The Development of a Worker Engagement Maturity Model for The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The development of a worker engagement maturity model for the improvement of occupational health and safety in construction Hare, Billy; Cameron, Iain; Lawani, Kenneth Publication date: 2017 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in ResearchOnline Citation for published version (Harvard): Hare, B, Cameron, I & Lawani, K 2017, The development of a worker engagement maturity model for the improvement of occupational health and safety in construction. Glasgow Caledonian University. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please view our takedown policy at https://edshare.gcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/5179 for details of how to contact us. Download date: 29. Apr. 2020 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORKER ENGAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION A REPORT BY THE BEAM RESEARCH CENTRE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES & PRACTICE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & BUILT ENVIRONMENT GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR BILLY HARE PROFESSOR IAIN CAMERON DR KENNETH LAWANI © DECEMBER 2017 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to sincerely thank Berkeley Group Holdings Plc for exclusively funding this research (Berkeley Innovation Fund), without which, the study could not have been achieved. Also, Arminder Khaira, Health & Safety Fund Co-ordinator and Ian Viveash, Head of Group Health & Safety Assessment of Berkeley Group are greatly appreciated for providing access to live Berkeley projects as well as facilitating meetings at their project offices. The authors would like to thank the following members of the Steering Group for providing expert advice and opinions, technical support, and for facilitating access to ongoing projects: Gordon Crick, HSE Susan Murray, Unite Martin Worthington, Morgan Sindall Kevin Fear, CITB Dick Robinson, Cape Industrial Services (formerly Mitie) Ryan Milne, Galliford Try Stuart Hosegood, CALA Group Steve Harvey, Joseph Gallagher Ltd Ian Viveash, Berkeley Group Holdings Plc John Green, Laing O'Rourke Bob Cummins, Sodak Ltd. Stephen Coppin, Arcadis (formerly Rider Levett Bucknall) Iain Graham, EDF Energy Their constructive inputs during Steering Group meetings and review of data are gratefully acknowledged. This study would not have been accomplished without the industry collaboration and participation of the various contractors and workers who worked with the research team during the different stages of the study. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The HSE view of worker engagement is that it requires every worker on a construction site to contribute to the improvement of Occupation Safety and Health (OSH). However, there is currently no recognised model of worker engagement maturity for the improvement of construction OSH. The aim of this research was to address this issue through the development of a Worker Engagement Maturity Model. Any such maturity model should be able to evaluate; benchmark and detect any improvement in worker engagement practices. The research objectives were to develop, assess and validate the model using a combination of underpinning theory and real-world data from the lived experiences of front-line construction workers. Background The concept of worker engagement is based on psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, where employees can use different degrees of their selves physically, cognitively, and emotionally. Workers that are highly engaged are involved and immersed in their jobs and enjoy the challenge, lose track of time, have stronger organisation commitment, expend more effort and are intrinsically motivated. There are both legal and ethical requirements for management to engage with the construction workforce for the improvement of OSH. HSE Construction Division’s ‘worker involvement and engagement’ initiatives encourage the industry to rise above the minimum legal requirement, moving towards ‘best practice’. The role of trust and empowerment is vital to engagement. If workers perceive the organisation as trustworthy, it is likely they will reciprocate by becoming more engaged in their work. Empowerment can be seen as a set of four cognitions: ‘meaning’ (important to the individual), ‘competence’ (capable and resourced), ‘self-determination’ (autonomy over working methods) and ‘impact’ (on wider organisational decisions). Linked to this is ‘psychological safety’; being able to raise concerns without fear of negative consequences. Engagement is considered as meaningful when it deals with critical and operational rather than solely welfare issues, to positive improvements rather than negative complaints. Job resources such as social support from colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, skill variety, autonomy, and learning opportunities have been positively and consistently associated with worker engagement. Drivers of worker engagement include managements’ sincere interest in the wellbeing of workers, strong and transparent organisational leadership and organisational integrity. However, a culture of fear that discourages reporting of concerns, macho approaches to leadership, poor reactive or selfish line management, can all impede successful worker engagement. iii The development of the worker engagement maturity model for the improvement of construction OSH for this research considers building meaningful discussion, empowerment, trust, motivation, and commitment to cultural change. This is embodied in the following definition of worker engagement for OSH, developed from the literature: “A process where every worker on a construction site is motivated and empowered to participate in improving health and safety through meaningful discussions in advance of decisions being taken, influencing others, and is committed to sharing their experiences and knowledge; and managers positively encourage workers to identify and resolve health and safety problems in a culture of trust, leading to every worker on site benefiting from safe and healthy working conditions.” Method The five constructs developed from the literature review were compared to real-world data. Qualitative data was collected from eight construction sites across mainland Britain, covering the housebuilding, commercial and civil engineering sectors. A total of 28 ‘engaged’ workers were interviewed using semi structured interviews before saturation of themes was reached. The method used was phenomenological, which involved interview questions asking ‘what and how’ in order to convey an emerging theme where the operatives and working supervisors described their engagement experiences. This enabled the researchers to build themes that were constantly checked against the literature. Interview data was transcribed and analysed by highlighting significant statements, sentences or quotes that provided an understanding of how the operatives and supervisors experienced the phenomenon. These statements were categorised and ranked in line with the five theoretical indicators. Validation of the framework and ranking (maturity levels) was done through the Steering Group. This was an iterative process using the Delphi method, where all significant statements were allocated to each of the five indicators in hierarchical lists. Each list went through at least three reviews before consensus was reached. The maturity model’s five indicators were validated using data from 22 workers across 15 sites. Validation workers were classified as either highly (11) or averagely (11) engaged based on specific selection criteria. The results were analysed in relation to these two categories so the rankings in the model could be assessed for their ability to separate average from highly engaged workers. iv Findings The five Worker Engagement Maturity Model indicators were developed, based on comparisons between the interview data and the theoretical constructs. This resulted in five sets of hierarchical criteria. Meaningful discussion has been developed to incorporate the categories: personal work area; welfare; hazard spotting; proactive solutions; and beyond the site gate. Discussion on the workers’ personal work area is defined as ‘entry-level’, which includes PPE issues and hazards involving the workers’ tools and tasks. Welfare issues include e.g. toilet facilities, rest and eating areas. Hazard spotting relates to reactive reporting of unsafe acts and conditions. Proactive solutions relate to discussions to actively prevent hazards occurring. Beyond the site gate issues require more effort and are more challenging because they reach beyond the physical site, e.g. policy decisions that affect multiple sites, design aspects or even issues around mental health which go beyond the site. Empowerment has been developed to incorporate the categories: knowing; doing; decision making; and influencing. Knowing and doing are the first and second steps to competence i.e. knowing standards and safe systems of work, and then being capable of doing the work safely. This is followed by having authority to decide work pace and methods and finally influencing strategic issues, such as v policy or design i.e. ‘beyond the site gate’ (as opposed to merely discussing them under the ‘meaningful discussion’ indicator). Trust