no money changed
hands, just next time same favour is…’
Foreman:
‘Is returned.’
H&S advisor:
‘…is returned. So and there’s a whole heap of benefits out of that. I see it
as a safety benefit cos I don’t have to control 150 items of plant instead
of a hundred.’
Supervisor:
‘That’s a fair thing then, if you’re going to have that, you’re going to have
10 scissors where you could have had five.’
Foreman:
‘Yeah, swings and roundabouts. You know.’
Supervisor:
‘It’s being cooperative with each other. As we were talking earlier. If I
needed a hand off Jeff [supervisor], these boys would give me a hand.
Help just pulling pumps and everything like that… So everyone’s very
cooperative and helping out, lending stuff to each other, exchanging bits
of materials.’
Interviewer:
‘And you know that will be reciprocated, you do it for each other.’
Supervisor:
‘That’s right, it’s how it is on this job.’
H&S professional:
‘You can’t put a price on that…’
Hence, at the mature end of the continuum supervisors would help
each other to work safely, through sharing knowledge, machinery,
equipment and ideas. In the context of multiple subcontractors working
at a single worksite H&S effectiveness involved supervisors working
with one another in a coordinated and consultative way, rather than

Table 4
The supervisor to supervisor relationship maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

The supervisor makes little attempt to understand the work
being undertaken by others in their work areas (e.g., how
the work of the supervisor’s group could affect health and
safety of adjacent trades, or how the work of the
supervisor’s group could affect health and safety of other
work groups)
The supervisor is only concerned with getting the job done
and getting paid
The supervisor does not communicate with supervisors of
other trades
Conflicts and health and safety issues occur
The supervisor behaves in a self-interested way, demonstrating
little consideration for other trades or people who could
be affected by their work
The supervisor maintains awareness of potential
conflicts with the work of other trades that could
impact their workers’ health and safety
As a result, the supervisor works to manage health
and safety risks arising
The supervisor is concerned about the health and
safety of their workers
The supervisor communicates with supervisors from
other trades about identified conflicts or issues
Identified conflicts or health and safety issues are
resolved
The supervisor shows concern for others. The
supervisor is willing to compromise when their
group’s work could impact on the health and safety
of others
The supervisor proactively finds out about planned work
processes and where their work fits in the bigger picture
of site activities
The supervisor effectively identifies and manages health
and safety risks
The supervisor is concerned about their workers’ health
and safety, and the health and safety of others who could
be affected by their work (e.g., members of the public,
principal contractor personnel and other trades workers)
The supervisor communicates frequently with other
workgroup supervisors about their planned work
activities and potential conflicts or health and safety
impacts
When plans change, these changes are communicated
Health and safety issues are avoided through effective
planning and consultation
The supervisor actively consults with other supervisors
and engages in collaborative behaviour that has a positive
health and safety impact
For example, important health and safety knowledge is
exchanged or equipment is shared to improve outcomes

681
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

solely focusing on managing the activities of their single work group. risks.’
Thus, in this context, social interactions, communication and issue re-
Personal and engaging H&S messages from supervisor-to-workers
solution are highly important leadership characteristics.
were more challenging with large workgroups. For instance, the re-
searcher observed the following discussion between two supervisors.
5.5. Communication about health and safety within workgroups (E)
One supervisor stated:
Within workgroups it was identified that frequent two-way H&S ‘We’re having a situation where we’ve got probably about eight, you
communication was important for sharing ideas and issues (see know ten [workers], somewhere around there, and you can look at them
Table 5). The opportunity for supervisors to talk to workers about H&S all. You can see their faces. You know if they’re paying attention. You
could occur at formal or impromptu meetings, or through exchanges know if they’re listening.’
with individual workers throughout the working day. One supervisor
Another supervisor remarked:
explained:
‘I think the bigger contractors, when you’ve got 50 blokes, you’re
‘We speak to them [the workers] so regularly, we have regular toolboxes,
managing 50 blokes, it’s a lot harder to get that message out in detail to
they have lots of opportunities apart from being one-on-one with us…
each person. Whereas if you’ve got a trade with five, it’s easier to have
when we’re all sitting down they can all discuss, say, “I’ve got this issue,
that, you know, be more intimate and get more messages across. So it’s
do you guys have this issue?”… and we try and resolve it between our-
just time consuming I guess.’
selves ‘cause we get together as a group so many times, so often, that most
problems get resolved by the workers just talking to each other. I’m just Subcontractor supervisors with responsibility for managing large
sitting there listening, “you guys sort it all out, now let’s document it.”’ groups acknowledged these challenges and limitations. One supervisor
admitted that they could not facilitate H&S discussions in larger
This was reinforced by workers, one of whom observed:
workgroups:
‘[We’ll] sit around a couple of tables and we’ll talk about, we’ll chat
‘you can’t address 60 to 80 guys in a pre-start and try to generate dis-
about. It doesn’t have to be a formal toolbox, we go straight after a
cussion on the work – it would take all day. Our pre-starts are “here is
smoko, or straight after lunch someone says, “I’ve got this hassle here,
what we are doing, this, that, this, boom, done, sign it, get to work”.’
how do I do that?” We all sit down and take an extra minute for ev-
eryone to sit down and we sort it out on the go.’ Workgroup communication was identified as an important aspect of
ensuring H&S at the frontline. Communication in more mature groups
Hence, as well as worker-to-supervisor communication, supervisors
was multi-directional, with supervisors frequently and clearly ex-
can play a key role in facilitating peer-to-peer communication about
plaining to workers safe and healthy ways to complete tasks, facilitating
safe and healthy ways of working in the workgroups they lead. As well
discussion amongst workgroup members, and listening to workers’ H&
as facilitating, delivering effective supervisor-to-worker communication
S-related concerns and/or suggestions for improvements.
was identified as necessary for explaining the execution of healthy and
safe work in a language the workers could understand. For example,
one H&S advisor explained: 5.6. Relationship with health and safety advisors (F)

‘A good supervisor can communicate the SWMS [Safe Work Method

The way that H&S advisors behaved and were perceived varied from
Statements]. The guys don’t read them, just sign them. They don’t work
site to site. In some situations H&S advisors were seen to be supportive
in paper. The supervisor needs to be able to get them to absorb the in-
and helpful, while in others they were seen to behave as ‘policemen’
formation in another way, talk to them, get to point, tasks, hazards,
focused on the enforcement of rules, rather than the resolution of

Table 5
The workgroup communication maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

Within the workgroup, health and safety is rarely talked
about. The emphasis of communication is on other aspects
of work
Group members frequently talk to one another about
things related to health and safety to reach compliance
with current tasks
Information is exchanged on an ad-hoc basis when H&S
compliance is at risk
Group members frequently talk to one another about
all things related to health and safety
The supervisor facilitates discussion about future
things that could impact health and safety, and/or safe
and healthy ways of working

The supervisor rarely talks about health and safety to group
members. The supervisor sometimes fails to attend
organised health and safety activities, such as pre-start
meetings
The quality of information exchange is poor
The supervisor has an authoritative leadership style and issues
instructions to workers without consultation
Workers are resistant to health and safety instructions, or
unclear about why certain rules need to be followed
Workers frequently complain to the supervisor about
work conditions, or what they perceive to be the inflexible
application of unreasonable rules
The supervisor participates in formal health and safety
activities, such as pre-start meetings. At formal
meetings, the supervisor provides information about
health and safety -related aspects of a job or work
activity
Important information is conveyed. However,
personalised messages are not always used
The supervisor gives clear health and safety instructions
to workers. The supervisor explains the need to follow
required health and safety -related rules when
performing particular tasks
Workers understand why they need to work as
instructed to maintain health and safety standards
Workers raise questions when they need more
information or do not understand something
The supervisor frequently communicates with
individual workers about things that could impact
their health and safety, or ways of working healthily
and safely
Communication is frequent
Informal conversations throughout the working day
supplement and reinforce information provided at pre-
start meetings
Messages are targeted to individuals, and often
personalised to explain why safe and healthy working
is important
The supervisor engages workers in two-way
conversations about how work should be done and
why
Workers are properly consulted. Their views about
how to work healthily and safely are listened to and
taken into account in work planning
Once settled, workers generally do not need to talk to
their supervisors about the health and safety aspects of
their work, unless an unexpected issue arises

682
D. Oswald and H. Lingard Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686

Table 6
The H&S advisor maturity model component.
Lacking in health and safety participation Adopts a cooperative approach Actively participating in health and safety

The foreman/supervisor deliberately tries to hide
health and safety incidents or issues from
health and safety advisors
Health and safety advisors tell supervisors
and workers what to do without consultation
Health and safety advisors do not value
knowledge gained through practical
experience
The foreman/supervisor informs health and safety advisors
about health and safety incidents or issues and seeks their
input regarding improvement and/or issue resolution
Health and safety advisors listen to supervisors and workers
when they raise concerns about the practicality or
effectiveness of health and safety instructions
The foreman/supervisor anticipates health and safety problems
before they arise and seeks the input of health and safety
advisors in relation to the best ways to protect workers’ health
and safety and prevent incidents from occurring
Health and safety advisors actively seek input from supervisors
and workers when decisions are being made about healthy and
safe ways of working. Practical experience is valued by health
and safety advisors

The foreman/supervisor is slow to resolve health
and safety issues raised by specialist health
and safety advisors
Identified health and safety issues are
frequently not ‘closed out’ in a satisfactory
manner
The foreman/supervisor is responsive and cooperative in
resolving health and safety issues raised by specialist health
and safety advisors
Identified health and safety issues are usually ‘closed out’ in
a timely manner
The foreman/supervisor actively asks for assistance specialist
health and safety advisors in the identification of areas for
health and safety improvement
Suggestions for health and safety improvement are responded
to positively

problems (see Table 6). In more mature environments, the former ap-
proach was prominent. For example, one H&S advisor explained his
role as follows:
‘And I’ve had a number of them [subcontractors] come to me, like su-
pervisors with the worker and “say he’s got to do this, what do we do?”
And we have a bit of a consult over it, sort of thing and go through things,
but it’s either brought up by the supervisor and he’s being proactive to
come and ask about it, or the workers have come to me and said “what
do I do here? How do I get around this? Or my boss [the subcontracted
supervisor] said to come and see you [H&S advisor] about it.”…I’m not
a copper, I don’t want to walk around the corner and go “what the fuck
are you up to?” I want you to come and tell me “I can’t do it that way,
etcetera.”’
Some H&S advisors were willing to acknowledge that their knowl-
edge of some issues was not complete and that subcontractors specialist
knowledge was needed to ensure effective H&S standards were main-
tained. For example, the following conversation between two H&S ad-
visors occurred in a focus group.
The first H&S advisor commented:
‘…I think respecting that these guys have got a lot of knowledge in their
fields, don’t pretend to know more than you do, and if you’re not sure
about something, get their input as well. You’re going to get a better result
all round.’
The second H&S advisor agreed:
‘I come from a rigging/crane background. If I have to go find something
out about electrical safety, that’s beyond my normal scope, well, you
need to go talk to these guys, how do you actually do this? Is this
practical? Is this real? May as well give me a tune up if I’m trying to
implement something that’s not practical. So yeah they’ll [subcontracted
supervisors] bring us to reality. Not that we intend on not being real, but
if you don’t have the knowledge sometimes you can’t be practical.”
The preference of some H&S advisors was to be seen as a source of
assistance to subcontractors’ supervisors and workers when H&S issues
were encountered. For example, one H&S advisor explained:
“So it’s got through to a number of them [subcontracted supervisors], and
we would get a number of guys coming to us, either supervisors or the
workers themselves, and we work around it. And they would come up
with another way, but there’s some that are more naturally inclined to it.
And others that are just like, you can imagine there’s probably been a
number that we haven’t seen that are like “just go and do it. And don’t get
caught.”’
However, the relationship between the H&S advisors and sub-
contractors’ supervisors was not always positive, as the following
fieldnote illustrates:
The subcontractor supervisor approached the H&S advisor to ask
about the observations made during the site walkaround, saying, ‘What
you got on the list?’ The H&S advisor replied, ‘Just seven items.’ This re-
sponse seemed to surprise the supervisor who exclaimed: ‘Seven! What
are they?’ The H&S advisor began to run through the hazards observed:
‘Access on [specified site area]…’ The subcontractor supervisor inter-
rupted: ‘What do you mean, access?’ The H&S advisor explained: ‘There is
no clear pathway, and as there are a few trip hazards, we need to make a
clear access way to reduce the likelihood of slips, trips or falls.’ He then
continued reading through the list, and once he finished said: ‘That is all
I’ve got.’The subcontractor supervisor made no comment but stared at
the H&S advisor. After a few seconds, the H&S advisor shrugged his
shoulders and walked off. Within a few minutes the subcontractor su-
pervisor approached again and said to the H&S advisor: ‘What are you
looking at? You are getting me paranoid.’ The H&S advisor responded:
‘Nothing to report, it is all good.’ When the walkaround concluded, the
subcontractor supervisor asked: ‘You added anything else to the list?’ The
H&S advisor indicated that he hadn’t added anything, to which the
supervisor said, ‘Good!’The H&S advisor explained the tension in the
relationship: ‘They [subcontractors] are getting squeezed from a lot of sides:
time, budget, us, their manager… sometimes they don’t want to hear about
safety.’
Thus, in more mature environments, H&S advisors had a positive
relationship with supervisors, were seen as a source of help and were
consulted about the best way to resolve issues. However, in less mature
environments, the relationship between supervisors and H&S advisors
were tense and H&S advisors were more likely to take a directive, rather
than a consultative approach to issue resolution.
6. Discussion
The findings suggest there is a need to consider leadership in the
context of construction sites as a social ecological phenomenon, rather
than purely an individual psychological phenomenon. Construction
projects are somewhat unique in being multi-employer and multi-trade
workplaces. Projects are also temporary forms of organization in which
participants each have their own interests and operating cultures. These
project characteristics increase the importance of gaining a deep un-
derstanding of social interactions and influences within the construc-
tion project environment. This social ecological approach can comple-
ment psychological models of leadership and more comprehensively
and adequately explain H&S effectiveness in this context.
Previous work has identified the importance of various leadership
behaviours, whether transformational or transactional (see, for ex-
ample, Zohar, 2002a, Kelloway, 2006). However, at the frontline of the
construction workplace, H&S leadership is more complex than

683
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
consideration of the behaviour of individuals in relation to their in-
teractions with subordinates. Rather, there are many leaders working
together, who are also accountable to their own organisational leaders,
as well as the project leadership team. For instance, the complexities of
the principal contractor foreman and subcontractor supervisor re-
lationship has not been well explored; with many previous studies only
focusing on understanding the single-level supervisor-worker influence
on H&S (Wu et al., 2016).
Yet, the relationship between foremen and supervisors (see Section
5.1) is crucial for H&S, where H&S participation involved collaborative
and respectful communication, assistance, help and understanding.
These multiple levels of leadership were particularly important as
workers had different relationships with participants in the leadership
hierarchy. For example, some workers were unaware of who the
foreman was in their area; but worked closely with their supervisor.
Other supervisors would not be present at all times on the site (as they
had multiple jobs on multiple sites), whereas the foremen had one daily
workplace location. Hence, levels of worker participation could be in-
fluenced by the presence of the leaders at the worksite, and this was
linked to their hierarchal position within the site management struc-
ture.
The single-level supervisor-worker relationship that has been more
widely researched still has great importance. For instance, it was re-
cognised that, as the immediate ‘line-manager’ the worker’s supervisor
is in the most appropriate position to deliver daily H&S information and
instruction, as they were more likely to have established a closer re-
lationship with their own workers. This top-down management ap-
proach was supplemented by supervisors who also consulted and en-
couraged bottom-up participation from workers, to communicate any H
&S concerns and ideas for improvement (see Section 5.5). This aligns
with contemporary ‘bottom-up’ approaches of worker participation that
have being recommended in construction H&S (see, for example,
Sherratt et al., 2013; Lingard et al., 2015; Lawani et al., 2017). This also
encouraged horizontal worker-to-worker safety communication in
frontline workgroups (see Section 5.5). These multiple communication
directions found to be important for H&S participation in terms of
consultation, sharing ideas and then raising potential issues to their
superiors. This reinforces a large body previous work (e.g. Alsamadani
et al., 2013; Dinsdag et al., 2009; Hardison et al., 2014; Lingard et al.,
2019), which has highlighted that H&S communication at the frontline
is important for creating H&S.
Within the proposed multiple-level social ecosystem, H&S leader-
ship goes beyond the single-level supervisor-worker perspective, and
captures the importance and relevance of other roles, relationships and
interactions within the organisational structure. For instance, it also
emerged that the foreman (as well as supervisors) should try to estab-
lish rapport with workers too (see Section 5.3). Such rapport made it
easier for foremen to intervene with H&S issues that arose within the
dynamic construction site environment; and could encourage H&S
participation from workers to help rectify on-site H&S issues.
While foremen are directly above the supervisors within the orga-
nisational hierarchy, the multiple-level social ecosystem should not
only be considered in a vertical sense, since horizontal relationships and
interactions were also important for H&S. For example, H&S partici-
pation between coworkers within the same workgroup, or between
supervisors of different subcontracted workgroups. The supervisor-to-
supervisor relationships (see Section 5.4) is an underexplored area of
construction H&S leadership. Through a participatory management
theory lens, there is less risk of power struggles between leader and
subordinates in these interactions, as both supervisors are at the same
level, and have their own different workgroups. These supervisor-to-
supervisor relationships were found to being critical for sharing H&S
knowledge, equipment, machinery, and for communicating plans and
actions; which were carried out by each of the trades within the same
workspace. The sharing of knowledge between, for example, an elec-
trician supervisor, and a steel fixing supervisor was beneficial for
684
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
raising alternative H&S perspectives, as both could come from different
backgrounds, have different H&S knowledge and are exposed to very
different H&S risks and hazards. Hence, this horizontal consultation
could help raise different H&S ideas or issues that another supervisor
may have not been aware of. It also optimised staffing resources and
was crucial for healthy and safe work practices to be maintained in a
dynamic construction environment, where multiple trades worked in
the same spaces, and where new trades entered work areas they were
unfamiliar with.
Another important role captured in the social ecosystem included
the H&S advisors. Their involvement in the frontline H&S leadership
was important, and further demonstrates the point that H&S leadership
should be considered beyond the single-level supervisor-worker per-
spective. The H&S advisors who acted like, and were viewed as, a
source of advice, help and support (rather than as an obstruction or a
problem to be dealt with) were characteristic of the more mature end of
the safety participation spectrum (see Section 5.6).
The maturity model provides an overview of participation in H&S
activities across the complex construction site frontline, without over-
simplifying leadership and conceiving it as an individual characteristic
of supervisors who interact solely with subordinates in a single work-
group. It is argued that H&S participation with all parties, including
supervisors of other trades, and H&S advisors, as well as those in the
hierarchy above the supervisors (e.g. foremen and site managers), is
paramount for frontline leaders to be able to reach a state of H&S
maturity.
7. Conclusions
The maturity model concept can enable organisations to establish
their current level of H&S maturity and identify the actions required to
improve the management of, and performance in, H&S. Most previous
research has explored frontline H&S leadership as a one-dimensional
supervisor-workers phenomenon; rather than a wider social ecological
phenomenon that involves multiple leaders, from multiple contractors,
as well as the involvement of H&S advisors. The maturity model de-
veloped for construction site-based frontline leadership goes beyond the
individual leader, viewing frontline leadership in H&S more holi-
stically. The leadership behaviours identified as being desirable and less
desirable by project participants are also associated with the theoretical
shift towards worker participation in H&S thinking.
Six key areas of influence of frontline H&S leadership on construc-
tion sites were identified: the foreman and subcontractor supervisor
relationship; the leadership styles of the foreman and supervisor; the
foreman and workers relationship; the subcontractor supervisor-to-su-
pervisor relationship; the workgroup communication; and the re-
lationship between the frontline leaders and the H&S advisors. This
framework enables organisations to be able to monitor, visualise, and
see where improvements can be made within the construction project
management environment. Within an organisation (and perhaps a
single project), different work areas or workgroups may be at various
stages of maturity. Therefore it is important for the practical use of this
tool to apply the model to different areas or contractors to closely
identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in H
&S leadership across the entire frontline social ecosystem.
As an ethnographic study there are limitations around replication,
as this type of research occurs in natural setting and therefore cannot be
reproduced. Hence, the maturity model suggested is based on the
findings within this specific construction environment, which will not
necessarily be the same as another construction project setting. Hence,
the maturity model should be used as a guideline rather than an exact
science. Also, while the research team has attempted to remove re-
searcher bias, within ethnographic work, bias is to some extent in-
evitable, and therefore it is recommended that further work is under-
taken to overcome these limitations by adopting complementary
methods of enquiry to further understanding in this area.
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.005.
References
Albert, A., Hallowell, M., Kleiner, B., 2014. Enhancing construction hazard recognition
and communication with energy-based cognitive mnemonics and safety meeting
maturity model: multiple baseline study. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (2).
Alsamadani, R., Hallowell, M., Javernick-Will, A., 2013. Measuring and modelling safety
communication in small work crews in the US using social network analysis. Constr.
Manage. Econ. 31 (6), 568–579.
Aronson, J., 1994. A programatic view of thematic analysis. Qual. Report 2 (1), 1–3.
Ayers, G.F., Culvenor, J.F., Sillitoe, J., Else, D., 2013. Meaningful and effective con-
sultation and the construction industry of Victoria, Australia. Constr. Manage. Econ.
31 (6), 542–567.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E.K., 2002. Development and test of a model linking
safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. J. Appl. Psychol.
87 (3), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488.
Bass, B.M., 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision. Organ. Dyn. 18 (3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbu, J., 2009. Developing maturity models for IT man-
agement – a procedure model and its application. Bus. Inform. Syst. Eng. 3 (2009),
213–222.
Bluestone, Barry, and Irving Bluestone, 1992. Negotiating the Future: A Labor Perspective
on American Business. New York: Basic Books.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
(2), 93.
Burke, M.J., Sarpy, S.A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R.O., Islam, G.,
2006. Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. Am. J.
Public Health 96 (2), 315–324.
Carey, M.A., Ashbury, J., 2016. Focus Group Research. Routledge, Oxon.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: a meta-
analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (5),
1103–1127.
Clarke, S., 2013. Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and
transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 86 (1), 22–49.
Clarke, S., Ward, K., 2006. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in en-
gaging employees' safety participation. Risk Anal. 26 (5), 1175–1185.
Conchie, S.M., Donald, I.J., 2009. The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the
relation between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 14 (2), 137–147.
Dekker, 2003. Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures
and safety. Appl. Ergon. 34 (2003), 233–238.
Dekker, S., 2017. Safety Differently: Human Factors for a New Era, second ed. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Dinsdag, D., Biggs, H., Sheahan, V., 2009. Understanding and defining OH&S competency
for construction site positions: worker perceptions. Saf. Sci. 46 (4), 619–633.
Fang, D., Chen, Y., Wong, L., 2006. Safety climate in construction industry: a case study in
Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (6), 573–584.
Fang, D., Wu, H., 2013. Development of a safety culture interaction (SCI) model for
construction projects. Saf. Sci. 57, 138–149.
Fang, D., Wu, C., Wu, H., 2015. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in
construction projects. Manage. Eng. 31 (6), 04015001.
Filho Goncalves, A., Waterson, P., 2018. Maturity models and safety culture: a critical
review. Saf. Sci. 105, 192–211.
Filho Goncalves, A.P., Andrade, J.C.S., Marinho, M.M.O., 2010. A safety culture maturity
model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Saf. Sci. 48, 615–624.
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. Pol. Pract. Health
Saf. 10 (2), 81–102.
Fleming, M., 2001. Safety culture maturity model. Offshore Technology Report 2000/
049, Health and Safety Executive, UK.
Flin, R., Yule, S., 2004. Leadership for safety: industrial experience. Qual Saf Health Care
2004 13 (Suppl 2004 II), ii45–ii51.
Fugas, C.S., Meliá, J.L., Silva, S.A., 2011. The “is” and the “ought”: how do perceived
social norms influence safety behaviors at work? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 16 (1),
67–79.
Griffin, 2000. Fundamentals of Management, Cengage Learning: Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Grill, M., Neilsen, K., 2019. Promoting and impeding safety – a qualitative study into
direct and indirect safety leadership practices of constructions site managers. Saf. Sci.
114, 148–159.
Gordon, R., Kirwan, B., Perrin, E., 2007. Measuring safety culture in a research and de-
velopment centre: a comparison of two methods in the Air Traffic Management do-
main. Saf. Sci. 45, 669–695.
Hallowell, M., Hinze, J., Baud, K., Wehle, A., 2013. Proactive construction safety control:
measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 139 (10).
Hardison, D., Behm, M., Hallowell, M.R., Fonooni, H., 2014. Identifying construction
supervisor competencies for effective site safety. Saf. Sci. 65 (Supplement C), 45–53.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P., 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice, third ed.
685
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
Routledge.
Hudson, P., 2001. Aviation safety culture. Safeskies 2001, 1–23.
Hudson, P., 2007. Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Saf. Sci. 45,
697–722.
Inness, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Stride, C.B., 2010. Transformational leadership and
employee safety performance: a within-person, between-jobs design. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 15 (3), 279–290.
Jabonete, F.G., Concepcion, L.R., 2016. Perceived safety culture of healthcare providers
in hospitals in the Philippines. J. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. 2, 1–14.
Jenschke, K.C., Kines, P., Rasmussen, L., Andersen, L.P.S., Dyreborg, J., Ajslev, J., Kabel,
A., Jensen, E., Andersen, L.L., 2017. Process evaluation of a Toolbox-training pro-
gram for construction foremen in Denmark. Saf. Sci. 94 (Supplement C), 152–160.
Kanter, R., 1981. Power, leadership, and participatory management. Theor. Into Pract. 20
(4), 219–224.
Kawakami, T., Kogi, K., Toyama, N., Yoshikawa, T., 2004. Participatory approaches to
improving safety and health under trade union initiative. Ind. Health 42 (2),
196–206.
Kawulich, B., 2005. Participant observation as a data collection method. Qual. Soc. Res. 6
(2) Article 43.
Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J., Francis, L., 2006. Divergent effects of transformational and
passive leadership on employee safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11 (1), 76–86.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76.
Kuorinka, I., Patry, L., 1995. Participation as a means of promoting occupational health.
Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 15 (5), 365–370.
Koot, W.C.J., 1995. The Complexity of the Everyday: An Anthropological Perspective on
Organizations. Coutinho, Bussum.
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., Sawacha, E., 2000. Safety behaviour and safety management:
its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry. Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manage. 7 (2), 133–140.
Lawani, K., Hare, B., Cameron, I., 2017. Developing a worker engagement maturity model
for improving occupational safety and health (OSH) in construction. J. Constr. Project
Manage. Innovat. 7 (2), 2116–2126.
LeCompte, M.D., Goetz, J., 1982. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic
research. Rev. Educ. Res. 52 (1), 31–60.
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. Econ. 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? J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (2),
234–241.
Lingard, H., Pirzadeh, P., Oswald, D., 2019. “Talking safety”: health and safety commu-
nication and safety climate in subcontracted construction workgroups. J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 145 (5), 04019029.
Lingard, H., Pink, S., Harley, J., Edirisinghe, R., 2015. Looking and learning: using par-
ticipatory video to improve health and safety in the construction industry. Constr.
Manage. Econ. 33 (9), 740–751.
Lingard, H., Zhang, R., Harley, J., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R., 2014. Health and Safety
Culture. Australian Constructors Association/RMIT University, Sydney.
Manu, P., Ankrah, N., Proverbs, D., Suresh, S., 2013. Mitigating the health and safety
influence of subcontracting in construction: the approach of main contractors. Int. J.
Project Manage. 31 (7), 1017–1026.
Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J., 2012. Assessing organizational capabilities: re-
viewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 59
(1), 138–159.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F., Tomas, I., Peiro, J., 2011. Leadership and employees’
perceived safety behaviours in a nuclear power plant: a structural equation model.
Saf. Sci. 49 (8–9), 1118–1129.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Stephanou, K., 2017. Linking active transactional leadership and
safety performance in military operations. Saf. Sci. 96, 93–101.
Mattila, M., Hyttinen, M., Rantanen, E., 1994. Effective supervisory behaviour and safety
at the building site. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 13 (2), 85–93.
Neal, A., Griffin, M., Hart, P., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety cli-
mate and individual behaviour. Saf. Sci. 34, 99–109.
O'Reilly, K., 2012. Ethnographic methods. Routledge.
Oswald, D., Zhang, R., Lingard, H., Pirzadeh, P., Le, T., 2018a. The use and abuse of safety
indicators in construction. Eng. Constr. Architect. Manage. 25 (9), 1188–1209.
Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., Smith, S., Dainty, A., 2018b. An exploration into the implications
of the ‘compensation culture’ on construction safety. Saf. Sci. 109, 294–302.
Oswald, D., Wade, F., Sherratt, F., Smith, S., 2019. Communicating health and safety on a
multinational construction project: challenges and strategies. J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
145 (4), 04019017.
Peterson, D.E., Hillkirk, J., 1991. A Better Idea: Redefining the Way American Companies
Work. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
Phelps, A.F., Horman, M.J., 2010. Ethnographic theory-building research in construction.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1), 58–65.
Pink, S., Tutt, D., Dainty, A., Gibb, A., 2010. Ethnographic methodologies for construction
research: knowing, practice and interventions. Build. Res. Inform. 38 (6), 647–659.
Reeves, S., 2008. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ 337, a1020.
Rocha, R., Mollo, V., Daniellou, F., 2015. Work debate spaces: a tool for developing a
participatory safety management. Appl. Ergon. 46, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apergo.2014.07.012.
Sherratt, F., Farrell, P., Noble, R., 2013. UK construction site safety: discourses of en-
forcement and engagement. Constr. Manage. Econ. 31 (6), 623–635.
Simard, M., Marchand, A., 1994. The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident
prevention and effectiveness in occupational safety. Saf. Sci. 17 (3), 169–185.
D. Oswald and H. Lingard
Simard, M., Marchand, A., 1995. A multilevel analysis of organisational factors related to
the taking of safety initiatives by work groups. Saf. Sci. 21 (2), 113–129.
Simard, M., Marchand, A., 1997. Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety rules: the
influence of micro-macro organisational factors. Ergonomics 40 (2), 172–188.
Wendler, R., 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study.
Inform. Softw. Technol. 54 (2012), 1317–1339.
Westrum, R., 2004. A typology of organizational cultures. Qual. Saf. Health Care 13
(2004), 22–27.
Wu, C., Wang, F., Zou, P., Fang, D., 2016. How safety leadership works among owners,
contractors and subcontractors in construction projects. Int. J. Project Manage. 34
(5), 789–805.
Yazdani, A., Neumann, P., Imbeau, D., Bigelow, P., Pagell, M., Theberge, N., Hilbrecht,
M., Wells, R., 2015. How compatible are participatory ergonomics programs with
686
Safety Science 118 (2019) 674–686
occupational health and safety management systems? Scand. J. Work Environ. Health
41 (2), 111–123.
Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., Kamsteeg, F., 2009. Organizational Ethnography:
Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life. Sage, London.
Zohar, D., 2002a. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leader-
ship-based intervention model. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (1), 156–163.
Zohar, D., 2002b. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned
priorities on minor injuries in work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (1), 75–92.
Zohar, D., Luria, G., 2004. Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety
practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (2), 322–333.
Zou, P.X.W., Sunindijo, R.Y., Dainty, A.R.J., 2014. A mixed methods research design for
bridging the gap between research and practice in construction safety. Saf. Sci. 70,
316–326.