Desarrollo de la temática:

When asked about the differences they had noticed between Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) and their previous project, operatives primarily commented on the enthusiasm for, and visibility of, health and safety. Many also praised the good organisation which meant it felt unrushed — “no roaring and shouting” (Operative) — and the inclusive atmosphere.

There’s no friction, there’s no bitchiness, we all know what we have to do, and that’s it basically.

(Operative) This visibility is helping to normalise health and safety as part of everyday work, in- creasing workers’ positive interactions with it and spreading Next Gear “virally”. Those who had been involved with Next Gear’s processes quickly saw the value of these new methods that aligned with the reality of their work and had potential to address many of their concerns — excessive paperwork, inappropriate procedures, and poor communica- tion. At Crossrail, where Next Gear has been running for more than two years, operatives and engineers were increasingly taking the initiative to lead safety processes themselves.

Unfortunately, not all workers had noticed a difference between this site compared with previous ones. They complained it was just as litigious, bureaucratic and pressured as any other site. This view was mainly held by operatives from sub-contractors so may have been influenced by their brief time on site and limited interactions with Next Gear: Its low- profile dissemination means workers have no reason to expect this project to be different, and instead assume these long-standing issues remain.

The extent to which Next Gear is achieving its goals to increase communication, collab- oration and trust within the workforce are explored below.

8.2.1 Communication

The effects of a more collective approach to risk had been noticed at all levels of the organi- sation: For example, senior safety management found workers who in the past would have avoided them were now less fearful and even proactive about speaking to them; a safety manager observed workers were less inclined to blame engineers for failure of a task; an

8.2. Frontline operatives 155

engineer said he now made a conscious effort to speak up “and most of the time people listen, which- which is quite nice actually” (Site Engineer); one supervisor had been pleasantly sur- prised to be asked his opinion on “everything”, even tasks outside his sphere; and operatives felt able to give feedback to others which in the past they would have avoided because of the potential for argument.

I think the operatives are a lot more vocal now … I think probably before they were kind of “Oh, if I’m seen to be causing a fuss then, you know- then I’ll cause a problem”

(Engineer) Although this shows Next Gear has increased communication on site, operatives needed reassurance of support, with some saying they would prefer to speak to management than confront another worker directly — past arguments and bullying taking time to be forgot- ten. Some were reluctant to challenge others as they wanted to avoid being a nuisance or causing confrontation. Several workers liked the anonymous observation cards as they saw them as an alternative to challenging directly — misinterpreting the purpose described in the induction to firstly to speak to those involved (“Sort it”), and then to “Report it” as a final action. These cards are one of TTT’s initiatives which blur the message of Next Gear as many frontline workers were not aware they would be encouraged and supported to challenge directly.

Other operatives did feel able to challenge, but felt the need to be defensive and, on occasion, hostile. There were also practical difficulties engaging the workforce in the new processes: Some were shy and needed encouragement to get involved in discussions and maintaining the attention of workers in a meeting room of a busy site — even for a thirty- minute Collective Insight — was a challenge.

Next Gear has been supported by factors which promoted dialogue throughout the workforce. At TTT’s smaller combined sewer overflow (CSO) site (Blackfriars Bridge Fore- shore), health and safety management found — compared to the Central tunnelling shaft site — teams developed better working relationships with each other and the client.

Working on this [CSO] site, it’s an entirely different beast, because here I’ve found there isn’t really the us and them mentality … it’s a smaller team and we are all over a couple of floors, we see each other when we’re in here making tea and coffee et cetera.

(Safety Manager) Co-location of teams has been shown to have a significant impact on cooperation, trust, and communication (Allen 1984) hence some safety managers at TTT chose to sit with the engineers to facilitate Next Gear. Other participants confirmed the importance of building these relationships: An engineer found workers more willing to engage with her when

part of a smaller team or working on the smaller CSO, and a supervisor found teams that had moved from Crossrail to TTT (bringing their experience and existing relationships with them) were easier to work with. Having moved from another tunnelling megaproject, these teams benefited from a reduced learning curve at TTT — already being familiar with the high-expectations and organisational processes associated with this type of site.

8.2.2 Collaboration

Many had noticed the positive effects of empowering workers, drawing on their experi- ence and listening to their concerns. The emphasis on respect, recognition, praise, and engagement is improving workers’ job satisfaction and overall well-being.

The lads feel more involved, that they’re actually building what they’ve planned, not building what we’ve planned.

(Construction Manager) Even today, I’m still learning stuff … it’s good, because then they feel a bit motivated, “Oh, look! He’s asked me what I’m going to do!”

(General Foreman) Workers also fed back about benefits of Next Gear’s processes for sharing workload and integrating new workers — particularly in engaging a multicultural workforce — and sub- contractors who appreciate the autonomy, improving their relationship with LOR’s man- agers. Those who had been involved in collaborative problem-solving found this built trust and lasting relationships which teams would draw on in the future to share knowledge.

They’d understood their problems, and they worked together, and that team now are very close … they’ll come back and talk to some of our team, if there are problems with any job because they learn from each other.

(Construction Manager) Next Gear’s processes have also resulted in productivity gains and quality enhance- ments:

I’m not stupid, the boys out there have been doing what they’re doing a hell of a lot longer and have got far more experience in what I’m asking them to do than I have … they’ll tell you exactly how you can get round [a problem].

(Engineer) Not everyone at the frontline had seen the benefits of Next Gear, particularly at TTT where the Next Gear way of life is less established. Many workers were cynical about safety;

8.2. Frontline operatives 157

bored of “the next new drive’ (Supervisor); and uninterested in the changes — “I’ve done like loads of them, they’re all similar” (Supervisor). Some were confused by the subtle branding which had appeared on bulletins and emails without a formal launch, and why ‘Mission Zero’ (for the few who had noticed its absence) had been removed without any explanation of whether or why they had failed to achieve zero accidents. The workforce has become weary of constantly changing safety interventions: Initiative or Change Fatigue reduces energy, productivity and commitment; can leave a workforce overwhelmed and fearful of instability; and breed pessimism and cynicism towards management (Shapiro 2017). In line with Shapiro’s recommendations safety leaders recognised the need for persistence — explaining messages, involving workers, and incentivising the new processes. However, he also recommends ‘recovery-time’ to allow workers to buy into change, but LOR’s safety leaders felt the names and branding would need to be changed again in the future to keep them “fresh”. Complacency is a threat which worries many safety managers in construction, hence their search for novelty (Shapiro 1996) and dogged enforcement of overlapping interventions (Johansson and Lundberg 2010, Rae et al. 2018, Swuste et al. 2012).

Workers were disdainful of management’s legal “arse-covering” (Supervisor), lack of experience, sympathy, and humility, and several used the interview as an opportunity to implore management to listen to them.

I’m not saying all of them, but there is a lot of them who’ve never actually physically worked on the ground with the likes of us ... you can’t really talk to them because they think they know best.

(Operative) Although participants from Crossrail said the new tools helped to integrate sub- contractors, only some at TTT felt part of the project; instead feeling the need to compart- mentalise their responsibilities.

We’re in charge of our little world, and obviously a lot of management like to think they’re in charge of everything, but when it boils down to it, it’s only me, because if it all goes wrong it’s me who goes to prison.

(Supervisor) Many workers were fervently risk-averse, clearly aware of their responsibility for their peers; they did not trust the organisation to keep them safe and did not feel, or want to be, integrated into the wider project — “I look after my little area.” (Supervisor). This desire to protect what Dekker describes as their “discretionary space” is an attempt to retain some pride and meaning in their work (Dekker 2018, Dekker 2007).

8.2.3 Trust

Some frontline workers who had encountered Next Gear were disappointed that it had not lived up to expectations and grown sceptical.

Participant A: We were told that with this Next Gear that they was empowering

people and, you know, wouldn’t shove- all this health and safety wasn’t shoved down your throat … they were going to say “Well, OK, we can relax our- our rule on [PPE]” but it’s not panned out yet, it’s just words.

Participant B: And I don’t- personally I don’t think it ever will.

Participant C: I don’t see how that would really work, if they say that “Well

some tasks don’t need safety glasses, some do-”

Participant B: There’d be too much confliction wouldn’t there? Participant C: There’d be too much room to abuse it to be honest.

(Crossrail supervisors’ focus group) Despite efforts to engage with the workforce, their distrust for management was still evident. Several argued it was not their attitude that needed to change but that of man- agement — rarely had they noticed that it had. Moreover, some had misinterpreted Next Gear’s methods: Asking open questions — intended to involve and listen to the work- force — enforced the perception “they don’t know what we’re doing” (Operative), and using photographs was seen as “spying” (Operative).

It’s a lot of us and them … [management] come and they stand at the top of the shaft looking down at you- wouldn’t look at you or say hello or nothing, they’d just look at you and walk away … They’re not confident enough to ask questions. They don’t know anything about shovelling.

(Operative) Engaging with workers has been complicated by safety’s negative reputation. Workers were on their guard around management, wary of the new processes — “they’re here to catch us out” (Senior Safety Management), and they feared losing their jobs so would bow to pressure to “just get it done” (Supervisor). The expectations not to challenge or be consulted have become so ingrained in the industry workers no longer speak out.

Participant: These days I don’t even bother arguing now, it’s pointless because

they just go “Do it!”, so you just think “Fine, I will do it.”

Interviewer: So that’s come from 20 years of experience?

Participant: Yeah, and I don’t mind doing anything, but there’s got to be a

reason why you’re doing it … they can’t give me reasons, it’s just because that’s what’s written down in their book, and that’s what we’ve got to do. And they won’t listen to- like I said, 20 years’ experience of doing a job-

Interviewer: So even if it were to be different here you probably wouldn’t try

and challenge it?

Participant: No, no.