THE EVIDENCE INFORMING HEADWAY
Research and authoritative guidance inform the programme. We examine its contribution through your leadership, the decisions that follow, and what changes in the operation.
Headway combines these foundations with Trace’s operational experience, coaching, and practitioner-development work. None of these sources evaluates Headway itself.
WORKSAFEBC · 2022 CLAIM RATES
WorkSafeBC reported 2.98 time-loss claims per 100 construction workers in 2022, compared with 2.40 across BC sectors—24% higher. The comparison was published in April 2024.
Historical sector context. It does not measure leadership-related harm, establish a rate for every industrial sector or predict Headway results.
WorkSafeBC · 2022 rates, published April 2024UK HSE · ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
HSE’s industrial guidance calls attention to staffing, outsourcing and responsibilities, and to the safety of the transition as well as the intended arrangement.
Headway applies this perspective to senior leadership conversations about operating commitments. Guidance does not establish the effectiveness of this programme or replace technical risk assessment.
UK HSE · Organisational change guidanceHSE & INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS
Guidance for directors and equivalent leaders connects active leadership with business decisions, workforce involvement, and review.
This informs the focus on participating executives and managers, and the decisions within their responsibility. It is UK guidance, not a statement of BC law or a trial of Headway.
Read the leadership principlesCANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
CCOHS prioritises controlling psychosocial hazards at their source. Its examples include work planning, resources, worker participation, and support for managers.
Headway includes decisions on the conditions of work alongside individual development. The guidance supports the design; it does not establish programme effectiveness.
Read the Canadian guidanceGOOGLE · PROJECT ARISTOTLE
Google’s team-effectiveness research identified psychological safety as an important team dynamic, alongside dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact.
Leaders practise inviting challenge and responding constructively. Findings from Google do not show that psychological safety alone guarantees industrial performance or successful change.
Read Google’s original accountNIOSH · TOTAL WORKER HEALTH
The Total Worker Health hierarchy prioritises organisational and environmental changes ahead of individual education and behaviour change.
This supports examining working conditions that leaders can influence. US guidance is used as a design reference, not a statement of local legal duties.
Explore the hierarchySCHWATKA AND COLLEAGUES · 2019
A study involving 20 construction subcontractors reported short-term improvements in supervisors’ reported practices, without significant overall change in crew-reported outcomes.
The implication is to check affected people’s experience alongside demonstrated capability. This adjacent construction evidence does not validate an executive-development programme.
Read the studyCPWR · FOUNDATIONS FOR SAFETY LEADERSHIP
Practical frontline safety-leadership training already exists, including CPWR’s scenario-based programme for construction leaders.
Headway centres on industrial executives, directors, and managers developing their own leadership and their management teams. Existing training remains relevant within the organisation; no affiliation or endorsement is implied.
Explore the existing programmeCan leaders demonstrate a more useful response to challenge? Do competing priorities receive decisions? Are other managers developing their judgement? Do affected people experience clearer expectations, meaningful input, and better support?
Agree measures and a baseline for the four cases. Review capability and application at week ten, then what remains in use at day 90. Account for changes in staffing, resources, demand, and management that could explain the result.
More reported concerns can indicate greater candour. A quieter meeting or a favourable workshop rating is not sufficient evidence of progress. Injury reductions and financial returns are not promised.
Explore the proposed programmeThe production-and-maintenance encounter on the main page is fictional. It contains no private employee or client account. The programme is proposed; its effects will be evaluated with participating organisations.