Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Unsafe behavior is an important component in the chain of accident occurrences, and thus plays a key role in the accident prevention programs in construction sites.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this qualitative research is to study the perception of frontline workers, supervisors, and managers about the preconditions of and contributing factors to unsafe behaviors in civil engineering projects.
METHODS:
Field observation, in-depth interview, and focus group discussion are conducted with 113 informants from various mega projects during a 2-year time period. Fishbone diagram is applied to describe a conceptual model.
RESULTS:
The results point to fourteen themes within four categories of the conceptual model – general management, organizational factors, safety supervision and management, and individual characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS:
General management and organizational culture were introduced as important preconditions and contributing factors resulting in human error and unsafe behavior in the construction sites. The fishbone diagram reveals the sequence and interaction of preconditions and contributing factors. The key contributing factors and their influences on unsafe behaviors are discussed along with recommendations for future directions.
Introduction
With rapid economic development and industrialization, construction still continues to rank among the most hazardous industries in both developed and developing countries including in the U.K. [1], E.U.-15 [2, 3], U.S. [4, 5], Australia [6], China [7], Hong Kong [8, 9], Pakistan [10], Taiwan [11], Thailand [12], Singapore [13], and Iran [14].
Occupational injuries and fatalities within the construction industry have also been associated with considerable financial costs. In the U.S. alone, the total cost of fatal and nonfatal injuries in the construction industry was estimated at $11.5 billion in 2002, 15% of all such costs in the private sector. The average cost per case of fatal or nonfatal injury is $27,000 in construction, almost double the per-case cost of $15,000 for the overall industry in 2002 [15]. In the first quarter of 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor estimated the total compensation at USD 38.73 per hour worked in the construction industry [16].
A typical construction site does not look the same from day to day, and different groups of workers and trades come and go as the project evolves at different stages. Often, several companies are involved, and the personnel representing each company may differ from one project to another. The inherent complexity of construction work complicates safety management [17]. Therefore, the construction industry is a hazardous sector where the presence of accidents is not unusual, and thus the importance of workers’ behaviors in the reduction or amplification of risks is imperative [2].
Unsafe behavior is an important component in the chain of accident occurrences, and thus plays a key role in the accident prevention programs. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the factors influencing the unsafe behaviors in construction sites, but there is still insufficient data to determine the sequential influence of the factors affecting such unsafe behaviors. A systematic review extracted the contributing factors affecting unsafe behaviors and accidents on construction sites according to content analysis of 56 related previous studies. The content analysis highlighted the importance of more organizational factors, e.g., society and organization, and project management, that may contribute to reducing the likelihood of unsafe behaviors and accidents through the promotion of site condition and individual features (as proximal factors) [18]. A recent study focused on project management factors including production as well as financial climate and capacity, client demands, risk management, key personnel competence, health and safety management, and early scheduling [19]. Other studies highlighted that the organizational factors have more effects on construction risk than that of individual factors [20–22]. While the management and organizational factors are important in construction safety, workgroup commitment is a mediator variable between safety climate factors and management commitment to safety behaviors [23]. Choudhry and Fang (2008) concluded that despite the knowledge accumulated through safety climate research, there still remain other variables that explain why workers engage in unsafe behaviors [8].
Meliá et al. (2008) stated that workers and the space of social relationships are also under continuous change. In these conditions, it may be hard to perceive the safety influences of the organization on the risks or the workers’ behaviors [2]. Some studies [8, 24] claimed that organizational and social factors should not been overlooked because these factors influence safety behaviors. Despite this, far too little attention has been paid to organizational and social factors from the perspective of workers and supervisors [3]. However, further research should be conducted to determine which factors consistently cause unsafe behaviors and accidents and to define the influence mechanism of distal factors on proximal factors [18]. The aim of the presented study is to contribute to our knowledge about why construction workers involve in unsafe behaviors from the perspective of experienced frontline workers, supervisors, and managers.
Methods
In this study, the qualitative research approach is used for data generation and analysis [25]. Although the qualitative approach has been less common compared to other methods in safety research, researchers have found that qualitative and mixed method research is useful for understanding workers’ perceptions of safety and risk [18].
Participants and procedures
The study was conducted in several mega civil engineering projects (two combined cycle power plants, one urban road tunnel, and one multi-level bridge) in the south, north, and central Iran. First, in order to prolong engagement in the construction sites, one of the trustworthiness criteria in the qualitative research [26], the authors resided part-time for six months on the construction projects, and observed how construction procedures flow from client to frontline workers. The project managers of these construction sites agreed to allow their workers participate in this research and provided informed consent forms.
Triangulation strategy was used for data generation in this qualitative research. The triangulation contributes to the completeness and confirmation of findings necessary in qualitative investigations [27]. Four basic types of triangulation have been described: (a) Data triangulation: involves time, space, and persons; (b) Investigator triangulation: involves multiple researchers in an investigation; (c) Theory triangulation: involves using more than one theoretical scheme in the interpretation of the phenomenon; and (d) Methodological triangulation: involves using more than one method to gather data, such as interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents [28].
Data were generated from multiple sources during a 2-year time period. In order to achieve triangulation at the participant level, this study sought and integrated the perspectives of frontline workers, supervisors, and managers. Table 1 lists the characteristics of participants who involved in this study. In total, 113 participants were interviewed and observed in various mega projects during a 2-year time period. The participants volunteered in the interview sessions over the course of 9 months. The participants were a theoretical (purposive) sample from different jobs, work sites, and projects in different geographical and cultural areas in Iran so that the gathered data could determine which group helped to continue the data generation [29]. The participants included frontline workers, foramen, technical supervisors, safety supervisors, safety officers, contractor managers, executive manager and project managers from different parties (i.e. clients, prime contractors, general contractors, and subcontractors). The multi-agent response approach to safety issues has been recommended to investigate the organizational and behavioral factors in the construction industry [30].
Participant groups and data generation methods
Participant groups and data generation methods
1Note: FGD = Focus Group Discussion; FGI = Focus Group Interview; FO = Field Observation; SUI = Semi- and Unstructured Individual Interview.
In order to achieve triangulation at the data source level, all related project documents and records were reviewed. These included contracts and project information, accident investigation and analysis reports, unsafe behavior and condition reports, and hazard identification reports. In addition, the safe or unsafe behaviors of the frontline workers, foremen, and supervisors were observed by interviewers on the site. Field observation approach was aimed at engaging the interviewers with the construction projects and familiarizing them with the most common unsafe behaviors in the construction sites. Field observations were conducted based on walking through sites at both formal and informal inspections during six months. Simultaneously, foremen and supervisors observed the frontline unsafe behaviors based on a written procedure. A field note cart was used to record the field observations.
To achieve the triangulation at the methodological level, in-depth individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted to gain the perspectives of frontline workers, foremen, supervisors, and project managers. Safety managers and in particular, project managers had extensive management experience levels as well as far-reaching experience in safety issues, and provided valuable information [8]. All in-depth interviews and focus groups were led by the authors according to the written protocols. All participants completed an informed consent form and a demographic questionnaire prior to the interviews. The interviewers decided which groups to participate in in-depth interviews or focus groups. It depends on the level of information of the participants and their role in the work site, and which approach helped to continue the data generation. In order to triangulate the validity of findings, different groups of participants who were key informants were used in focus groups and in-depth interviews. In an attempt to make each interviewee feel as comfortable as possible, the interviews were conducted on the location of the projects and the headquarter office during working hours. To saving cost and time, we conducted the in-depth interviews among the key informants in a central project and the focus groups among other key informants from other projects. No incentives were given to participating. The in-depth interview and focus group protocols were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board of Tarbiat Modares University.
In-depth interviews were conducted among 35 frontline workers, supervisors, and managers in 21 interview sessions with 2 to 3 participants as the smaller number of participants could be provided for greater in-depth discussion. The semi- and unstructured interviews were chosen because they provide a rich database that helps answer the question of why workers do not comply with safety rules [8]. The interviews were focused on the phenomena of unsafe behavior and related contributing factors. In order to identify the unsafe behavior on construction sites, the primary questions were phenomenological questions such as “what do you mean by unsafe behavior on the construction site?” In order to understand factors influencing unsafe behavior, several probing questions were asked, such as: “In your opinion, why do construction workers involve in the unsafe behaviors on the site?” The design of the probing questions was the same and based on the narratives extracted from phenomenological questions and field observations. In addition, they were asked in the same manner to describe the preconditions related to a specific real accident or hazardous situation on the site. The in-depth interviews lasted up to two hours.
Seven follow-up focus groups were conducted among 77 frontline workers, supervisors, and managers in order to both data generation and data validation. Focus group discussion approach was chosen because that reveals the sequence and interaction of preconditions and contributing factors. Focus groups can minimize the effect of extreme perspectives, can consider interaction among the people, and enable workplace norms and beliefs to be followed [31]. A semi-structured questioning route started with key opening questions and several flexible questions. The key questioning route was structured on five issues including individual characteristic, environmental conditions, organizational factors, and social factors. The interviews were focused on the phenomena of unsafe behavior and related influencing factors. Flexible questions were used to start or keep the discussion going if this did not happen spontaneously. The sequence of the questions could be altered depending on how the focus group discussion was going on. Each focus group discussion was conducted with 7 to 12 participants and lasted up to two hours. All interviews were recorded using a voice recorder with the permission of participants. Additionally, all verbal and non-verbal aspects of the interviews were noted.
After recording, all voices and observations were transcribed into Microsoft Word files which resulted in approximately 200–250 pages. The original transcripts were read and re-read by the research team in order to make sense of the data and break them down into manageable forms. In addition, this stage helped researchers to begin familiarizing themselves with the data. Using the “Track change” option in Microsoft Word, the researchers were able to extract the meaning units from manuscripts. The meaning units were categorized with a corresponding color-coding scheme. The color-coding scheme helped the researchers to demonstrate the relationship between the themes and categories extracted from meaning units. Data saturation occurred after analyzing the sixteenth interview (about 65% of the total time of all interviews) with the frontline workers as no new theme emerged during and after this session.
The open and axial coding process was conducted to extract the meaning units from the transcripts. Following this, meaning units were initially condensed to one or more than one short sentences. The themes or concepts were emerged from the condensed meaning units. The themes were defined as threads of meaning that recur in domain after domain [32]. Finally, the themes were grouped together based on the same conceptual code. During axial coding, the emerging categories, themes, and memos were related to their subcategories, and these relationships were tested against original data such as interviews, documents, and observations. Also, further development of categories took place, where the core category explained the behavior in the substantive area. In addition, the researchers made different presentations of the emerging categories, themes, and memos, and reported back to 16 representatives of participants. These processes resulted in the refined categorization and determination of relationships between the different categories until consensus was reached. Open and axial coding filled approximately 350–400 pages.
Simultaneously, theoretical memos were written throughout the entire process of analysis. This helped identify the relationship between different categories and construct the overall expansion picture of the unsafe behavior in the construction sites. The process of open coding, axial coding, and writing and developing of the theoretical memos led to the identification of the latent content behind the categories.
The next step of coding was the process by which all categories were unified around by a central “core” category and the categories that need further explication were filled-in with descriptive detail. The core category represents the central phenomenon of the study. The central phenomenon was integrated from the categories and the theoretical memos extracted in the previous steps to form a conceptual model. Several techniques were used to facilitate the integration process. These included telling or writing the storyline, sorting, and reviewing theoretical memos. In addition, diagramming was a very useful tool that helped integrate the categories and represent the direct or indirect relationships between themes. The contributing factors were illustrated using a fishbone diagram approach. Finally, the conceptual model was validated and refined by comparing it to the original data and by presenting it to the participants for their reactions.
Given the themes, categories and relationships that were emerged during the previous steps, next, findings were compared with the literature. This was performed by asking questions such as: “what was it similar to?” or “what did it contradict and why?”
Validity of data
In qualitative research, the concepts of credibility, dependability, and transferability have been used to describe various aspects of trustworthiness [33]. Table 2 shows how these measures were met to achieve the trustworthiness criteria in the presented study.
Measures for achieving trustworthiness and theory appraisal
Measures for achieving trustworthiness and theory appraisal
Field observation, in-depth interview, and focus group discussion are conducted with 113 participants with an average age of 38 years, ranging between 21 and 59 years. The participants had an average experience of 15 years (range, 2 to 25 years), of which 95% were male. The participant’s education ranged from secondary school to graduate degree. The most of participants were married (73.3%).
Contributing factors
The open and axial coding revealed 4 categories, 14 subcategories, and several distinct themes that can contribute to unsafe behaviors. The selected quotations from the transcribing texts were presented to illustrate some key themes. The fishbone diagram was developed to summarize the unsafe behaviors and their preconditions and contributing factors (Fig. 1).
Fishbone diagram of unsafe behaviors and their contributing factors.
These factors contain (1a) economic and social condition; (1b) contract and project management; and (1c) contractor competency
(1a) Economic and social condition
One contractor manager and two project managers stated that there are many external factors influencing safety management including political pressure to open the project before the scheduled time, business challenges, economic instability, and inflation. One project manager said, “ ⋯ Clients are under pressure to deliver the project before the scheduled time”. A supervisor stated, “The more contractors make complaints about delays in client’s payments, so they cut off safety expenditures to manage the budget.” Suraji et al. (2001) argue that the client is under a number of distal factors such as economic, social, and political pressures in the conceptual development of a project [34].
(1b) Contract and project management
During interviews, two construction supervisors pointed out that sufficient resource must be made available for safety. An executive manager stated, “there is no specific resource allocation for safety in the contract definition phase ⋯ ’business is business’ ⋯ the contractor is not sure how much money is needed for safety.” One project manager said, “ ⋯ enough time and money must be considered to perform a safe project.” And another, an equipment operator mentioned that enough money must be allocated to supply safe equipment and machinery. Similarly, Mullen (2004) found that when resources (i.e., time and money) were inadequate, there was pressure from both managers and co-workers to prioritize performance over safety, and that such pressure swiftly socialized individuals to adapt and consider unsafe practices as normal [24]. Other themes extracted from the interviews as well as the project records included project scheduling without enough extra time for safe operation, competitive bidding without pricing for safety, project contract amount, emphasizing organizational safety values during contractor selection process, project progress incentives, maladjustment of progress payments with milestones, safety requirements included as contract addenda and not as main contract clauses, absence of effective incentive and penalty system, delays in payment to contractors, and delays in tendering, design and procurement phases that leads to rushing the construction phase. A possible explanation for the role of delays in the unsafe behavior might be that during times of intense production, middle managers may turn a blind eye or indeed, actively encourage the use of shortcuts in order to meet deadlines, which will further reinforce unsafe behaviors [35].
(1c) Contractor competency
There was general agreement about the role of contractor competency in workers’ behaviors. An early construction planner and current project manager explained that a contractor who wins the bid, but is unable to meet the contractual requirements, is accident prone. A project manager said, “To make up for a poor estimation of a contract price, a contractor often uses less expensive workers and poor quality machinery.” An electrician said, “Contractors want to win (the bid) rain or shine ⋯ ” The findings of this study seem to be consistent with other research which found that large companies utilize pools of subcontractors and there is a tendency for contract tenders to be based on price, with little margin for occupational health and safety investments [36]. An assistant project manager mentioned, “The majority of contractors prefer part-time recruitment ⋯ part-time workers are not familiar with site hazards.” As explained by a safety manager, using non-specialty or low-experience contractors leads to little (if any) attention to job site safety. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of Zheng et al. (2010) who found most construction sites employ low-educated, unskilled, and inexperienced male farmers who migrate to cities to seek better employment opportunities [37]. In addition, the interviews as well as the project records indicated that the contractor’s organizational aspects play a key role in the unsafe behavior. Such aspects include contractor size, insufficient and/or improper resource allocation, non-contract staff, bad organizational relationships, high subcontracting rate, inadequate workforce, work interferences, long work shifts, delays in payments to workers, and inadequate welfare facilities.
Category (2) Organizational factors
These factors refer to (2a) client safety climate; (2b) contractor safety climate; (2c) workgroup safety climate; and (2d) organizational culture.
(2a) Client safety climate
The majority of the frontline workers stated that safety is a show rather than a supported program. A safety supervisor stated that there is not enough economic justification for safety programs and safety is not the first concern of project management. One safety supervisor said “this is a fact that project progress takes precedence over safety. Therefore, contractors are under a time pressure ⋯ ” Several studies showed that prioritizing production over safety is a key dimension of safety climate in the construction industry [3, 38]. In addition, the interviews revealed that in project management, supervisors are key persons with critical responsibility for safety. For example, one foreman said, “Safety and hurry up, there are not in line ⋯ ” And another mentioned that the work pressures led workers to take higher risk. Most interviewees stated that the “management commitment to safety” has an unquestionable role in unsafe behaviors. Similarly, previous research has considered high management commitment to safety as a key dimension of safety climate [3]. Some themes extracted from the interviews as well as field observations were top management participation in safety committees, project managers discussing safety with personnel, organizational policy toward safety, and key personnel’s actions. For example, one pipefitter said, “ ⋯ managers’ actions speak louder than their words ⋯ ” Previous research emphasized that safety climate was associated with safety behaviors on the construction jobs [23].
(2b) Contractor safety climate
Some participants expressed the belief that safety is not of significant value to construction contractors. For instance, a plumber said, “ ⋯ the contractor looks to workers as a commodity.” A construction engineer stated, “the safety supervision in the organizational structure is paper over the cracks ⋯ ” Graneheim and Lundman (2004) describe that a safety culture begins at the top, and if it is pure, it will be felt at the level of workers [32]. In addition, as mentioned by the majority of interviewees, there are many obstacles to achieve safe behaviors at the contractor level, including gaining a higher profit, reluctance to assign resources to safety programs, bargaining on safety costs, take shortcuts, low safety awareness of small/medium sized contractors, tendency to finishing the work sooner; and key personnel’s unsafe behaviors (either as individuals or collectively). According to Törner and Pousette (2009), if project finances are jeopardized by unexpected events, there is a risk that management will cut expenditures for safety measures to adhere to the budget. They suggested that this can be prevented if the project client requires that the contractor specify a budget line for safety measures in the proposal [3].
(2c) Workgroup safety climate
As mentioned by most participants, some workers behave unsafely (i) to show others that they are tough guys and are more seasoned and experienced, (ii) due to co-worker encouragement (peer pressure) to undertake risky tasks, (iii) to avoid being teased (or bullied) by co-workers, (iv) to exhibit their work skills, (v) to become prominent in the eyes of the boss, and (vi) to gain more self-esteem. In addition, a frontline worker said, “Our foremen do not use the safety devices themselves, we take a leaf from boss’s book” Also, a scaffolding erector stated, “ ⋯ when working at height, there is no room for complacency.” If positive attitudes towards safety can be built and embedded within a group, safety can then be managed successfully. Although, management involvement in safety are essential, it is very important to work with colleagues who value and prioritize safety [23]. This in fact has been identified as the basis of good safety culture [12].
(2d) Organizational culture and condition
The majority of participants felt that there are adverse psychological conditions such as team interactions, workers’ distrust in management, work pressure, bad work relationships, and mental workload. They emphasize that the constant stress and poor working conditions are considered acceptable by our companies that lead to depressed status of workers. For instance, a subcontractor said, “ ⋯ here (the construction site) is a ‘p edal to the metal’ condition ⋯ ” A safety officer stated that the living conditions for resident workers are poor. For example, one construction worker said, “I am a breadwinner ⋯ I don’t focus on my job ‘sound mind in a sound body’ ⋯ ” A technical supervisor said, “In stressful conditions of the job site, we must admit that humans make mistakes ⋯ ” A concrete reinforcement worker stated, “I can’t handle this stressful condition. But, I have extra mouths to feed. I have to work.” According to Zheng et al. (2010), in addition to the risk of injury inherent to most construction work, loneliness while working away from the family, and stressful work schedule put construction workers at significantly higher risks of injuries than workers in other industries [37].
Most interviewees experienced a high level of work-related stress on the construction site. For instance, a prime contractor stated, “Workers experience exhausting and sleep deprivation ⋯ ” Several frontline workers stated that they experienced a level of depressive symptoms, mental distraction, anxiety, and heartsick. They also had feelings of hopelessness, job dissatisfaction, and insecurity. Non-verbal reactions and aspects of the interviewees and field observations confirmed these adverse psychological conditions. These findings seem to be in accord with previous studies, which showed that alcohol drinking and cigarette smoking are also common among construction workers in China [37].
Category (3) Safety supervision and management
This category comprises (3a) safety system; (3b) safety supervision; and (3c) workplace condition.
(3a) Safety system
Evidence from the interviews as well as the project records and documents revealed that safety management failed to identify the unsafe conditions and to avoid unsafe behaviors because of significant gaps between procedures and work practices, insufficient safety training for workers engaged in multiple tasks, lack of job-specific training, lack of participatory safety programs; inadequacy of work procedures, reactive and traditional safety management, lack of behavioral-based training, and absence of effective change management. For example, one safety expert stated that the current safety training does not affect workers’ perceptions. Another recommended the participatory approach for the progress of safety programs. This finding relates to the fact that the interventions or programs that are solely determined by management can fail to promote change at the level of frontline workers. Allowing employees’ opinions to be heard during the decision-making process is important in enhancing perceptions of organizational fairness [39]. As discussed by the previous studies, it should be emphasized that the systems approach is important and should be supplemented rather than abandoned [3]. In addition, one steel erection foreman said, “my safety shoes are not suitable for work at height. These are inflexible ones ⋯ ” One welder assistant stated, “ ⋯ in fact, as soon as an accident occurs, the safety becomes the first concern on the job site.” And another, a technical supervisor said, “Since the safety devices are not practical, people (the worker) cannot cope with some.”
(3b) Safety supervision
The interviews as well as field observations revealed that safety supervision does not play a major role in the prevention of unsafe behaviors because of the lack of financial authority, inadequate supervision, workers’ distrust in safety supervisors, weak communication and relationships between supervisor and workers, and insufficient safety support. Herein, a safety officer said, “ ⋯ fight one, fight another, and fight all. As a safety supervisor, I have not enough support from upper management ⋯ ” One painter stated, “I do not feel comfortable with safety supervisors because they say ‘my way or the highway’ ⋯ ” This study produced results which corroborate the findings of a great deal of the previous work in this field. Melia and Becerril (2009) demonstrated that factors related to supervisors, such as lack of feedback, poor communication, poor relations with superiors, and inadequate managerial support were cited by the respondents as important causes of their occupational stress [38].
(3c) Workplace condition
Almost all participants pointed out that the characteristics and nature of construction work influence the unsafe behavior. A number of safety experts introduced the project progress, unknown hazards, changeable conditions, and new technologies as the unsafe conditions influencing the unsafe behaviors. As described by Cheng et al. (2012), the inherent complexity of construction work complicates safety management because people inevitably move around in non-standardized patterns near any number of machines [17]. In return, a group of frontline workers and foremen focused on other conditions such as the lack of appropriate safety equipment, using worn-out and defective tools and machines, lack of appropriate safety equipment, insufficient lighting, poor housekeeping, lack of welfare facilities, and working in bad weather conditions.
Category (4) Individual characteristics
These characteristics refer to (4a) national culture; (4b) values, attitudes, and beliefs (4c) motivations and prohibitions; and (4d) risk awareness and perception.
(4a) National culture
Most interviewees said that national safety culture and social safety training can be effective in safe or unsafe behavior in the construction site. For instance, a safety supervisor said, “Risk-taking and being a hero are social values. Workers are proud of overcoming hard and risky conditions ⋯ ” A civil engineer said, “ ⋯ ’I am who I am; it is no exaggeration to say that an ‘unsafe worker’ is one of those people who also violates traffic regulations on the roads.” This also accords with previous studies, which showed that national cultural values are generally acquired early in life at home and at school, whereas more practical input is provided only later in life at work [40].
(4b) Values, attitudes, and beliefs
The values, attitudes, and beliefs play an unquestionable role in shaping the unsafe behavior from various perspectives. For instance, a safety supervisor said, “Most workers are in the belief that the destiny is a matter of chance...they put mishaps down to bad luck.” Many interviews with the workers revealed that this narrative is true. One scaffolding erector pointed out, “ ⋯ accident is a chancy phenomena.” Another, a fitter man said, “In my opinion, our destiny is written on our forehead ⋯ mishaps are a matter of destiny and they are almost always unavoidable ⋯ ” A worker mentioned, “We pray to be protected against mishaps. In my opinion, the prayer and charity are enough for us ⋯ ”
The interviews revealed that the individual and group attitudes toward safety were not positive. Most frontline workers believed that compliance with safety rules is time-consuming and inconvenient. For example, a fitter said, “I don’t feel comfortable with the safety devices ⋯ ” A foreman stated, “My workmates don’t use the safety devices because these devices are annoying.” Almost all workers stated that they end up spending more time in order to work in a safe manner. Choudhry and Fang (2008) introduced construction as an organic business that is always risky because of outdoor operations, work at elevation, complicated on site plans and equipment operation, all coupled with workers’ attitudes and behaviors towards safety [8]. The interviews provided insights that showed workers do not believe that safety is a part of their jobs. For example, a mechanical technician stated, “My colleagues must believe that safety devices are inseparable parts of their jobs. A job is not completed without safety ⋯ safety is not first or last.” As discussed by a previous study, safety must be an integral component of every element of the project. It is not something that can be isolated from the elements of a project, or from the elements of a management strategy, but is an inherent element of everything, and must be done on projects as well as within organizations [35].
(4c) Motivations and prohibitions
This study found that motivations and prohibitions are very important factors influencing workers’ distinction between safe or unsafe behaviors. When a worker perceives fewer benefits of safety, he or she becomes conducive to a safety violation. Some worker statements that illustrate these aspects of an individual’s characteristics were as follows: A site cleaning worker mentioned, “Life is dealing and willing ⋯ the faster I work, the more money I earn...” A safety supervisor said, “Some workers prefer going home early rather than using safety belts at height.” Also, a welder said, “ ⋯ To become a key person for my contractor, I need to overcome the hazardous conditions.” A site supervisor stated, “I work in warm weather ⋯ I do not use a safety helmet because it causes hair loss.” The role of motivation in personal safety performance is well documented in previous studies [12, 41], but the mechanism of motivation/prohibition conflicting action is not clearly understood. However, the finding revealed a positive and negative evaluation due to the conflict between benefit and cost of the safe or unsafe manner.
(4d) Risk awareness and perception
Many interviewees stated that they are aware of workplace hazards. Some of them believed that the hazards remain unknown because a construction site always changes and evolves. This finding corroborates the ideas of Hinze and Teizer (2011), who suggested that because of the constantly changing work environment, construction workers are often faced with new hazards that may go unnoticed. They stated that in some cases the hazards are not seen by the workers [5]. It seems that the main problem was risk underestimating rather than risk understanding. Risk underestimating can be related to cognitive errors that play an important role in accidents and unsafe behaviors [8]. A scaffolding erector mentioned, “I remember my first workday, good old days, I was afraid of height; now, working at height is as easy as ABC.” In addition, a safety supervisor said, “Experienced workers play it (the hazard) cool...”
A prime contractor explained that the workers, who directly engaged in a mishap, tend to show more safe behaviors afterward. In addition, an experienced crane operator stated, “ ⋯ a part-time worker becomes a crane operator while he is still finding his feet ⋯ ” It is encouraging to compare this finding with what was found by Choudhry and Fang (2008) who stated that perception of risk differs from one person to another and may differ time to time even with one person [8].
Discussion
The conceptual coding of the themes revealed a conceptual model that illustrates why construction workers involve in unsafe behaviors on construction sites. Although the same contributing factors have been discussed in part from past to present, previous studies stated that little has been known about the mechanisms by which safety climate and all the major contributing factors affect unsafe work behaviors [42, 43]. This qualitative research provided a valuable and comprehensive insight into the sequential influence of preconditions and contributing factors affecting unsafe behavior in construction site. The current study highlights the role of different actors, and presents how construction safety flows from client to frontline workers in the construction industry. In addition, competing interests between project progress and safety issue in construction project management are emphasized.
The finding of current research indicated that the economic and social features affect directly through the influence on contract and project management and contractor competency simultaneously. General management affects the unsafe behavior in three paths simultaneously: (a) indirectly through the sequential influence of other mediating factors of contract and project management, safety supervision and management, contractor competency, workplace and organizational conditions, and individual characteristics (b) indirectly through the sequential influence of other mediating factors of contractor safety climate, workgroup safety climate, workplace and organizational conditions, and individual characteristics, and (c) indirectly through the sequential influence on workplace and organizational conditions which, in turn, affecting the individual characteristics.
The theoretical memo also indicated that organizational culture including client, contractor and workgroup safety climate was the central contributing factors to the unsafe behavior among other ones. When contractor workers, as the frontline workers, perceive a positive workgroup and contractor safety climate, they show a low-level tendency to a safety violation. In turn, a negative client and contractor safety climate leads to a high tendency to a safety violation. In the level of individual characteristics, the finding revealed a positive and negative evaluation of the safe or unsafe manner in the same cognitive cost-benefit justification process. The theoretical memo indicated that a worker perceiving fewer benefits to safety results in safety violations. The findings of the present study seem to be consistent with other research which found that unsafe behaviors are conflicting stimuli due to the conflict between immediate benefits and future potential costs [44]. Workplace or organizational conditions can provide the necessary basis for judging whether to accept or not accept the immediate profits of unsafe behavior against its future potential costs, thereby reducing or increasing the rate of occurrence of unsafe behaviors. In addition, contractor and workgroup safety climate influences the workplace or organizational conditions. If the unsafe conditions are not known or perceived, workers may engage in human error, another type of unsafe behavior.
The central theory of Fig. 1 shows that economic and social condition affects project financial status, project management, and contractor competency. These general management factors directly affect the project safety management and indirectly affect the project organization and individual safety performance. Safety system has a direct impact on safety supervision and an indirect impact on workplace safety. General and safety management factors, all together, determine the hierarchical organizational factors including organizational culture, client safety climate, contractor safety climate, and workgroup safety climate. Organizational culture and safety climate form the workers’ safety personality, including their family safety values and attitudes. The distal and proximal factors, together and interact with each other, determine the safety norms and behaviors on the construction site. In order to promote safety culture and behavior, in the long term, we need to focus on financial, contract and project management. To promote safety climate and behavior, in short term, we need to emphasize on safety supervision and contractor management.
Our findings in this qualitative study are subject to at least two limitations. First, with conducting a cross-sectional study on several construction projects in developing countries, the findings might not be generalized completely across the construction sites with different cultural contexts, especially in developed countries. Therefore, the conceptual model extracted from this study must be verified with further investigations. Second, quantifying the association between the influencing factors and the unsafe behavior using multivariate statistical analysis, such as Structural Equation Model (SEM) was beyond the scope of this work. Thus, further studies with more focus on the unsafe behavior causation based on the conceptual model are therefore suggested.
Conclusion
The purpose of the current qualitative research was to contribute to our knowledge about why construction workers involve in unsafe behavior from the perspective of experienced frontline workers, supervisors, and managers. The fishbone diagram described the sequence and interaction of preconditions and contributing factors. The findings from of a narrow-angle lens perspective by using thematic analysis identified four main categories influencing the unsafe behavior: (1) general management, (2) organizational factors, (3) safety supervision and management, and (4) individual characteristics.
Wide-angle lens perspective to findings by using the qualitative research approach developed a conceptual model that facilitated the categorization of unsafe behavior in terms of influencing factors in order to determine the sequential influence of key and mediated factors and to derive effective behavior intervention. It was also shown that when a worker perceives fewer benefits of safety, he or she becomes conducive to a safety violation. Organizational culture as well as general and project management introduced as the precondition of the unsafe behavior can weight one side of the cognitive cost-benefit justification and lighten the other, thereby reducing or increasing the rate of occurrence of unsafe behaviors. In addition, workplace and organizational conditions were introduced as important contributing factors resulting in the human error in the construction sites.
Further longitudinal and causation research, based on the conceptual model extracted from the current study, will be necessary to gain a better understanding of the unsafe work behavior and to make stronger recommendations for the effective interventions in the construction industry.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Iranian construction projects for support, and all frontline workers, supervisors, and managers for participating in this study.