Safety Leadership: the role of the middle manager in the construction industry - Essay Example

?Safety Leadership: The Role of the Middle Manager in the Construction Industry Introduction The success of organizations usually depends on its leader and dedicated members. Effective organizations pride themselves of positive environments where camaraderie and unity prevail. Leaders and members join efforts to achieve shared organizational goals. One central goal in most organizations is safety. The mounting cases of untoward incidences due to neglect of safety and security measures in organizations will continue to rise unless leaders and members of the organizations heighten their awareness, standards and vigilance in the establishment and maintenance of safety. With the advances in information and technology, it is no longer excusable for companies to reason out ignorance or lack of information. Leaders cannot afford to be complacent especially when the welfare of their people and customers are concerned. There are industries where safety should be the utmost priority especially when they work with combustible chemicals or products, humongous machines people work with, like in factories, or ride, like in amusement parks. Any miscalculation or slight dip in vigilance may spell a disaster. Management and security systems in organizations are usually set up, implemented and supervised by the organizational heads. It follows that accountability is mostly in their hands, and receive accolade from the public if safety is ensured and enjoyed or blame if accidents take place. This proposal considers concepts of Leadership, Safety in organizations, and best practices in safety leadership. Specifically, it focuses on the middle manager, whose leadership duties extend in all directions, from their immediate supervisors, their peers and colleagues, down to their subordinates, who are directly involved in ensuring and maintaining the safety of the organization. 1.1 Statement of the Problem and Research Questions John Maxwell (2005) believes that “Leadership is a choice you make, not a place you sit. Anyone can choose to become a leader wherever he is. You can make a difference no matter where you are” (Maxwell, 2005, p.7). This means that leadership is not limited to one’s position in the organization. Middle managers find themselves in the challenging situation of being constrained by top level policies and strategies, and translating these into specific tasks and targets that production teams are able to actualize into concrete solutions and outcomes that meet quality standards. Aside from these formal duties, the more diffuse responsibilities for maintaining good interpersonal relationships, worker motivation and inspiration, safety assurance and contingency response are likewise incumbent upon the middle manager and his subordinate staff. With these considerations in mind the question this research aims to answer is: “How may effective safety leadership be enhanced in the middle management level within the context of the construction industry?” In the course of this study, the desired conclusion is sought to be arrived at by focusing discussions on the following research questions: 1.1.1 What are the tasks expected to be accomplished by middle managers in the construction industry? 1.1.2 What competencies are expected to be possessed by middle managers in the construction industry? 1.1.3 What problems are encountered by construction middle managers in the course of accomplishing their duties? 1.1.4 What are the hazards and risks faced by middle managers and their work teams? 1.1.5 How are these hazards and risks avoided or eliminated? 1.1.6 In the event of accidents or similar incidents, how does management respond to mitigate their effects? 1.1.7 What are the concerns of middle managers in dealing with the following, and how do they address these concerns? 1.1.7.1 workers whom they are tasked to lead 1.1.7.2 higher management in the organization 1.1.7.3 their peers in the organization and in the industry in general 1.1.7.4 customers, suppliers, and people outside the organization The first three questions are intended to shed light on the nature of the middle manager’s job in the construction industry. The next three questions explore the safety issues middle managers deal with, and how they deal with them also within the context of the organization. The final question and its components are meant to discern the concerns confronting middle managers as leaders in an organizational context, and how they address these concerns. 1.2 Aims of the study Upon its successful conclusion, this study aspires to attain the following aims: 1.2.1 To highlight the importance of leadership in organizations, especially, the role of middle managers, so as to empower middle managers to take their leadership role more seriously, since the whole organization depends on them; 1.2.2 To discuss how safety is managed in organizations, including best safety practices; 1.2.3 To inspire safety leaders to gain insights from the leadership models presented, and the effective practices of successful leaders before them; 1.2.4 To contribute in making organizations and companies more secure and safe, putting the welfare of its members as utmost priority. 1.3 Significance of the Study Leaders are very busy individuals who constantly make decisions and do never-ending tasks on the job. It is necessary for them to stop once in a while to evaluate the effectiveness of their performance, and if they maintain the traits that have made them leaders in the first place. This study gives a thorough review of the literature on effective leadership models and characteristics needed to make the organizations run more smoothly towards success. Leaders current and in future will find this study relevant in their practice, specifically those involved in safety management. It will also make them introspect to evaluate where they are in their leadership journey, and if they are indeed successful in influencing others and making a difference in terms of their leadership. 2. Review of Literature 2.1 Leadership 2.1.1 Leadership definition and leadership traits Clark (2008) defines leadership as follows: “Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills” (Clark, 2008, para.3). Leithwood & Riehl (2003) posit that a good leader has a clear vision of where he/she is going and sets directions to others towards that vision. He collaborates with other people on ways and means to reach their goals and not focus the authority on himself. In doing so, he empowers them to be confident in their abilities and motivates them to welcome challenges and opportunities. Because of his positive influence, he gains the respect of everyone to follow his lead while pursuing a common mission for the growth and development of the organization. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), people seek several traits in a leader they can follow willingly. They have developed a model for effective leadership called Five Leadership Practices. (1) Leaders challenge the established process in search for opportunities to change and grow, taking calculated risks and learn from their mistakes. (2) They inspire a shared vision with their followers, and attract more people to share such a vision by appealing to their values, interests, and aspirations. (3) Leaders are also enablers, encouraging people to act on their own by providing them with the means to solve their problems. (4) Leaders set examples consistent with their common values. Finally, (5) Leaders encourage their members by fostering collaboration and confidence among them, by reposing trust in them and celebrating their accomplishments. Fullan (2004) proposed that to be an effective and successful leader, one should have (1) moral purpose, (2) an understanding of change, (3) adeptness in building relationships, (4) creation and sharing of knowledge, and (5) ability to see coherence in complexity. These five components of leadership altogether ignite energy, hope and enthusiasm in the whole institution, and invite members of the organisation to pledge their commitment to the leaders’ purpose. Fullan also suggests that a successful leader has an ability to establish harmonious relationships with diverse people and groups, especially with those different from themselves. Clark (2008) discusses a study reported by Lamb and McKee (2004) that concludes that the most important keys to effective leadership are trust and confidence as well as effective communication. Krause & Weekley (2005) identify five stable elements of personality that leaders should possess, namely: (1) emotional resilience, or the ability to deal with frustration, worry, anger and stress; (2) learning orientation, which is one’s imagination, aesthetic sense, willingness to experiment, intellectual curiosity, tolerance for diversity and values, other than their own values; (3) conscientiousness, or the sense of competence and responsibility prompted by the will to achieve; (4) collegiality or one’s agreeableness, trust, being straightforward, sympathetic and considerate of others as well as modesty and compliance with standards; and (5) extroversion is the level of positive emotions and warmth towards others, assertiveness, optimism, level of activity and tendency to seek excitement. 2.1.2 Leadership styles Bass (1990) differentiates two basic styles of influence that leaders use namely the transactional and transformational styles. The transactional style is based on an exchange that one gets for something he does while a transformational style is based on building engagement and participation, in effect, leading them to perform better altogether. Den Hartog et al (1997) contend that transformational leadership has four dimensions. Charisma is the first one, with the leader providing vision and mission while instilling pride in his followers thereby gaining respect and trust for himself. He has the ability to increase their optimism. Second come inspiration, which defines if the leader acts as a model, communicates a vision, sets high standards and uses symbols to focus efforts. Next is individual attention to each member. The leader coaches, mentors and provides feedback to each of his followers making sure they are led to the right path. Lastly, dimension of intellectual challenge gives a leader’s followers a flow of challenging new ideas aimed at rethinking old ways of doing things, challenge flawed systems and promotion of careful problem-solving behaviors. 2.1.3 John Maxwell’s 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership The following laws were developed by John Maxwell and are presented here as adapted from a summary by Campbell, as follows: (1) The law of the lid – The business will not rise above the level allowed by the leadership. (2) The law of influence – The power to influence constitutes the essence of leadership; true leaders are those who motivates the participation of others. (3) The law of process – Leadership is learned over time, by building people skills, emotional strength, vision, momentum and timing. (4) The law of navigation – An effective leader is one who has a vision, a realistic long-term goal according to which he charts the course for his followers. (5) The law of E.F.Hutton – People instinctively listen to a real leader, because he has character, is able to build key relationships, possesses information, intuition, and ability, and has the benefits of experience and past success. (6) The law of solid ground – Trust builds foundation for effective leadership, and to build trust requires competence, connection and character. (7) The law of respect – People who project a higher “leadership quotient” are those who are capable of commanding a higher level of respect. (8) The law of intuition – “Leadership bias” is the ability to intuitively see trends, resources and problems, and to read people. (9) The law of magnetism – Leaders attract people like themselves; successful leaders attract other leaders, and collectively they build a stronger organization. (10) The law of connection – Establishing a meaningful connection with others at the personal level is essential in creating a followership. (11) The law of the inner circle – A person’s leadership potential is built by those who are closest to him/her. (12) The law of empowerment – Successful leaders are secure enough in themselves to empower others and afford them the credit. (13) The law of reproduction – “It takes a leader to raise up a leader.” (Campbell, 1) (14) The law of buy-in – People tend to establish an affiliation for (i.e. “buy in” to) the leader first before his vision. When followers “buy in” to the leader but not his vision, they still maintain their affiliation with the leader and change the vision. However, even if they like the vision but dislike the leader, then they disengage from both the leader and his vision. (15) The law of victory – To win, a leader must be supported by unity of vision and diversity of skills. (16) The law of momentum – A successful leader is one who is capable of moving things forward; steering comes only after the application of motive force. (17) The law of priorities – Leadership requires the cognizance of the three R’s: (a) what the situation Requires; (b) what promises the highest Return; and (c) what fetches the greatest Reward, and directing action towards these priorities. (18) The law of sacrifice – A successful leader puts the organization and the collective welfare of his followers ahead of his own. (19) The law of timing – Leadership requires a sense knowing the right time to act to create the greatest effect or attain the best result. (20) The law of explosive growth – A leader builds other leaders, because consistent growth is attained only through sustained and renewable leadership. (21) The law of legacy – “A leader’s lasting value is measured by succession” (Campbell, 1) – that is, a good leader passes on his or her leadership abilities to potential successors for the sake of continuity. 2.1.4 Leadership culture in the construction industry There are a number of leadership frameworks that are associated in academic literature to successful middle management in the construction industry. One is the concept of lean leadership, visually depicted in the diagram that follows: Lean leadership in the construction industry (Orr, 348) Lean leadership represents a radical reversal of how leadership is viewed in the traditional organization. Traditional leadership adopts the upright triangle structure that emphasizes on the management hierarchy as channel for disseminating orders. Lean leadership, on the other hand, stresses the reverse triangle framework where the trades person (i.e., rank and file) assume the highest importance, and the reverse management hierarchy exists to provide support to the frontline effort. A set of practices that specifically apply to the construction industry were outlined by Orr (348), citing Denison. They consist of nine leadership behaviors, as follows: (1) Teaches and engages work groups – An example of this is habitual site visits by leaders to engage with site workgroups, the fundamental aim of which is to maintain face-to-face interaction and communication. (2) Respect for people – This behavior is manifested through two-way communication between leader and workers, focusing mutual trust and respect. (3) Process focus – Addressing problems are directed at the process first, not the people. (4) Support and recognition – A clear escalation process is useful to inspire confidence and show workers that leaders value their work. (5) Leadership commitment (lead by example) – Practices the “Go, Look, See” philosophy, where the leader witnesses actual evidence of the occurrence of the problem by his physical presence at the site. (6) Deploy policy objectives – This involves the judicious use of master schedules, located at a visible place at the worksite and easily interpreted by the personnel, rather than in a computer or at the office away from view. (7) Commitment to standards – Standards and delimitations should be set to define normal from abnormal conditions, and visual controls should be developed to monitor these standards. (8) Understand lean vision and principles – This involves continually challenging current practice if such are according to the lean principles of support from management for frontline activities. (9) Support the change process – Leaders should take an active part in implementing the change process by eliminating barriers to change and facilitating the acceptance of change by his followers by engendering greater confidence. It is evident that many of the above practices fall within one or several of John Maxwell’s 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. For example, the first behavior – teaches and engages work groups – complies with both the law of reproduction and the law of legacy (laws 13 and 21, respectively) under Maxwell’s teachings. Respect for people, the second behavior under lean management, abides by the law of respect of Maxwell (law 7), and the third behavior, process focus, aligns with the law 3, the law of process; and so forth. For this reason, the set of behaviors developed by Orr may be taken to be a subset of Maxwell’s irrefutable laws, which is tailored to the practices in the construction industry, and is therefore more specifically aligned to this study. 2.2 Safety In 2007 and 2008, the UK’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA) conducted visits to 26 companies implementing Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations (COMAH) (Elliot, 2009). The visits were meant to find out which safety management and leadership practices were in place, and which ones were most effective. It was found that organizational leaders (CEO’s and directors) do not need technical knowledge in safety leadership if they are open to advise and feedback from highly competent senior managers and experts including Safety Health and Environment (SHE) managers. Very few companies had made significant progress in developing leading process safety performance indicators (PSPIs) despite the combined guidance from the CIA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (Elliot, 2009). 2.3 Safety Leadership Practices Elliot (2009) reports the recommendations of the CIA based on the results of the company visits. Six key elements were identified by the CIA as essential to excellence in the safety leadership process, the first being that responsibility for process safety must be assigned specifically at the board level of the company. Safety must therefore be prioritized by the leadership of the organization in order to be most effective. The CIA also recommends companies to come up with process safety performance indicators so that the effectiveness of preventive control measures (leading indicators) as well as the reporting of incidents of failures (lagging indicators) are monitored (Elliot, 2009). A process safety improvement plan which includes periodic reviews of safety management systems, advise from respective departments concerned, maintenance and inspection teams, Hazard and Operational (HAZOP) reviews, risk assessments and changes in safety and environmental control standards, is likewise recommended (Elliot, 2009). Major hazard process safety controls in the form of cross-reviewing of incidents from other sectors is an advantage, such as the Process Safety Leadership Group where major hazard industries meet with regulators and trade unions to formulate and agree on standards (Elliot, 2009). 2.3.1 Safety challenges to middle managers Carillo (2005) discusses that there are always paradoxes or polarities that safety leaders need to manage. These are sets of opposites appearing to be in conflict, but both needing attention in order to achieve success. Examples are “cost effectiveness” versus “preventive maintenance” or “planning” versus getting the work done”. Leaders cannot focus exclusively on one and neglect the other or else negative consequences will arise. Paradoxes can defeat safety efforts at the first mistake when these are not handled by the leader in a constructive manner. However, when leaders are prepared to manage polarities, a misstep can become their opportunity to build credibility and trust. A usual polarity situation involves stability versus change, such as job security versus manpower cost-cutting. A leader must be aware of the perceived polarities and implement strategies dealing with the demotivating implications of adverse events. Effective strategies include leaders openly communicating with the workers about changed plans and involving them in identifying potential solutions. The following questions can be asked by leaders of their members regarding the polarized issues: 1) I care about you. What are your concerns or suggestions for safety or work improvements? How can you help to implement them? 2) We have to face reality. What are your concerns about the new discipline and budget controls? Do you understand what they are and how they will affect us? 3) What do you see for yourself? What are your aspirations? How can I help? 4) Address performance: How am I doing in keeping my commitments? How are you doing? (Koestenbaum, 1991) 2.3.2 Safety Leadership in Construction Cooper (A18) conducted a quasi-experimental study among a multinational force of 47,000 construction employees, involving fourteen sub-contractors and one principal contractor. The aim of the study was to determine what role managerial safety leadership behaviors played in the success of behavioral safety intervention in the construction workplace. Metrics involved managerial safety leadership, employee safety behaviors, and corrective actions, and their collective effect upon the recordable incidents of lost-time injuries. The results of the study showed that employee safety behavior improved from a baseline reading of 65 per cent to an average resultant of 95 per cent, for an increase of 30 percentage points. Of this improvement, multiple regression analysis attributed 86 per cent of the improvement in employee behavior directly to safety leadership behaviors and corrective action rates among the senior, middle and front-line managers. Other studies have focused on the potential of leadership as an enabler of safety, security and health and welfare awareness in the organization. This is the position espoused by Pungvongsanuraks and Chinda, who contended in their study that leadership could take a proactive rather than a reactive stance in safety observance. Leadership attributes in this regard include five aspects: commitment to a safety culture program; employment of a consultative style of management simultaneously engendering safety performance and high productivity; helping to provide encouragement to all members of the company to imbibe a safety culture in the workplace; embodying the image of a role model for others to emulate and give force and credibility to their pronouncements; and practicing safety accountability by allocating safety responsibilities during the project organization phase, in order to develop a positive safety culture throughout the line of command from senior staff to team members (Pungvongsanuraks and Chinda 179). There is a stark distinction between being a leader, and being a manager, even in the context of safety observance and assurance in the construction workplace. As much has been determined by Omran, Mahmood and Hussin, in their study on the Malaysian manager and how leadership distinguished poor management from effective management. Functional and behavioral leadership competencies, much as had been previously discussed in this section, were present in the effective manager and were lacking in the ineffective manager. Aside from this, however, intraprofessional knowledge of business competencies further enhances the leadership qualities of otherwise already technically proficient managers (Omar, Mahmood & Hussin 335). Espoused by the leadership frameworks earlier discussed (Maxwell’s laws, lean leadership) is the need for training and developing future leaders so that a sustainable safety leadership culture is established in the organization. Riley, Horman and Messner particularly underscore the special challenges posed upon the construction engineering and management professional. The type of environment these professionals function in is complex and demanding; there is a constant need to adapt as teams are rapidly formed to address the demands of particular projects, and collaboration is necessary between members of the organization and parties external to it. The professional traits necessary to instill in future leaders in the construction industry include accountability, initiative, outcome-orientedness, problem solving proficiency, diplomacy, and a collaborative attitude (Riley, Horman & Messner 149). The same traits acquired in training must be supported by the organizational culture, particularly where they impact on safety management in the field. The theories on safety leadership in organization must find expression in practical application. This is what the following diagram seeks to concretize. Source: A Practical Guide to Safety Leadership by Biggs, Dingsdag and Roos. Australian Government and CRC Construction Innovation, 2008, p. 1 The flowchart shown provides the stages in the procedure that a construction firm would undergo in the process of establishing a safety leadership culture in the organization. The key innovation introduced in this framework is the construction of the task and position competency matrix for the particular organization. This stage aligns the tasks needed to be done, as identified in the establishment of a leadership culture, and the competencies that are needed for the tasks to be accomplished. Misalignment between present competencies and the required competencies to accomplish the tasks sets out the training needs and competencies acquisition requirements of the firm, without which the subsequent planning and implementation, no matter how well done, would fail. The process of identifying tasks and competencies has been adapted by this dissertation in the construction of the survey questionnaire, in order to determine the construction middle managers’ perceived needs in safety leadership. 2.4 Leading from the Middle of the Organization Maxwell (2005) claims that ninety-nine percent of all leadership occurs not from the top but from the middle of the organization. Maxwell advocates 360-degree leadership, i.e., leading in all directions: up (leading their superiors and their superiors’ peers); across (leading their peers) and down (leading their subordinates and their peers’ subordinates). This is embodied in the diagram following showing Maxwell’s “staircase of leadership”. Figure 2: Maxwell’s Five Levels of Leadership (Source?) The lowest level conveys the least positional authority. In the second level, Permission, the aspiring leaders invest time and effort in relating to others, treating subordinates with dignity and respect and gaining trust, such that they are “given permission” to lead. The third level, Production, the accomplished leaders exert influence over their subordinates by virtue of their achievements. People follow these leaders because they are seen as effective in leading them to success. The fourth level, People Development, entails mentoring to others, thereby producing new leaders for the organization. The top level of the staircase is Personhood; this is not aspired for, but accorded by others due to the leader’s perceived excellence in leading them throughout the first four levels. Only the most accomplished leaders who have earned the reputation of a level-five leader deserve to be there (Maxwell, 2005). If a manager has a high level of transformational leadership, he or she is not dependent on his supervisors to prompt him into placing a high priority on safety. A transformational leader instinctively values the well-being of his subordinates (Avolio, 1999), for initiating preventive action to enhance safety outcomes (Barling et al, 2002). The leader’s formal authority must be supported by meaningful action within his or her sphere of influence. Transformational leaders consistently talk and listen to their subordinates and take action about safety. This is one factor that lowers injury rates (Zohar, 2000) 2.5 Conceptual Framework for this Study The foregoing theories on the organizational role of middle management, lean leadership and safety leadership in the organizational setting have been incorporated in the conceptual framework that serves as the paradigm of this study. This paradigm is presented in diagram form as follows: Conceptual Framework of the Dissertation - Original by Author In the framework, the organization is depicted in its reverse triangle form, with the safety needs determined by the front line personnel at the construction site. This is communicated with top management through middle management. Top management thereafter provides the safety strategies and policies through a set of organizational processes that are implemented by middle management at the construction site. To fulfill this role, requisite tasks and competencies for establishing a sustainable safety leadership system prompt the infusion of leadership traits and practices to support this system. The conceptual framework informs the research design and strategy for this dissertation, and guides the construction of the survey questionnaire and the interview questions for the gathering of primary perception data in the field. 3. Methodology The use of multiple data-collection methods contributes to the trustworthiness of the data. This practice of relying on multiple methods is called “triangulation,” a term taken from surveying and navigation. The purpose of triangulation is not “the simple combination of different kinds of data, but the attempt to relate them so as to counteract the threats to validity identified in each” (Berg, 1995). Although multiple data collection method is the most common form of triangulation in qualitative research, triangulation in order to increase confidence in research findings may also involve the incorporation of multiple kinds of data sources and multiple theoretical perspectives (Denzin, 1988). Going beyond the surface in the review of literature, this study will probe the issue of safety leadership in middle management of various organizations. The methodology will seek to get the insights of various leaders from different organizations. It inquires as to how they perceive their leadership affects their followers as well as their superiors. 3.1 Qualitative Research Qualitative research is any kind of investigation that produces information not by means of statistical procedures or any other means of quantification (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Quantitative researchers determine the causes of some events, and predict and generalize their findings while qualitative researchers search for enlightenment and understanding. Therefore, different types of knowledge and information are derived from qualitative analysis and quantitative inquiry. Qualitative research uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. In contrast, quantitative methods are, in general, supported by the positivists’ paradigm, which characterizes that the world is made up of observable and measurable facts. Positivists assume that a fixed measurable reality exists external to people (Glesne, 1999). On the other hand, qualitative methods are generally supported by the interpretivist (also referred to as constructivist) who portrays the world in which reality is socially constructed, complex, and ever changing. Each represents a fundamentally different inquiry paradigm and researcher actions are based on the underlying assumptions of each paradigm. Strauss and Corbin, (1990) states that qualitative research, is any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification. Quantitative researchers seek causal determination, prediction, and generalization of findings; while qualitative researchers seek instead illumination, and understanding to similar situations. Therefore, qualitative analysis results in a different type of knowledge than does quantitative inquiry. Glesne (1999) states that qualitative researchers seek out a variety of perspectives; they do not reduce the multiple interpretations to a norm. She adds that in qualitative research, face-to-face interactions are the predominant distinctive feature and also the basis for its most common problem. Such problem she states include researchers’ involvement with the people they study and the accompanying challenges, and opportunities that such closeness brings. Straus and Corbin (1990) claim that qualitative methods can be used to better understand any phenomenon about which little is yet known. They can also be used to gain new perspectives on things about which much is already known, or to gain more in-depth information that may be difficult to convey quantitatively, or where the researcher has determined that quantitative measures cannot adequately describe or interpret a situation. 3.2 Questionnaire The use of questionnaires as a means of collecting data has been selected as one of the methods for gathering data for this particular research. Campbell, et al (2004) describe questionnaires as: “…a very versatile data-gathering method; they are cheap, easy to administer, whether it be to three people or 300, and can be used to gather a great variety of data of both quantitative and qualitative nature.” (Campbell et al, 2004, p. 146). Cohen et al (2000) praise the fact that questionnaires allow an efficient use of the researcher’s time, as they can collect a significant amount of information in one attempt, rather than conducting interviews over a longer period. Gillham (2000) also highlights that questionnaires make efficient use of the respondent’s time, as they can complete the questionnaire at a time that is suitable to them and does not require the researcher and respondent to match free periods of time to conduct the research. Cohen et al (2000) and Gillham (2000) emphasize the usefulness of questionnaires for ensuring the participants anonymity, which in this study, may be requested due to its very sensitive and controversial nature. If the respondents cannot be identified, they may be more willing to write about issues and opinions more openly than they would in a face-to-face situation. It could be argued then that questionnaires are therefore most likely to generate more truthful answers as there is no personal contact with the interviewer. However, a disadvantage of using questionnaires is that the only data collected is a variety of tick boxes and brief responses, which means the data tends to have more ‘breadth’ than ‘depth’. This results from the lack of an interviewer to prompt for further information or more detail in their answers and they cannot interpret questions for the participant who is unclear about what is being asked. This may result in each participant having to decipher what they are being asked independently and may resort to their own subjective understanding of the questions. To resolve that, more probing open-ended questions may be added along with a face-to face interview, if possible. For the survey questionnaire to be administered in this study, the following are the questions intended to be deployed to respondents: Table 1: Perceived Importance of Safety Duties of Middle Manager Rate the importance of each duty of a middle manager in your construction company Level of importance   Not Low Impt High Very Planning the safety program for the project           Organizing the emergency response teams           Staffing the right person for the job           Monitoring and directing the safety program           Controlling for errors and excesses           Others (specify)           Table 2: Perceived level of safety competencies of middle managers Rate the level of the following competencies of the middle managers in your construction company Level of competence   Not Low Comp High Very Safety program project planning and scheduling           Forecasting contingencies           People skills / interpersonal relationships           On-site execution and inspection           Translation of safety strategies to operational objectives           Others (specify)           Table 3: Perceived severity of problems of middle managers Rate the severity of the problems encountered by middle managers in your construction company Level of severity   Not Low Severe High Very Complying with government and institutional safety regulations           Accommodating clients' revisions without compromising safety           Controlling for unforeseen costs and delays in implementation           Dealing with actual accidents and contingencies           Dealing with worker reluctance or refusal to conform           Others (specify)           Table 4: Perceived prevalence of hazards and risks Rate the presence of hazards and risks faced by middle managers and their work teams in your company Level of prevalence   Not Low Prev High Very Improper use by subordinates of protective equipment           Persistence of workers to engage in risky practices           Error in implementing safety standards in implementation           Acts of God and uncontrollable forces (i.e. floods)           Danger to pedestrians and outsiders           Others (specify)           Table 5: Perceived adequacy of measures taken by company to avoid risks Rate the adequacy of the following measures taken by your company to avoid or eliminate risks and hazards Level of adequacy   Not Low Adeq High Very Providing safety manual detailing safety SOPs           Regular ocular inspection of construction site           Training workers for hazard identification & removal           Third party assessment of safety installations           Identification & neutralization of hazards and risks           Others (specify)           Table 6: Perceived adequacy of measures taken by company to mitigate emergencies Rate the adequacy of the following measures taken by your company to address accidents and emergencies Level of adequacy   Not Low Adeq High Very Provision /maintenance of sufficient safety equipment           Safety and contingency training for all personnel           Organizing of contingency teams for emergencies           Posting notices detailing SOPs in case of emergencies           Coordinating with local authorities and emergency agencies           Others (specify)           Table 7: Perceived level of importance of interpersonal concerns of middle managers Rate the importance of the following interpersonal concerns of middle managers in your company Level of importance   Not Low Impt High Very Communicating with members of the team           Giving orders and assignments to team members           Receiving negative feedback from subordinates           Correcting negative behavior among subordinates           Being friends with subordinates           Communicating with peers in the organization           Coordinating workloads with peers in other teams           Calling the attention of peers to their teams' mistakes           Receiving negative feedback from peers           Striking a friendship with peers           Communicating with higher management           Accomplishing targets given by higher management           Receiving negative comments from higher management           Providing negative feedback to higher management           Cultivating personal friendships with higher management           Communicating with clients/suppliers           Coordinating order specifications with clients/suppliers           Receiving negative feedback from clients/suppliers           Communicating negative information to clients/suppliers           Maintaining good personal relations with clients/suppliers           Table 8: Perceived ratings of leadership behavior of middle managers in the company     Rating (0 - min, 5 - max)   Leadership Behavior 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 Teaches and engages work groups             2 Respect for people             3 Process focus             4 Support and recognition             5 Leadership commitment (lead by example)             6 Deploy policy objectives             7 Commitment to standards             8 Understand lean vision and principles             9 Support the change process             Table 9: Perceived ratings of organizational safety processes undertaken by the company     Rating   Organizational Safety Processes 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 Accident investigation             2 Benchmarking             3 Job clarity             4 Housekeeping             5 Feedback             6 Risk assessment             7 Safety data collection             8 Training             The foregoing questionnaire is intended to be administered to two groups of respondents, the first consisting of middle managers in construction firms, and the second composed of trades persons comprising the rank and file and foremen reporting to the middle manager, who shall be ask to respond to an appropriately adapted version of the survey items. 3.3 Interviews and Focus Group Discussions Interviews enable participants to be able to discuss their point of view with regard to certain questions and situations.  (Cohen et al, 2000). The interview method involves questioning one person or a focus group discussion of issues with more people.  Data which may not be accessible through observation or questionnaires, would be provided for in interviews (Blaxter et al, 2006). Robson (2002) posits that the interview is a flexible and adaptable research tool.  The possibility of following up on interesting responses is greater in face-to- face or phone interviews. Frey and Mertens-Oishi (1995) comment how respondent participation can be enhanced by the interviewer by sensitively guiding the questioning, and being able to answer any question which the respondent may ask.  Oppenheim (1992) suggests that the response rate is higher in interviews than in questionnaires, due to the fact that participants become more involved. However, there are also disadvantages to using interviews as a research tool.  Robson (2002) mentions the fact that the whole interview process can be time consuming because it entails the following: making arrangements regarding permission and schedule; the actual interview itself; the writing up of notes; transcription of the interview; coding of themes that surface, etc.  A major disadvantage in any interview situation is the possibility of bias.  (Grinnell, R.M., Jr & Unrau, Y.A. Eds, 2008) The interviewer may unwittingly divulge their own opinion or expectations by their tone of voice, or in the way questions are asked.  Even when recording the interview it is important to remain aware of bias having an effect on how answers are understood and transcribed. However, these methods are a quick way to assess participant’s knowledge of the topic involved. Although participants may not always respond truthfully, honesty will need to be emphasized. For this study, a selected group of safety leaders will be asked to convene for a focus group interview on safety leadership issues related to the questionnaires they have just filled out. The following set of guide questions are intended to be asked of the interviewees during the individual or focus group interview phase in this study: (1) Describe your idea of safety in the construction industry. Is it the absence of accidents or untoward events? Is it the provision of safety precautions? (2) What factors are important in ensuring safety in the construction site? Do these exclusively involve the site activities? Do these involve management functions higher in the organization? (3) What problems are encountered by middle managers in construction? What do you think are the causes or sources of these problems? How may they be resolved? (4) Do you think the proper support is being afforded middle managers in instilling safety in the construction site? Should this support / what type of support should come from top management? The front line (skilled trades people and first line supervisors)? The government? Clients and suppliers? The community? (5) Are there processes that could be undertaken before any accident or crisis has occurred? Does your company undertake these processes on a regular basis? Do construction companies undertake these processes as a rule? (6) Does your company associate with other organizations or construction companies on the standardization and application of safety measures for the construction industry in particular? (7) Have there been past incidences of accidents or crises at the worksite? Were these incidences preventable or not? How did the company cope with the situation then? What changes has the company adopted as a result of these incidences? (8) As a middle manager, what innovations or measures do you think your company could adopt in order to enhance safety in your company? (9) As a safety leader, how do you think you or your peers could personally improve in order to better meet future contingencies? How could your company support you in realizing these improvements? (10) Are there any other comments and recommendations you would like to make on safety leadership in the construction industry? 3.4 Procedure Self-evaluation questionnaires on safety leadership will be disseminated among middle management organizational leaders, comprised of project managers and site managers. These are meant to help them assess their own performance as safety leaders. Corresponding questionnaires will also be distributed among trades people and first-line supervisors reporting to the middle managers. This is to provide a counterpoint view for the purpose of drawing comparisons between organizational perspectives, and thereby arrive at insights towards improving middle management capabilities in the construction industry. After validation procedure, the questionnaires will be mailed (by post or by email) to different companies, schools and other organizations, addressing middle management to participate in the study. Among the respondents, seven to ten leaders will be randomly selected based on their availability for a focus group discussion. On an agreed schedule, the research will conduct a focus group interview with the set of leaders to discuss safety leadership practices. The interview will be based on the questionnaires they have filled out, and some open-ended questions on issues that may arise from the discussions. The participants’ responses in both the questionnaires and focus group interview shall be analyzed thoroughly. Qualitative data will be coded and sorted into specific categories. This will be done by independent and objective coders hired by the researcher. Data is classified according to whatever themes that may prevail in the interviews. For example, some answers may pertain to a common theme like positive qualities of effective leaders or attitudes and behaviors of followers towards their brand of leadership. These shall be analyzed with the backdrop of information yielded from the review of literature. 4. Research timetable Task Description Output Duration Dates 1 Library & online search Theoretical basis 1 week Sept 15 to Sept 22 2 Company visit / observation Qualitative data 2 weeks 3 Validation of survey questionnaire Validated questionnaire 3 days 4 Administration of survey & interview Raw quantitative & qualitative data 2 weeks 5 Collation of survey & interview data Statistical inferences and qualitative findings 1 week 6 Writing of the dissertation proper First draft 4 weeks 7 Consultation of first draft Comments from supervisor 1 day 8 Revision of first draft Completed draft 4 weeks 9 Presentation of completed draft 5. Preliminary bibliography Bayraktar, M.E. & Owens, C.R. “LEED Implementation Guide for Construction Practitioners.” Journal of Architectural Engineering. September 1, 2010, 16(3):85-93 Biggs, H.C.; Dingsdag, D.P.; & Roos, C.R. A Practical Guide to Safety Leadership: Implementing a Construction Safety Competency Framework. Brisbane: Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations, Australian Government & Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, 2008. Bossink, B.A.G. “Leadership for Sustainable Innovation.” International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development. 2007, 6(2):135-149 Campbell, P. “Executive Summary: ‘The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership’ – John Maxwell” Perspective. Accessed 26 September 2011 from http://perspective.org.au/book/202/executive-summary-the-21-irrefutable-laws-of-leadership----john-maxwell Cooper, D. “Safety Leadership: Application in Construction Site.” Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia. 2010, 32(1):A18-A23 Crates, E. “Construction Seeks Leaders.” Contract Journal, 4/8/2009, 446(6718) Dossick, C.S. & Neff, G. “Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial Construction.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. April 1, 2010, 136(4):459-467 Menches, C.L. & Abraham, D.M. “Women in Construction – Tapping the Untapped Resource to Meet Future Demands.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Sept.1, 2007, 133(9):701-707 Omran, A.; Mahmood, A.; & Hussin, A.A. “Leadership: How to be an Effective Manager.” Journal of Academic Research in Economics. December 2009, 1(3):335-347 Orr, C. “Lean Leadership in Construction”. Management of People and Teams. July 2005:345-351 Ozorovskaja, R.; Voordijk, J.T.; & Wilderom, C.P.M. “Leadership and Cultures of Lithuanian and Dutch Construction Firms.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. November 2007, 133(11):900-911 Pungvongsanuraks, P.& Chinda, T. “Investigation of Safety Perceptions of Management and Workers in Thai Construction Industry.” Suranaree Journal of Science & Technology, 6 June 2010 17(2):177-191 Riley, D.R.; Horman, M.J.; & Messner, J.I. “Embedding Leadership Development in Construction Engineering and Management Education.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. April 2008:143-151 Skipper, C.O. & Bell, L.C. “Assessment with 360-degree Evaluations of Leadership Behavior in Construction Project Managers.” Journal of Management in Engineering. April 2006, 22(2):75-80 Skipper, C.O. & Bell, L.C. “Influences Impacting Leadership Development.” Journal of Management in Engineering. April 2006, 22(2):68-74 Toor, S.R. & Ofori, G. “Developing Construction Professionals of the 21st Century: Renewed Vision for Leadership.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. July 2008, 134(3):279 Read More