Jeschke, K N; Waldorff, S B; Dyreborg, J; Kines, P and Ajslev, J Z N (2021) Complaining about occupational safety and health: A barrier for collaboration between managers and workers on construction sites. Construction Management and Economics, 39(6), pp. 459-474. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Collaborative safety practices between construction site managers and workers are considered essential in occupational safety and health (OSH). However, establishing joint OSH engagement between managers and workers is still a challenge. Little is known about how managers and workers' “complaining” about OSH affects collective OSH action and the quality of manager-worker relations. Drawing on an understanding of complaining as “boundary work”, this study empirically analyses how managers and workers' verbalisations either downplay (collaboration) or build (demarcation) boundaries. Interviews and observations between managers and workers were carried out on a construction project in Denmark to identify why and how complaining is used. A typology consisting of four “complaining” mechanisms was developed, highlighting their associated relational dynamics: (1) Shifting responsibility for advancing OSH, (2) Defending oneself against strained working conditions, (3) Dealing strategically with criticism, and (4) Blaming other occupational groups. Complaining about OSH as boundary work–both collaboration and demarcation–between managers and workers furthers professional fragmentation and conflicts OSH collaboration, yet it occurs in a “safe space” for professional disagreement. We suggest that these communicational aspects and associated relational dynamics should be an area of increased focus in order to promote managers and workers' OSH collaboration.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | boundary work; manager-worker relation; mechanisms; negotiation; typology |
| Index terms: | occupational safety and health, dynamics, negotiation, working conditions, construction project, collaboration, boundaries, Denmark, manager, interview, fragmentation, drawing, construction site |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, conflict resolution, occupational health and safety management, Geography, production management, employment law, management, property law, technical documentation, work location, practitioner, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here