UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

(En)gendering safety : masculinity, risk, and safety social capital in male dominated occupations Hollingdale, Hazel Elaine 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2012_fall_hollingdale_hazel.pdf [ 451.62kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0073329.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073329-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073329-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073329-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073329-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073329-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073329-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0073329-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0073329.ris

Full Text

!  !  ! !  !(EN)GENDERING!SAFETY:!! MASCULINITY,!RISK,!AND!SAFETY!SOCIAL!CAPITAL!! IN!MALE!DOMINATED!OCCUPATIONS! ! by!! Hazel!Elaine!Hollingdale! B.A.!(Hons.),!The!University!of!British!Columbia,!2010! ! A!THESIS!SUBMITTED!IN!PARTIAL!FULFILLMENT!OF!! THE!REQUIREMENTS!FOR!THE!DEGREE!OF! ! MASTER!OF!ARTS! in! The!Faculty!of!Graduate!Studies! (Sociology)! ! THE!UNIVERSITY!OF!BRITISH!COLUMBIA! (Vancouver)! October!2012! ! ©!Hazel!Elaine!Hollingdale,!2012!  !  !  Abstract(  ! High!hazard!work!sectors!are!often!maleUdominated,!and!can!have!occupational! cultures!that!impede!following!safety!regulations.!!Many!of!these!sectors,!such!as!the! skilled!trades,!have!cultures!that!align!with!conventional!masculine!norms.!!The! existing!literature!suggests!that!workers!in!these!fields!often!experience!safety! compliance!measures!as!conflicting!with!this!normative!culture,!and!this!can!lead!to! increased!risk!taking.!It!has!also!been!found!that!organizational!attitudes!towards! safety!in!the!workplace!individualize!these!issues,!rather!than!considering!a! widespread!lack!of!compliance!as!a!symptom!of!underlying!social!issues.!!This! research!project!used!a!case!study!approach!to!evaluate!risk!taking!and! organizational!approaches!to!safety!at!the!maleUdominated!organization,!WestTech.! Using!both!quantitative!and!qualitative!accident!reports,!I!found!that!risk!taking!and! accidents!vary!by!occupational!sector;!however,!this!was!not!addressed!in! WestTech's!conclusions!or!safety!recommendations.!The!relatively!new!accident! investigation!model,!“Curtailing!Accidents!by!Managing!Social!Capital”!(CAMSoc),!is! discussed!and!employed!to!evaluate!how!the!inclusion!of!social!factors!can!help!to! better!scrutinize!the!role!of!these!underlying!issues!and!how!they!contribute!to! negative!safety!outcomes.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! ii!  Preface(  This!research!project!was!granted!approval!by!the!University!of!British!Columbia’s! Behavioural!Research!Ethics!Board!(Ethics!Certificate!Identification!Number:!H11U 01983).!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! iii!  Table(of(Contents( Abstract!.......................................................................................................................................!ii! Preface!.......................................................................................................................................!iii! List!of!Tables!.............................................................................................................................!v! Acknowledgements!................................................................................................................!vi! Dedication!...............................................................................................................................!vii! 1!!!!!INTRODUCTION!.................................................................................................................!1! 1.1! 1.2! 1.3! ! 1.4! 1.5! !  Approaches!to!Managing!Occupational!Health!&!Safety!...........................................!2! The!Call!for!an!Integrative!Approach!to!Organizational!Safety!.............................!5! Theory!into!Practice!–!What!Does!an!Integrative!Approach!to!Safety!Look! Like?!..........................................................................................................!…………………………6! An!Integrative!Approach!to!Managing!Safety:!Safety!Social!Capital!.....................!7! !(En)Gendering!Safety:!The!Case!for!the!Inclusion!of!Gender!in!OSH!Policy!&!!!! Practice!...................................................................................................................................!12!  2!!!!!METHODS!.........................................................................................................................!19! 2.1! 2.2! 2.3! 2.4! 2.5!  Data!..........................................................................................................................................!19! Dependent!Variables!..........................................................................................................!21! Independent!Variables!......................................................................................................!24! Limitations!.............................................................................................................................!27! Root!Cause!Reports!and!Accident!Database!...............................................................!27!  3!!!!!RESULTS!............................................................................................................................!30! 3.1! Risk`Severity!Composite!...................................................................................................!32! 3.2! Logistic!Regression!Models!..............................................................................................!34! 3.3! Document!Analyses!–!Root!Cause!Reports!..................................................................!37!  4!!!!!DISCUSSION!.....................................................................................................................!49! 4.1! The!Role!of!Risk!Taking!and!Rule!Violation!in!Overrepresentation!..................!49! 4.2! Towards!Safety!Social!Capital!and!Creating!High!Reliability!Organizations!...!56!  5!!!!!CONCLUSION!....................................................................................................................!60! Works!Cited!............................................................................................................................!62! !  ( ! ! ! ! ! !  ! iv!  List%of%Tables% Table&1&&  Risk,Severity&Composite&Coding&Scheme&............................................&22&  Table&2&& & &  Descriptive&Statistics:&Occupational&Groups&and&Risk,Severity;&& Risk;&Severity&Measurements&.................................................................&31&  Table&3&& & &  Coefficients&from&the&Regression&of&Risk,Severity&Outcome&on&& &Independent&Variables&.............................................................................&32&  Table&4& & &  &Coefficients&and&Odds&Ratios&from&the&Regression&of&Risk,& & &Severity&Dummy&Variable&on&Independent&Variables&...................&34&  Table&5&& & &  Coefficients&and&Odds&Ratios&from&the&Regression&of&Risk&Dummy&& &Variable&on&Independent&Variables&.....................................................&35&  Table&6&& & & !  Coefficients&and&Odds&Ratios&from&the&Regression&of&Severity&&& Dummy&Variable&on&Independent&Variables&.....................................&36&  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  !  v!  Acknowledgements(  I!would!like!to!thank!and!acknowledge!the!support!received!for!this!research!  from!WorkSafeBC.!!Also,!a!special!thanks!to!countless!Faculty!members!and!staff!at! the!University!of!British!Columbia,!especially!Dr.!Elizabeth!Hirsh,!as!well!as!Lisa!at! WestTech!for!all!of!the!support!along!the!way.!! I’d!like!to!express!my!gratitude!to!my!family:!!special!thanks!to!my!mum,!who! provided!me!with!a!solid!foundation!to!build!upon!and!to!Valerie,!who!spent!many! hours!proofing!and!educating!me!on!what!a!research!paper!should!look!like.!! Completing!this!work!would!also!have!been!all!the!more!difficult!if!it!were!not!for! the!support,!shared!insights,!cupcake!decorating,!and!friendship!of!Natasha!StecyU Hildebrandt.!!I!also!must!express!my!most!sincere!gratitude!to!my!partner,!David,! who!has!spent!many!long!years!acting!as!my!bouncing!board!and!my!number!one! cheerleader,!and!has!never!once!faltered!on!his!enthusiasm!or!belief!that!I!can! accomplish!my!goals.! !  I!would!also!like!to!express!my!deep!gratitude!to!two!people!who!have!  impacted!me!and!guided!me!the!most!in!my!academic!journey.!!My!deepest! gratitude!to!my!dad,!who!believed!in!my!potential!and!tried!his!best!to!make!me!see! it!too:!although!you!aren’t!here!to!see!the!culmination!of!these!efforts,!I!am!forever! grateful!for!them.!!Lastly,!I!would!like!to!thank!my!advisor,!Dr.!Carrie!Yodanis,!for! her!patience,!guidance,!advice,!and!endless!encouragement:!I!know!that!without!the! belief!and!time!that!you!have!invested!in!me,!I!would!not!have!gotten!to!where!I!am.!! ! !  ! vi!  Dedication(  To#my#dad…and#anyone#who#has#thought#better#than#to#be#daunted#by#seemingly# insurmountable#obstacles.### ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! vii!  1(  INTRODUCTION(  Male!dominated,!hazardous!occupations!often!have!organizational!cultures!  that!provide!social!and!monetary!benefits!to!those!who!adhere!to!the!conventional! male!gender!role!(Paap,!2006).!!Men!in!maleUdominated!sectors!continue!to!sustain! the!majority!of!occupational!injuries!and!fatalities!in!Canada!(ILO!Laborsa! Occupational!Injury!Statistics,!2010).!!The!conventional!male!gender!role!includes! displays!of!riskUtaking,!physicality,!selfUreliance,!self!assurance,!and!autonomy:!all!of! which!can!conflict!with!complying!with!occupational!health!and!safety!policies! (Mullen,!2004;!Messing!et.!al,!2004;!Courtney,!2000;!Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!! Previous!work!that!has!examined!the!impact!of!gender!on!occupational!health!and! safety!has!suggested!that!maleUdominated!industries,!such!as!construction!or!the! skilled!trades,!must!include!gender!in!the!analysis!of!workplace!safety!(Mullen,! 2004;!Messing!et.!al,!2004;!Courtney,!2000;!Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!!Much!of!the! existing!research!has!focused!on!individual!worker’s!experiences,!without! examination!of!how!gender!can!influence!the!broader!organizational!culture,!or! considering!how!organizations!can!create!more!effective!and!sustainable!safety! cultures!in!similar!sectors.!!This!research!project!examines!how!riskUtaking!and! severity!of!outcomes!vary!based!on!occupational!group,!and!investigates!the! organizational!response!and!interpretation!of!the!findings!of!inUdepth!accident! analyses.!!!!!!! ! !  ! 1!  1.1(  Approaches(to(Managing(Occupational(Health(&(Safety(  ! !  Approaches!to!managing!occupational!health!and!safety!can!be!divided!into!  two!broad!categories:!1)!those!that!use!behaviourUbased!safety!(BBS)!management! and!2)!those!that!focus!on!organizational!culture.!!These!approaches!are!usually! employed!in!a!mutually!exclusive!way,!and!are!often!thought!of!as!opposing! philosophies.!!BehaviourUbased!interventions!borrow!heavily!from!psychology,!and! employ!methods!such!as!operant!conditioning!and!behavioural!modification!(Geller,! 2001).!!Organizational!approaches!to!safety!are!informed!by!management!and! sociological!theory.!!DeJoy!argues!that!BBS!and!organizational!theories!are!best! employed!as!complementary,!rather!than!oppositional!practices,!and!that!a!more! thorough!integration!of!the!two!would!lead!to!better!occupational!safety! management.!!! !  The!basic!mechanism!of!BBS!management!is!behavior!modification.!!  Interventions!focus!on!correcting!unsafe!behaviour!by!using!behaviourUmodification! techniques,!such!as!operant!conditioning,!at!the!workerUlevel.!!Evaluation!of!unsafe! work!practices!identifies!behaviours!as!key!sites!of!intervention,!and!once!these! behaviours!are!identified,!safe!and!unsafe!behaviours!are!respectively!reinforced!or! discouraged,!by!the!employer.!!Employees!are!observed,!interventions!are!targeted! to!specific!actions,!goals!are!set!to!assess!progress,!and!feedback!is!continually! provided!(Geller,!2001;!2005).!!If!a!construction!worker!does!not!wear!safety! goggles,!a!BBS!technique!would!seek!to!modify!this!behaviour!by!providing!positive! reinforcement!when!the!goggles!are!worn,!or!some!form!of!punishment!when!they!  ! 2!  are!not!worn1.!!!Because!BBS!provides!empirical!and!objective!goals,!it!has!resulted! in!compelling!and!concrete!evidence!of!increased!compliance!with!safety! regulations.!Despite!this!evidence,!there!are!also!critiques.!!Because!BBS!relies!on! the!identification!of!specific,!unsafe!practices,!it!is!usually!an!idiographic! intervention,!which!cannot!often!be!globally!applied.!!Additionally,!because!the! responsibility!of!safety!is!placed!squarely!on!the!shoulders!of!the!workers!(Howe,! 2001),!it!can!result!in!little!attention!paid!to!macro!level!causes!and!organizational! culpability!for!unsafe!work!practices.!!Rather!than!treating!the!cause!of!the!problem,! which!is!often!the!organizational!culture!itself,!BBS!aims!to!treat!the!symptoms,! which!requires!ongoing!reinforcement!to!create!lasting!effects.!!Unsafe!behaviour!at! the!worker!level,!is!best!thought!of!as!the!“last!link!in!a!causal!chain”,!and!focusing! solely!on!the!outcome!does!little!to!address!underlying!factors!that!contribute!to! initial!causes!of!unsafe!working!conditions!and!behaviours!(DeJoy,!2005).! !  Organizational!or!cultural!approaches!to!safety!focus!on!the!cultural!  elements!that!influence!safety!behaviour.!!Organizational!culture!influences!the! individuals!within!it,!passing!down!institutional!values,!beliefs,!and!mores!(DeJoy,! 2005).!!The!values,!beliefs,!and!mores!towards!safety!within!work!organizations! undoubtedly!affect!how!safety!policies!are!considered!and!implemented,!as!they!are! received!and!internalized!by!the!worker.!!This!becomes!especially!important!in! highUrisk!work!contexts.!!Whereas!behaviorUbased!management!techniques!are!best! described!as!treating!the!symptoms!of!an!unsafe!work!culture,!cultural! interventions!are!best!described!as!treating!the!underlying!causes.!BBS!techniques! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!For!a!more!thorough!review!of!operant!conditioning!principles!in!organizational! contexts,!see!Jablonsky!&!DeVries,!1972.! ! 3!  are!generally!“bottom!up”,!focusing!on!the!individual!actions!of!workers,!whereas! cultural!interventions!are!best!thought!of!as!“top!down”,!focusing!on!changing!the! underlying!beliefs!and!values!of!the!organization,!with!the!ultimate!aim!of!having! these!new!principles!internalized!by!workers!(DeJoy,!2005).!Here,!interventions!are! done!at!the!management!level,!and!are!largely!qualitative!in!nature,!relying!on! interviews!and!questionnaires.!!!Assessments!are!made!of!the!overall!safety!culture,! and!both!short!and!longUterm!goals!are!set.!!Factors!such!as!the!availability!of!safety! training!or!adequate!equipment!serve!as!indicators!and!symbols!of!how!seriously! safety!is!considered!(DeJoy,!2005).!!Counter!to!BBS!techniques,!which!involve! tangible!and!empirical!assessments!based!on!objective!criteria,!organizational! approaches!are!not!as!concrete.!!Whereas!BBS!management!techniques!rely!on!the! observation!of!workers!to!implement!change,!the!organizational!equivalent!for!the! unit!of!analysis!is!more!elusive.!!Organizational!approaches!require!methods!that! assess!values!and!beliefs,!which!are!often!difficult!to!operationalize.!!Inferences! must!be!drawn!from!current!policies,!implementation!strategies,!and!investigative! procedures!to!get!at!the!values!and!beliefs!that!underpin!the!culture.!!However,! despite!the!inherent!measurement!issues,!organizational!influences!on!safety!have! been!found!to!account!for!a!substantial!portion!of!the!variance!in!the!safety!climate! of!organizations,!even!when!controlling!for!more!concrete,!safetyUrelevant!variables! (DeJoy!et!al.,!2004).!!As!with!BBS!techniques,!these!interventions!are!idiographic,! requiring!inUdepth!analyses!of!the!culture!of!specific!organizations.!!Due!to!many! factors,!including!inertial!forces,!organizational!cultures!are!inherently!difficult!to!  ! 4!  change!(Hannan!&!Freeman,!1984),!and!these!interventions!can!be!lengthy!as!well! as!costly!(DeJoy,!2005).!!  1.2(  The(Call(for(an(Integrative(Approach(to(Organizational(Safety(  ! !  Despite!the!apparent!differences!between!these!approaches,!they!do!share!  common!ground.!!Both!seek!to!have!safety!in!organizations!viewed!as!an!ongoing! process,!rather!than!something!that!can!be!remedied!with!a!silver!bullet,!and!both! require!employee!involvement!and!a!consideration!of!the!organizational!culture!to! differing!degrees!(DeJoy,!2005).!!BBS!approaches!acknowledge!the!importance!of! organizational!culture,!as!BBS!modifications!must!fit!within!a!given!context:!if!an! intervention!is!not!well!received!on!a!worksite,!it!will!not!be!effective!(Krause,! 1997).!!Further!to!this,!Saari!argues!that!because!BBS!programs!involve!employees! in!the!process!of!improving!safety,!this!ultimately!contributes!to!a!safer! organizational!culture,!as!a!body!of!workers!who!are!invested!in!safety!can!create! broader,!on!the!ground!cultural!shifts!in!attitudes!towards!safety!(1992).!!Similarly,! organizational!approaches!recognize!the!importance!of!positive!reinforcement!of! successful!outcomes!to!reinforce!safety!behaviour!at!the!worker!level.!!Because!of! these!underlying!compatibilities,!BBS!and!organizational!approaches!are!more! compatible!than!they!seem.!!When!both!strategies!are!employed,!they!bolster!each! other’s!weaknesses!by!drawing!on!the!other’s!strengths.!!It!is!for!this!reason!that! DeJoy!suggests!they!be!used!in!tandem,!which!he!calls!the!integrative!approach! (2005).!  ! 5!  1.3( Theory(into(Practice(–(What(Does(an(Integrative(Approach(to(Safety(Look( Like?(( ! !  Without!engaging!workers!in!organizational!approaches!to!safety,!  interventions!can!be!experienced!as!bureaucratic!processes,!removed!from!the! realities!of!the!embodied!work.!!Echoing!DeJoy’s!call!for!an!integrative!approach,! Antonsen!and!colleagues!suggest!the!key!to!creating!lasting!change!is!through! meaningful!interaction!regarding!safety!issues!between!management!and!workers! (2007).!!In!order!for!safety!policy!to!be!effective,!it!must!be!accepted,!and!ideally! internalized,!by!workers.!!Organizational!approaches!to!safety!that!rely!too!heavily! on!rules!and!regulations,!amount!to!a!oneUway!process,!which!stagnates!the! effectiveness!of!safety!policy.!!This!topUdown!approach!shuts!out!worker’s! experiences!and!practical!knowledge.!!It!also!alienates!workers!from!management,! which!can!lead!to!decreased!trust!and!commitment!in!and!to!policy!(Barling!&! Hutchinson,!2000).!!!Opening!avenues!for!workers!to!contribute!their!perspectives! on!safety!allows!for!workers!to!share!their!relevant!experience!and!ideas,!which! fosters!a!sense!of!involvement,!responsibility,!and!can!ultimately!inform!more! effective!policy!with!new!and!innovative!ideas!(Antonsen!et!al.,!2007).!!Worker! participation!in!safety!policy!formation!creates!more!meaningful!policies,!and!also! improves!employees’!commitment!to!safety!and!trust!in!management.!!! !  Antonsen!and!his!colleagues!argue!that!research!on!safety!culture!fails!to!  consider!that!issues!of!power!and!conflict!affect!relationships!and!adaptation!of! policy!within!work!settings!(2009).!!Workers!are!socialized!by!cultural!norms! external!to!the!organization:!socialization!processes!with!regard!to!issues!such!as!  ! 6!  class!and!gender,!inevitably!influence!how!individuals!interact!within!a!work! context.!!Organizational!osmosis!refers!to!the!adoption!of!the!culture,!values,!and! ideas!of!an!organization,!which!is!largely!dependent!on!anticipatory!socialization! prior!to!entering!the!organization!(Gibson!&!Papa,!2000).!!A!worker!enters!into!an! organization!not!as!a!blank!slate,!but!as!a!preemptively!socialized!individual,!who! holds!values!and!beliefs!that!are!either!congruent!or!incongruent!to!those!of!an! organization.!!Antonsen!argues!that!the!representation!of!safety!cultural!theory!as! apolitical!and!devoid!of!power!and!conflict!is!an!idealistic!and!contrived! representation:!external!socialization!introduces!power!struggles!and!conflict!that! can!play!out!within!organizations,!and!must!be!acknowledged!in!order!to!better! tailor!policy!to!the!worker!population!(2009).!!Because!of!this,!it!is!important!to! consider!how!this!external!culture!can!either!inhibit!or!facilitate!organizational! osmosis,!and!how!safety!policies!can!be!best!fitted!to!the!prevalent!culture!of!its! workers.!!Without!the!acknowledgement!that!culture!and!power!are!intertwined! issues,!and!understanding!how!these!dynamics!can!affect!safety!outcomes,!policy! may!be!ineffective!(Antonsen,!2009).!!!  1.4(  An(Integrative(Approach(to(Managing(Safety:(Safety(Social(Capital((  ! !  In!the!pursuit!of!integrating!BBS!and!cultural!strategies,!it!is!helpful!to!  consider!the!role!of,!what!Rao!calls,!safety!social!capital!(2007).!!The!definition!of! social!capital!varies!(Portes,!1998),!but!Rao!draws!on!both!Putnam’s!and!Coleman’s! conceptualizations.!!Putnam!defines!social!capital!as!being!“the!collective!value!of!all! social!networks!and!the!inclinations!that!arise!from!these!networks!to!do!things!for! each!other….and!consists!of!the!features!of!social!organizations!such!as!networks,! ! 7!  norms,!and!social!trust!that!facilitate!coordination!and!cooperation!for!mutual! benefit”.!!!Coleman!defines!social!capital!in!terms!of!its!function:!that!being,!any! social!resource!that!facilitates!action!(collective!or!individual),!and!is!engendered!by! social!norms,!social!networks,!trust,!and!reciprocity!(Coleman,!1990;!Portes,!1998).!! !  Rao!draws!on!these!definitions,!and!builds!on!them!to!define!safety!social!  capital!as!the!collective!values!that!exist!and!are!embodied!within!the!networks!in! an!organization!and!its!workers!towards!safety.!!By!naming!safety!social!capital!as! such,!it!allows!for!these!values,!norms,!and!networks!to!be!recognized,!managed,! and!developed!in!an!organization!to!work!towards!a!safer!environment.!!This!can!be! done!through!formal!avenues,!such!as!through!corporate!expectations,!regulations,! and!policies,!and!also!informally,!by!focusing!more!attention!on!the!relationships! and!networks!of!workers!(2007).!!Rao!posits!that!safety!social!capital!resides!within,! and!is!generated!by,!all!social!networks!in!an!organization.!These!networks!can!be! formally!created!through!organizational!classifications!(such!as!a!job!title,!or! belonging!to!the!same!union)!and!informally!fostered,!through!friendships!or!a! sense!of!camaraderie!amongst!workers.!!It!is!within!these!networks!where!safety! social!capital!can!be!generated,!perpetuated,!and!acted!upon.!!! !  By!naming!safety!social!capital,!it!becomes!feasible!to!manage!it:!Rao!  suggests!that!organizations!should!use!accidents!as!a!means!of!investigating!how! safety!social!capital!operates,!and!how!it!facilitates!or!obstructs!safe!behaviours.!! Rao’s!prescribed!methodology!for!managing!safety!social!capital!relies!on!a! framework!grounded!in!sociological!and!management!theory.!!The!site!from!which! to!manage!social!capital,!and!to!facilitate!broad!organizational!cultural!change!is!  ! 8!  through!the!relationships!of!employees!and!employee!groups.!!Further!to!this,! organizational!features!that!foster!coordination!and!cooperation!between!workers! and!other!groups!must!be!identified!and!strategized!around!to!bolster!safer!work! outcomes.!!In!order!for!an!organization!to!begin!to!develop!this!management!of! safety!social!capital,!first,!it!must!identify!the!existing!norms,!values,!and!social! dynamics!that!can!contribute!to!unsafe!work!conditions!and!practices.!!! !  Although!many!accident!analysis!techniques!over!the!last!twenty!years!have!  focused!on!human!factors!(For!examples!see:!Shappell!&!Wiegmann,!2001;!Rearson,! 1995;!Rasmussen,!1997;!Leveson,!2004),!these!models!have!evaluated! organizational!influences!on!behaviour!or!focus!on!individual!behaviours!without! regard!for!contextual!factors.!!The!difficulty!in!managing!safety!behaviour!within! organizations!stems!from!the!complexity!of!human!behaviour!and!factors!that! influence!this!behaviour.!!People’s!actions!and!responses!to!a!situation!can!vary! depending!on!the!context;!for!instance,!time!pressures!or!social!dynamics!in!a!work! crew!will!affect!how!an!individual!or!a!group!preforms!the!work!(Rao,!2007).!! Actions!are!neither!determined!wholly!by!organizational!influences,!nor!are!they! wholly!removed!from!it:!they!are!embedded!within!cultural!contexts!(Granovetter,! 1985).!!Additionally,!although!safety!norms!are!formalized!through!written!policies,! training,!and!organizational!requirements,!the!informal!process!of!the! internalization!of!these!norms!is!necessary!to!cultivate!a!selfUsustaining!safety! culture.!!A!large!proportion!of!workers!must!buy!into!the!efficacy!and!legitimacy!of! these!policies!in!order!to!facilitate!the!collective!behaviour!and!thinking!that!will! result!in!the!actual!practice!of!them.!Because!of!this,!it!is!important!to!consider!the!  ! 9!  complexity!of!the!social!dynamics!and!the!importance!of!relationships!when! evaluating!safety!incidents.!! !  A!fertile!source!from!which!to!evaluate!the!role!of!safety!social!capital!in!an!  organization!is!by!analyzing!the!role!of!social!actors!and!the!social!dynamics! between!these!actors!in!occupational!safety!incidents.!!Rao!has!outlined!a!model!to! evaluate!safety!social!capital!from!accident!investigations,!called!the!“Curtailing! accidents!by!managing!social!capital”!model!(CAMSoc).!!The!ultimate!goal!of!this! model!is!to!“systematically!extract!social!lessons!learned!from!accidents…which!in! turn!can!be!utilized!by!organizations!and!regulators…[to!advance]!towards!a!better! safety!culture”!(734).!!CAMSoc!accident!investigations!include!an!examination!of!the! social!actors!and!social!dynamics!that!frame!all!aspects!of!an!incident,!in!order!to! reveal!“underlying,![dysfunctional]!organizational!socioUfeatures![with!regards!to]! networks,!norms,!and!trust”.!!This!is!ultimately!meant!to!answer,!“how!and!why! organizational!safety!social!capital!is!eroded”,!and!by!doing!so,!lead!towards! solutions!for!these!underlying!issues.!!The!framework!for!analysis!should!include! both!sociological!and!management!principles!to!the!accident!analysis.!!!The! technological!deficiencies!that!led!to!the!incident,!as!well!as!an!analysis!of!the!social! factors!and!actors!involved,!the!relationships!among!them,!and!a!critical! investigation!of!the!reasons!for!any!deviant!behaviour!that!led!to!an!incident!are!all! considered!relevant!to!the!analysis!(Rao:!734).!!Individual!behaviours!are!assessed! as!stemming!from!various!sources:!1)!primarily!internal!causes,!such!as!one’s!own! motives!or!traits,!2)!external!causes,!such!as!an!aspect!of!the!social!or!physical! environment,!or!a!combination!of!both.!!!This!analysis!should!lead!to!an!  ! 10!  identification!of!the!social!motivators!and!the!organizational!factors!that! contributed!to!an!accident.!!These!conclusions!will!help!identify!which!elements! broke!down,!and!will!inform!the!strategies!for!managine!safety!social!capital!that! could!prevent!similar!conditions!in!the!future.!!Methods!of!evaluation!in!the!model! include!the!review!of!primary!accident!investigation!reports!and!databases,!and! when!possible,!interviews!with!the!parties!involved.!!Whether!they!are!human!or! technical!in!nature,!once!the!causal!factors!are!identified,!the!social!context!is!then! examined!and!“social!factors”!are!identified!which!underpin!the!observed!cause!or! causes.!!This!type!of!investigation!should!be!used!to!identify!underlying!social! factors!that!contributed!to!an!incident,!allowing!for!more!effective!organizational! management!of!safety!social!capital.!!The!CAMSoc!method!is!a!relatively!recent! model,!with!little!empirical!or!theoretical!work!yet!conducted;!however,!studies!that! have!considered!these!issues!have!suggested!that!social!capital!and!social!networks! are!important!contributors!to!the!overall!occupational!safety!climate,!and!should!be! further!studied!and!empirically!evaluated!(Bigelow,!2010;!Zohar!and!TenneUGazit,! 2008).!!! !  The!inclusion!of!social!factors!in!accident!analysis!is!an!important!  improvement!to!the!investigative!process;!however,!the!idea!of!safety!social!capital! being!insular!in!nature!and!solely!influenced!though!organizational!networks!is,!as! Antonsen!and!colleagues!argue,!idealistic!(2009).!!Different!sources!of!socialization! inevitably!affect!how!workers!behave,!and!different!sources!of!cultural!capital! transgress!organizational!barriers,!and!ultimately!affect!how!social!capital!operates! within!the!networks!in!organizations.!!Because!networks,!norms,!and!trust!depend!  ! 11!  on!shared!cultural!capital,!organizational!evaluations!of!how!to!manage!safety!social! capital!must!assess!dominant!cultural!ideologies!and!the!norms!and!values!that!exist! within!a!workforce.!!! !!!!  Different!aspects!of!identity!become!more!or!less!salient!depending!on!the!  work!environment,!and!the!saliency!of!a!given!feature!will!influence!the!broader! culture!of!an!organization.!!The!sex!composition!of!an!organization!and!the! culturally!based!gendered!expectations!of!the!work!roles!factor!into!the!gendering! (or!lack!thereof)!of!a!work!culture!(Ridgeway,!2009;!Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!!In!high! risk,!maleUdominated!sectors,!this!is!an!important!consideration.!!Because!many! highUrisk!jobs!are!synonymous!with!conventional!masculine!expectations!(Ely!&! Meyerson,!2010),!and!because!gendered!hierarchies!are!rife!with!power!and!conflict! (Connell,!2005),!gender!becomes!an!important!feature!within!social!relations!and! safety!social!capital!in!these!sectors.!!It!is!not!sufficient!to!examine!internal,!meaning! solely!organizational!influences,!on!safety!social!capital.!!Investigations!must! consider!external!cultural!influences!and!how!these!play!out!internally!through!the! social!dynamics!between!workers!in!an!organization.!!!These!factors!affect!the! organizational!culture!and!this!will!ultimately!affect!how!safety!social!capital!is!both! strengthened!and!eroded.!  1.5( ( # !  ((En)Gendering(Safety:(The(Case(for(the(Inclusion(of(Gender(in(OSH(Policy( &(Practice( Strategies!that!seek!to!change!safety!behaviour!and!culture!in!organizations!  can!often!be!limited!by!considering!only!a!narrow!range!of!factors.!!The!issues! discussed!above!involve!broad!themes!of!power!and!social!dynamics!between!  ! 12!  workers,!and!the!importance!of!their!inclusion!when!considering!the!effectiveness! of!safety!policy.!!Because!the!context!of!work!determines!which!aspects!of!identity! become!relevant!(Ridgeway,!2009),!and!in!turn!which!forms!of!cultural!capital!are! privileged!in!that!context,!maleUdominated!work!offers!an!interesting!site!from! which!to!mobilize!these!theories.!!! Over!the!past!20!years!there!has!been!a!growing!body!of!research!pointing!to! the!role!that!gender!plays!in!safety!behavior!and!compliance!within!the!workplace! (Mullen,!2004;!Messing!et!al.,!2003,!Iaucone,!2005;!Courtenay,!2000;!Messing!et!al.,! 1994).!!It!has!been!found!that!men!are!more!prone!to!occupational!injuries!and! fatalities!(Hersh,!1998)!and!are!more!likely!to!engage!in!risky!behavior!within!the! workplace!(Mullen,!2004).!!Given!this,!high!hazard!work!sectors,!which!are!maleU dominated,!are!especially!important!to!study.!!Gendered!constraints!on!safety! behaviour,!and!their!effect!on!safety!social!capital!must!be!adequately!considered!in! these!environments,!in!order!to!better!tailor!occupational!safety!initiatives.! If!a!work!organization,!intentionally!or!otherwise,!cultivates!masculine! norms!as!a!central!component!of!its!culture,!behaviour!that!goes!against!key!aspects! of!that!role!can!be!seen!as!deviant.!!It!is!important!to!recognize!how!this!cultural! dynamic!can!influence!adherence!to!safety!policies.!There!are!many!motivations!for! not!following!safety!regulations,!however,!maleUdominated!workplaces!have!the! particular!challenge!of!grappling!with!employees!who!might!experience!safety! compliance!as!conflicting!with!a!masculine!selfUimage!(Ray!et!al.,!1997).!!If!this! permeates!the!culture!of!an!organization,!this!can!lead!the!normalization!and! reinforcement!of!behaviour!that!is!inherently!unsafe.!!!  ! 13!  Drawing!on!West!and!Zimmerman’s!work!of!“doing”!gender!(1987),!gender! can!be!understood!as!a!social!process,!which!is!maintained!and!reproduced!through! interactions!and!individual!behaviour.!!Although!there!are!many!constructions!of! masculinities,!Connell’s!work!on!hegemonic!masculinity!(1995)!is!central!to!the!type! of!masculinity!that!is!present!within!many!risky,!maleUdominated!work!sectors.!! Hegemonic!masculinity!is!the!culturally!normative!ideal!of!male!behaviour:!it!takes! different!forms,!though!it!is!always!the!construction!that!garners!and!reinforces!the! most!power!within!a!given!context.!!Ely!and!Meyerson!contend!that!organizations! are!important!sites!of!gender!performance,!where!conventional!gender!ideologies! are!recreated!(2010).!!Organizations!draw!on!cultural!norms,!and!in!occupations! that!are!typically!associated!with!a!particular!sex,!the!skills!for!these!occupations! tend!to!become!synonymous!with!those!attributes!that!are!conceived!of!as! “masculine”!or!“feminine”.!!They!argue!this!is!only!further!entrenched!by!the! prevalence!of!men!(or!women)!in!a!particular!occupational!field,!lending!credibility! to!the!appropriateness!of!the!norm!of!male!or!female!dominated!sectors.!!Work! becomes!not!just!paid!labour,!but!also!a!ground!for!rehearsing!and!proving! gendered!identities!(Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!!Jobs!that!are!male!dominated!and! reinforce!hegemonic!norms!of!masculinity!become!interesting!sites!from!which!to! analyze!the!effects!of!this!culture!on!safety!social!capital.!! Norms!associated!with!conventional!masculinity!can!conflict!with!the!actions! and!behaviours!that!are!required!to!comply!with!occupational!safety!regulation.!! Behaviours!like!purposive!riskUtaking!and!strict!selfU!reliance,!which!have!been! identified!as!being!central!to!conventional!masculinity!(Mahalik!et!al.,!2003),!are!not!  ! 14!  only!detrimental!to!safety!compliance,!but!also!directly!opposed!to!it.!!Examples!that! illustrate!how!these!norms!can!manifest!within!safety!behaviour!are!numerous.!! Prior!work!has!shown!that!male!workers!are!more!willing!to!take!risks!and!do! unsafe!work!if!it!will!reinforce!a!masculine!image.!Mullen!identified!key!themes,! which!prompted!unsafe!work!behaviours!in!men!in!maleUdominated!settings,! including!a!fear!of!ridicule!and!the!need!to!appear!competent.!!Some!male!workers! were!found!to!seek!out!situations!in!which!they!could!take!greater!risks!or!do!unsafe! work!as!a!means!of!enhancing!their!image!as!courageous,!selfUreliant,!and!capable! (2004).!!!Men!within!culturally!defined!maleUtyped!sectors,!such!as!construction,! have!been!found!to!avoid!wearing!safety!equipment!and!to!not!perform!safety! protocols!for!fear!of!losing!respect!from!their!peers!for!appearing!fearful,!and!have! been!found!to!purposely!take!risks!and!encourage!other!workers!to!do!so!as!a!way! of!displaying!selfUassurance!!(Mullen,!2004;!Choudhry!and!Fang,!2008).!!Research!on! other!male!dominated!occupations,!such!as!police!forces,!has!found!a!“hidden! curriculum”!evident!in!training!programs,!cultivating!conventional!masculine!norms! (Prokos!&!Padavic,!2002).!!Such!climates!have!been!found!to!lead!those!who!do!not! adhere!to!these!norms!to!overcompensate!by!taking!risks!to!prove!competency! (Goldenhar!et!al.,!1998).!!Other!studies!have!found!that!many!sectors!have!cultures! that!marginalize!workers!who!do!not!conform!to!masculine!expectations.!!In!these! contexts,!marginalized!groups!serve!as!a!reinforcement!of!a!hierarchal!gender! structure!and!unwittingly!provide!a!“foil”!for!the!dominant!masculine!culture,! allowing!for!categorization!of!those!who!“belong”!and!those!who!do!not!(Prokas!&! Padovic,!2002).!This!categorization!of!in!and!out!groups!arguably!creates!  ! 15!  differential!access!to!organizational!networks,!norms,!and!trust,!and!has!the! potential!to!erode!safety!social!capital.!!!Masculinity,!in!this!light,!becomes!an! integral!component!in!exercising!safety!social!capital!in!a!culturally!defined!male! gendered!workforce.!!If!the!dominant!culture!within!a!workplace!values!displays!of! competency,!which!are!founded!on!conventional!norms!of!masculinity,!workers!can! gain!respect!by!acting!in!ways!that!comply!with!these!norms.!!Despite!the!existing! research,!which!suggests!the!importance!of!analyzing!the!role!of!gender!within!the! workplace,!little!research!has!yet!to!focus!on!how!this!interacts!with!processes!of! safety!socialization!(Mullen,!2004).!!! Organizations!that!are!culturally!defined!as!male!oriented!often!privilege! manifestations!of!what!is!considered!appropriate!displays!of!masculinity.!This! masculinity!is!often!displayed!by!way!of!exercising!authority!(power!over),! independence,!individualism,!and!selfUreliance!and!assurance!(Messerschmidt,! 1996;!Connell,!1995).!!These!behaviours!are!linked!to!occupational!safety,!because! policies!that!call!for!compliance!to!topUdown!rules,!reliance!on!others,!or! necessitating!checks!(and!thereby!introducing!doubt)!of!one’s!actions,!can!be! experienced!as!direct!threats!to!autonomy,!competency,!and!other!elements!that!are! experienced!as!central!to!conventional!masculine!norms.!!In!this!way,!safety! procedures!may!be!ignored!or!purposefully!acted!out!by!individuals!as!a!way!of! asserting!masculinity.!!Kimmel!argues!that!masculinity!is!“a!homosocial!enactment”,! where!male!peer!groups!act!to!develop!and!affirm!each!other’s!gendered!identity! (1996).!!It!follows!that!these!displays!within!a!maleUdominated!work!setting,!where! masculinity!is!seen!as!central!to!the!impression!of!competency,!and!the!allocation!of!  ! 16!  respect,!creates!a!culture!that!is!dependent!on!the!continuation!and!valorization!of! these,!in!the!context!of!safety,!deviant!behaviours.! Conceptualizing!gender!as!a!process!within!work!environments!leads!to!an! examination!how!the!conventional!masculine!norms!and!values!within!and!outside! of!the!work!role!becomes!a!central!component!of!a!worker’s!selfUconcept.!!In!her! ethnographic!study!of!maleUdominated,!skilled!trades,!Paap!found!that!those!who! hold!status!within!an!organization!set!the!cultural!values:!in!male!dominated!work! that!is!culturally!defined!as!maleUtyped!(such!as!skilled!trades),!organizational! cultural!values!often!become!synonymous!with!conventional!masculine!values! (2006:!51).!!She!elaborates!on!this,!and!argues!that,!“workers![who!meet]!the! preconceived!ideal!of![a!tradesperson]!…or!fit!the!cultural…and!contextual! definition!of!the!insider”!were!granted!more!status!within!the!organization.!!She! found!that!in!this!setting,!norms!and!values!that!were!championed!and!granted! status!were!demonstrations!of!individualism,!competitiveness,!and!a!disregard!for! risk,!injury!and!pain!(2006:!51).!!In!sum,!larger!cultural!definitions!of!what! attributes!an!ideal!man!embodies!became!the!basis!of!the!evaluation!of!an!ideal! worker!(Acker,!1990;!Williams,!2001).!!These!observations!fit!with!other!work,! which!has!found!similar!values!in!work!that!is!culturally!defined!as!maleUtyped!(see! Choudhry!&!Fang,!2008;!Mullen,!2004;!Prokas!&!Padovic,!2002;!Goldenhar!et!al.,! 1998;!Messerschmidt,!1996!for!examples).!!! If!the!culture!and!values!in!an!organization!expects!or!privileges!workers! who!conform!to!hegemonic!masculine!norms,!and!masculinity!is!reinforced!through! displays!of!authority,!riskUtaking,!selfUreliance,!or!selfUassurance!within!work!  ! 17!  settings,!this!inevitably!effects!how!safety!regulations!will!be!interpreted!and!acted! out!(or!against).!Because!these!norms!often!impede!safe!work!practices,!workers!in! high!hazard,!and!male!dominated!sectors!are!conceivably!less!likely!to!follow!safety! regulations,!and!more!likely!to!engage!in!risk.!!To!better!tailor!policy!initiatives!to!an! organization,!occupational!health!and!safety!policy!makers!must!begin!to! understand!the!role!of!masculinity!within!the!culture!of!male!dominated!work,!and! in!turn,!how!this!affects!safety!outcomes.! To!evaluate!these!issues,!this!research!project!uses!a!case!study!approach!to! look!at!how!masculine!norms!and!social!dynamics!affect!safety!outcomes,!and!how! these!social!factors!could!be!included!in!the!analysis!of!accident!investigations.!!It!is! argued!that!by!including!these!elements,!and!recognizing!the!cultural!influences!on! individual!behaviour,!underlying!social!factors!within!work!settings!can!be! evaluated!and!can!be!used!to!more!effectively!manage!the!safety!social!capital!in! organizations.!!The!occupations!included!in!the!analysis!are!skilled!trades,!which!are! maleUdominated!and!maleU!typed,!being!culturally!defined!as!“men’s!work”!(Paap,! 2006).!!RiskUtaking!behaviour!in!reported!accidents!is!used!as!an!indicator!of! conforming!to!conventional!masculine!norms.!!Social!factors!in!internal,!inUdepth! accident!analyses!are!evaluated!to!assess!whether!these!circumstances!could!have! conceivably!contributed!to!the!accident!outcomes.!!Recommendations!are!made! both!for!policy!and!future!research!directions.! !  ! 18!  2(  METHODS(  2.1(  Data(  ! !  Research!was!carried!out!in!cooperation!with!WestTech,!an!organization!  based!in!Western!Canada!with!a!workforce!of!over!5,000!employees.!!The!aim!was! to!explore!conventional!masculine!norms!and!safety!social!capital!within!safety! incidents,!and!how!and!if!these!were!considered!in!the!analyses!of!accidents.!!Both! qualitative!and!quantitative!data!were!used.!In!order!to!evaluate!what!factors!are! included!in!the!analysis!of!accidents,!seven!internal!investigative!reports!were! evaluated.!!WestTech!carries!out!internal!investigations!of!serious!safety!incidents,! to!assess!probable!causal!factors,!as!well!as!to!identify!solutions.!Ten!years!of! incident!reports!from!WestTech’s!reported!accident!database!were!used!to!assess! the!prevalence!of!a!riskUtaking!culture,!and!how!this!varied!primarily!by!occupation.!!! Each!reported!accident!included!the!demographic!information!of!the!injured! worker,!including!sex,!age,!occupation,!the!classification!of!the!severity!of!the! incident,!and!a!qualitative!description!of!the!event!that!preceded!the!incident.!! !  The!selection!criteria!for!included!occupations!for!analysis!were!1)!whether!  an!occupation!was!culturally!defined!as!maleUtyped!work!(e.g.:!skilled!trades),!and! 2)!if!the!work!performed!was!inherently!dangerous!(e.g.:!working!with!high!voltage! equipment).!Three!occupations!met!each!of!these!criteria:!Power!Line!Technicians! (PLTs),!Cable!Splicers,!and!Electricians.!This!resulted!in!the!inclusion!of!798!cases! chosen!for!analysis.!!!  ! 19!  !  WestTech!has!a!largely!unionized!workforce2,!with!an!apparent!corporate!  dedication!to!safety.!!They!hold!regular!departmental!safety!meetings,!frequent! initiatives!for!worker!safety!training,!and!have!a!large!safety!and!health!department! which!oversees,!analyzes,!and!implements!safety!policies,!procedures,!and!accident! investigations.!!In!addition!to!legal!requirements!to!report!workplace!injuries,! workers!are!encouraged!(at!the!very!least!by!corporateUlevel!management)!to! report!all!safety!incidents!and!!“near!misses3”,!which!allows!these!incidents!to!be! analyzed!by!WestTech’s!Health!and!Safety!department!to!identify!key!sites!for! intervention.!!From!the!period!of!2002!to!2012,!there!were!1,715!total!reported! accidents,!representing!184!occupations.!! ! Working!within!the!context!of!a!company!that!is!ostensibly!dedicated!to! occupational!safety,!with!a!primarily!unionized!workforce,!provides!excellent! controls!for!corporate!ambivalence!towards!occupational!safety,!which!is!often!seen! as!a!confounding!factor!in!nonUcompliance!behaviour!(Neal!et!al.,!2000).!!However,! despite!their!corporate!initiatives!to!oversee!worker!safety!and!internal!reviews!of! safety!incidents,!over!the!past!ten!years,!WestTech!has!had,!on!average!169!health! and!safety!incidents!reported!every!year,!and!one!serious!safety!incident!or!fatality! every!six!months.!!  !!  ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!WestTech!employs!nonUunionized!workers!through!contracts,!though!the!majority,! and!the!population!from!which!these!data!are!gathered,!is!unionized.!!! 3!A!near!miss!refers!to!an!incident!that!had!the!potential!to!result!in!an!injury!or! fatality,!but!ultimately!did!not. ! 20!  2.2(  Dependent(Variables(  ! Severity#of#Outcome! #  Severity!of!an!accident!outcome!was!used!as!an!outcome,!an!objective!  measure!of!level!of!risk!that!was!taken.!!Severity!was!coded!on!a!four!point!scale! based!on!whether!the!injury!required!first!aid!(1),!medical!aid!(2),!or!resulted!time! off!work!(3),!or!a!fatality!(4).!!The!severity!category!was!also!collapsed!into!a! dummy!variable,!differentiating!minor!injuries!that!only!required!first!aid!(0),!from! more!serious!injuries!that!required!more!than!first!aid!(1).!!Severity!of!an!accident! was!used!as!an!indicator!of!level!of!risk!taken,!based!on!the!assumption!that!taking! greater!risks!is!likely!to!result!in!a!more!serious!accident.!! Level#of#Risk#Taken! !  The!level!of!risk!taken!was!measured!by!coding!the!qualitative!description!of!  each!accident!based!on!set!criteria.!!Risk!taking!was!defined!as!any!violation!of! safety!regulation,!and!the!level!of!risk!taken!was!measured!by!evaluating!the! potential!consequences!of!the!actions!that!a!worker!engaged!in.!!This!was!coded!on!a! one!to!four!scale,!and!also!included!in!a!composite!measure.!!If!a!worker!followed!all! safety!regulations,!the!incident!was!coded!as!an!accident!(1).!!The!outcome!of!an! accident!coded!at!this!level!could!conceivably!be!fatal,!but!the!worker!would!not!be! at!fault:!for!instance!if!the!worker!was!a!passenger!in!a!fatal!car!accident.!!If!a! worker!violated!a!safety!regulation,!the!potential!consequence!of!that!action!was! assessed!in!relation!to!the!work!being!done,!and!assigned!a!level!of!risk.!!Minor!risk! (2)!was!coded!if!the!likely!consequence!of!the!action!was!nonUlife!threatening,!most! likely!only!requiring!first!aid!intervention.!!An!example!of!this!would!be!a!worker!  ! 21!  who!was!using!a!sanding!machine!but!did!not!wear!protective!gloves,!which!could! result!in!a!skin!abrasion.!!Major!risk!(3)!was!coded!if!the!likely!consequence!of!the! action!was!nonUlife!threatening,!but!would!likely!require!medical!intervention,!and! could!possibly!interrupt!work!or!life!duties.!!An!example!of!this!would!be!if!a!worker! was!grinding!down!metal!on!a!machine!without!wearing!protective!eye!goggles.!! Severe!risk!(4)!was!coded!if!the!likely!consequence!of!the!action!was!life!threatening! or!a!debilitating!injury,!and!would!likely!interrupt!work!or!life!duties.!!If!a!worker! failed!to!follow!proper!procedure!when!working!on!highUvoltage!equipment,!which! could!result!in!electrocution,!this!would!be!classified!as!a!severe!risk.! Table(1.(RiskWSeverity(Composite(W(Coding(Scheme( ! Level!of!Risk!  Possible!consequence!  Example!of!Incident!  1!–!No!rule! violation/No! deliberate!risk!Taken! 2!–!! Minor!risk!taken!  N/A!  Involved!in!car!accident!as!a!passenger.!  NonUlife!threatening;!first!aid!!! intervention!likely! ! NonUlife!threatening;! medical!aid!intervention! likely! ! ! Life!threatening!  Using!sanding!machine!without! appropriate!gloves!  3!–!! Major!risk!taken! 4!–!! Severe!risk!taken!  Not!wearing!eye!protection!while! grinding!metal.! Worker!falls!from!20’,!not!wearing! proper!fallUarrest!equipment.;!worker! fails!to!follow!protocol!while!working!on! high!voltage!equipment.!!  The!risk!category!was!also!collapsed!into!a!dummy!variable.!The!dummy!variable! indicated!if!no!rule!was!violated,!and!therefore!no!risk!was!taken!(0),!or!if!a!rule!was! violated,!and!therefore!some!level!of!risk!was!taken!(1).!! !  Using!severity!of!an!outcome!can!be!a!poor!indicator!of!risk,!since!not!all!  risks!taken!manifest!in!the!potential!consequence,!and!conversely,!the!severity!of! the!consequence!is!not!necessarily!an!accurate!indicator!of!level!of!risk!that!was!  ! 22!  taken.!!An!example!of!this!is!if!a!worker!cuts!his!hand!while!working!on!a!power!line.!! This!accident!would!normally!be!classified!as!minor,!if!it!resulted!in!nothing!more! than!a!superficial!wound.!!Imagine,!however,!that!the!line!the!worker!was!fixing!was! atop!a!30Ufoot!power!pole,!and!he!wasn’t!wearing!a!safety!harness.!!Although!the! outcome!of!the!incident!resulted!in!a!minor!injury,!the!incident!description,!which! includes!the!context!of!the!injury!(not!wearing!fall!arrest!protection),!allows!for!an! assessment!of!the!level!of!risk!the!worker!engaged!in.!!In!this!example,!the!worker! did!not!fall!from!a!dangerous!height,!but!did!take!a!risk!by!not!wearing!fallUarrest! protection!equipment,!violating!a!safety!regulation,!which!could!have!resulted!in!a! more!serious!injury.!!Both!violation!of!rules!(acting!autonomously)!and!engaging!in! risk!are!used!as!indicators!of!engaging!in!behaviour!that!is!culturally!defined!as! masculine!(Messerschmidt,!1996;!Mullen,!2004).!!Each!accident!report!included!a! description!of!the!events!preceding!the!incident,!and!these!descriptions!are! conceivably!more!valuable!than!standard!measurements!of!injury!outcomes,! because!they!provide!insight!into!behaviours!that!might!not!otherwise!be!known!or! measured,!and!therefore,!can!be!a!more!accurate!predictor!of!level!of!risk!that!a! worker!engages!in.!!Although!not!all!incident!descriptors!involve!this!detail!of! context,!almost!all!provide!richer!contextual!information!than!the!severity!of!the! outcome!alone.!!! !  !!  !A!RiskU!Severity!Composite!scale!was!created,!amalgamating!both!the!  severity!of!an!outcome!and!risk!scale!indicators,!resulting!in!a!2!to!8!scale.!!!The! mean!was!3.58.!!The!relationship!between!the!risk!measure!and!severity!measure! was!assessed,!which!showed!a!fairly!weak!positive!correlation!between!the!two!  ! 23!  variables,!r!=!.119,!p#<!.001.!!The!composite!measure!allows!for!different!indicators! of!risk!taking!to!be!measured,!which!enhances!the!reliability!and!validity!of!the! measurement.!!The!RiskUSeverity!Composite!was!also!collapsed!into!a!dummy! variable,!which!indicated!whether!incidents!were!accidental!and!minor!in! consequence!(0),!or!whether!the!violation,!risk,!and!consequence!were!more!severe! (1).!!!  2.3(  Independent(Variables(  ! Occupational#Groups# !  Three!occupational!groups!were!included!in!the!analysis!of!variance!of!risk:!  Electricians,!Cable!Splicers,!and!Power!Line!Technicians.!!Of!the!798!cases!included,! 183!were!Electricians,!23!were!Cable!Splicers,!and!593!were!PLTs.!!Dummy! variables!were!constructed!for!each!of!the!occupational!groups.!!Electricians!were! used!as!the!referent!group.!!The!selection!criterion!of!included!occupations!was! whether!an!occupation!was!culturally!defined!as!maleUtyped!work!(e.g.:!skilled! trades),!and!if!the!work!performed!was!inherently!dangerous!(e.g.:!working!with! high!voltage!equipment).!!The!diversity!of!occupations!at!WestTech!meant!that! including!all!occupations!would!result!in!inequitable!comparisons!across!sectors.!! For!example,!the!risk!that!is!inherent!in!a!PLTs!job!(who!work!at!heights!in!excess!of! 40!feet!and!on!highUvoltage!power!lines)!is!not!comparable!to!the!risk!that!is! inherent!in!an!engineers’!job,!which!generally!takes!place!in!office!settings.!!Because! the!potential!severity!of!an!outcome!is!used!as!an!indicator!of!the!level!of!risk!that!is! taken,!it!makes!little!conceptual!sense!to!compare!occupational!groups!that!do!not! have!similar!inherent!risks!in!the!nature!of!the!work!they!do.!!! ! 24!  !  Electricians!at!WestTech!are!required!to!install,!test,!operate,!maintain,!and!  repair!high!voltage!electrical!equipment,!work!at!substations4,!climb!to!varying! heights,!work!in!confined!spaces,!and!handle!heavy!equipment.!!Cable!Splicers!are! required!to!splice,!test,!and!repair!cable!which!carries!both!high!and!lower!voltage! electricity,!climb!to!varying!heights,!work!outside,!work!in!confined!spaces,!and! handle!heavy!equipment.!!!PLTs!are!required!to!repair!and!maintain!power!line! poles,!towers,!and!underground!cable!systems,!climb!to!varying!heights,!work! outside,!and!handle!heavy!equipment.!The!training!for!each!of!these!professions!is! comparable,!requiring!a!minimum!of!high!school!education,!with!an!additional!fourU year!apprenticeship!program!for!Electricians!and!Power!Line!Technicians,!and!three! and!a!half!years!for!Cable!Splicers.!In!addition,!the!same!union!represents!all!of! these!occupations!at!WestTech.!!Although!different!in!terms!of!actual!duties,!these! three!occupations!are!comparable!in!that!they!expose!workers!to!similar!levels!and! kinds!of!risk.!!! Experience# !  Seniority!of!a!position!was!used!to!measure!jobUspecific!experience.!!This!was!  measured!using!the!subUclassification!of!each!occupation:!apprentice,! journeyperson,!or!foreperson.!!Of!the!798!cases!included,!102!were!apprentices,!556! were!Journeypersons,!and!141!were!Forepersons.!!Journeypersons!were!used!as!the! referent!group.!!Dummy!variables!were!constructed!for!each!subUclassification! group.!!Apprentices!are!workers!with!less!than!four!years!of!experience,!and!have! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4!Substations!house!high!voltage!electrical!equipment!which!reduce!high!voltage! electricity!to!a!level!that!is!suitable!to!supply!to!consumers.!! ! ! 25!  not!yet!received!full!certification.!!A!Journeyperson!has!received!full!certification,! and!Forepersons!and!SubUForepersons5!have!received!full!certification!and!are!in! charge!of!work!crews.!Both!too!little!experience!and!extensive!experience!are! thought!to!increase!riskUtaking!behaviours!for!different!reasons.!!Minimal! experience!is!thought!to!increase!riskUtaking,!likely!due!to!lack!of!knowledge,!and! extensive!experience!is!thought!to!increase!riskUtaking!because!senior!workers!have! been!found!to!become!complacent!(e.g.:!Westaby!&!Lowe,!2005).!!! Age# !  Age!of!the!worker!involved!in!each!incident!was!included!in!the!analysis.!!The!  range!was!20!to!72,!with!a!mean!age!of!44.!The!average!age!of!Cable!Splicers!was!46,! for!Electricians!it!was!44,!and!for!PLTs,!it!was!40.!!Young!age,!especially!with!men,!is! often!positively!correlated!with!riskUtaking!(Nicholson!et!al.,!2005;!Turner!&! McCLure,!2003).! Year# !  All!data!included!was!from!a!tenUyear!span,!from!2002!to!2012.!!2002!was!  used!as!the!referent!group.!!A!dummy!variable!for!each!year!of!data!was!created!to! account!for!any!changes!in!the!independent!variables!over!time.! Analysis# !  The!RiskUSeverity!Composite!was!analyzed!using!OLS!regression.!!However,!  the!distribution!of!the!RiskUSeverity!scale!did!not!have!a!normal!distribution,!and! was!positively!skewed.!!Logistic!regression!was!used!to!assess!whether!this!skewed! distribution!altered!the!substantive!findings!of!the!results.!This!was!done!using!the! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5Forepersons!and!SubUForepersons!were!collapsed!into!the!same!category!because! conceptually,!their!level!of!experience!did!not!vary.! ! 26!  collapsed!RiskUSeverity!binary!outcome.!!The!level!of!measurement!of!the!RiskU Severity!composite!is!arguably!a!nominal!or!ordinal,!rather!than!an!interval!scale.!! This!composite!was!separated!and!collapsed!into!two!dummy!variables:!a!binary! measure!of!risk!and!a!separate!binary!measure!of!severity!of!outcomes,!in!order!to! allow!for!an!arguably!more!appropriate!statistical!analysis,!given!the!level!of! measurement.!!These!binary!measures!of!risk!and!severity!were!analyzed!separately! using!logistic!regression.!  2.4( ! !  Limitations( One!of!the!major!limitations!of!this!research!is!that!there!were!too!few!female!  workers!represented!in!the!accidents!to!include!in!the!analysis.!!Of!the!798!accidents! analyzed,!just!three!involved!women!(.004%).!!The!sex!demographics!of!skilled! trade!workers!in!Canada!is!largely!sex!segregated,!with!a!higher!proportion!of!males! employed!within!these!sectors!(Statistics!Canada,!2011),!and!WestTech’s!skilled! trade!sectors!differed!little!from!the!national!statistics.!!Assuming!that!women!do! not!adhere!to!similar!conventional!masculine!norms!in!these!settings,!this!limits!the! extent!to!which!masculinity!can!be!evaluated!as!a!comparative!factor!in!riskUtaking.!!!  2.5(  Root(Cause(Reports(and(Accident(Database(  !  Rao’s!model!for!“Curtailing!Accidents!by!Managing!Social!Capital”!(CAMSoc)!  suggests!that!document!analyses!should!be!preformed!on!primary!accident! investigation!reports!and!incident!databases!in!order!to!assess!the!role!of!safety! social!capital!and!organizational!influences!on!accidents!(2007).!!! !  Management!and!administrators!at!WestTech,!seeking!to!identify!underlying!  conditions!that!contributed!to!serious!safety!incidents,!carry!out!the!root!cause! ! 27!  accident!reports.!!Seven!root!cause!accident!reports!were!analyzed,!stemming!from! incidents!that!occurred!between!2003!and!2010.!!All!but!one!of!the!reports!was! done!using!WestUTech’s!internal!“Root!Cause!Analysis”!technique,!and!the!final!case! was!done!using!an!externally!developed!investigative!tool.!!These!reports!attempt!to! answer!what,!why!or!how!the!circumstances!that!led!to!the!incident!prevailed.!!They! include!a!detailed!description!of!the!incident,!the!circumstances!which!led!up!to!the! incident,!and!some!demographic!information!of!the!members!of!the!work!crew! involved.!!Each!report!concludes!with!recommendations!that!aim!to!prevent!similar! accidents!in!the!future.!!!The!majority!of!the!reports!focused!on!the!technical!details! of!the!accidents,!discussing!the!equipment!and!the!technicalUhuman!interactions! that!contributed!to!the!outcome.!!Understanding!the!technical!details!of!safety! incidents!provide!important!indicators!of!what!went!wrong,!but!they!do!not!capture! the!social!context!that!these!actions!were!embedded!within.!!This!is!important!to! note!because,!although!the!reports!include!details!which!point!to!social!factors!as! possible!contributing!aspects!of!unsafe!work!environments,!the!investigations!never! hone!in!on!these!as!possible!“root!causes”!of!the!incidents.!!To!highlight!the!issues! relevant!for!this!analysis,!this!research!focuses!on!the!social!elements!and!contexts,! and!the!descriptions!and!the!technical!details!are!simplified.!! !  Seven!inUdepth!“root!cause!analysis”!reports!from!WestTech!were!evaluated.!!  The!evaluations!looked!for!both!what!information!was!included!as!relevant!to!the! findings,!and!for!information!on!the!social!dynamics!and!interactions!during!each! incident.!!A!summary!was!created!of!the!“who,!what,!why,!and!how”!of!each!incident,! according!to!the!explicit!details!that!were!reported.!!Social!dynamics!and!  ! 28!  interactions!were!also!included!in!this!summary,!regardless!of!whether!they!were! identified!by!the!investigators!as!contributing!factors.!!Interactions!and!behaviours! that!potentially!contributed!to!safety!violations!in!each!incident!were!categorized! into!seven!types:!defiance!of!authority,!autonomous!action,!conflict,!deliberate!riskU taking,!unintended!risk,!disregard!of!preUincident!warnings,!and!complacency!of!coU workers.!If!appropriate,!a!given!interaction!or!behaviour!would!be!coded!using! multiple!types.!!!When!readily!available!in!the!report,!demographic!information!of! workers!involved!in!each!incident!was!also!noted,!including!details!like!sex!and!age.!! All!occupations!of!those!involved!in!the!incidents!were!maleUdominated,!and!were! categorized!as!skilled!trades.! !  Themes!and!patterns!in!the!qualitative!descriptions!of!safety!events!from!the!  incident!database!were!also!evaluated.!!This!field!included!contextual!information!of! the!circumstances!surrounding!the!incident,!and!was!used!to!code!the!level!of!risk! for!the!quantitative!analysis.!!Because!WestTech!has!no!standardized!procedure!for! reporting!qualitative!accounts!of!accidents,!it!provided!important!insight!into!what! types!of!information!was!presumed!to!be!pertinent!to!the!safety!incident.!!They! usually!described!worker’s!actions,!noted!the!lack!of!proactive!safety!behaviour,!and! offered!contextual!details,!which!made!it!possible!to!assess!the!level!of!risk!that! worker’s!engaged!in.!!These!descriptions!rarely!contained!information!on!the!social! dynamics!between!workers,!which!made!a!more!thorough!qualitative!categorization! of!the!interactions!in!these!events!impossible.!!! !  The!evaluation!of!social!dynamics!was!used!to!assess!how!they!may!have!  contributed!to!the!normalization!and!perpetuation!of!unsafe!work!practices.!!  ! 29!  Because!WestTech!does!not!use!a!method!similar!to!CAMSoc,!which!attempts!to! analyze!the!safety!social!capital!in!accident!investigations,!although!social!factors! are!included!for!descriptive!purposes,!they!remain!uninterrogated.!!This!research! sought!to!identify!underlying!social!factors,!including!sources!and!indicators!of! safety!social!capital,!and!assess!how!these!factors!could!have!contributed!to! conditions!where!negative!outcomes!occurred.!  3(  RESULTS(  ! !  The!occupations!included!for!analysis!were!all!maleUdominated:!over!the!tenU  year!span!under!consideration,!just!5.25%!of!Electricians!and!!.002%!of!PLTs! employed!were!women.!!There!were!no!female!Cable!Splicers!employed.!!Perhaps! not!surprisingly,!the!vast!majority!of!workers!involved!in!accidents!were!men:! women!accounted!for!just!0.4%!of!all!incidents.! !  The!occupational!groups!included!in!the!analysis!are!all!over!represented!in!  the!accident!database:!something!that!could!be!expected,!given!the!nature!of!the! work.!!However,!they!are!overUrepresented!to!differing!degrees.!!Together,! Electricians,!Cable!Splicers,!and!PLTs!at!WestTech!made!up!just!12.9%!of!the!total! workforce,!but!accounted!for!almost!half!(46.6%)!of!all!of!the!safety!incidents!and! over!70%!of!all!fatalities6.!Electricians!made!up!just!4.9%!of!the!total!workforce!at! WestTech,!and!accounted!for!10.7%!of!reported!accidents!(2.2!times! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6!WestTech!has!had!27!fatalities!over!a!period!of!40!years:!this!figure!refers!to!the! history!of!fatalities,!due!to!the!relative!infrequency!which!fatalities!occur!when! compared!to!nonUfatal!incidents.!From!2002!to!2012,!there!have!been!7!fatalities!at! WestTech:!4!involving!PLTs!and!3!involving!Electricians.!!! ! ! 30!  overrepresented!in!reported!accidents).!!They!scored,!on!average,!lower!on!the!RiskU Composite!measure!than!the!overall!mean!average!of!3.58!(M!=!3.29,!SD!=!1.296).! PLTs!made!up!7.7%!of!the!total!workforce!at!WestTech!and!accounted!for!34.6%!of! reported!accidents!(4.5!times!overrepresented!in!reported!accidents).!!They!scored,! on!average,!higher!on!the!RiskUComposite!measure!than!the!overall!mean!(M!=!3.64,! SD!=!1.293).!!Cable!Splicers!represented!just!0.3%!of!the!total!workforce!but! accounted!for!1.3%!of!all!reported!accidents!(4.3!times!overrepresented!in!reported! accidents).!!They!had!the!highest!average!RiskUComposite!measure!of!the! occupational!groups!!(M!=!4.14,!SD!=!1.699).!!All!of!the!included!occupational!groups! encounter!similar!exposure!to!dangerous!circumstances,!yet!there!is!a!discrepancy! in!the!proportion!of!their!overrepresentation!and!in!their!RiskUComposite!scores.!! PLTs!and!Cable!Splicers!account!for!a!far!greater!disproportion!of!accidents!than! Electricians,!and!score!higher!on!the!measurement!of!risk.!!! Table(2.((Descriptive(Statistics(–(Occupational(Groups(and(RiskWSeverity(;(Risk(;(Severity(( Measurements( Occupation!  %!of!total! workforce!  %!of! accidents!  ! n!  Mean:! Risk!Severity!  Mean:!! Risk!Scale!  Mean:! Severity!Scale!  Electrician!  4.9%!  10.7%!  183!  3.29!(SD!=!1.296)!  1.37!(SD!=!.751)!  1.92!(SD!=!.870)!  PLT!  7.7%!  34.6%!  593!  3.64!(SD!=!1.293)!  1.65!(SD!=!.944)!  1.99!(SD!=!.827)!  Cable! Splicer! ! Overall! Combined!  0.3%!  1.3%!  22!  4.14!(SD!=!1.699)!  2.05!(SD!=!1.253)!  2.04!(SD!=!.825)!  ! 12.9%!  ! 46.6%!  ! 798!  ! 3.58!(SD!=!1.316)!  ! 1.60!(SD!=!.923)!  ! 1.98!(!SD!=!.837)!  !  !  All!of!these!sectors!are!maleUdominated,!and!involve!work!that!is!culturally!  defined!as!conventionally!masculine!(i.e.:!skilled!trades).!!Based!on!the!previous! literature,!workers!in!similar!sectors!have!been!found!to!be!particularly!vulnerable! ! 31!  to!engaging!in!behaviours!that!adhere!to!a!conventional!male!role!(i.e.!riskUtaking! and!expressions!of!autonomy,!such!as!rule!violations).!!Can!the!outcomes!from!these! measurements!offer!any!insight!into!the!discrepancy!in!the!rate!of! overrepresentation?!!! ! Table(3.((Coefficients(from(the(Regression(of(RiskWSeverity(Outcome(on(Occupational( Group( ! !!!!!!!!!!!!Model!1!!!!!!!!!!!Model!2! ! Occupational+Group+ # ! PLT! !!!!.355**! !!!!!!!.365***! Cable!Splicer! !!.847*! !!.848*! ! ! ! Age! U! .003! ! ! ! Experience+ # # Apprentice! U! U! Foreperson! U! U! ! ! ! Year+ # # 2003! U! U! 2004! U! U! 2005! U! U! 2006! U! U! 2007! U! U! 2008! U! U! 2009! U! U! 2010! U! U! 2011! U! U! 2012! U! U! ! ! ! R 2! .018! .019! R2!Adjusted! .015! .015! ! *!p!<!!.05!**p#<!.01!***p#<#.001# # Variables!  !!!!!!!Model!3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Model!4! ! !!!!!.392***! !!!.876**! ! .005! ! # !.004! U.208! ! # U! U! U! U! U! U! U! U! U! U! ! !.022! !.016!  !!  ! !!!!!.398***! !!!.898**! ! .004! ! # U.270! U.211! ! # !.288! !!!!.443*! !!!.369*! !.215! !.215! !.353! !.237! !.166! !.140! !.145! ! 0.033! 0.016!  3.1(  RiskWSeverity(Composite(  ! !  In!order!to!assess!how!risk!taking!and!severity!of!outcomes!varied!by!  occupation,!a!multiple!linear!regression!model!was!used,!including!controls!for!age,! experience!(including!apprentice!and!foreperson!classification),!and!for!variations!  ! 32!  over!the!tenUyear!span!(see!Table!3).!!The!results!indicate!that!being!a!PLT!increased! the!risk!composite!score!by!.398!(p>.001)#and!being!a!Cable!Splicer!increased!the! risk!composite!score!by!.898!(p>.01)#when!compared!to!Electricians.!!The!results! also!indicate!that!overall!riskUcomposite!scores!rose!by!.443!(p>.05)!in!2004!and! .369!(p>.05)!in!2005!when!compared!to!2002.!These!results!hold!when!controlling! for!age,!experience,!and!year.! !  Although!age!and!experience!are!often!thought!to!be!contributors!to!riskU  taking,!the!results!do!not!support!this!conclusion,!as!age,!or!being!an!apprentice!or!a! foreperson!are!not!significant!indicators!of!riskUseverity!outcomes.!!However,!the! proportion!of!variability!in!the!data!that!is!accounted!for!by!this!model,!as!! represented!by!the!adjusted!R2!is!1.6!percent.!  ( ( ( ( ( ( ( !  ( ( ! ! ! !  ! 33!  3.2(  Logistic(Regression(Models((  ! Table(4.((Coefficients(and(Odds(Ratios(from(the(Regression(of(RiskWSeverity(Dummy( Variable(on(Independent(Variables( Variable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!β !!  ! !!!!!!!!!!!Sig.!!!!!!!!!Odds!Ratioa!  Occupational+Group+ # ! ! PLT! !!!.682! !.000! !!!1.978***! Cable!Splicer! !!!.673! !.217! !!1.96! (Electrician)# U! U! U! + !!!! !! !!! Age+ .005! .549! 1.005! ! ! ! ! Experience+ # # # Apprentice! !!U.247! !.392! !!.781! Foreperson! !!U.304! .19! !!.738! (Journeyperson)# U! U! U! # Year+ # # # 2003! !!!!.695! .04! !!2.004*! 2004! !!1.109! !!.004! !!!!!!3.032**! 2005! !.91! !!.012! !!!!2.483*! 2006! .4! !.205! !1.492! 2007! !!!!.397! !.224! !!1.487! 2008! !!U.021! !.945! !!!!.979! 2009! !!!!.113! !.73! !!!1.12! 2010! !!!!.068! !.823! 1.07! 2011! !!!!.436! !.434! !!1.546! 2012! !!!!.343! !.513! 1.41! ! a#Odds!ratios!less!than!1!predict!a!decrease!in!risk!behaviour!and!less!severe!outcomes;!odds!ratios! greater!than!1!predict!an!increase!in!risk!and!severity!of!outcomes.!  ! ! RiskMSeverity#Dummy#Variable# !  The!binary!measure!of!the!RiskUSeverity!scale!was!analyzed!with!logistic!  regression!to!assess!whether!the!skewed!distribution!altered!the!substantive! findings!of!the!results!(see!Table!4).!!Being!a!PLT!is!associated!with!a!98%!(p>.001)! increase!in!odds!of!experiencing!severe!injuries!and!taking!risks.!!The!results!did!not! remain!significant!for!Cable!Splicers.!!The!results!also!indicate!that!the!odds!of! experiencing!a!severe!injury!or!taking!risks!rose!by!100!percent!in!2003!(p>.05),!by! 230!percent!(p>.01)#in!2004!in!by!148!percent!(p>.05)#in!2005.!!  ! 34!  Table(5.((Coefficients(and(Odds(Ratios(from(the(Regression(of(Risk(Dummy(Variable(on(((((((((( Independent(Variables( ! Variable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!β !! !!!!!!!!!!!Sig.!!!!!!!!!Odds!Ratioa! + # ! ! Occupational+Group+ PLT! !.622! !!.002! 1.862**! Cable!Splicer! !.941! !!.048! 2.563*! (Electrician)# U! U! U! ! Age+ ! ! ! ! Experience+ # # # Apprentice! !.266! !!.318! 1.304! Foreperson! !.157! !!.451! 1.17! (Journeyperson)# U! U! U! ! Year+ # # # 2003! !.776! !!.006! !!!!2.174***! 2004! !.995! !!.001! !!!!2.704**! 2005! !.632! !!.028! !!1.882*! 2006! !.017! !!.954! 1.017! 2007! !.219! !!.469! 1.245! 2008! !!.076! !!.805! 1.079! 2009! U.319! .35! !!.727! 2010! U.266! !!.397! !!.766! 2011! !.321! .53! !1.379! 2012! !.351! .81! !1.42! ! a#Odds!ratios!less!than!1!predict!a!decrease!in!risk!behaviour;!odds!ratios!greater!than!1!predict!an! increase!in!risk!behaviour.!  # Risk#Dummy#Variable# !  Further!logistic!regression!analysis!was!done!using!risk!dummy!variable!to!  assess!whether!more!or!less!risk!was!engaged!in!based!on!occupation,!age,! experience,!and!year!(see!Table!5).!!Being!a!PLT!was!associated!with!an!86%!(p>.01)# increase!in!odds!of!taking!risks,!compared!to!Electricians.!The!odds!for!Cable! Splicers!taking!risks!were!156!percent!(p>.05)!higher!than!Electricians.!!The!odds! ratio!of!engaging!in!risk!taking!increased!by!117!percent!in!2003!(p>.01),!170! percent!in!2004!(p>.001),!and!88!percent!in!2005!(p>.05)!when!compared!to!2002.!! !  ! 35!  Table(6.((Coefficients(and(Odds(Ratios(from(the(Regression(of(Severity(Dummy( Variable(on(Independent(Variables( Variable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!β !! !!!!!!!!!!!Sig.!!!!!!!!!Odds!Ratioa! + # ! ! Occupational+Group+ PLT! 0.419!! 0.021*! 1.52! Cable!Splicer! 0.617! 0.207! 1.853! (Electrician)# U! U! U! ! ! ! ! Age! 0.011! 0.166! 1.011! ! ! ! ! Experience+ # # # Apprentice! U0.291! 0.261! 0.747! Foreperson! U0.432! 0.035*! 0.649! (Journeyperson)# U! U! U! ! Year+ # # # 2003! 0.224! 0.427! 1.251! 2004! 0.503! 0.095! 1.653! 2005! 0.438! 0.133! 1.55! 2006! 0.585! 0.044*! 1.795! 2007! 0.665! 0.029*! 1.944! 2008! 0.223! 0.445! 1.249! 2009! 0.414! 0.184! 1.514! 2010! 0.44! 0.126! 1.553! 2011! 0.215! 0.663! 1.25! 2012! 0.306! 0.329! 1.358! ! a#Odds!ratios!less!than!1!predict!nonUsevere!outcomes;!odds!ratios!greater!than!1!predict!severe! outcomes.!  # Severity#Dummy#Variable# !  Further!logistic!regression!analysis!was!done!using!severity!dummy!variable!  to!assess!whether!severity!of!outcome!increased!or!decreased!based!on!occupation,! age,!experience,!and!year!(see!Table!6).!!Being!a!PLT!was!associated!with!a!52! percent!(p>.05)#increase!in!odds!of!being!severely!injured!when!compared!to! Electricians.!!The!Cable!Splicer’s!severity!log!coefficient!was!no!longer!significant,! indicating!that!they!did!not!acquire!significantly!more!serious!injuries!than! Electricians.!Being!a!Foreperson!was!associated!with!a!35!percent!(p>.05)!decrease! in!odds!of!being!severely!injured,!when!compared!to!Journeypersons.!!In!2006!and!  ! 36!  2007,!the!odds!of!severe!outcomes!increased!by!80!percent!in!2006!(p>.05),!and!by! 94!percent!in!2007!(p>.05),!respectively,!when!compared!to!2002.!! !  Given!that!all!of!the!incidents!stem!from!the!same!company,!governed!by!the!  same!safety!regulations,!with!the!same!extent!of!safety!training!and!are!represented! by!the!same!union,!how!might!these!discrepancies!in!riskUtaking!behaviour!be! explained?!!What!is!different!in!how!these!occupations!either!assess!or!approach! risk!or!safety!regulations?!!  3.3( ! !  Document(Analyses(–(Root(Cause(Reports( Seven!root!cause!accident!reports!(the!internal!investigations!of!serious!  accidents!or!fatalities!at!WestTech)!were!analyzed.!!Of!these,!in!all!but!one,!relevant! social!dynamics!that!could!have!contributed!to!the!outcomes!were!identified.!!Not!all! of!these!accidents!involved!PLTs,!Cable!Slicers!or!Electricians,!but!all!provide! information!on!the!social!dynamics!in!the!work!crews,!and!how!accident! investigations!include!(or!do!not!include)!worker!behaviour!in!the!social!context!as! a!potential!contributor!to!outcomes.! !  The!first!incident!report,!investigated!an!accident!at!the!Main!Station7.!!This!  accident!involved!a!worker,!Gary,!who!received!first!and!second!degree!burns!to!a! large!percentage!of!his!body,!while!working!at!a!power!substation.!!Gary!was! working!as!a!General!Tradesman!on!a!sixUperson!crew.!!He!had!thirteen!years!of! experience!working!in!his!position!at!WestTech,!and!all!members!of!the!team,!other! than!an!apprentice!on!site,!had!ten!to!twentyUsix!years!of!experience.!!The!crew! were!working!at!the!Main!Station!to!remove!and!replace!power!equipment.!!As! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7!All!names!of!locations!and!workers!are!pseudonyms! ! 37!  required!by!policy,!before!starting!work,!all!members!of!the!crew!performed!a! documented!(although!unsigned)!tailboard!together.!!A!tailboard!is!standard!safety! procedure!at!WestTech.!!All!members!of!the!team!are!asked!to!identify,! communicate!and!document!risks!associated!with!the!job,!and!create!a!work!plan! for!how!these!risks!will!be!managed!to!keep!all!workers!safe.!!All!members!of!the! crew!are!required!to!participate!and!then!to!sign!off!on!the!documented!tailboard,! signifying!that!they!understand!the!dangers!of!the!job,!and!that!they!commit!to!the! safety!procedures!in!place!to!mitigate!those!risks.!!The!tailboard!for!this!incident! included!safety!issues!and!a!detailed!job!plan!for!each!member!of!the!crew.!!A! manager!and!an!Electrician!worked!in!an!adjoining!room,!while!the!SubUForeman! and!Gary!worked!on!the!equipment!that!was!being!changed!out.!!The!SubUForeman! stopped!the!work!to!check!on!job!details!in!another!area!of!the!substation,!and!told! Gary!to!“stay!put”,!indicating!for!him!to!stop!work.!!A!few!minutes!after!the!SubU Foreman!left,!Gary!recommenced!work,!without!the!order!to!do!so,!and!diverged! from!the!work!plan!that!was!agreed!upon!in!the!tailboard.!!At!this!point,!Gary! attempted!to!climb!over!a!high!voltage!piece!of!equipment,!which!resulted!in!the! triggering!of!an!explosion,!which!was!large!enough!to!dislodge!several!windows!in! the!substation,!and!caused!significant!first!and!second!degree!burns!on!Gary’s!body.!! It!was!clear!from!the!report!that!Gary!deviated!from!the!work!plan,!engaged!in!not! only!risky,!but!prohibited!behaviour!when!he!climbed!over!the!equipment,!and!was! wearing!only!partial!personal!safety!equipment!(PPE8),!because!he!was!not!wearing! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8!“PPE”!!or!“Personal!Protection!Equipment”!refers!to!all!equipment!that!is!worn!by! a!worker!to!protect!them!during!a!job.!!Examples!are!safety!goggles,!rubberU insulated!gloves,!fire!retardant!coveralls,!etc.! ! 38!  safety!goggles.!!Gary!was!interviewed!for!the!root!cause!analysis!and!indicated!that! he!was!“not!content!to!be!idle”!and!expressed!that!he!knew!what!to!do!so!he! recommenced!work!without!waiting!for!the!SubUForeman’s!return.!!He!indicated! that!although!he!was!aware!of!the!danger!of!climbing!over!the!piece!of!energized! equipment,!he!had!done!it!before!without!a!negative!consequence.!!He!also! acknowledged!that!the!rules!in!place!against!approaching!dangerous!equipment!in! the!manner!he!did!were!in!place!to!“keep!people!like![him]!from!doing!what! happened”.!!The!conclusions!from!the!root!cause!analysis!were!that!Gary!required! more!safety!training.!!Further!to!this,!it!was!noted!that!although!he!violated!a! fundamental!safety!policy,!and!has!problems!with!“discipline”,!further!discipline! would!not!be!required,!since!he!would!be!“motivated!to!change!his!behaviour!and!to! abide!by!safety!regulations”!indicating!that!the!consequences!of!his!actions!would!be! a!“constant!reminder!to!adhere![to!safety!rules]!in!the!future”.!!! !  The!root!cause!report!investigating!Gary’s!accident!is!a!good!example!of!how!  social!dynamics!are!left!uninterrogated!in!safety!investigations.!!Gary!clearly! violated!safety!procedures!by!not!following!his!superior’s!directions,!failed!to!clear! his!actions!with!the!SubUForeman,!did!not!wear!proper!PPE,!and!engaged!in! dangerous!behaviour!by!trying!to!climb!over!live,!high!voltage!equipment.!!Gary!was! a!General!Tradesman:!a!maleUdominated,!maleUtyped!occupation.!!His!actions!align! with!what,!in!these!contexts,!can!be!interpreted!as!conventional!masculine!norms:! defying!authority,!acting!autonomously,!and!taking!risks.!!It!is!difficult!to!assume!his! behaviour!was!carried!out!in!ignorance:!all!workers!were!present!during!the! tailboard,!and!consented!to!their!role!within!the!work!plan,!and!further!to!this,!Gary!  ! 39!  admitted!that!he!was!aware!that!his!behaviour!was!unsafe!in!the!postUaccident! interview.!!He!also!had!thirteen!years!of!experience!at!WestTech,!which!would! suggest!he!had!ample!experience,!and!arguably!knew!the!safety!protocols.!!The! conclusions!of!the!root!cause!analysis!suggested!that!Gary!required!more!safety! training,!and!that!the!repercussions!of!his!actions!were!punishment!and!severe! enough!to!ensure!that!he!would!not!engage!in!similar!behaviour!again.!!The!limited! conclusions!reached!in!this!report!indicate!that!other!elements,!such!as!underlying! cultural!norms!were!not!seen!as!contributing!factors.!!The!recommendation!that! Gary!required!more!safety!training!would!make!sense,!had!there!been!evidence!that! Gary!did!not!know!proper!safety!procedure;!however,!Gary’s!admitted!that!he!was! aware!of!the!safety!procedures!which!he!breached,!that!he!had!engaged!in!this! behaviour!before,!and!acknowledged!that!the!safety!regulations!were!in!place!to! stop!“people!like![him]”!from!doing!that!sort!of!behaviour.!Here,!Gary!makes!an! open!acknowledgement!that!he!broke!safety!rules!intentionally,!and!identifies! himself!as!a!riskUtaker,!by!suggesting!that!“people!like!him”!often!engage!in!unsafe! work!practices,!even!after!facing!the!repercussions!of!his!actions.!!It!seems!unlikely! that!safety!training!will!address!this!type!of!attitude,!which,!in!light!of!the!research! that!looks!at!gender!and!safety!in!similar!fields,!is!plausibly!a!cultural!norm,!and! likely!to!be!held!by!other!workers.!!In!this!incident,!it!could!be!argued!that!Gary!is! asserting!a!(dangerous)!autonomy,!which!involves!riskUtaking,!evidenced!by!not! wearing!all!of!the!required!PPE,!by!exposing!himself!to!highUvoltage!equipment,!and! ignoring!instructions!from!his!superior.!!When!he!was!questioned!about!his!actions,! he!indicated!that!he!was!the!sort!of!person!who!engaged!in!riskUtaking!behaviour,!  ! 40!  and!even!volunteered!the!information!that!he!had!previously!done!the!exact!same! action!that!resulted!in!his!current!injuries.!!By!identifying!himself!in!this!way,!and! reinforcing!that!he!has!taken!on!this!sort!of!risk!before,!it!can!be!argued!that!he!is! posturing!in!a!way!that!aligns!with!conventional!masculine!norms.!!Because!these! elements!are!left!uninvestigated,!it!is!unlikely!that!they!are!considered!relevant.# !  Another!incident!of!note!happened!at!Elmer!Creek,!which!resulted!in!two!  workers!being!seriously!injured.!!A!Technologist!(Adrian),!and!an!Electrician! (Thomas)!were!working!on!a!high!voltage!electrical!panel.!!Although!the!two!had!not! worked!together!before,!both!had!extensive!experience.!!The!job!required!Adrian!to! oversee!Thomas’!work!on!the!panel:!because!the!equipment!that!Electricians!at! WestTech!work!on!is!so!diverse,!the!technologists’!role!is!to!be!the!expert!on!specific! pieces!of!equipment,!so!he!or!she!can!oversee!all!work!done!by!the!Electrician,! ensuring!that!proper!and!safe!techniques!are!followed.!!A!documented!tailboard!was! completed,!and!Thomas!was!instructed!to!study!the!panel!to!become!familiar!with!it,! while!Adrian!went!to!have!the!equipment!deUenergized!by!other!workers!onUsite,! which!would!ensure!it!would!be!safe!for!Thomas!to!work!on.!!A!few!minutes!after!he! left,!Thomas!overheard!Adrian!speaking!with!another!worker,!indicating!that!the! equipment!had!been!deUenergized.!!Instead!of!waiting!for!Adrian!to!return!to! supervise!his!work,!Thomas!decided!to!start!work!on!his!own.!!Although!the!correct! equipment!had!been!deUenergized,!Thomas!had!misread!the!diagram!of!the!panel,! and!had!transposed!which!wire!he!was!working!on!with!a!live!wire.!!Because!he!did! not!wait!for!the!technologist’!approval!before!starting!the!job,!this!error!that!would! have!arguably!been!caught!by!Adrian,!resulted!in!Thomas!coming!into!contact!with!  ! 41!  electricity.!!Adrian!returned!to!find!Thomas!being!actively!electrocuted!and,!in!a! panic,!he!reached!out!to!knock!him!free.!!This!resulted!in!Adrian!being!caught!in!the! current!as!well.!!Another!worker!eventually!pulled!the!workers!free,!but!both! suffered!second!and!third!degree!burns!on!substantial!portions!of!their!bodies,!and! Adrian!dislocated!his!shoulder.!!In!the!postUincident!interview,!Thomas!indicated! that!he!had!noticed!a!small!explosion!of!sparks!when!he!started!moving!cables,!had! considered!calling!Adrian!to!discuss,!but!instead!jiggled!other!cables!to!see!if!it! happened!again:!when!it!didn’t,!he!continued!the!job.!!This!procedure!was!not!an! approved!work!routine.!!It!was!also!noted!in!the!report!that!sparks!are!a!positive! indication!of!working!on!a!live!line.!!The!root!cause!analysis!identified!several! causes!of!the!incident,!including!failure!to!follow!procedure!since!Thomas!did!not! wait!for!inspection!or!instruction!from!Adrian,!and!the!technical!issue!of!a!lack!of! clarity!on!the!labels!for!the!wires,!which!may!have!resulted!in!Thomas’!transposing! of!the!wire!codes.!The!report!suggests!that!more!training!and!better!labeling! techniques!would!solve!these!issues.!!The!“human!factor”,!of!communication!issues! is!noted!in!the!report!as!well.!!The!remedy!for!this!human!error!was!to!include! “effective!communications!and!listening”!in!the!communications!training!module! that!workers!are!required!to!complete!in!their!safety!training.!!! !  Again,!although!a!tailboard!was!performed!and!both!workers!signed!off!on!  this!work!plan,!Thomas!failed!to!follow!safety!regulations.!!Instead!of!waiting!for! Adrian!to!help!draw!up!and!approve!his!work!plan,!Thomas!acted!autonomously! and!moved!forward!with!the!job,!without!Adrian’s!supervision.!!He!also!engaged!in! riskUtaking!behaviour!when!he!failed!to!follow!proper!technique!when!there!were!  ! 42!  indications!that!the!panel!wasn’t!secure,!following!the!sparking!of!the!live!cables.!! Rather!than!testing!the!voltage!safely,!with!an!appropriate!tool,!he!jiggled!the! surrounding!cables!to!see!if!he!could!replicate!the!sparking.!!The!root!cause!analysis! identifies!that!Thomas!failed!to!follow!procedure,!and!concludes!that!more!training! around!proper!technique!and!on!“effective!communications”!will!remedy!these! issues.!!Thomas,!however,!was!aware!of!the!safety!regulations,!as!these!were! addressed!during!the!tailboard,!and!he!admitted!that!he!had!considered!calling! Adrian!over!to!discuss!the!sparking,!so!he!was!aware!that!the!situation!was! potentially!unsafe.!!Instead!of!taking!these!precautions,!he!chose!to!risk!testing!the! soundness!of!methods!himself,!once!again!using!an!unsafe!(or!risky)!method!to!do! so.!!Once!again,!the!conclusions!from!the!root!cause!analysis!fail!to!consider!why! Thomas!engaged!in!the!riskUtaking,!and!why!he!decided!against!waiting!for!Adrian’s! opinion,!and!instead!acted!autonomously.!!Never!is!the!relationship!between!the! two!men!interrogated!as!a!factor!to!analyze!as!a!root!cause!of!the!incident.!!Although! the!recommendation!is!made!to!modify!the!communication!module!in!their!training,! the!actual!(and!arguably!underlying)!social!dynamics!that!impeded!cooperative! behaviour!are!again!left!uninvestigated.! !  Finally,!and!perhaps!most!illustratively,!is!the!report!which!investigated!a!  fatal!incident!involving!Pete,!who!was!a!Power!Line!Technician.!!The!crew!was!made! up!of!six!members:!three!senior!employees!who!all!had!over!thirty!years!of! experience,!and!three!new!employees,!who!were!all!hired!within!two!weeks!to!nine! months!prior!to!the!accident.!!The!job!required!the!replacement!of!several! transmission!structures,!and!the!work!took!place!over!two!days.!!!A!documented!  ! 43!  tailboard!was!completed!(although!not!signed),!which!included!the!identification!of! onUsite!hazards!and!unusual!conditions,!and!an!explicit!statement!to!“watch![the]! ground!potential!on![the]!guys”,!indicating!that!precautions!should!be!taken!to! ensure!the!crew!working!near!live!wires!did!not!become!a!returnUpath!for! electricity,!which!would!result!in!electrocution.!!The!SubUForeman!on!site!explicitly! stated!to!workers!that!they!should!not!rush,!cut!corners,!or!do!work!they!weren’t! comfortable!doing.!!This!reminder!was!made!because!the!SubUForeman!took!part!in! a!safety!meeting!that!morning,!which!discussed!how!commercial!pressures!should! not!be!borne!at!the!crew!level.!!This!is!important!to!note!as!these!workers!were,!at! least!at!face!value,!encouraged!to!not!engage!in!unsafe!work!or!engage!in!work!they! didn’t!feel!qualified!to!do!or!safe!doing,!regardless!of!commercial!pressures.!!! !  The!approved!work!plan!was!noted!in!the!postUincident!analysis!to!have!cut!a!  few!corners,!which!impeded!on!the!safety!of!the!crewmembers.!The!SubUforeperson! ultimately!has!responsibility!to!approve!the!final!work!plan,!although!all!workers! must!sign!off!to!state!that!they!agree!with!the!soundness!of!the!plan.!!!Despite!all! members!later!acknowledging!that!they!had!felt!the!work!plan!wasn’t!entirely!safe,! they!commenced!work!according!to!the!plan.!!It!was!noted!in!the!root!cause!analysis! that!one!of!the!new!PLTs!approached!Pete,!who!was!a!senior!PLT,!to!discuss!his! concerns!over!the!plan,!but!neither!himself!nor!Pete!brought!this!to!the!SubU Foreman’s!attention!or!stopped!work!at!that!point.!Early!on!in!the!job,!Pete!received! a!mild!shock,!or!“bite”,!from!one!of!the!lines!he!was!in!proximity!to.!!This!was!an! important!signal!that!some!aspect!of!the!work!site!had!not!been!secured,!and! although!four!crewmembers!noted!they!had!seen!this!happen,!none!of!them!called!  ! 44!  for!the!job!to!stop!in!order!to!reUassess!the!site!and!techniques!and!perform!a!new! tailboard,!which!is!WestTech’s!policy.!!Instead,!Pete!carried!on!working,!eventually! being!electrocuted,!as!voltage!passed!through!his!body!at!ten!times!the!amount!of! current!that!is!considered!fatal.!!The!same!contributing!factors!that!led!to!the!earlier! “bite”!were!concluded!to!also!be!responsible!for!the!fatal!accident.! !  It!is!important!to!note!that!in!the!postUincident!interview,!all!members!of!the!  crew!acknowledged!that!they!had!not!felt!the!work!plan!in!place!was!entirely!safe,! and!although!they!had!been!reminded!of!their!right!to!refuse!unsafe!worker!minutes! prior!to!the!tailboard,!none!of!them!spoke!up!to!voice!these!concerns.!!Further!to! this,!one!of!the!new!PLTs!raised!his!concerns!with!Pete!about!the!work!plan,!but! neither!he!nor!Pete!brought!this!to!anyone!else’s!attention.!!Although!all!of!the! workers!indicated!they!had!noticed!that!Pete!deviated!from!the!already!unsafe!work! plan,!no!one!voiced!their!concern!about!this!either.!The!report!does!not!go!into! detail!or!question!why!none!of!the!crew!spoke!up,!or!investigate!why!the!new!PLTs! concerns!weren’t!acknowledged!or!validated.!It!isn’t!asked!why!no!one!on!the!crew! stopped!the!job!after!Pete!received!the!initial!“bite”!from!the!live!line.!!These! questions!are!not!raised,!and!therefore!they!cannot!be!answered!directly.!!! !  When!analyzing!the!report!postUhoc,!it!is!helpful!to!remember!that!these!  workers!were!all!PLTs,!and!their!actions!were!conceivably!embedded!within,!what! WestTech!calls!a!“cowboy”!culture,!marked!by!acts!of!autonomy,!shows!of!courage,! and!disregard!for!authority.!In!this!context,!the!workers’!actions!might!be! interpreted!as!aligning!with!normative!expectations!nested!in!a!culture!that! valorizes!riskUtaking,!displays!of!bravado,!and!autonomy.!!Perhaps!the!workers!  ! 45!  didn’t!feel!comfortable!questioning!the!competency!of!another!worker!on!their!crew! when!they!failed!to!stop!the!job,!upon!recognizing!it!was!unsafe.!!It!is!also!possible,! in!this!context,!that!Pete!knew!his!actions!were!unsafe!but!felt!compelled,!or!even! comfortable,!to!take!such!a!risk,!given!the!proposed!normative!culture.!!The!report! also!never!addresses!the!fact!that!the!crew!reported!that!Pete!appeared! apprehensive!continuing!the!job,!after!receiving!the!initial!bite,!although!he,!nor!the! other!workers,!spoke!up!or!called!for!a!new!tailboard.!Why!would!Pete!continue!to! work,!despite!his!apparent!apprehension?!!Why!would!his!coUworkers!idly!observe! his!seemingly!dangerous!actions,!despite!their!concern?!!Perhaps!he,!and!the!rest!of! the!crew!did!not!question!the!unsafe!work!or!indicators!of!risk,!because!they!saw! the!danger!as!an!essential!or!expected!element!to!both!the!work!they!did,!and!as!an! avenue!to!conform!and!to!be!accepted!in!a!culture!that!values!shows!of!bravery.!!! However,!these!issued!do!not!seem!to!have!been!recognized!as!relevant!factors,!and! because!of!this,!these!issues!were!not!probed.! !  The!corrective!actions!recommended!do!not!appear!to!acknowledge!that!  workers!actions!were,!when!framed!in!the!logic!of!the!root!cause!report,!irrational.! The!root!cause!analysis!of!this!incident!notes!that!safety!regulations!were!not! followed,!and!indicate!that!the!SubUforeman!was,!in!fact,!aware!of!the!requirements.! Additionally,!the!report!acknowledged!that!all!senior!members!of!the!crew!had! received!recent!training!(within!the!last!2!years)!on!the!hazards!that!were! encountered.!!The!corrective!action!calls!for!better!training!of!crew!leaders!and! potential!crew!leaders:!something!which!seems!to!miss!the!‘root!cause’,!given!that! he!indicated!that!he!was!aware!of!the!safety!requirements!that!were!violated.!!  ! 46!  !It!is!also!recommended!that!workers!should!be!reminded!that!they!are!responsible! for!their!own!safety!when!at!work,!and!that!a!presentation!of!this!particular!root! cause!report!should!be!included!in!training!for!illustrative!purposes.!!Additional! training!is!recommended!for!workers!to!better!learn!tailboard!procedures,!with!the! aim!of!strengthening!hazard!identification.!!Again,!it!must!be!asked!if!these!remedies! will!get!at!the!underlying!issues!that!seem!to!be!present!in!the!incident.!!All! members!of!the!work!crew!acknowledged!that!they!knew!Pete’s!actions!were! unsafe,!that!the!work!site!had!not!been!secured!in!a!safe!manner,!and!that!they!had! completed!and!agreed!to!the!tailboard,!regardless!of!these!concerns.!!These!issues! does!not!appear!to!be!ones!that!will!be!remedied!with!more!training,!or!hazard! identification,!or!even!reminders!of!being!responsible!for!one’s!own!safety.!Although! there!was!no!record!of!the!new!members!of!the!crew!receiving!training!from! WestTech,!one!did!raise!his!concerns!with!Pete,!and!all!admitted!to!recognizing!the! violations!in!safety!protocol!throughout!the!job,!which!suggests!they!could!all! readily!and!competently!recognize!violations!of!regulation!and!potential!dangers.! The!conclusion!of!the!report!is!that!that!the!SubUforeman!and!crew!did!“not!have!a! full!appreciation!of!the!true!nature!of!the!hazards!attached!to!their!work”.!!This!lack! of!appreciation!of!the!nature!of!the!risk!seems!unlikely,!given!the!information! outlined!above.!!! Although!WestTech!acknowledges!the!“cowboy”!culture!of!PLTs,!never!are! the!tensions!or!dynamics!between!workers!in!this!cowboy!culture!discussed!or! taken!into!consideration!as!a!“root!cause”!of!the!incidents.!It!is!arguable,!given!the!  ! 47!  existing!literature!that!other!maleUdominated,!maleUtyped!sectors!at!WestTech,! including!other!skilled!trades,!conform!to!a!similar!“cowboy”!culture.! The!incident!analyses!don’t!ask!or!answer!why!the!workers!were!compelled! to!act!in!the!ways!they!did,!did!not!do!what!they!were!supposed!to!do,!or!follow!the! regulations!they!were!supposed!to!follow,!but!instead!usually!recommend!further! training,!indicating!that!they!see!these!problems!as!stemming!from!individual!or! training!issues,!rather!than!being!seen!as!indicative!of!deeper,!social!or!cultural! issues.!!Further!to!this,!the!qualitative!descriptions!of!accidents!in!the!database,! which!have!the!potential!to!serve!as!a!rich!source!of!socially!contextual!information,! were!often!brief!and!vague.!!The!lack!of!elaboration!of!the!social!context!in!these! descriptions!also!suggests!that!WestTech!does!not!consider!social!and!cultural! contributors!to!safety!behaviour!as!important!aspects!of!managing!safety.!! !The!qualitative!accident!descriptions!in!the!database!was!coded!to!assess! risk!taking!and!rule!violations,!but!given!the!lack!of!interrogation!of!the!contextual! information!in!the!root!cause!analyses,!it!seems!likely!that!these!descriptors!from! the!database!omit!important!contextual!information.! !  If!so!little!is!done!to!assess!the!impact!of!cultural!and!social!contexts!that!  could!set!the!stage!for!increased!riskUtaking!and!violations!of!safety!regulations,!how! can!policy!recommendations!be!expected!to!be!wholly!effective?! ! !  ! 48!  4(  DISCUSSION(  4.1(  The(Role(of(Risk(Taking(and(Rule(Violation(in(Overrepresentation(  ! !  The!results!from!the!quantitative!analysis!suggest!that!PLTs!and!Cable!  Splicers!engage!in!more!risk!taking!behaviour!and!violate!safety!regulations!more! often!than!Electricians!at!WestTech.!!PLTs!both!engage!in!more!risk!taking!and! violate!more!rules!when!compared!with!Electricians,!and!also!have!more!severe! accident!outcomes.!!!Although!Cable!Splicers!engage!in!more!risk!taking,!this!does! not!appear!to!result!in!more!severe!injuries.!The!results!also!indicate!that!risk!taking! and!the!severity!of!the!accident!outcomes!fluctuate!over!the!tenUyear!period.! !  The!results!from!the!OLS!regression!indicate!that!the!riskUseverity!composite!  scores!vary!by!occupation,!which!could!conceivably!be!a!factor!in!the!variance!of!the! disproportion!to!number!of!incidents.!!Certain!occupations!may!have!cultures,! which!normalize!and!even!valorize!risky!behaviours.!!PLTs!score!higher!on!the!riskU severity!composite!measure,!when!compared!to!electricians,!and!this!result!holds,! when!controlling!for!experience,!age,!and!variations!over!time.!!Cable!splicers!seem! to!take!even!more!risks!than!PLTs,!when!compared!to!Electricians.!!This!would!seem! to!lend!support!to!the!hypothesis!that!rule!violations,!and!risk!taking!could!account! for!some!of!this!disproportionality.!!Perhaps!these!occupations!have!stronger! cultural!expectations!to!conform!to!conventional!masculine!norms.!!However,!these! results!do!not!hold!when!the!riskUcomposite!measure!was!collapsed!into!a!dummy! variable.!!The!results!also!indicate!that!while!PLTs!are!still!much!more!likely!to!take! a!risk!or!get!in!a!severe!accident,!when!compared!to!Electricians,!Cable!splicers!are!  ! 49!  not.!!Cable!splicers!take!significantly!more!risks!and!violate!rules!more!often!than! electricians,!but!they!do!have!more!severe!injuries!than!Electricians.!! !  Both!expressions!of!autonomy!and!risk!taking!are!elements!of!conventional!  masculinity,!and!this!becomes!especially!problematic!in!maleUdominated,!hazardous! work!settings.!!Doing!dangerous!work!and!being!exposed!to!physical!risk!provides! opportunities!and!social!and!financial!incentives!to!male!workers!who!conform!to! these!cultural!ideals!(Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010;!Paap,!2006).!!All!three!occupational! groups!included!in!the!analysis!are!maleUdominated,!maleUtyped!work,!yet!risk! taking!behaviours!and!rule!violations!are!more!evident!in!PLTs!and!Cable!Splicers,! when!compared!to!Electricians.!!The!“cowboy!culture”!that!is!synonymous!with! PLTs!at!WestTech!fit!with!Ely!and!Meyerson’s!conceptualization!of!the!culture!of! similar!maleUdominated!dangerous!occupations:!“good”!workers!are!those!who!are! autonomous!and!brave,!willing!take!risks!and!ignore!authority!(2010).!!This!culture! could!account!for!increased!safety!regulation!violations!and!risk!taking,!conceivably! resulting!in!more!frequent!and!more!severe!injuries:!something!that!the!data! supports.!!Although!Cable!Splicers!are!not!recognized!as!being!a!part!of!this! “cowboy”!culture,!it!is!possible!that!such!a!small!occupational!group!(just!0.3! percent!of!the!total!workforce)!would!draw!little!attention!without!analyzing!the! disproportionality!of!overall!injuries!and!risk!taking.!! !  The!increased!risk!taking!and!rule!violations!of!PLTs!and!Cable!Splicers!fit!  with!expectations!drawn!from!the!earlier!literature.!!These!occupations!at!WestTech! involve!high!levels!of!physical!risk,!working!in!confined!spaces!and!at!heights,!often! while!dealing!with!high!voltage!electricity.!!Both!of!these!occupations!are!  ! 50!  overwhelmingly!male!dominated,!with!no!female!Cable!Splicers,!and!only!two! female!Power!Line!Technicians!employed!over!the!tenUyear!period!analyzed.!! Previous!research!suggests!that!men!in!similar!kinds!of!occupations!conform!to! conventional!masculine!behaviours!to!signify!the!authenticity!of!their!masculinity! (Schrock!&!Schwalbe,!2009).!!Because!gender!is!a!process,!rather!than!a!static! concept!(West!&!Zimmerman,!1987),!if!men!conform!to!these!cultural!prescriptions,! they!reproduce!a!gendered!identity!through!repetitive!actions!and!interactions.!!In! this!way,!actions!at!work!can!be!understood!as!being!a!means!to!act!out!gender.!! Because!organizations!import!cultural!and!gendered!norms!that!exist!in!broader! society,!in!these!sectors,!ideal!workers!may!be!conflated!with!the!culturally!defined! prescriptions!of!the!ideal!man!(Kolb!et!al.,!2003;!Martin,!2001).!!Following!this,!men! who!conform!to!the!above!prescriptions!in!these!fields!are!rewarded!both! financially,!by!being!recognized!as!competent!workers,!and!socially,!by!gaining! social!prestige!in!a!context!that!recognizes!these!attributes!as!desirable!(Paap,! 2006).!!In!this!way,!work!becomes!an!arena!to!demonstrate!both!cultural!worth!as!a! man!and!a!worker.!!Paap!argues!that!workers!who!meet!this!preconceived!ideal!are! granted!more!status,!and!have!more!influence!to!shape!the!overall!culture!(2006).!!If! this!is!the!case,!it!is!necessary!to!consider!what!overall!impact!that!ideal!workers!in! these!fields!have!on!the!overall!safety!culture.!!In!order!to!mitigate!this!influence,! organizations!must!find!ways!to!create!cultures!that!conflate!the!ideal!worker!with!a! safe!worker.!!Instrumental!to!this!is!to!find!ways!to!reward!it:!financially,!but! arguably!more!importantly!to!create!a!selfUsustaining!safety!culture,!socially.!  ! 51!  !  Although!the!results!from!the!Cable!Splicers!and!PLTs!seem!to!align!with!the!  expectation!that!male!workers!in!these!kinds!of!fields!engage!in!conventional! masculine!behaviour,!Electricians!do!not!follow!this!same!pattern.!!!Electricians’! engage!in!relatively!low!risk!behaviour,!violate!fewer!rules,!and!have!less!severe! injuries!than!the!other!occupations!analyzed.!!Results!from!the!OLS!regression!and! the!logistical!regression!models!all!indicate!that!PLTs!and!Cable!Splicers!behave!in! ways!that!align!with!the!conventional!male!role.!!Given!that!the!analysis!focuses!on! workers!with!similar!exposure!to!risk!from!the!same!company,!and!are!all! occupational!sectors!that!are!culturally!defined!as!maleUtyped!(i.e.:!skilled!trades),! and!are!maleUdominated!(though!to!differing!degrees)!how!might!this!discrepancy! be!explained?! Of!the!limited!research!that!exists!on!gender!and!occupational!safety,!there! are!few!exceptions!of!compliance!to!the!culturally!normative!male!role!in!these!sorts! of!fields.!!However,!an!exemption!to!this!is!found!in!what!are!called!“high!reliability! organizations”!(HROs)!(Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!HROs!are!organizations!that!have! successfully!avoided!severe!outcomes,!despite!being!in!an!environment!that!is! highly!dangerous!or!complex,!which!would!normally!result!in!detrimental! consequences!(Roe!&!Schulman,!2008).!!These!highUrisk!environments!are!largely! maleUdominated,!and!the!work!almost!always!conforms!to!culturally!defined!maleU typed!roles.!!Employees!at!HROs!have!been!found!not!to!adhere!to!conventional! masculine!norms,!and!instead,!avoid!taking!risks,!seek!help!when!they!are!unsure,! and!admit!mistakes!they!have!made!(see!Bierly!&!Spender,!1995;!Roberts!et!al,! 1994;!Roth!et!al,!2006).!!These!behaviours!are!directly!oppositional!to!conventional!  ! 52!  masculine!norms!that!are!so!often!part!of!similar!organization’s!cultures,!and! certainly!differ!from!what!previous!studies!in!similar!work!sectors!have!found.!!! Despite!these!organizations!proving!to!be!exceptional!in!their!ability!to!avoid! catastrophe,!and!their!largely!maleUdominated,!“masculine”!contexts,!gender!has!not! been!commonly!evaluated!in!the!literature!(Ely!&!Meyerson,!2010).!!However,!in!the! HROs!that!Ely!and!Meyerson!analyzed,!they!found!that!although!men!still!endorsed! traditional!masculine!traits,!they!did!not!try!to!prove!their!masculinity!by!adhering! to!these!roles!when!performing!dangerous!work!(2010:!15).!!They!concluded!that! organizational!initiatives!were!the!likely!contributor!to!these!outcomes,!when! allocating!safety!as!their!highest!priority.!!Of!note!in!these!organizations,!was!the! explicit!and!continued!recognition!and!message!that!“macho”!behaviour!was! unacceptable,!because!it!was!unsafe.!!In!essence,!organizational!expectations!of! upholding!safe!behaviour!reoriented!workers!“away!from!the!goal!of!proving! masculinity”!and!instead!“oriented!them…toward!goals!that!were!incompatible!with! upholding!a!masculine!image:!the!safety!and!wellUbeing!of!their!coworkers”,!or!what! Ely!&!Meyerson!call!collectivistic!goals!(2010).!!Collectivistic!goals!are!identified!as!a! fundamental!cultural!shift!away!from!gaining!admiration!for!the!individual,!and! instead,!prioritizing!the!wellUbeing!of!the!whole.!!An!individual!workers!sense!of! masculinity!in!these!organizations!appears!to!be!superseded!by!a!commitment!to! safety!of!all!(Crocker!&!Canevello,!2008).!!Turning!to!psychological!literature!to! explain!the!willingness!of!these!workers!to!reorient!their!goals!towards!the! collective,!Ely!and!Meyerson!argue!that!workers!in!HROs!are!prone!to!prioritize! collective!goals!over!and!above!their!personal!image,!because!this!satisfies!a!“basic!  ! 53!  human!need!for!relatedness”,!and!is!therefore!more!rewarding!in!contexts!where!it! is!made!a!priority.!!In!these!contexts,!workers!seem!to!be!willing!to!risk!their!own! selfUimage!because!they!are!socialized!to!see!this!as!essential!to!achieving!higher! priority!collective!goals!(Crocker!et!al.,!2008).!!Is!it!plausible!that!similar!sectorUlevel! moderators!of!safety!behaviours!operate!to!reign!in!riskUtaking!behaviours!of! Electricians!at!WestTech?!! Other!results!from!the!regression!models!highlight!the!necessity!of! monitoring!trends!in!riskUtaking!behaviours!and!changes!in!the!overall!severity!of! outcomes.!!The!results,!which!indicate!that!risk!taking,!rule!violations,!and!severity! of!outcomes!varied!more!in!certain!years,!as!well!as!for!more!experienced!workers,! are!important!to!note.!!Although!it!is!impossible!to!interpret!these!findings!without! having!more!contextual!information,!tracking!trends!of!risk!taking!over!a!length!of! time!and!identifying!how!these!patterns!correlate!with!policy!changes!or! composition!of!the!workforce!could!provide!important!insight!into!how! organizational!influences!could!affect!safety!behaviours!and!beliefs.!!However,! without!explicitly!measuring!riskUtaking!in!accidents,!it!becomes!difficult!to!assess! the!impact!of!these!changes!on!the!overall!willingness!to!engage!in!nonUcompliant! behaviours.!! In!order!to!assess!whether!the!cultural!norms!and!values!differ!from!one! sector!to!another,!it!is!necessary!to!investigate!how!social!dynamics!and!culture! differ,!how!workers!internalize!cultural!norms,!and!how!this!affects!safety! compliance.!!WestTech’s!current!accident!analysis!and!approach!to!safety!provides! little!ability!to!assess!these!factors.!!There!is!no!way!to!reliably!assess!the!effect!of!  ! 54!  cultural!dynamics!on!safety!attitudes!and!behaviours,!given!the!data!that!is! currently!available!and!the!mode!in!which!they!are!collected.!!Accident! investigations!(such!as!the!root!cause!reports)!and!qualitative!descriptions!of! accidents!in!the!database,!both!provide!promising!modes!to!incorporate!and!analyze! social!and!cultural!impacts!on!worker’s!actions!and!beliefs!with!regards!to!safety;! however,!this!is!not!possible!to!do!thoroughly!due!to!the!current!mode!and! techniques!of!these!investigations.!!Although!WestTech!uses!these!analyses!help!to! answer!why!an!incident!occurs,!the!causes!that!are!identified!fail!to!adequately! answer!this!question!entirely:!there!is!no!analysis!of!the!systemic!underlying!social! factors,!despite!the!fact!that!they!are!mentioned!in!the!reports!and!are!arguably! relevant.! !  Analyzing!qualitative!data!from!inUdepth!reports!of!major!accidents!and!from!  the!qualitative!descriptions!of!accidents!in!databases,!provided!insight!into!what!is! perceived!and!included!as!relevant!contributing!factors,!and!perhaps!more!tellingly,! what!is!not.!!WestTech!is!not!unique!in!the!lack!of!attention!paid!to!social!factors!in! safety!incidents.!Although!there!are!various!accident!analysis!techniques!used!that! include!the!role!of!human!factors!(Shappell!&!Wiegmann,!2001;!Rearson,!1995;! Rasmussen,!1997;!Leveson,!2004),!few,!if!any!techniques,!have!included!the!analysis! of!social!factors.!!It!appears!that!by!and!large,!approaches!to!analyzing!safety! incidents!align!more!closely!with!the!principals!of!the!behaviourUbased!safety!(BBS)! management!discussed!earlier,!which!assesses!individual!behaviour!removed!from! its!cultural!context,!and!tends!to!place!responsibility!for!safety!on!the!shoulder’s!of! individuals,!rather!than!the!collective!(Howe,!2000;!DeJoy,!2007).!!Although!this!  ! 55!  research!project!did!not!directly!assess!organizational!or!cultural!influences!on! safety!behaviours,!the!root!cause!reports!of!serious!accidents!sheds!light!on!both!the! dynamics!that!existed!between!the!workers!involved,!and!how!the!organization! defined!the!parameters!of!relevant!information.!!This!ultimately!framed!and! confined!their!analyses,!which!limited!the!conclusions!that!could!be!reached!from! the!reports.!The!main!critique!of!the!BBS!approach!to!safety!is!that!it!treats!the! symptoms,!rather!than!the!causes,!of!safety!nonUcompliance.!!As!DeJoy!argues,! unsafe!work!behaviour!at!the!worker!level!is!best!thought!of!as!the!“last!link!in!a! causal!chain”!(2005).!!Moving!forward,!underlying!contexts!that!contribute!to! individual!nonUcompliance!and!risky!behaviour!must!be!included!and!explored! when!assessing!and!documenting!accidents.!!  4.2( ! !  Towards(Safety(Social(Capital(and(Creating(High(Reliability(Organizations( Although!the!management!of!safety!social!capital!is!a!relatively!new!concept,!  high!reliability!organizations!provide!an!effective!example!of!how!incorporating! these!principles!can!lead!to!better!safety!outcomes.! !  Safety!social!capital!encompasses!the!collective!values!that!exist!and!that!are!  embodied!within!the!networks!in!an!organization!and!its!workers!towards!safety.!!It! is!these!values,!norms,!and!networks!that!facilitate!(or!impede)!a!safer!work! environment!(Rao,!20007).#HROs!are!organizations!that!have!successfully!avoided! major!safety!accidents!despite!being!hazardous!or!complex!work!environments.! They!are!also!largely!maleUdominated,!and!include!maleUtyped!work.!!Ely!and! Meyerson!identify!organizational!initiatives,!which!aim!to!manage!cultural!norms!as! the!key!factor!to!HROs!positive!outcomes!(2010).!!As!discussed!earlier,!HROs! ! 56!  prioritize!safety!as!their!primary!goal,!and!strategize!to!reorient!(male)!workers! away!from!conventional!masculine!norms,!which!tend!to!be!individualistic,!and! instead,!to!prioritize!collectivist#goals;!that!is,!prioritizing!the!wellUbeing!of!the! collective,!over!the!individual.!!In!these!contexts,!workers!take!another!kind!of!risk:! risking!their!own!masculine!image.!!However,!in!these!environments,!the!definition! of!the!ideal!worker!is!recreated!as!a!safe!worker:!a!necessary!and!fundamental!shift.!! This!is!the!management!of!social!capital!in!action.!!HROs!appear!to!recognize!that! collective!values!are!embodied!in!social!and!formal!networks,!and!find!ways!to! infiltrate!these!networks!in!ways!that!establish!a!normative!culture!of!safety.!!The! HROs!in!Ely!&!Meyerson’s!piece!honed!in!and!identified!“macho”!behaviour!as!an! impediment!to!following!safety!regulations,!and!explicitly!stated!that!these! behaviours!were!not!conducive!to!a!establishing!or!sustaining!a!safe!work! environment.!!‘Macho’!behaviour!became!unacceptable.!This!is!a!critical!step!to! develop!a!selfUsustaining!safety!culture!in!organizations!that!tend!to!have!cultures! which!value!conventional!displays!of!masculinity.!!! !  In!order!to!manage!safety!social!capital,!organizations!must!first!work!to!  recognize!the!social!networks,!norms,!and!values,!which!undergird!the!existing! safety!culture.!!The!CAMSoc!method!provides!a!unique!opportunity!from!which!to! begin!this!analysis!through!existing!data!sources.!!The!goal!of!the!CAMSoc! assessment!method!is!to!“extract!social!lessons!learned!from!accidents”,!with!the! aim!to!identify!how!positive!safety!social!capital!is!eroded.!!Data,!including!inUdepth! analyses!of!prior!incidents,!and!databases!of!accidents,!can!be!analyzed!to!identify! the!“underlying,!organizational!socioUfeatures”!which!contribute!to!a!safe!or!unsafe!  ! 57!  work!environment!(Rao,!2007).!!The!examination!should!include!an!analysis!of!the! social!actors!and!the!social!dynamics!that!frame!all!aspects!of!a!safety!incident,! including,!if!possible,!the!recognition!of!these!dynamics!and!actors!being!embedded! within!specific!cultural!contexts.!!As!evidenced!by!the!analyses!of!WestTech’s! records,!although!these!contributing!factors!may!not!be!explicitly!analyzed!in!the! report!itself,!they!are!often!included!in!descriptions!of!events.!!By!identifying!these! elements,!dysfunctional!socioUfeatures!can!be!brought!to!the!forefront,!and!an! organization!can!begin!to!find!ways!to!manage!and!remedy!underlying!issues.!! Although!the!analyses!of!the!WestTech’s!root!cause!reports!did!not!follow!the!exact! CAMSoc!method,!the!basic!premise!was!followed,!and!plausible!social!factors!and! dynamics!were!identified.!!Although!it!is!not!possible!from!this!analysis!to! determine!why!Electricians!at!WestTech!do!not!appear!to!take!risks!or!violate!rules! in!the!same!way!that!Cable!Splicers!and!PLTs!do,!it!is!plausible!that!there!is!some! aspect!of!this!occupation’s!culture!that!insulates!it!from!the!normative!and! conventional!maleUtyped!behaviour!that!seems!to!be!prevalent!in!similar!types!of! work.!!It!could!be!that!the!culture!of!this!occupation!at!WestTech!has!some!HROUlike! features,!or!that!the!greater!proportion!of!women!represented!in!the!occupation! somehow!mitigates!the!prevalence!of!risk!behaviours.!!The!CAMSoc!method! recommends!interviews!with!workers!involved!in!accidents!to!identify!underlying! social!factors.!!It!is!seems!unlikely!that!without!direct!contact!and!interaction!with! the!workers!that!the!social!factors!which!contribute!to!unsafe!work!can!be!fully! assessed.!!Although!it!is!not!possible!to!assess!these!factors!based!on!the!data! available,!it!highlights!the!importance!of!their!inclusion!in!accidents!and!  ! 58!  investigations.!!More!importantly,!these!methods!should!be!used!to!build!selfU sustaining!safety!cultures.! !  Although!the!data!available!provided!an!overview!of!the!propensity!of!riskU  taking,!how!accidents!were!investigated,!and!which!factors!were!considered! relevant,!there!were!four!notable!limitations.!!Although!the!qualitative!components! provided!information!of!the!social!dynamics!and!culture!at!play!in!these!incidents,!it! is!impossible!to!directly!assess!how!this!affected!workers’!nonUcompliance! behaviours.!!Interviews!with!workers!in!each!of!these!sectors!would!provide! important!insight!into!why!workers!engage!in!riskUtaking,!and!whether!there!is! normative!pressure!to!do!so.!!Because!the!proportion!of!women!in!these!sectors!is! so!limited,!it!would!also!be!beneficial!to!interview!female!workers!to!understand! their!experiences!in!a!maleUdominated!work!environment.!!Secondly,!although!Cable! Splicers!were!almost!as!overUrepresented!proportionally!in!safety!incidents!as!PLTs,! they!accounted!for!so!few!of!the!incidents!that!were!analyzed.!!Additionally,! although!Cable!Splicers!appear!to!take!more!significant!risks!and!violate!rules!more! often,!the!data!are!positively!skewed!and!the!measure!of!spread!suggests!that!the! mean!is!not!a!representative!average.!!Their!results!might!not!be!reliable!indicators! of!overall!levels!of!risk!that!Cable!Splicers!engage!in!for!both!of!these!reasons.!! Thirdly,!the!correlation!between!the!level!of!risk!scale!and!the!severity!outcome!was! quite!weak,!which!could!indicate!that!the!coding!of!the!risk!variable!was!not!a!valid! measurement!of!risks!taken.!!Lastly,!and!potentially!tied!to!the!third!limitation,!the! proportion!of!variability!in!the!data!that!is!explained!by!the!statistical!model!  ! 59!  indicates!that!the!variables!included!explain!very!little!of!the!outcome.!This!could,! however,!be!a!result!of!not!using!or!having!a!valid!measurement!of!risk!taking.!  5( !  CONCLUSION( Although!social!influences,!including!gender,!have!been!found!to!affect!safety!  behaviour,!very!few!if!any!safety!management!or!analyses!techniques!look!at!these! behaviours!as!significant!contributing!factors.!!Hazardous!work!environments!are! often!maleUdominated,!and!inherently!dangerous!work!is!often!culturally!defined!as! maleUappropriate.!!This!can!result!in!a!conflation!where!competent!workers!are! recognized!as!those!who!conform!to!conventional!masculine!norms.!!Working!in! these!sectors!provides!opportunities!and!arguably!puts!pressure!on!workers!to! behave!in!ways!that!are!fundamentally!unsafe.!!This!research!sought!to!explain!how! and!if!measures!of!conventional!masculine!norms!varied!across!maleUdominated! occupations,!and!whether!these!indicators!could!account!for!some!of!the!outcomes.!! Evidence!of!conventional!masculine!behaviours,!such!as!engaging!in!risk,!displays!of! bravado,!and!acts!of!autonomy!were!prevalent!in!all!but!one!of!the!inUdepth!accident! analyses,!and!Cable!Splicers!and!PLTs!seemed!to!conform!to!indicators!of! conventionally!masculine!normative!behaviours.!!Electricians!were!the!exception,! however:!given!that!they!work!at!the!same!company,!under!similar!conditions,!and! receive!similar!training,!this!leads!to!the!question!of!whether!this!group!differed! culturally!from!the!others.!!Despite!these!findings,!these!indicators!seemed!to! explain!very!little!of!the!variability!of!the!data.!!Although!this!does!not!seem!to!align! with!previous!literature,!which!suggests!that!these!factors!do!help!to!explain!  ! 60!  accident!outcomes,!I!suggest!that!the!quality!of!the!data!affected!the!ability!to!assess! risk,!and!therefore!the!ability!to!measure!riskUtaking!behaviours.!!Richer!qualitative! data,!in!the!form!of!more!inUdepth!descriptions!of!the!social!context!and!events!that! preceded!accidents!in!both!the!database!and!in!the!inUdepth!analyses!of!serious! accidents!could!possibly!remedy!this.!! This!research!also!sought!to!identify!effective!organizational!approaches!to! improving!safety,!particularly!within!maleUdominated!fields.!!It!was!argued!that! many!existing!approaches!and!analyses!of!safety!incidents!by!organizations!are! insufficient,!and!when!behavioural!aspects!of!safety!behaviour!are!identified,!they! are!examined!and!framed!as!human!(i.e.:!individual)!rather!than!social#factors.!!This! emphasis!on!the!social!factors!of!safety!behaviours!is!crucial,!because!safety!social! capital!is!generated!within!the!networks!and!the!relationships!of!organizations.!!It!is! this!social!dynamic!that!must!be!examined,!as!it!is!through!the!norms!and!values! that!are!transmitted!through!both!formal!and!informal!social!interactions,!that! organizations!can!create!selfUsustaining!safety!cultures.!!The!management!of!safety! social!capital!and!the!CAMSoc!method!provides!opportunities!for!organizations!to! examine!how!social!factors!have!shaped!previous!and!current!safety!incidents.!! Organizations,!such!as!HROs,!provide!important!insight!into!how!safety!social! capital!can!be!used!to!prioritize!collective,!safe!behaviour!in!similar!environments.!!! ! ! ! !  ! 61!  Works(Cited:(  ! Acker,!J.!(1990).!Hierarchies,!jobs,!bodies:!A!theory!of!gendered!organizations.!Gender#&# Society,#4(139).! ! Antonsen,!S.!(2009).!Safety!culture!and!the!issue!of!power.!!Safety#Science,#47,#183U191.! ! Antonsen,!S.,!Ramstad,!L.S.,!&!Kongsvik,!T.!(2007).!Unlocking!the!organization:!Action! research!as!a!means!of!improving!organizational!safety.!!Safety#Science#Monitor,# 1(11).!# ! Baring,!J.,!&!Hutchinson,!I.!(2000).!Commitment!versus!control!based!safety!practices,! safety!reputation,!and!perceived!safety!climate.!Canadian#Journal#of#Administrative# Sciences,#14(1),#76U84.! ! Bierly,!P.E.,!III,!&!Spender,!J.C.!(1995).!Culture!and!high!reliability!organizations:!The!case!of! the!nuclear!submarine.!Journal#of#Management,#21,!639U656.! ! Bigelow,!P.,!Iverson,!R.,!Zohar,!D.,!Stuewe,!D.,!Zho,!Yonggan,!Tate,!G.,!&!Samson,!G.!(2010).! Focus!on!Tomorrow:!British!Columbia!Workplace!Safety!Leadership!Development.! Worksafe#BC,#File#No.#RS2007MDG#04.#Retrieved#on#July#14th,#2012#from# http://www.worksafebc.com/contact_us/research/funding_decisions/assets/pdf/200 7/RS2007_DG04.pdf# ! Bourdieu,!P.!(1984).!Distinction:#A#social#critique#of#the#judgment#of#taste.#Cambridge,!Mass.:! Harvard!University!Press.! ! Choudhry,!R.M.,!&!Fang,!D.!(2008).!Why!operatives!engage!in!unsafe!work!behavior:! Investigating!factors!on!construction!sites.!Safety#Science,#46,#566U584.! ! Coleman,!J.!(1990).!The#Foundations#of#Social#Theory.#Cambridge:!Belknap.! ! Connell,!R.W.!(2005).!Masculinities.#Berkeley:!University!of!California!Press.! ! Courtenay,!W.!(2000)!Constructions!of!masculinity!and!their!influence!on!men’s!wellUbeing:! a!theory!of!gender!and!health.!Social#Science#&#Medicine,!50(10),!1385U1401! ! Courtenay,!W.!(2000).!Engendering!health:!A!social!constructionist!examination!of!men’s! health!beliefs!and!behaviours.!Psychology#of#Men#&#Masculinity,#1(1),#4U15.! ! Crocker,!J.,!&!Canevello,!A.!(2008).!Creating!and!undermining!social!support!in!communal! relationships:!The!role!of!compassionate!and!selfUimage!goals.!!Journal#of#Personality# and#Social#Psychology,#95,#555U575.! !  ! 62!  Crocker,!J.,!Nijya,!Y.,!&!Mischkowski,!D.!(2008).!Why!does!writing!about!important!values! reduce!defensiveness?!SelfUaffirmation!and!the!role!of!positive!and!otherUdirected! feelings.!Psychological#Science,#19,#740U747.! ! DeJoy,!D.M.!(2005).!Behavior!change!versus!culture!change:!Divergent!approaches!to! managing!workplace!safety.!Safety#Science,#43,#105U129.! ! DeJoy,!D.M.,!Schaffer,!B.,!Wilson,!M.,!Vandenberg,!R.,!&!Butts,!M.!Creating!safer!workplaces:! assessing!the!determinants!and!role!of!safety!climate.!!Journal#of#Safety#Research,#35,# 81U90.! ! Ely,!R.J.,!&!Reyerson,!D.E.!(2010).!An!organizational!approach!to!undoing!gender:!The! unlikely!case!of!offshore!oil!platforms.!Research#in#Organizational#Behaviour,#30,#3U 34.! ! Geller,!E.S.!(2005).!BehaviorUbased!safety!and!occupational!risk!management.!Behavior# Modification,#29(3),#539U561.! ! Geller,!E.S.!(2001).!BehaviorUbased!safety!in!industry:!Realizing!the!largeUscale!potential!of! psycology!to!promote!human!welfare.!!Applied#and#Preventative#Psychology,#10(2),# 87U105.! ! Gibson,!M.K.,!&!Papa,!M.J.!(2000).!The!mud,!the!blood,!and!the!beer!guys:!Organizational! osmosis!in!blueUcollar!work!groups.!Journal#of#Applied#Communication#Research,# 28(1),#68U88.! ! Goldenhar,!L.M.,!Swanson,!N.G.,!Hurrell,!J.J.,!Ruder,!A.,!Deddens,!J.!(1998).!Stressors!and! adverse!outcomes!for!female!construction!workers.!Journal#of#Occupational#Health# Psychology,#3(1),!19U32.! ! Granovetter,!M.!(1985).!Economic!action!and!social!structure:!The!problem!of! embeddedness.!American#Journal#of#Sociology,#91,!481U493.! ! Hannan,!M.T.,!&!Freeman,!J.!(1984).!Structural!inertia!and!organizational!change.!American# Sociological#Review,#49(2),#149U164.! ! Hersh,!J.!(1998)!Compensating!differentials!for!genderUspecific!job!injury!risks.!The# American#Economic#Review,#88(3),#598U607.! ! Howe,!J.!(2000).!A!union!perspective!on!behaviorUbased!safety.!In:!Swartz,!G.!(Ed.),!Safety! Culture!and!Effective!Safety!Management.!National!Safety!Council,!Chicago.! ! Iaucone,!D.!(2005).!“Real!Men!are!Tough!Guys”:!Hegemonic!masculinity!and!safety!in!the! construction!industry.!The#Journal#of#Men’s#Studies,#13(2),#246U256.# !  ! 63!  Jablonsky,!S.F.,!&!DeVries,!D.L.!(1972).!Operant!conditioning!principles!extrapolated!to!the! theory!of!management.!!Organizational#Behavior#and#Human#Performance,#7(2),#340U 358.! ! Kimmel,!M.S.!(1996).!Manhood#in#America.#New!York:!Free!Press.! ! Kolb,!D.,!Fletcher,!J.,!Meyerson,!D.,!Sands,!D.M.,!&!Ely,!R.J.!(2003).!Making!change:!A! framework!for!promoting!gender!equity!in!organizations.!In!R.J.!Ely,!M.!Scully,!and!&! E.!Foldy!(Eds.),!Reader#in#gender,#work#and#organizations!(pp.10U15).!Malden,!MA,! Blackwell!Publishing.! ! Krause,!T.R.!(1997).!The!behaviourUbased!safety!process:!Managing!involvement!for!an! injuryUfree!culture,!Second!ed.!Van!Nostrand!Reinhold,!New!York.! ! Leveson,!N.!(2004).!A!new!accident!model!for!engineering!safer!systems.#Safety#Science,# 42(3),#237U270.! ! Mahalik,!J.,!Locke,!B.,!Ludlow,!L.,!Diemer,!M.,!Scott,!R.,!Gottfried,!M,!&!Frietas,!G.!(2003).! Development!of!conformity!to!masculine!norms!inventory.!Psychology#of#men#and# masculinity,#4(1),#3U25.! ! Martin,!P.Y.!(2001)!Mobilizing!masculinities:!Women’s!experience!of!men!at!work.! Organization,#8,#587U618.! ! Messerschmidt,!J.!(1996).!Managing!to!kill:!Masculinities!and!the!space!shuttle!Challenge! explosion.!In!Cheng,!C.!(ed.)!Masculinities#in#Organizations.!Thousand!Oaks,!CA:!Sage.! ! Messing,!K.,!Punnett,!L.,!Bond,!M.,!Alexanderson,!K.,!Pyle,!J.,!Zahm,!S.,!Webman,!D.,!Stock,!S.,! &!de!Grosbois,!S.!(2003).!Be!the!fairest!of!them!all:!Challenges!and!recommendations! for!the!treatment!of!gender!in!occupational!health!research.!American#Journal#of# Industrial#Medicine,#43(6),#618U629.! ! Messing,!K.,!Courville,!J.,!Boucher,!M.,!Dumais,!L.,!Seifert,!A.!(1994).!Can!safety!risks!of!blueU collar!jobs!be!compared!by!gender?!Safety#Science,#18(2),#95U112.! ! Mullen,!J.!(2004).!Investigating!factors!that!influence!individual!safety!behavior!at!work.! Journal#of#Safety#Research,#35(3),#275U285.! ! Neal,!A.,!Griffin,!M.A.,!&!Hart,!P.M.!(2000).!The!impact!of!organizational!climate!and! individual!behavior.!Safety#Science,#34(1),#99U109.! ! Nicholson,!N.,!Soane,!E.,!FentonUO’Creevy,!M.,!&!Willman,!P.!(2005).!Personality!and!domain! –specific!riskUtaking.!Journal#of#Risk#Research,#8(2),#156U176.! ! Portes,!A.!(1998).!Social!capital:!Its!origins!and!applications!in!modern!sociology.!Annual# Review#of#Sociology,#24,!1U24.! ! 64!  ! Portes,!A.!&!Landolt,!P.!(1996)!The!downside!of!social!capital.!The!American!Prospect! Online,!7.! ! Prokos,!A.,!&!Padavic,!I.!(2002).!‘There!oughtta!be!a!law!against!bitches’:!Masculinity!lesons! in!police!academy!training.!Gender,#Work,#and#Organization,#9(4),#439U458.! ! Rao,!S.!(2007).!Safey!culture!and!accident!analysisU!A!socioUmanagement!approach!based! on!organizational!safety!social!capital.!!Journal#of#Hazardous#Materials.#142(3),#730U 740.! ! Rasmussen,!J.!(1997).!Risk!management!in!a!dynamic!society:!A!modeling!problem.!Safety# Science,#27(2M3),#183U213.! ! Ray,!P.,!Bishop,!P.,!Want,!M.!(1997).!Efficacy!of!the!components!of!a!behavioral!safety! program.!International#Journal#of#Industrial#Ergonomics,#19,#19U29.! ! Rearson,!J.!(1995).!Understanding!adverse!events:!Human!Factors.!Qualitative#Health#Care,# 4,#!80U89.! ! Reiss,!A.J.!(1967).!On!exploring!the!“dark!figure”!of!crime.!The#Annals#of#the#American# Academy#of#Political#and#Social#Science,#374(1),#1U15.! ! Roberts,!K.H.,!Stout,!S.K.,!&!Halpern,!J.J.!(1994).!Decision!dynamics!in!two!high!reliability! military!organizations.!Management#Science,#40,#614U624.! ! Roe,!E.,!&!Schulman,!P.!R.!(2008).!High#reliability#management:#operating#on#the#edge.! Stanford,!Calif.:!Stanford!Business!Books,!an!imprint!of!Stanford!University!Press.! ! Roth,!E.M.,!Multer,!J.,!&!Raslear,!T.!(2006).!Shared!situation!awareness!as!a!contributor!to! high!reliability!performance!in!railroad!operations.!Organization#Studies,#27,#967U 987.! ! Saari,!J.!(1992).!Successful!implementation!of!occupational!health!and!safety!programs!in! manufacturing!for!the!1990s.!International#Journal#of#Human#Factors#in# Manufacturing,#2,#55U66.! ! Schrock,!D.,!&!Schwalbe,!M.!(2009).!Men,!masculinity,!and!manhood!acts.!Annual#Review#of# Sociology,#35,#277U295.! ! Shappell,!S.A.,!&!Wiegmann,!D.A.!(2001).!A!human!error!approach!to!accident!investigation:! The!taxonomy!of!unsafe!operations.!The#International#Journal#of#Aviation#Psychology,# 7(4),#269U291.! !  ! 65!  Statistics!Canada.!(2011).!Employment#by#Industry#and#Sex.#CANSIM,!table!282U0008.! Retrieved#from:#http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tablesMtableaux/sumM som/l01/cst01/labor10aMeng.htmx`# ! Turner,!C.,!&!McClure,!R.!(2003).!Age!and!gender!differences!in!riskUtaking!behaviour!as!an! explanation!for!high!incidence!of!motor!vehicle!crashes!as!a!driver!in!young!males.! Journal#of#Injury#Control#and#Safety#Promotion,#10(3),#123U130.! ! West,!C.,!&!Zimmerman,!C.!(1987).!Doing!Gender.!Gender#&#Society,#1(2),#125U151.! ! Westaby,!J.D.,!&!Lower,!J.K.!(2005).!RiskUtaking!orientation!and!injury!among!youth! workers:!Examining!the!social!influence!of!supervisors,!coworkers,!and!parents.! Journal#of#Applied#Psyschology,#90(5),#1027U1035.! ! Williams,!J.!(2001).!Unbending#Gender:#Why#Family#and#Work#Conflict#and#What#to#do#about# it.!Oxford!University!Press.!! ! Zohar,!D.,!&!TenneUGazit,!O.!(2008).!Transformational!leadership!and!group!interaction!as! climate!antecedents:!A!social!network!analysis.!Journal#of#Applied#Psychology,#93(4),# 744U757.! ! !  ! 66!  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0073329/manifest

Comment

Related Items