use of performance measurement and goal setting to improve construction managers' focus on...

14
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Davis] On: 26 October 2014, At: 15:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Construction Management and Economics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20 Use of performance measurement and goal setting to improve construction managers' focus on health and safety Iain Cameron a & Roy Duff b a School of Built and Natural Environment , Glasgow Caledonian University , UK b Dr A Roy Duff Ltd , 4 The Milling Field , Holmes Chapel , UK Published online: 14 Aug 2007. To cite this article: Iain Cameron & Roy Duff (2007) Use of performance measurement and goal setting to improve construction managers' focus on health and safety, Construction Management and Economics, 25:8, 869-881, DOI: 10.1080/01446190701268848 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190701268848 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: roy

Post on 01-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Davis]On: 26 October 2014, At: 15:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and EconomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Use of performance measurement and goal setting toimprove construction managers' focus on health andsafetyIain Cameron a & Roy Duff ba School of Built and Natural Environment , Glasgow Caledonian University , UKb Dr A Roy Duff Ltd , 4 The Milling Field , Holmes Chapel , UKPublished online: 14 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Iain Cameron & Roy Duff (2007) Use of performance measurement and goal setting to improveconstruction managers' focus on health and safety, Construction Management and Economics, 25:8, 869-881, DOI:10.1080/01446190701268848

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190701268848

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Use of performance measurement and goal setting toimprove construction managers’ focus on health andsafety

IAIN CAMERON1* and ROY DUFF2

1 School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK2 Dr A Roy Duff Ltd, 4 The Milling Field, Holmes Chapel, UK

Received 3 October 2006; accepted 8 February 2007

Previous attempts to use goal setting and feedback to improve safety behaviour on construction sites have

focused on operatives, but recognized management commitment as essential for success. This research

addressed two problems: validly and reliably measuring the safety performance of construction managers; and

motivating managers to improve their safety performance. A measure of management safety performance was

developed, covering seven items: induction training; toolbox talk training; safety committees; subcontractor

safety; maintenance of safety records; safety manager actions and safety consideration (interaction,

communication and worker engagement). This was used on a case study site to improve motivation of the

management team. During an intervention, using monthly feedback and goal-setting techniques, their

performance improved from 49% to 82% of maximum expected performance. The results demonstrate that a

valid and reliable measure of management safety performance is practicable and support the proposition that

goal setting can improve management safety performance in the construction industry.

Keywords: Behavioural safety, feedback, goal setting, organizational behaviour, organizational psychology,

safety

Introduction

Cameron and Duff (2007) have reviewed many

publications describing attempts to improve the safety

performance of workers in the manufacturing and

construction industries, from North America and

Europe to the Far East, using the behavioural

techniques of goal setting and feedback. They conclude

that the evidence, so far, suggests that, though

behavioural safety interventions can be extremely

effective, they do rely very much on the active support

of a committed management. This raises the problem

of how managers might be motivated to improve their

own safety-related behaviours, possibly also using goal

setting and feedback. Such an intervention, focused on

management behaviours, might encourage committed

management behaviour. A case study of this kind of

intervention, on a construction site in Stirling,

Scotland, is described.

This approach is developed as an extension of

successful techniques of worker behaviour improve-

ment (Duff et al., 1993; Robertson et al., 1999).

The research addressed two construction safety

problems:

(1) How can construction organizations reliably

measure the safety performance of their man-

agers?

(2) How can construction organizations motivate

these managers to improve their safety perfor-

mance when they themselves are in little

immediate danger?

Locke’s (1968) theory of work motivation termed

‘goal setting’ was integrated with the concept of safety

auditing (e.g. Saunders, 1992). A case study in the use

of a safety management behavioural audit with goal

setting and feedback will be described.*Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected]

Construction Management and Economics (August 2007) 25, 869–881

Construction Management and EconomicsISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2007 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/01446190701268848

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Research method

The research examined the hypotheses:

N a valid and reliable measure of management

safety behaviour can be developed and imple-

mented; and

N an intervention of management audit, goals and

feedback can be used to improve the dependent

variable of safety management performance.

Development of the measurement instrument

Measures of accident incidence are today recognized

as invalid measures of safety at a workplace (except in

very large organizations, or over the very long term)

because they are insensitive to real changes in safety

behaviour or conditions, and under-reported (Health

and Safety Executive, 1993; Glendon and McKenna,

1995). Therefore, two alternative measures of safety

have been developed, measuring operative unsafe acts

and/or conditions and management actions and/or

omissions.

Focusing on unsafe acts and conditions in the

workplace is an intuitively appealing method of

differentiating a safe site from an unsafe one.

However, this has limitations because the approach

implies that it is primarily operatives that are to blame

for accidents. This is contrary to research which

suggests that operative errors are downstream ‘trigger

events’ in a series of more fundamental management

failures (Reason, 1990; Whittington et al., 1992; Dester

and Blockley, 1995).

Management actions can differentiate safe sites from

unsafe sites based on the observed level of safety

management commitment (Cohen and Cleveland,

1983). Commitment is an indicator of workplaces with

positive safety cultures (Cooper and Phillips, 1994) and

operatives can only be expected to adhere to the

minimum safety standards set by managers (Fleming et

al., 1997).

The utility of conventional safety audits as means of

measuring safety has being questioned (e.g. Eisner and

Leger, 1988). In contrast, behavioural inventories of

unsafe acts and conditions have emerged as effective

measures of safety performance (McAfee and Winn,

1989). These methods have been applied to construc-

tion sites with good results, though moderated on some

sites by low levels of management support (Duff et al.,

1994; Marsh et al., 1998; Robertson et al., 1999).

These findings seem to suggest that a behavioural

inventory of unsafe management acts and procedures

would offer utility for measuring safety performance on

construction sites.

Therefore the safety management behavioural audit

was developed, using a validation procedure derived

from Phillips (1992), and involving:

N a review of safety management literature,

accident statistics and reports to extract a list

of safety management behaviours and proce-

dures;

N evaluation of each item for inclusion in a

measure, in relation to its potential for objective

and reliable measurement;

N further validation and establishing item weights

through a postal survey of construction person-

nel;

N design of questions for the audit and determina-

tion of suitable rating scales;

N piloting of audit with industrial collaborators,

and revision where necessary.

Evaluation of the behaviours and procedures identi-

fied seven items: induction training; toolbox talk

training; safety committees; subcontractor safety meet-

ings (pre-start and operative inductions); maintenance

of safety records; safety manager inspections and

actions; and safety consideration (operative percep-

tions). A questionnaire was developed to rate these

items on a three-point scale—very important, less

important and not important. The respondents were

asked to consider ‘managerial time commitment’,

‘degree of control’ and ‘consequences of not perform-

ing a given behaviour’, as indicators of the importance

of each item. This was sent to the safety managers of

the top 50 contractors in the UK. Thirty-one responses

established item weightings of 17% (induction training;

safety committees; subcontractor safety meetings;

maintenance of safety records; safety consideration)

and 8% (toolbox training; safety manager inspections).

These weightings were used to give a total behaviour

rating known as the ‘Global Index’.

In the completed audit each item contained several

questions, each one requiring a response, on an

‘interval-rating-scale’, scoring the degree or quality of

compliance with maximum expected performance.

These questions, or sub-items, addressed:

N induction training—frequency; content; status of

trainer; time allocated; supply and instruction in

PPE;

N toolbox talk training—frequency; status of trainer;

number of attendees; presentation and format;

duration; relationship to current work;

N safety committees—frequency; management atten-

dance; representation of direct and subcontract

employees; availability of minutes; resolution of

concerns; discussion of the behavioural safety

audit;

870 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

N subcontractor safety meetings—management pre-

start meetings; frequency of pre-start meetings;

seniority of attendees; allocation of resources;

risk assessments; subcontractor inductions (fre-

quency, quality, time allocation);

N maintenance of safety records—safety issues in

progress meeting minutes; safety committee

minutes; induction records and risk assessments;

toolbox training records; workplace register;

quarterly reviews of safety plans;

N safety manager inspections and actions—regularity

of inspections; provision of feedback; safety

manager participation in other areas of safety

performance;

N safety consideration (operative ratings)—quality of

induction training; quality of toolbox talks;

quality of safety committee; recognition of safe

working and criticism of unsafe working; discus-

sion of safety in work instructions; assessment of

day-to-day management safety focus.

The sub-item scores measure relative frequency of

conformance of site management against percentage

bands (e.g. actual frequency of toolbox talks against

planned frequency), and quality of conformance

against comprehensive scale anchor descriptors (e.g.

operative perceptions of quality of organization and

presentation of induction training). Pilot trials of the

audit suggested that the scales were understood, suited

for rating management tasks and easy to use.

This behavioural audit was applied in the field to

determine whether these ratings:

(a) are a valid measure of management safety;

(b) accurately and consistently (reliably) measure

management safety.

A literature search (Cameron and Duff, 2007) has

demonstrated that goal setting and feedback have been

an effective method of motivating improved worker

safety behaviour, across manufacturing industries in

North America, Europe and the Middle East as well as

in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong construction

industries. This suggests that goals and feedback may

also offer utility as a method of improving management

safety and so, in this study, goals and feedback are

applied to management safety behaviours.

Experimental design

Experimental designs exist that allow researchers to

draw causal conclusions about their results, by elim-

inating alternative explanations (‘Hawthorne’ effect,

history, maturation, regression and instrumentation) as

the cause of change in the dependent variable. Perfect

experimental control would mean that the planned

independent variables did in fact cause the observed

change in the dependent variable.

‘Natural designs’ are best but these can be dis-

counted in work settings because it is impractical to

randomly assign people to equivalent experimental and

control groups (Barlow and Herson, 1984). ‘Quasi-

designs’, which use non-equivalent control groups, are

the recommended alternative, relying on comparisons

made within the group and thus serving as their own

control. Two types of quasi-design were considered,

but dismissed on methodological grounds. First,

‘reversal designs’ that rely on withdrawal of a, possibly

successful, treatment could be unethical in the safety

field; and would have been unacceptable to the

industrial collaborator. Secondly, ‘multiple designs’

that rely on the stepped application of a treatment

across items were dismissed because interventions

aimed at one item could affect other items and nullify

control (Kazdin, 1982) and because they lead to longer

duration experiments than most construction sites can

accommodate.

So, a ‘before and after’ design (Figure 1) was

selected. This design does have deficiencies, for

example an environmental (confounding) event could

occur at the same time as the intervention, and this

would mean that changes in safety performance could

not be attributed solely to the experimental treatment.

However, the probability of this was low and, in any

event, experimental control could be enhanced by

monitoring and recording possible confounding factors.

A £25m, two-storey shopping precinct project was

selected, in order to engage onsite management, but

avoiding the likelihood of sophisticated H&S manage-

ment systems such as tends to be the case with very

large, high-profile projects. The main contractor

management team comprised a project manager, four

section managers and two foremen, controlling

approximately 50 main contractor and 230 subcon-

tractor employees. The construction programme

allowed nine monthly audits, three in the baseline

(before) period and six in the intervention (after)

period. This design represents a balance which is

satisfactory for the statistical testing of data.

During the baseline, measurements were conducted

at four-weekly intervals, using the safety management

behavioural audit. During the intervention, measure-

ment and goal setting were conducted at four-weekly

intervals throughout the six months of the intervention.

During this phase, specific and challenging manage-

ment team goals were set, coupled with feedback.

Strong goal commitment was sought by allowing

participants to set their own goals (Cooper, 1992;

Cooper et al., 1993). The following protocols were

used:

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 871

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Goals

N Challenging (difficult) percentage goals were set

in a participative manner and publicly posted.

N Qualitative sub-goals, ‘action plans’ for goal

achievement, were agreed.

Feedback

N Specific quantitative performance feedback was

displayed graphically.

N Verbal feedback, explaining changes in perfor-

mance measures, was given.

N Additional, ongoing feedback was achieved by

requiring weekly, management ‘self-report’

forms.

Statistical testing of the motivation hypothesis

Two types of statistical test were used for testing the

motivation hypothesis:

(1) visual analysis of trend: observing changes in

means and standard deviations between baseline

and intervention phases;

(2) mean treatment effect size (d-statistic): this

unit free number is an indicator of the

magnitude of the difference between experi-

mental phases, regardless of its statistical

probability.

These complementary tests assess: practical signifi-

cance (visual analysis) and substantive significance

(effect size).

The field experiment

Data were collected from three different sources, to

allow triangulation. Each monthly audit included (1)

operative recalled data; (2) management recalled data;

and (3) inspection of records and documents, the

format, in each case, prescribed by the requirement to

score each item on the ‘interval-rating-scale’.

(1) Operative recalled data. This relates to the item

‘safety consideration’. The first part of the

behavioural audit involved the confidential

structured interview of a sample of approxi-

mately 10 (20% of total) directly employed

operatives each month, and respondent scores

aggregated to obtain a rating for safety con-

sideration. The questions tested operative

experience of management’s visible support for

safety.

(2) Management recalled data. The second part of the

behavioural audit involved a 40-minute struc-

tured group interview with the management

team, collecting data on induction training,

toolbox training, safety committees, subcontrac-

tor safety and safety manager actions.

Figure 1 The ‘before and after’ experimental design

872 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

(3) Inspection of records and documents. The third part

was an examination of main and subcontractor

documentation to collect data from labour

returns, induction training records, toolbox talk

training records, safety committee meeting

minutes, progress meeting minutes involving

safety, subcontractor pre-start meetings, risk

assessments and method statements, safety

policies, health and safety plans and statutory

registers.

Implementation

Pre-experiment phase

Before any measurement, the scope of the audit was

explained without revealing the research hypotheses,

two seemingly contradictory requirements. This was

resolved by issuing a narrative which outlined the audit

in general and in vague terms. Staff were advised that

measurements would be conducted each month for

three months, after which an assessment of safety

management performance would be made and safety

improvement strategies introduced. In spite of these

efforts to avoid a ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Mayo, 1933) or

unintentional performance feedback, it was possible

that the baseline scores would not represent normal

performance. To control for this, samples of data were

collected from records for the period prior to the start of

the baseline, in order to test for signs of an improvement

during the baseline phase. The preliminary meeting was

also used to build enthusiasm and support.

Baseline phase

The researcher attended site monthly and collected

data, as discreetly as possible, from operatives, manage-

ment and records. There was no feedback and the

research hypotheses were not discussed. Where these

data could be compared with those from the period

prior to the start of the baseline, no improvement was

evident.

Intervention phase

The intervention phase comprised a series of monthly

audits, immediately followed by goal-setting meetings,

involving the project manager, site management and

the researcher. This group agreed goals and action

feedback each month. The following standards were

agreed with managers and applied, to define ideal

performance and against which to set goals:

N conduct a safety induction for all labour new to

the site;

N conduct two relevant safety toolbox talks each

month;

N conduct a representative safety committee meet-

ing each month;

N conduct a pre-start meeting with all subcontrac-

tors and induct supervisory personnel;

N maintain safety records and documents (scaf-

folds, minutes, risk assessments, etc.);

N disseminate safety information to employees, e.g.

risk assessment, consultation, etc., hence show-

ing safety consideration.

Goal information, such as the number of required

toolbox talks and safety committee meetings required

to satisfy targets, was formulated to guide the behaviour

of the project manager who represented the ‘champion

of the intervention’ (Marsh et al., 1998) and was central

in the setting of, and maintaining commitment to, goals

and action plans.

Reliability of measurements

Parallel recording of data was not feasible, so site

management was used to investigate the reliability of

the data. This was done at the conclusion of each

behavioural audit by checking the consistency and

accuracy of any data collected from site records, and

interviewing the site team to ensure that they agreed

with the scoring of the data. Baseline scores were

endorsed collectively after the conclusion of the base-

line, to avoid feedback during the baseline phase.

There was no evidence of observer bias, even among

the management team. Poor scores that spoiled a

sequence of good scores were not contested.

Furthermore, because most audit scores rate objective

records it is seldom possible for unreliable data to

occur, without actual falsification of site records.

Analysis and discussion of case study results

The case study site was drawn from a ‘top five’ UK

contractor. The site, a £25 million fast-track project to

construct a shopping precinct, was in Stirling,

Scotland. The project team comprised seven managers,

around 50 direct employees and around 230 subcon-

tractor employees. The construction programme

allowed nine management safety audits, three prior to

intervention and six after.

The Global Index is recorded in Table 1 and shows

the pre-/post-intervention change in this aggregate

measure.

The data indicate that safety management perfor-

mance improved substantially, with an average increase

of around 30% on the introduction of the goal setting

and feedback intervention. However, the diary showed

three extraneous factors that may have moderated

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 873

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

overall performance: an unexpected HSE visit shortly

after month one audit; the site’s only major accident (a

severed finger) at month six (intervention month two);

and an acceleration order that involved 24-hour work-

ing on weekdays, coinciding with the annual leave of a

manager who was involved in items such as toolbox talk

training, both in month eight (intervention month five).

It is reasonable to assume that this latter event

negatively influenced management safety and perfor-

mance evidently improved when the manager returned

from leave.

There was no significant improvement in safety

performance after the major accident and interviews

with staff at the conclusion of the research suggested

that the accident did not influence the day-to-day safety

behaviours of the site team.

Behavioural audit safety performance scores: %-

safe (individual items)

Table 2 gives a better insight into the origins of the

improvements shown in the Global Index.

Induction training

Inspection of the monthly scores reveals a gradual

improvement of approximately 15% after the introduc-

tion of the intervention. This was largely due to greater

risk assessment dissemination. No inductions occurred

in month one and it is very possible that the data

collection may have caused staff to increase effort;

however, this is judged not to interfere with the

conclusion that the intervention caused another sig-

nificant improvement.

Toolbox training

The start of the intervention coincided with an

immediate improvement of 36% over the previous

month. Though variable, this item performed at a high

level until month eight when performance dropped to

0%, almost certainly due to the absence, on annual

leave, of the responsible site manager.

Safety committees

This item scored zero during the baseline phase but

improved greatly following goal setting. The site

manager appeared embarrassed at the zero score and

immediately initiated strategies to aid goal attainment.

Feedback of scores was used to encourage improve-

ment. The only blemish was a last minute cancellation

of a meeting at month eight to accommodate a section

handover.

Subcontractors’ safety

Despite a high level of performance during baseline,

typically around 76%, performance did improve by

18% or so, after the introduction of the intervention,

particularly in relation to pre-start meetings and

dissemination of risk assessments.

Safety records

During the baseline, records were never held in a

central location and training records and risk assess-

ments were missing. Following the intervention, record

keeping was centralized and greater effort was directed

to maintenance of safety records. Intervention scores

rose by around 20%.

Table 1 Percentage-safe global behavioural audit scores, pre-intervention (months 1–3) and post-intervention (months 4–9)

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Audit score (%) 38 52 56 87 87 89 85 63 83

Table 2 Percentage-safe individual behavioural audit scores, pre-intervention (months 1–3) and post-intervention (months 4–

9)

Months

1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Induction training 0 81 75 89 95 95 95 95 94

Toolbox training 0 46 50 86 61 80 90 0 66

Safety committees 0 0 0 94 92 100 92 0 84

Subcontractor 76 72 80 98 98 97 84 97 97

Safety records 63 61 79 96 93 92 90 79 90

Safety manager 83 67 67 83 75 88 83 92 83

Consideration 43 44 42 59 66 65 60 61 55

Audit score (%) 38 52 56 87 87 89 85 63 83

874 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Safety manager actions

This item was an attempt to motivate the site manage-

ment team to ensure regular safety inspection.

Performance increased by at least 16% for five of the

six intervention months. The safety manager took a

keen interest in the scores, viewing them as a reflection

of his own performance.

Safety consideration

The baseline performance on this item was low, with a

mean value of 43%. There was little evidence to suggest

that important safety information was communicated

to those actually at risk. This baseline result seemed to

disappoint the site team and the construction director,

and the negative feedback acted as a catalyst to

motivate corrective strategies. For example, the project

manager ensured that gang leaders attended the safety

committee and that foremen and site managers con-

sulted employees about risk assessments. These beha-

viours caused an improvement of 17% immediately,

but the site never scored above 65%. Data collected by

operative interview suggested a critical, blame culture

on the site and a lack of positive reinforcement for

desired behaviour.

These data demonstrate that it is possible to

implement a safety management behavioural audit as

a measure of the effectiveness of management safety

performance. The fact that the management team set

improvement goals each month, displayed feedback

graphs on site, and endorsed the researcher’s scores

strongly suggests that the industrial partner accepted

the scores as valid and reliable ratings.

Mean average safety performance scores: MAS

In order to assess trends more effectively and to

prepare data for the mean treatment effect size

(MTES) calculations, performance data were sepa-

rated into blocks of three months: the baseline phase;

the first three-month treatment phase; and the final

three-month treatment phase. Each block was

reduced to an average and standard deviation

(Table 3).

Percentage relative change (RC)

The pre-intervention mean was 49% and the post-

intervention means were 88% and 77% representing

improvements of 38% and 28% (Table 3). As the mean

baseline value was 49%, there is a 51% scope for

improvement. The percentage relative change is calcu-

lated from the proportion of 38 and 28 parts in 51,

which suggests relative changes of 75%RC and

55%RC. Clearly, if a baseline score is 20%, a

considerable opportunity to improve exists.

Conversely, if a baseline score is 80%; a limited

opportunity to improve exists—the RC reflects this.

Because the Global Index represents all items, it is

reasonable to suggest, from these data, that goals and

feedback exerted a substantial influence on manage-

ment safety behaviour. The duration of the project did

not permit investigation of the sustainability of this

influence.

There are two general trends evident in Table 3.

First, variability exists within some items (e.g. toolbox

training and safety committees); this is doubtless a

function of sample size (Kurtz, 1983). Secondly, post-

intervention data tend to be more stable than pre-

intervention data. This observation supports the find-

ings of Duff et al. (1993) that behavioural interventions

lead to a reduction in variance due to the influence of

the treatment.

Effect size of performance scores: MTES

A more statistically analytical indication of the

magnitude of the intervention effect was achieved

by calculating a mean treatment effect size (MTES)

known as the ‘d’ statistic (Cohen, 1969/88). MTES(d)

is calculated by subtracting a pre-intervention

mean average score from the post-intervention

mean average score and dividing by the pooled

standard deviation. With small samples (n,10), the

resulting ‘d’ provides an inflated indicator. Hedges

(1985) effect-size correction factor for (n1+n222)

degrees of freedom was applied. This modified ‘d’

provides an unbiased estimate of the true value (Cohen,

1969/88).

Cohen’s ‘d’ indicates whether a difference between

two means is large or small in relation to the spread of

scores in the sample: 020.4 is ‘negligible’; 0.4120.7 is

‘medium’; and above 0.71 is ‘large’ (Cohen, 1988).

MTES(d) (Table 4) was calculated relative to base-

line (months 1, 2, 3) for:

(1) the first three months of the treatment (months

4, 5, 6);

(2) the last three months of the treatment (months

7, 8, 9).

The results show a consistent picture of large

treatment effects for most items. The results suggest

that the first three months of the intervention had a very

strong positive effect: MTES(d) were generally greater

than 1.0 for individual items and the Global Index

produced an effect of 4.6d’s; safety committee and

subcontractors demonstrated very large effect-sizes.

During the last three-month treatment phase, d’s

ranged from 0.4 to 5.2. However, it is clear that effect-

sizes were weaker during months seven, eight and nine,

a fact evident from the Global Index of 2.0d’s. The

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 875

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3 Mean average scores (MAS) (standard deviations shown in parentheses)

Audit item Base (1,2,3) Treat (4,5,6) Treat (7,8,9) Treat (4,5,6,7,8,9) %-change RC %

Global Index 87.7 (1.2) 38.7 Improve 75

49 (9.5) 77 (12.2) 28 Improve 55

82.4 (9.8) 33.4 Improve 65

Induction training 93 (3.5) 41 Improve 85

52 (45.1) 95 (0) 43 Improve 90

94 (2.4) 42 Improve 87.5

Toolbox training 75.7 (13) 43.7 Improve 64.3

32 (27.8) 52 (46.6) 20 Improve 29.4

63.9 (33.2) 31.9 Improve 46.9

Safety committees 95.3 (42) 95.3 Improve 95.3

0 (0) 58.7 (51) 58.7 Improve 58.7

77 (38.1) 77 Improve 77

Subcontractors 97.7 (0.6) 21.7 Improve 90.4

76 (4) 92.7 (7.5) 16.7 Improve 69.6

95.2 (5.2) 19.2 Improve 80

Safety records 93.7 (2.1) 26 Improve 80.5

67.7 (9.9) 86.3 (6.4) 18.6 Improve 57.6

90 (5.8) 22.3 Improve 69

Safety manager 82 (6.6) 9.7 Improve 54.8

72.3 (9.2) 86 (5.2) 13.7 Improve 77.4

84 (5.7) 11.7 Improve 67.3

Consideration 63.3 (3.8) 20.3 Improve 35.6

43 (1) 58.7 (3.2) 15.7 Improve 27.5

61 (4.1) 18 Improve 31.6

Table 4 Cohen’s ‘d’: mean treatment effect size indicators by item and phase

Item and phase No. of observations No. of MTES Observed ‘d’ Corrected MTES

Global Index

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 5.716 d 4.573 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 2.560 d 2.048 d

Induction training

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 1.282 d 1.026 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 1.348 d 1.078 d

Toolbox training

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 2.014 d 1.611 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 0.521 d 0.417 d

Safety committees

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 32.089 d 25.671 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 1.6280 d 1.302 d

Subcontractors

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 7.587 d 6.070 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 2.778 d 2.222 d

Safety records

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 3.633 d 2.906 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 2.231 d 1.785 d

Safety manager

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 1.212 d 0.970 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 1.830 d 1.464 d

Consideration

Base-v-Treat 1 6 (3+3) 1 7.307 d 5.846 d

Base-v-Treat 2 6 (3+3) 1 6.620 d 5.296 d

876 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

decrease is very largely due to zero scores for toolbox

training and safety committees in month eight. Without

these scores, the Global Index maintains an average of

85%. Despite this decrease, results are still positive,

and notable effects are in evidence: for example; 5.3d’s

for safety consideration.

Cohen’s (1988) descriptors classify these effects as

‘large’. However, Leik (1997) suggests that there is

something arbitrary about such labels and suggests that

researchers should compare their results with similar

studies. In similar research, Duff et al. (1993) found

effects generally between 3.1d and 0.6d; they also

found a lesser effect during their second treatment.

Effect-sizes are interesting when viewed against

ANOVA significance tests (for reasons of space, not

reported here). For instance, induction training, tool-

box training and safety manager all failed to reach

significance at the 5% level. Despite this, they exhibited

‘large’ effect-sizes. ANOVA’s failure to attain signifi-

cance is probably related to low statistical power

(number of data points).

Summary of safety performance statistics

N The Global Index improved over baseline—on

average, by 39% (75%RC) for the first three

intervention months, and by 28% (55%RC) for

the last three months. Mean average scores

improved for all items across both treatment

phases. All 16 item-phases improved (range, 10–

95%) after goal setting.

N The Global Index exhibited a ‘large’ effect-size

for the first three months of the intervention

(d54.6) and for the remaining three months of

the intervention (d52.0). Effect-sizes were

strong (.0.71) for all seven performance items

across both phases, with only one exception—the

second phase of toolbox training exhibited only a

‘medium’ effect (d50.42).

N The effect was stronger during the first three

intervention months, when compared with the

last three intervention months. A downward

trend was evident in %-changes and MTES(d),

but this trend is not sufficient to suggest that

performance substantially deteriorated during

the later phase of the intervention. In any case,

the individual results for items in month eight

(intervention month five) suggest that much of

this fall in performance was due to the con-

founding factors, previously described.

The quantitative results therefore support the motiva-

tional hypothesis that goal setting can improve manage-

ment safety performance.

Discussion

Experimental control

The main shortcomings associated with this design are

the presence of potentially confounding factors that can

moderate the relationship between goals and perfor-

mance.

Rater drift

The use of ‘reliability statements’, signed by managers,

corroborated scores. Using these, management

endorsed the reliability of all nine audits, including

those months with very poor scores, minimizing the

likelihood of rater drift as a confounding factor.

Subject reactivity

The ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Mayo, 1933) can be ignored.

If performance had improved simply due to the

presence of the researcher then performance would

have risen during the baseline phase. This did not

happen.

Environmental factors

Diary records were maintained, in order to document

uncontrolled environmental changes. Four potentially

confounding variables were recorded. The only one

apparently causing a significant change in performance,

a staff holiday at month eight, is accounted for in the

analysis.

Collectively, these demonstrate experimental control

and go a long way to eliminate alternative explanations

for the performance improvements that have been

recorded.

Goal setting

This comprised three related elements: participative

team goal setting, action plans and self-reporting.

Participative team goal setting

Goal theory (Locke and Latham, 1990) predicts that

when more than five goals are pursued, or the goals are

complex, diluted goal focus and effort will result. In this

case there were seven major goals, each containing a

number of elements, which led, in part, to the adoption

of a participative, team goal setting-process.

Specific and difficult management goals were nego-

tiated, before each month of the intervention, between

the project manager, two site managers and one

foreman, with the researcher acting as facilitator. The

goals were considered difficult, by the management, as

‘they require real commitment of time and effort to

attain’. Goals and goal attainment are shown in

Table 5.

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 877

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Therefore, participative team goal-setting procedures

operated effectively on this case study site. Specifically,

the goal mechanism of intensity maintained goal effort.

As goals were being set at around 90% for most items,

considerable goal directed effort was evident. For

instance, induction training goals were attained, or

were within 5% of the goal, for all six intervention

months. Toolbox talk training goals were within 5% of

set goals for two-thirds of the intervention. Safety

committee goals were attained, or almost attained, for

half of the time.

In total, 42 goals were set and these were attained 17

times. Of the remaining 25 goals, 12 were within 5% of

target, leaving 13 goals that were missed by a significant

margin. This suggests management behaviours were

influenced by goals and supports previous construction

behavioural safety findings (Duff et al., 1993; Cooper et

al., 1993) that participative goal setting, even when

here extended to a management team, promoted goal

directed commitment.

Action plans

Goal theory (Wood and Locke, 1990) predicts that

when complex management goals are pursued

increased effort may not necessarily cause improved

performance. Problem-solving task strategies must also

be developed for goals to be attained. This strategy

mechanism implies that motivation and initiative are

required (Locke and Latham, 1990).

The management team devised strategy in the form

of action plans to aid the achievement of the agreed

quantitative goals, for much the same reasons as

method statements will always accompany credible

construction programmes. Action plans facilitated

optimum performance, supporting previous construc-

tion behavioural studies (Hadavi and Krizek, 1994)

suggesting that setting specific intermediate goals eases

the attainment of end goals. In the development of the

action plans, open discussion and problem solving were

frequently evident. For instance, a programme of

relevant tool-box training was devised and a safety

supervisor was appointed to oversee goal effort.

Self-reporting

Goal theory (Locke and Latham, 1990) and feedback

theory (Algera, 1990) suggest that feedback is more

effective when it is immediate. Balcazar et al. (1986)

noted that monthly (distal) feedback was less motiva-

tional than weekly (proximal) feedback. Also, Luthan

(1992) noted that self-reporting was a vastly under-

utilized management technique.

Because of this evidence, weekly self-reports were

introduced to help maintain goal focus and effort. The

project manager returned a detailed progress report,

without fail, at the close of each week. This self-

reporting complemented monthly goal setting and

action plans, and maintained the visibility of both goals

and level of attainment.

Organizational outcomes

While the improvement in measured performance is

very encouraging, it does not tell the whole story. The

following findings relate to each of the elements of the

performance measure and are based on records of

monthly goal setting and review meetings and the final

‘safety project review’ meeting.

Induction training

The approach to induction training seemed ad hoc at

the start of the contract. Bearing in mind that 40% of

major accidents occur during an employee’s first month

on a project (CIRIA, 1994), this failure to conduct

training during the baseline represented a major

management omission. After the start of the interven-

tion, the site developed control strategies to ensure that

all employees received induction training, involving

video training, risk assessment and-site specific rules.

Toolbox training

The management team admitted that toolbox training

had been seen as a ‘luxury’, due to time pressures. After

the introduction of the intervention, an agenda for

ongoing safety awareness training, involving two ‘tool-

box’ sessions each month and linked to the contract

Table 5 Goals set and goal attainment (bold5attained; underlined5within 5%)

Months 4 5 6 7 8 9

Goal—Score Goal—Score Goal—Score Goal—Score Goal—Score Goal—Score

Induction train 85 89 95 95 95 95 98 95 98 95 95 94

Toolbox train 55 86 90 61 90 80 90 90 60 0 60 66

Committees 50 94 96 92 96 100 100 92 100 0 95 84

Subcontractor 85 98 98 98 98 97 98 84 95 97 98 97

Safety records 85 96 96 93 95 92 98 90 85 79 85 90

Safety adviser 83 83 95 75 83 88 83 83 85 92 85 83

Consideration 55 59 65 66 66 65 65 60 70 61 70 55

878 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

programme, was devised for all employees. These

sessions involved the use of visual aids and were

conducted by line managers themselves and focused

on areas such as excavations, scaffold, mobile towers,

PPE, electricity and housekeeping.

Safety committees

Though these meetings were a requirement of the

Group Safety Management System, they had been

always cancelled. After the intervention began, they

occurred regularly and featured a substantive agenda

and attendance by line managers, operatives, subcon-

tractor supervisors and subcontractor operatives. The

format of these meetings was adopted by several other

contracts within the group.

Subcontractor safety

This site performed well during the baseline. Strict

procedures, required by executive directors, existed for

subcontractor pre-start arrangements. Even so, perfor-

mance did improve slightly after goal setting, mainly

due to greater dissemination of risk assessments.

Bearing in mind the pre-intervention performance in

other elements of the management safety measure,

there appeared to be something of a ‘don’t do as I do,

do as I say’ attitude towards subcontractors, which can

have done little for safety leadership or culture on the

site.

Safety records and documents

After the intervention, the frequency and completeness

of site inspections of scaffolds, excavations, lifting

equipment, fire, housekeeping and site hazards all

improved. Cross-checking these records with informa-

tion from management interviews verified that these

inspection documents were accurately completed.

Safety manager actions

During the intervention the safety manager became

more involved in employee consultation, employee

training and risk assessment. Site management stated

that, previously, the safety manager’s style had been

predominantly one of ‘staff advice’, in contrast to the

‘hands-on’ approach the intervention seemed to moti-

vate.

Safety consideration

A body of evidence supports the contention that

management’s concern for safety, and in particular

their visible safety behaviour, influences operative

safety behaviours at site level (Levitt and Parker,

1976; Hinze and Parker, 1978; Hinze and Gordon,

1979; Hinze, 1981). The safety consideration item was

intended to promote safety communication. After the

start of the intervention, although there was some

improvement, the evidence suggested that a blockage

was preventing information being disseminated. The

problem appeared to be one of the foremen, the only

member of the team who exhibited any kind of

resistance to the research. This absence of proactive

safety culture was illustrated by an employee, who said:

‘listen son, when gaffers say nought, you know you’ve

done no bad’.

The project manager regularly discussed safety goals

with subordinate managers and ensured that goals were

consciously pursued. In effect, this manager became

the ‘champion of the intervention’ (Robertson et al.,

1999). Minutes of site meetings had the intervention

high on the agenda. Members of the site team admitted

that, for the first time in years, they communicated to

each other about safety and this participation strongly

supported the acceptance of goals; as one manager put

it: ‘it’s difficult to dismiss your own suggestions [action-

plans] the following month’. Again, it is shown that

participation in goal setting is a very motivational

method of setting construction goals (Cooper, 1992).

There was some evidence to suggest that site

management’s behavioural commitment to the inter-

vention was related to the actions of executive manage-

ment. The director of construction took an active

interest in scores and always discussed these with site

management when visiting the contract. This beha-

viour communicated his commitment to safety and

supports much research (Griffiths, 1985; Minter, 1991;

Dester and Blockley, 1995; Fleming et al., 1997)

suggesting that executive managers are role models

who symbolize the organization’s real values, and that

management support is an essential prerequisite for

effective safety initiatives (Lingard, 1995; Marsh et al.,

1998). Future behavioural safety initiatives might

benefit from the inclusion of measures of executive

management performance.

When considered collectively, and even though no

attitude survey was conducted, reports made to the

researcher suggest that the intervention enhanced the

safety climate of the site, thus supporting Cooper et al.

(1993) that behavioural interventions are associated

with positive safety climates (Cooper and Phillips,

1994).

Conclusions

Collectively, findings from this case study:

N demonstrate that it is possible to implement a

safety management behavioural audit as a valid

and reliable measure of management safety

performance in the construction industry; and

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 879

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

N support the proposition that goal setting can

improve management safety performance in the

construction industry.

However, many further successful cases are required

before it would be possible to draw general conclusions

about the effectiveness of these interventions in

improving management safety behaviour.

Acknowledgement

Although, for reasons of confidentiality, the name of

the collaborating contractor and exact site location

have been omitted, the authors are indebted to the

contractor, and particularly the site manager for

agreeing to take part in this experiment and supporting

our efforts so enthusiastically. It is widely accepted that

no such intervention can succeed in its aims without

the commitment of the managers involved, and this is a

perfect example.

References

Algera, J.A. (1990) Feedback systems in organisations, in

Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (eds) International

Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 5,

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, London, pp. 169–93.

Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B.L. and Suarez, Y. (1986) A critical,

objective review of performance feedback. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour Management, 3, 174–88.

Barlow, D.H. and Herson, M. (1984) Single-Case

Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behaviour

Change, Pergamon, New York.

Cameron, I. and Duff, R. (2007) A critical review of safety

initiatives using goal setting and feedback. Construction

Management and Economics (in press).

CIRIA (1994) Not Just an Accident, Video by the

Construction Industry Research and Information

Association, London.

Cohen, H.H. and Cleveland, R.J. (1983) Safety program

practices in record holding plants. Professional Safety, 28(3),

26–33.

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural

Sciences, Academic Press, New York.

Cooper, M.D. (1992) An examination of assigned and

participative goal setting in relation to the improvement

of safety in the construction industry, PhD thesis,

University of Manchester Institute of Science and

Technology, School of Management.

Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (1994) Validation of a safety

climate measure. Paper presented at the Annual

Occupational Psychology Conference, Birmingham,

British Psychological Society, 3–5 January.

Cooper, M.D., Phillips, R.A., Robertson, I.T. and Duff, A.R.

(1993) Improving safety on construction sites by the

utilisation of psychologically based techniques: alternative

approaches to the measurement of safety behaviour. Revue

europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 43(1), pp. 33–7.

Dester, W.S. and Blockley, D.I. (1995) Safety—behaviour

and culture. Engineering, Construction and Architectural

Management, 2(1), 17–26.

Duff, A.R., Robertson, I.T., Phillips, R.A. and Cooper, M.D.

(1993) Improving Safety on Construction Sites by Changing

Personnel Behaviour, Health and Safety Executive Contract

Research Report (CRR/51), HMSO, London.

Duff, A.R., Robertson, I.T., Phillips, R.A. and Cooper, M.D.

(1994) Improving safety by the modification of behaviour.

Construction Management and Economics, 12(12), 67–78.

Eisner, H.S. and Leger, J.P. (1988) The international safety

rating systems in South African mining. Journal of

Occupational Accidents, 10(2), 141–60.

Fleming, M., Mearns, K., Flin, R. and Gordon, R. (1997)

Effectively surveying your organisation’s safety climate or

culture to accurately assess your current position and

identifying where improvements need to be made. Paper

presented at ILR Conference on Behavioural Safety,

Piccadilly Hotel, July 1997.

Glendon, A.I. and McKenna, E.F. (1995) Human Safety and

Risk Management, Chapman and Hall, London.

Griffiths, D.K. (1985) The safety attitudes of management.

Ergonomics, 28, 61–97.

Hadavi, A. and Krizek, R.J. (1994) Difficulties with imple-

mentation of goal setting for construction. ASCE Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 10(5), 49–54.

Health and Safety Executive (1993) The Cost of Accidents at

Work, HMSO, London.

Hedges, L.V. (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis,

Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Hinze, J. (1981) Human aspects of construction safety. ASCE

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 107(1),

61–72.

Hinze, J. and Gordon, F. (1979) Supervisor–worker relation-

ship affects injury rate. ASCE Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, 105(3), 253–61.

Hinze, J. and Parker, H.W. (1978) Safety: productivity and

job pressure. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 104(1), 27–34.

Kazdin, A.E. (1982) Single Case Research Designs: Methods for

Applied Settings, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kurtz, N.R. (1983) Introduction to Social Statistics, McGraw-

Hill, New York.

Leik, R.K. (1997) Experimental Design and the Analysis of

Variance, Pine Forge Press, California.

Levitt, R.E. and Parker, H.W. (1976) Reducing construction

accidents: top management’s role. ASCE Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 102(3), 465–78.

Lingard, H. (1995) Safety in Hong Kong’s construction

industry: changing worker behaviour, unpublished PhD

thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Locke, E.A. (1968) Towards a theory of task motivation and

incentives. Organisational Behaviour and Human

Performance, 3(2), 157–89.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990) A Theory of Goal

Setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall International

(UK) Ltd, London.

880 Cameron and Duff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Luthan, F. (1992) Organisational Behaviour, McGraw-Hill,

New York.

Marsh, T.W., Davies, R., Phillips, R.A., Duff, A.R.,

Robertson, I.T., Cooper, M.D. and Weyman, A. (1998)

The role of management commitment in determining the

success of a behavioural intervention. Journal of the

Institution of Occupational Health, 2(2), 45–56.

McAfee, R.B. and Winn, A.R. (1989) The use of incentives/

feedback to enhance work place safety: a critique of the

literature. Journal of Safety Research, 20, 7–19.

Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of an Industrial

Civilisation, Macmillan, New York.

Minter, S.G. (1991) Creating safety culture. Occupational

Hazards, 53(8), 17–21.

Phillips, R.A. (1992) The development of a safety perfor-

mance measure for the construction industry, unpublished

MSc thesis, Department of Building Engineering,

University of Manchester Institute of Science and

Technology (UMIST).

Reason, J.T. (1990) Human Error Reduction, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Robertson, I.R., Duff, A.R., Marsh, T.W., Phillips, R.A.,

Weyman, A.K. and Cooper, M.D. (1999) Improving

Safety on Construction Sites by Changing Personnel

Behaviour (Phase II), Contract Research Report 229/

1999, Health & Safety Executive, HSE Books, HMSO,

Norwich.

Saunders, R. (1992) The Safety Audit: Designing Effective

Strategies, Pitman, London.

Whittington, C., Livingston, A. and Lucas, D.A. (1992)

Research into Management, Organisational and Human

Factors in the Construction Industry, HSE Contract

Research Report No. 45/1992, Health and Safety

Executive, HSE Books, HMSO, Norwich.

Wood, R.E. and Locke, E.A. (1990) Goal setting and strategy

effects on complex tasks, in Staw, B. and Cumming, L.L.

(eds) Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 12, JAI,

Greenwich, CT, pp. 443–58.

Measurement and goal setting to improve H&S management 881

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

15:

29 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014