Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Identifying construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety

Dylan Hardison a, Michael Behm b,⇑, Matthew R. Hallowell c, Hamid Fonooni d
a
East Carolina University, 200 Science & Technology Bldg., Greenville, NC 27858, United States
b
East Carolina University, 231 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, United States
c
University of Colorado at Boulder, 428 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309-0428, United States
d
East Carolina University, 233 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction supervisors are crucial to eventual site safety performance. In the United States, the OSHA
Received 4 March 2013 30-hour training is becoming the de facto standard for supervisor safety competence. A literature review
Received in revised form 7 October 2013 of recommended supervisor safety competencies reveals gaps when compared to the OSHA 30-hour
Accepted 16 December 2013
training contents. We address this gap by identifying the necessary knowledge-based safety competen-
Available online 21 January 2014
cies that are most important for the front-line construction supervisor and prioritizing them for the first
time. A Delphi process confirmed that knowledge of pre job planning, organizing work flow, establishing
Keywords:
effective communication, and of routine and non-routine work tasks are highly important competencies
Supervisor
Competency
for the construction supervisor to possess. Construction organizations who utilize the 30-hour training
Construction for supervisor safety competence must recognize its limitations and ensure supervisors are equipped
Delphi with these additional competencies to effectively manage site safety. Government agencies should also
recognize the policy limitations of requiring the 30-hour training for supervisors.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environment of workers must be considered. They emphasize the

Impacting construction site safety is a difficult and multi-
dimensional task. Influences on eventual site safety develop from
multiple sources. Often, the responsibility for construction site
safety is delegated by upper-level management to the line-level
or site supervisor/foreman (Swuste et al., 2012; McVittie et al.,
2009; Mohamed, 2002). Early work by Hinze (Hinze and Gordon,
1979; Hinze and Parker, 1978) demonstrated that the foreman’s
attitude towards safety programs and the psychological environ-
ment they create positively impacts injury rates. Recently, research
during the London 2012 Olympics construction projects revealed
that supervisor competence enhanced effective site safety
practices and is a key to broader construction industry impact
(Finneran et al., 2012).
A site supervisor/foreman, for the rest of this paper, will be ref-
erenced as ‘‘supervisor,’’ who is defined as a planner, organizer, and
facilitator of daily construction management systems (Shohet and
Laufer, 1991). The importance of the construction supervisor for
proper implementation of safety and health programs on construc-
tion sites has long been given attention (Huang et al., 2004;
Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Hinze and Gordon,
1979; Hinze and Parker, 1978). Hinze and Gordon (1979) revealed
that, if safety programs are to be effective, the psychological
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 252 328 9674; fax: +1 252 328 1618.
E-mail address: behmm@ecu.edu (M. Behm).
need for supervisor training to develop a managerial style congru-
ent with enhancing the psychological environment. Hinze (1981)
also found that supervisors that openly showed respect for workers
and incorporated their suggestions also had safer work crews.
Building on this work, Shohet and Laufer (1991) found that en-
hanced planning by the construction foreman/supervisor leads to
improved productivity and safety at the construction site and
Lingard et al. (2012) found that supervisors are more likely to have
a significant impact upon safety, compared to top managers and
safety managers.
In the United States, one of the most common methods of train-
ing supervisors is the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion (OSHA) 30-hour training. The OSHA 30-hour construction
outreach class is a voluntary hazards-based class intended for per-
sonnel with supervisory authority over workplace safety and
health (OSHA, 2011). This outreach course covers OSHA policies,
procedures, and standards, as well as construction safety and
health principles (OSHA, 2011). The training objectives of the
30-hour outreach training include scope and application of the
OSHA construction standards 29 CFR 1926, with special emphasis
being placed on the recognition, avoidance, abatement, and
prevention of workplace hazards (OSHA, 2011).
Roelofs (2012), in a report for The Center for Construction Re-
search and Training, recommended that all supervisors possess
OSHA 30-hour training. The Nevada Occupational Safety and
Health Act (2009) requires all construction supervisors to complete

0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.12.013
46 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53
the OSHA 30-hour training within 15 days of hire and renewal
every 5 years. The American National Standard for Construction
and Demolition Operations Basic Elements of an Employer’s Pro-
gram to Provide a Safe and Healthful Work Environment specifies
that supervisors shall be trained to carry out safety and health
duties and that the OSHA 30-hour course can be used for
supervisory training (American Society of Safety Engineers,
2013). It is clear that OSHA safety training has become a standard
of safety training for supervisors and is used to define competence
with respect to safety management.
Although literature supports the importance of the supervisor
to construction site safety and health performance, the necessary
supervisor competencies are not clear. We question the practice
of defaulting to the OSHA 30-hour training for supervisors. In this
study we address this gap by identifying the necessary knowledge-
based safety competencies that are most important for the front-
line construction supervisor and prioritizing them for the first
time. This is our contribution to the body of knowledge. A compre-
hensive list of knowledge-based safety competencies was devel-
oped from a literature review. Using a Delphi process with a
panel of construction safety experts, we refined our results to the
top fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies. This paper pro-
vides insight to management of construction organizations by
defining the necessary knowledge that a line-level supervisor must
possess to effectively manage safety on construction projects.
2. Literature review
We focused our literature review on identifying and describing
knowledge-based competencies that are necessary for the front-
line construction supervisor to effectively manage site safety. Each
of the competencies identified are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
2.1. Establishing effective communication
Safety communication between employees and supervisors is
vitally important and possesses the potential to have positive ef-
fects on safety performance within the organization (Burke et al.,
2011; Torner and Pousette, 2009; Dinsdag et al., 2008; Leather,
2007; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Langford et al., 2000;
Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). For example,
Odiorne (1991) suggests that employee’s safety performance
should increase when the supervisors explain all operating
procedures and consequences of unsafe behaviors and when there
is organizational commitment to continually improve work
processes and to mitigate risks to reasonable levels.
2.2. Leader member exchanges
A very large body of literature has shown that exchange rela-
tions (e.g., interpersonal interactions and relationships) between
employees and supervisors are vitally important to the safety per-
formance of an organization (Burke et al., 2011; Lingard et al.,
2009; Torner and Pousette, 2009; Dinsdag et al., 2008;
Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999;
Peterson, 1999; Simard and Marchand, 1994). For example,
Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) suggest that when an organization
attempts to demonstrate that it values and cares for its workers,
employees should perceive proactive management support to the
raising of safety concerns. Supervisors must strive to establish
positive exchange relations among employees in efforts to improve
job performance, job satisfaction, and safety performance (Michael
et al., 2006).
2.3. Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks
Lingard et al. (2009), Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) and
Manuele (2008) found that high numbers of accidents occur when
non-routine work tasks are being performed. Thus, a supervisor’s
leadership in the implementation of pre-job planning meetings
and job hazard analyses is key to preventing serious accidents that
occur due to unusual and non-routine work (Mitropoulos and
Cupido, 2009; Manuele, 2008). This planning process should be
completed before the work commences; occupational safety and
health hazard exposures are to be assessed and operational
changes should be planned for ahead of time (Manuele, 2008).
2.4. Knowledge and application of effective team building skills
It is vitally important that the supervisor build a positive
atmosphere for their employees (Swuste et al., 2012; Lingard
et al., 2009; Peterson, 1999; Hinze, 1981). Team building skills can
have a positive effect on building a pleasant atmosphere for employ-
ees to work in and will help create a willingness to consider new
ideas that may help establish a mindset of safety on the job (Swuste
et al., 2012; Lingard et al., 2009; Peterson, 1999; Hinze, 1981).
2.5. Monitoring and responding to employee stress levels
Work-related pressures primarily arise from conflicting job de-
mands, extreme time pressures, and incentives, which promote
maximizing productivity by cutting corners and risk taking
(Leather, 2007; Langford et al., 2000). It is important for the super-
visor to monitor and respond to their workers’ stress levels to
maintain job satisfaction and improve employee safety behaviors
(Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al.,
2004; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000; Peterson, 1999; Hinze,
1981).
2.6. Directing worker tasks and responsibilities
It is especially important for the supervisor to be competent in
the methods of directing worker tasks and responsibilities in a
manner that the operating line can be effective (Michael et al.,
2006; Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Odiorne,
1991). Delegating worker tasks and responsibilities is a key com-
ponent to increasing the safety performance of the line level work
force (Murugappa and Srinivasan, 2007; Michael et al., 2006;
Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991).
2.7. Disciplinary procedures and conflict resolution
Disrespectful or unprofessional attempts by a supervisor to
change worker behavior or performance have the potential to
undermine a positive work atmosphere (Peterson, 1999). However,
it is important for the supervisor to understand that, when correc-
tive action must be taken, there are effective and ethical ways to
reprimand employees for unsafe actions (Peterson, 1999). Conchie
et al. (2011) and Odiorne (1991) suggest that a supervisor must
facilitate relationships between employees and must possess the
authority and knowledge of understanding disruptive behaviors
in order to resolve conflict and discipline when necessary.
2.8. Job planning and organization of work flow
Construction supervisors are the individuals who are expected
to be proficient in solving work-related problems as they arise
(Peterson, 1999; Odiorne, 1991). Failure to plan for dynamic daily
work activities creates conditions that can lead to injuries because
the worksite is unpredictable and there is task uncertainty
 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53
(Mitropoulos and Cupido, 2009; Peterson, 1999). For this reason it
is important that supervisors manage the progression of the work
flow in efforts to better manage productivity, quality, and safety
(Leather, 2007).
2.9. Methods of safety promotion
The way that supervisors demonstrate the value of safety within
their organization shows the supervisor’s true commitment
(Lingard et al., 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al., 2004; Peterson,
1999). It is important for supervisors to portray their commitment
to safety through active participation in safety planning, allocation
of proper resources, and recognizing safe work behavior (Lingard
et al., 2009; Leather, 2007; Huang et al., 2004; Peterson, 1999).
When supervisors visibly participate in safety policies workers
see safety as an overriding organizational priority (Peterson, 1999).
3. Methods
3.1. List of competencies
Due to the large number of educational skills that make super-
visors competent to manage safety on construction sites, we fo-
cused only on knowledge-based competencies that can be
addressed through training. Training in this case is classroom,
Table 1
Comprehensive list of knowledge-based competencies.
Competency – supervisors are to be competent in the following
topics
1. Establishing effective communication
2. Establishing positive leader/member exchanges
3. Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks
4. Knowledge and application of effective team building skills
5. Assessing employee stress levels
6. Directing worker tasks and responsibilities
7. Disciplinary procedures and conflict resolution
8. Job planning and organization of work flow
9. Methods of safety promotion
10. Understanding of OSHA policies/concepts
11. Knowledge and application of electrical hazards
12. Knowledge and application of fall protection
13. Identification of ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards
14. Identification of ‘‘Caught in between’’ hazards
15. Health hazards in construction
16. Managing safety and health
17. Contractors safety and health program
18. Personal protective and lifesaving equipment
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with items 19–32
19. Stairs and ladders
20. Concrete and masonry
21. Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors
22. Steel erection
23. Hand and power tools
24. Fire prevention and protection
25. Welding and hot work
26. Signs, signals, and barricades
27. Materials handling, storage, use, and disposal
28. Scaffolding
29. Excavations
30. Powered industrial vehicles
31. Ergonomics
32. Motor vehicles, mechanical equipment and marine operations;
Rollover protection structures and overhead protection
47
hands-on, or a combination thereof that is to be administered to
the supervisor in efforts to build a better understanding of manag-
ing safety related to the topic being addressed through the training
session. Table 1 contains a comprehensive list of knowledge-based
competencies that we identified in our review of literature
accompanied by their respective citations.
3.2. Delphi process
Once we established a comprehensive list of supervisor compe-
tencies, we used the Delphi method for prioritization. Our research
purpose was to identify the most important knowledge-based
competencies for front-line construction supervisors. The Delphi
technique is a structured and interactive process for gaining the
consensus of a panel of industry experts on a particular topic
(Smith et al., 2011; Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al.,
1979). This technique utilizes survey based research that is admin-
istered through subsequent rounds of data collection that include
controlled and anonymous feedback (Smith et al., 2011; Hallowell
and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979). In this study, we devel-
oped survey-based questionnaires that were delivered to an expert
panel. Panelists were asked to rate the relative importance of the
supervisor competencies from Table 1 and, through an iterative
process, review the opinions of their counterparts in an effort to
achieve consensus. The instrument and process were reviewed
Sources
Burke et al. (2011), Torner and Pousette (2009), Dinsdag et al. (2008), Leather (2007), Hopkins
(2005), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Langford et al. (2000), Hofmann and Morgeson
(1999), Peterson (1999), Simard and Marchand (1994) and Odiorne (1991)
Burke et al. (2011), Lingard et al. (2009), Torner and Pousette (2009), Dinsdag et al. (2008),
Michael et al. (2006), Huang et al. (2004), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Hofmann and
Morgeson (1999), Peterson (1999), Simard and Marchand (1994), Odiorne (1991) and Hinze
(1981)
Lingard et al. (2009), Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) and Manuele (2008)
Swuste et al. (2012), Lingard et al. (2009), Peterson (1999) and Hinze (1981)
Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Leather (2007), Huang et al. (2004), Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer
(2000), Langford et al. (2000), Peterson (1999), Hinze (1981) and Hinze and Parker (1978)
Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Murugappa and Srinivasan (2007), Michael et al. (2006),
Hofmann and Morgeson (1999), Peterson (1999) and Odiorne (1991)
Conchie et al. (2011), Peterson (1999) and Odiorne (1991)
Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009), Manuele (2008), Leather, 2007, Peterson (1999) and Odiorne
(1991)
Lingard et al. (2009), Leather (2007), Huang et al. (2004), Gillen et al. (2002) and Peterson (1999)
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
OSHA (2011) OSHA 30-hour
48 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53
and approved by the East Carolina University Institutional Review
Board Office (# 12-000571).
3.3. Reducing bias
When individuals within a group are allowed to converse about
the study, bias may potentially harm the results of the study when
trying to get the panel members to agree on a particular issue
(Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani et al., 1979). The Delphi
technique best addresses this type of bias by controlling dominant
influence of particular panel members and by maintaining the ano-
nymity of the participants (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Dajani
et al., 1979).
3.4. Panel member selection
The Delphi technique differs from other forms of survey-based
research because participants must meet a pre-determined level
of criteria to be involved (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). ‘‘In
the Delphi process the most important facet of a panel member
is their level of expertise,’’ (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010, p.
101). In efforts to assure a healthy balance of academic and profes-
sional experience, panelists were required to meet predetermined
construction safety and health criteria in order to validate their
subject matter expertise and participate in the study.
3.5. Access to research participants
In order to gain access to a pool of construction industry safety
professionals, efforts were placed into study invitations delivered
through the American Society of Safety Engineers Construction Prac-
tice Specialty list serve on LinkedIn.com. The group had over 2900
members in August 2012. In a LinkedIn.com posting potential pa-
nel members were asked to download an invitation document
from the cloud server, complete the questionnaire that outlined
the qualifications for participation, and return it to the researchers
via email.
3.6. Prequalification system
A point system is used for the classification of experts because it
allowed for flexibility with respect to both academic and field
experience. We utilized the point system proposed by Hallowell
and Gambatese (2010) for Delphi techniques in construction man-
agement research. In order to meet a minimum level of qualifica-
tion using the point system shown (Table 2), it is suggested that
panelists score at least one (1) point in four (4) different
Table 2
Criteria for selection of expert panel members (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010).
Achievement or experience
Years of professional experience
Professional registration such as Professional Engineer (PE), Licensed Architect (AIA), Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Associated Risk
Manager (ARM)
Invited to present at a conference
Member of a nationally recognized committee
Chair of a nationally recognized committee
Peer-reviewed journal article (Primary or Secondary Writer)
Faculty member at an accredited university
Writer/editor of a book
Writer of a book chapter
Advanced Degrees:
BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)
MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)
Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields)
Total
achievement or experience categories and possess a minimum of
eighteen (18) total points in order to qualify for participation.
Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) suggest that participants score
eleven (11) points using this qualification system. In efforts to keep
this study specific to the construction industry we required that
panel members have a minimum of seven (7) years professional
experience in the construction industry (i.e. seven (7) years’ expe-
rience relating to, suitable for, or engaged in the construction
industry). Setting prequalification requirements at eighteen (18)
total points allows this research project to fit both the require-
ments recommended by Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) and
meet the minimum requirement of seven (7) years professional
experience.
3.7. Number of participants
Previous research suggests using 10–12 panelists for Delphi
studies (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). For the course of this
study, fourteen (14) panelists were utilized in efforts to account
for a potential two (2) panelists to dropout from the study. In order
to be fair to all potential expert participants, the first fourteen (14)
suitable candidates that submitted the invitation letter within the
two week time frame were selected and the posting was removed
from the LinkedIn site.
3.8. Invitation responses
In the two weeks following the original posting on Link-
edIn.com, fourteen (14) social media users responded to the post-
ing and submitted their document containing their completed
qualification questionnaire and were classified as construction
safety experts according to relative point system previously de-
scribed. Tables 3–6 summarize the demographics of the group
members.
3.9. Round 1
Participants were asked to reduce the randomized comprehen-
sive list of knowledge-based competencies to a reasonably attain-
able number during the first round of data collection. During
Round 1 participants were emailed the competencies and asked
to select the twenty most important of the thirty-two available
knowledge-based competencies. Participants had to weigh the cost
and benefit of each potential selection in efforts to make a judg-
ment about the most important twenty (20) knowledge-based
competencies. Participants were asked to select each of their indi-
vidual twenty (20) selections and to provide a brief 1–2 sentence
Points (Each)
7 (minimum of 7
points)
3
0.5
1
3
2
3
4
2
4
2
4
18 Required
 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53 49

Table 3
Average points based on categories of experience.

Category of experience Number of participants Percent of participants

within this category within this category (%)
Years of professional experience per participant (required 7 years minimum) 14 100
Participants holding professional registration such as Professional Engineer (PE), Licensed Architect (AIA), 12 85.71
Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Associated Risk Manager (ARM)
Participants invited to present at a conference 13 92.86
Participants who are an active member of a nationally recognized committee 12 85.71
Participants that are an active chair of a nationally recognized committee 5 35.71
Participants who author peer-reviewed journal article (Primary or Secondary Writer) 4 28.57
Participants serving as a faculty member at an accredited university 2 14.29
Participants who are a writer/editor of a book 1 7.14
Participants who are a writer of a book chapter 1 7.14
Participants holding BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 11 78.57
Participants holding MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 9 64.29
Participants holding Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 2 14.29

explanation of each selection. These explanations for each selec-
tion were compiled and used as feedback in efforts to allow the
groups’ collective insight to weigh in on the individual perspec-
tives of participants during ‘‘Round 2.’’ Participants were not asked
to order rank the selections because of the impracticality and bur-
densomeness the request would have placed on participants.
Round 1 lasted for two weeks.
when an exact level of the consensus is reached in Delphi.’’
Smith et al. (2011), however, used a predetermined consensus le-
vel of 80%. The results of Round 2 show that the group is 94%
stable (1 change in the top 15 from Round 1). The consensus le-
vel was 82% (average % selected of top 15). Table 8 shows the
top 15 knowledge-based safety competencies for the construc-
tion supervisor.

3.10. Round 2 4.3. Comments

During Round 2, the comprehensive list of knowledge-based
competencies from Round 1 was ranked in order of importance
to allow the panelist to better understand which knowledge-based
competencies were most important based on the collective insight
of the group. Panel members were asked to review the compilation
of feedback along with graphical representation of the values
based on the completion of Round 1 and to denote fifteen (15)
selections by placing an ‘‘X’’ into the column beside each of their
individual selections. Panelists were also asked to provide a brief
1–2 sentence explanation for each selection only if the collective
insight from the group caused the panelist to change his/her mind
about a particular decision. Round 2 lasted for two weeks.
4. Results
4.1. Round 1
Table 7 shows the top twenty (20) knowledge-based competen-
cies selected by the expert panel in Round 1. Participation for the
first round was 100%.
4.2. Round 2
All fourteen participants completed the Round 2 question-
naire. As the results show, the collective insight of the group
influenced individuals’ decisions in Round 2 and increased over-
all consensus. The two methods used to determine when to stop
a Delphi process are stability and consensus (Holey et al., 2007;
Dajani et al., 1979). Stability is based on the percent of change
of variables within the top fifteen competencies between two
subsequent rounds; consensus is measured by averaging the per-
cent chosen values of each competency within the final top fif-
teen selections (von der Gracht, 2012; Dajani et al., 1979).
Holey et al. (2007, p. 52) found that ‘‘There is no general agree-
ment in the literature that defines specific criteria to use to
determine when consensus has been achieved, i.e., when to stop
a Delphi study. Evidence on the evaluation of Delphi consensus
is limited; researchers have not yet described how to determine
During the Delphi process all participants have a chance to re-
view the anonymous comments of research participants. These
comments are beneficial to the research because they provide
feedback that is necessary with respect to achieving consensus.
The statements below show individual participants’ original com-
ment along with accompanying the reason for change in profes-
sional judgment. This is particularly important to note as
controlled feedback is the Delphi technique’s unique process of
tightening a group’s consensus.
Competency – Effective communication
Participant One
Round 1 – Participant did not provide comment in round one as
it was not selected.
Round 2 – ‘‘I decided to change to ‘‘effective communication’’
instead of my prior answer of ‘‘Effective Team Building’’, as team
building could be considered a subset of communications. Good
communication is critical to avoiding errors and mishaps on the
jobsite.’’
Competency – Managing health hazards
Participant Two
Round 1 – ‘‘The health hazards in construction is an up-and-com-
ing topic and may lead to additional regulations.’’
Round 2 – ‘‘I did not select this one again. Although extremely
important, as an industry we do not have our arms around this
topic, so how can we expect our supervisors to.’’
Competency – Managing health hazards
Participant Three
Round 1 – Participant did not provide comment in round one as
it was not selected.
Round 2 – ‘‘I changed my mind – while traumatic acute hazards
like falls or struck bys are more or less managed many construction
supervisors and employees are not accepting of their exposure to
health hazards. I am thinking of a great supervisor who said, when
I pointed out that a material might be asbestos, said ‘I don’t care
about that’. He changed his mind because his company told him
to. This should also include ergonomics for preventive of cumula-
tive trauma disorders.’’
50 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53

Table 4
Percentage based on educational level.

Category of experience Percentage (%)

Percentage of participants holding no post secondary education 21.43
Percentage of participants holding BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 78.57
Percentage of participants holding MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 64.29
Percentage of participants holding Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 14.29

Table 5
Average years of experience among educational levels.

Educational level Average years of experience

Participants holding no post secondary education 32.0
Participants holding BS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 24.6
Participants holding MS (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 25.4
Participants holding Ph.D. (Civil engineering, CEM, Occupational Safety, or other related fields) 22.8

standard, panelists were asked to give comment on their opin-

Table 6
Demographics of the panel members’ construction sector.
Industry sector
Construction industry consultation
Commercial/industrial construction
Industrial mechanical fabrication/installation
Water treatment/waste water treatment facility
construction
Construction safety and health training services
No response from participant
4.4. Follow-up questions
Although we met our consensus and stability goals after Round
2, several questions remained. The following questions were
emailed to the panelists to gain insight on the research process
and lessons learned.
ion of whether or not they considered the OSHA 30-hour train-
ing to be sufficient knowledge-based safety training for the
Count Count
front line construction supervisor. Panelists’ comments are as
(%)
follows:
4 28.57
4 28.57 No. 30-hour is only basic general knowledge that should be
1 7.14 required of every supervisor. Need full understanding of safety pro-
1 7.14
gram and site specific safety plans.
1 7.14 No. It solves the compliance side not the overall quality of leader.
3 21.43 OSHA 30 should be part of every supervisor though.
No, the OSHA 30 is a good start; a baseline training program that
needs to be expanded upon for front line supervisors.
Absolutely not, although it is a great starting point. The 30-hour is
somewhat general in nature and cannot be expected to address the
specific hazards faced by most front liners. Greater depth of train-
ing and focused training based on hazard analysis would be appro-
priate. I’d consider the 30-hour to be a minimum requirement, but
certainly not sufficient.

(1) Comments about the Delphi process and lessons learned?
(2) Do you consider the OSHA 30-hour outreach training to be
sufficient knowledge-based training for the front line con-
struction supervisor? Please answer yes or no and provide
reasoning.
Several reminder emails were sent out in the three weeks fol-
lowing Delphi implementation but only eleven of the fourteen po-
tential panelists responded to the follow-up questions. Panelists
commented on the Delphi technique as follows:
I have used DELPHI in the past and it is a neat way to arrive at con-
sensus and great choice for this type of research.
I believe this to be a beneficial way to summarize and prioritize
things based on multiple professional’s opinions and experience.
Wish some of my professional colleagues were a little more
forthcoming in their support of a given knowledge base so
their rationale for support might be better able to sway a
position.
I actually liked the process as it was interesting to see what col-
leagues thought about each topic. Gaining consensus helps improve
the final product. Good process, serves more to reinforce than to
learn.
In efforts to attempt to gain insight on the panel members
opinion about the OSHA 30-hour training being an industry
No, just the 30-hour card (or 10-hour card) is not enough, but it is
better than nothing: The front line supervisor also needs to know
the safety program and policies of their employer. Legally, the acts
and knowledge of the supervisor is imputed to the company and
they need to know that.
30-hour is a minimum any foreman or superintendent should
have. . . I recommend that supervisors take the Safety Trained
Supervisor certification thru Board of Certified Safety Professionals.
Also, the OSHA 10/30 program is severely broken. . . that program
must be overhauled (like they are currently doing to the online
10/30) and should be more closely regulated as there are more
bad and/or unqualified 10/30 instructors than good. Most lie about
their experience as nobody verifies. . . any 90% of the students are
out just to get a card.
No, not by itself. 30-hour should be a minimum qualification for
supervision in a construction company committed to safety. How-
ever, specialty competency training in excavation, confined space,
scaffold, fall protection and other issues should also be included
in the training matrix for supervisors.
Yes and no. In addition to the technical knowledge provided thru
10–30 hr training, supervisor must have training to direct and
manage those she/he supervises.
No. I consider the OSHA 30 to be very minimum basic requirements
for a Construction Supervisor’s necessary safety knowledge. Need
also knowledge gained from On-the-Job Training and experience,
 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53 51

and some mid level – advanced courses on applicable topics as well
before requiring workers to perform tasks that could leads to seri-
ous injury to themselves or others.
No. This is a good foundation to build from but would not be suffi-
cient. This is evident in the fact that half of the top six competencies
would typically not be a focus of the OSHA 30-hour.
Yes, but not as a stand-alone safety discipline. All my field people at
all levels have the OSHA 30-hour but they also have me as the
Corporate Safety Manager to make interpretations/decisions. The
10-hour may give them knowledge of hazards, the 30-hour helps
then understand how the hazard exists and what to do to mitigate.
4.5. Limitations
The primary weakness of this study lies in the bias of partici-
pant invitation. Only one method of participant invitation was
used. All invitations were distributed within a singular social med-
ia page. Although social media is a great medium to gain access to
construction industry experts, multiple sources should have been
used in efforts to obtain a more balanced panel of research partic-
ipants. In future research, efforts that allow for a broader panel of
construction safety experts should include using multiple sites on
LinkedIn.com and other means of outreach to reduce bias.
5. Conclusions
This study provides insight on additional competencies that
should be included among the 30-hour OSHA training topics for
the construction site supervisor. If management expects construc-
tion supervisors to be effective at managing construction site
safety, supervisors must possess both the baseline 30-hour training
and other competencies relating to pre job planning, organizing of
work flow, establishing effective communication, and a knowledge
of routine and non-routine work tasks.
5.1. Policy impact
Nevada state law requires construction supervisors to complete
the 30-hour OSHA training. The 30-hour OSHA training, as
identified through this Delphi study, is not sufficient knowledge-
based training for the construction supervisor because it is insuffi-
cient in addressing communication, risk control, pre job planning,
and leader/member exchange training. Research participants
viewed the 30-hour training as a minimum requirement for super-
visory training. Although OSHA stresses that the 30-hour training
is only a foundation in which competency is to be built, it would
be beneficial to the construction industry as a whole if OSHA would
provide the necessary resources to employers that explain the true
underlying causes of construction accidents. OSHA should include
communication, risk control, pre job planning, and leader/member
exchange training to the construction supervisor through some
form of additional non-mandatory supervisory training. Construc-
tion organizations who utilize the 30-hour training for supervisor
safety competence must recognize its limitations and include the
competencies identified here to ensure supervisors are equipped
to effectively manage site safety.
5.2. Education impact
Many undergraduate construction management college curric-
ulums include the OSHA 30-hour training as a prerequisite to grad-
uation. Gambatese (2003) surveyed construction and civil
engineering programs and found an emphasis on OSHA regula-
tions; the OSHA 30-hour certification is earned in 61% of the
courses, while OSHA 10-hour certification is earned in 28% of the
courses. As a standard construction industry practice students
are often placed into supervisory positions upon college gradua-
tion. With respect to identifying hazards, the OSHA 30-hour is a
good training tool. However, the 30-hour training is insufficient
in educating construction supervisors on the causal factors of con-
struction accidents and should not be considered the ‘‘de facto’’ for
construction industry safety training.
5.3. Competency limitations
Competency alone will not positively affect construction site
safety. For example, if the supervisor is competent in pre job plan-
ning, but does not have the opportunity to provide input due to
schedule constraints or project estimate limitations, the knowl-
edge will obviously not be effective. Conchie et al. (2013) suggest

Table 7
Upper twenty (20) knowledge-based competencies selected in ‘‘Round 1’’ with accompanying percentages of selection.

Percent selected (%) Upper fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies

100 Knowledge and application of electrical hazards
Knowledge and application of fall protection
Knowledge of their contractors safety and health program
Knowledge of use and selection of personal protective and lifesaving equipment
93 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Excavations’’
86 Establishing effective communication
Knowledge of effective pre job planning and the organization of daily work flow
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Caught in Between’’ hazards
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Scaffolding’’
79 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors’’
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards
Knowledge of managing health hazards in construction
71 Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks
64 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Stairs and ladders’’
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Hand and power tools’’
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Fire prevention and protection’’
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Materials handling, storage, use, and disposal’’
57 Directing worker tasks and responsibilities
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Welding and hot work’’
50 Methods of safety promotion
52 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53

Table 8
Top fifteen knowledge-based competencies selected in ‘‘Round 2’’ with accompanying percentages of selection.

Percent selected (%) Upper fifteen (15) knowledge-based competencies

100 Knowledge of use and selection of personal protective and lifesaving equipment
Knowledge of effective pre job planning and the organization of daily work flow
92 Knowledge and application of electrical hazards
Knowledge and application of fall protection
Knowledge of their contractors safety and health program
85 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Caught in Between’’ hazards
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention ‘‘Struck by’’ hazards
Establishing effective communication
77 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Scaffolding’’
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Excavations’’
69 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, conveyors’’
Knowledge of managing health hazards in construction
Knowledge of routine/non-routine work tasks
Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Stairs and ladders’’
62 Competent in hazard identification, avoidance, control and prevention of hazards associated with ‘‘Fire prevention and protection’’

providing training that equips supervisors with the necessary
interpersonal skills in how to approach employees about safety,
but caution that supervisors need a supportive environment or
they will not be effective. Similarly, Bhattacharya and Tang
(2013) caution that while supervisory practices and leadership
styles of middle managers make a difference in terms of promoting
employee participation, successful supervision requires that condi-
tions for employee participation in OHS management are created
and maintained. Kines et al. (2010) recommend that in order to
be effective, supervisors need to be trained not just in their safety
communication with workers, but also in communicating to their
superiors. In other words, competent supervisors are not enough
to ensure site safety; upper management support with open lines
of communication is required for these competencies to be
effective.
5.4. Future research
It would be of value to evaluate which knowledge-based
competencies construction supervisors/foremen feel are most
important with respect to improving the safety performance of
construction sites under their daily supervision. Utilizing results
from such a study, emphasis may be place on blending the judg-
ments of both construction safety experts and the judgments of
the individuals who face the challenges of occupational health
and safety on a daily basis. Furthermore, replicating this study in
other high hazard industries may potentially validate the theoret-
ical concepts of accident prevention and safety management as
they apply to the line level supervisor.
References
American Society of Safety Engineers, 2013. American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations. Basic Elements of an Employer’s
Program to Provide a Safe and Healthful Work Environment. ANSI/ASSE A10.38-
2013. ASSE: Des Plaines, IL.
Bhattacharya, S., Tang, L., 2013. Middle managers’ role in safeguarding OHS: the
case of the shipping industry. Safety Sci. 51 (1), 63–68.
Burke, M., Smith-Crowe, K., Salvador, R., Chan-Serafin, S., Smith, A., Sonesh, S., 2011.
The dread factor: how hazards and safety training influence learning and
performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 (1), 46–70.
Conchie, S., Taylor, P., Charlton, A., 2011. Trust and distrust in safety leadership:
mirror reflections? Safety Sci. 49, 1208–1214.
Conchie, D., Moon, S., Duncan, M., 2013. Supervisors’ engagement in safety
leadership: factors that help and hinder. Safety Sci. 51 (1), 109–117.
Dajani, J.S., Sincoff, M.Z., Talley, W.K., 1979. Stability and agreement criteria for the
termination of Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 12, 83–90.
Dinsdag, D., Biggs, H., Sheahan, V., 2008. Understanding and defining OH&S
competency for construction site positions: worker perceptions. Safety Sci. 46
(4), 619–633.
Edum-Fotwe, F., McCaffer, R., 2000. Developing project management competency:
perspectives from. Int. J. Project Manage. 18 (2), 111–124.
Finneran, A., Hartley, R., Gibb, A., Cheyne, A., Bust, P., 2012. Learning to adapt health
and safety initiatives from mega projects: an Olympic case study. Policy Practice
Health Safety 10 (2), 81–102.
Gambatese, J., 2003. Safety emphasis in university engineering and construction
programs. Int. eJ. Constr. <http://www.bcn.ufl.edu/iejc/pindex/58/gambatese.
pdf>.
Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., Vaccaro, D., 2002. Perceived safety climate,
job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured
construction workers. J. Safety Res. 33 (1), 33–51.
Hallowell, M., Gambatese, J., 2010. Qualitative research: application of the Delphi
method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1), 99–107.
Hinze, J., 1981. Human aspects of construction safety. ASCE J. Constr. Division 107,
61–72.
Hinze, J., Gordon, F., 1979. Supervisor–worker relationship affects injury rate. ASCE
J. Constr. Division 105, 253–262.
Hinze, J., Parker, H., 1978. Safety: productivity and job pressures. J. Constr. Division
104, 27–34.
Hofmann, D., Morgeson, F., 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the
role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl.
Psychol. 84 (2), 286–296.
Holey, E., Feeley, J., Dixon, J., Whittaker, V., 2007. An exploration of the use of simple
statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Med. Res.
Methodol. 7 (52), 16–52.
Hopkins, A., 2005. Safety, Culture and Risk. CCH Australia Limited, North Ryde.
Huang, Y., Chen, P., Krauss, A., Rogers, D., 2004. Quality of the execution of corporate
safety policies and employee safety outcomes: assessing the moderating role of
supervisor safety support and the mediating role of employee safety control. J.
Business Psychol. 18 (4), 483–506.
Kines, P., Andersen, L., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K., Dyreborg, J., Zohar, D., 2010.
Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety
communication. J. Safety Res. 41 (3), 399–406.
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., Sawacha, E., 2000. Safety behavior and safety
management: its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction
industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manage. 7 (2), 133–140.
Leather, P., 2007. Safety and accidents in the construction industry: a work design
perspective. Work Stress: Int. J. Work Health Organisations 1 (2), 167–174.
Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Blismas, N., 2009. Group-level safety climate in the Australian
construction industry: within-group homogeneity and between-group
differences in road construction and maintenance. Constr. Manage. Econom.
27 (4), 419–432.
Lingard, H., Cooke, T., Blismas, N., 2012. Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety
responses mediate the relationship between perceptions of the organizational
safety climate and incident rates in the construction supply chain? Constr.
Manage. Econom. 138 (2), 234–241.
Manuele, F., 2008. Advanced Safety Management Focusing on Z10 and Serious
Injury Prevention. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
McVittie, D., Vi, P., Eng, M., 2009. The Effect of Supervisory Training in Lost-Time
Injury Rates in Construction. Construction Safety Association of Ontario.
Michael, J., Guo, Z., Wiedenbeckt, J., Ray, C., 2006. Production supervisor impacts on
subordinates’ safety outcomes: an investigation of leader–member exchange
and safety communication. J. Safety Res. 37 (5), 469–477.
Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G., 2009. The role of production and teamwork practices in
construction safety: a cognitive model and an empirical case study. J. Safety Res.
40 (4), 265–275.
 D. Hardison et al. / Safety Science 65 (2014) 45–53
Mohamed, S., 2002. Safety climate in construction site environments. J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 128 (5), 375–384.
Murugappa, K., Srinivasan, A., 2007. How do shop-floor supervisors allocate their
time? Int. J. Prod. Econom. 105 (1), 97–115.
Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2009. Chapter 618 – Occupational
Safety and Health. Mandatory OSHA-10 and OSHA-30 Training. NRS 618.983,
Requirements to obtain completion card; expiration and renewal of completion
cards. Retrieved from <http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-618.html>.
Odiorne, G., 1991. The new breed of supervisor: leaders in self-managed work
teams. Supervision 52 (8), 14–17.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2011. Outreach training program
construction industry procedures. OSHA, Arlington Heights, IL. Retrieved from
<http://www.osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction/
construction_procedures.pdf>.
Peterson, D., 1999. Safety Supervision, second ed. American Society of Safety
Engineers, DesPlaines.
Roelofs, C., 2012. Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of a Massachusetts
Construction OHS Training Rule. A report for The Center for Construction
Research and Training. Silver Spring. <http://www.cpwr.com/pdfs/Roelofs
ReportOHSTrainingweb.pdf>.
53
Shohet, I.M., Laufer, A., 1991. What does the construction foreman do? Constr.
Manage. Econom. 9 (6), 565–576.
Simard, M., Marchand, A., 1994. The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident
prevention and effectiveness in occupational safety. Safety Sci. 17 (3), 169–
185.
Smith, C., Zaslawski, C., Zheng, Z., Cobbin, D., Cochrane, S., Lenon, G., Loyeung, B.,
Meier, P., Walsh, S., Changli, C., Zhang, A., Zhu, X., Bensoussan, A., 2011.
Development of an instrument to assess the quality of acupuncture: results
from a Delphi process. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 17 (5), 441–452.
Swuste, P., Frijters, A., Guldenmund, F., 2012. Is it possible to influence safety in the
building sector?: a literature review extending from 1980 until the present.
Safety Sci. 50 (5), 1333–1343.
Torner, M., Pousette, A., 2009. Safety in construction – a comprehensive description
of the characteristics of high safety standards in construction work, from the
combined perspective of supervisors and experienced workers. J. Safety Res. 40
(6), 399–409.
von der Gracht, H.A., 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and
implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 79,
1525–1536.