WHY MEN WORK LIVE AND WHAT YOU CAN DO TO CURTAIL THIS DEADLY PRACTICE

Copyright Material IEEE

Paper No. ESW2011-12

Lead Author:
Gavan Howe, PhD (student)
PresidenUCEO
Howe Brand Communications Inc
47 Front Street East
3rd floor
Toronto, ON
M53 1B3
Canada
gavan@ebranders.com

Abstract - Trades organizations and safety authorities
have identified the practice of working live on energized
equipment or machinery as a significant contributor to death
and disfigurement due to occupational electrical contact by
electricians as well as other trade workers. Electrical harm
reduction communications programs that may be making a
difference in the goal of reducing occupational electrical
accidents and death in Ontario are discussed in this paper.
Discussion in this report is gender based as there have been
no fatalities by women working on or near electrical
equipment in Ontario in over a decade. Gaining a deeper
understanding of the human and organizational drivers of
electrical risks in this complex socio-technological system is
vital.
Index Terms - electrical accidents, electrical risk, electrical
safety training, emotional appeal in communications, lost-time
injury, risk bearing, risk taking.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1997, the Ontario Ministry of Labour found 79% of all
occupational electrical accidents befall workers who are not
trained electricians. The author's 2008 thesis research
focused on the question of why men work live on energised
electrical equipment and found electrical safety is one of
dynamic complexity not linear, or simple complexity. This
research and findings were gender based as there have been
no fatalities by women working on or near electrical
equipment for over a decade in Ontario. As well, 100% of the
research volunteer participants were male. In this study, the
author found at least 21 inter-related drivers of risk taking, risk
bearing, risk seeking, and risk finding that caused electrical
accidents [1]. Scholars and practitioners have confirmed
these findings translate to all types of workers and
workplaces. These findings are important because, as
Rohrmann has stated, "More recently, gender differences in
risk attitudes have been looked at ... [with] multi-fold
observations that women show high-risk behaviour less often
than men" [2, p. 3].
Gaining a deeper understanding of the human and
organizational drivers of electrical risks in this complex socio
technological system is vital because, as Sparrow stated,
"The risk literature so far has not given us a well-developed
organizational theory for risk-control. Neither, conversely, has
organizational theory paid explicit attention to the distinctive
character of the harm-reduction task" [3, p. 15].
"I've got all my facts pretty clear," said Stanley Hopkins.
"Aliiwant now is to know what they all mean." [4, p. 109]
Today, we do not have all the facts surrounding
occupational electrical accidents, which critically limits our
ability as an industry to improve electrical safety [1] [5].
However, new research is being undertaken, and new data
are emerging that help improve our understanding of the
drivers of electrical accidents and what we can do to eliminate
this senseless loss of life and livelihood.
Many books have been written about accidents, and it is a
safe bet that many more are still to be written. There are
two main reasons for that. The first that accidents always
have happened and always will happen, barring some
cataclysmic--or providential----event. The second is that
the understanding of accidents is still approximate and
incomplete, and it is likely to remain so for a long time,
perhaps indefinitely. Taken together there is an unfulfilled
need for a better understanding of the nature of accidents.
[4, p. xi]
This data and knowledge gap is especially pressing with
regards to electrical accidents: Why do men take risks when
working on or near energized electrical equipment, when over
50% of all occupational death and injury results from what is
called "working live" on energized machinery or systems?
Occupational injuries by electrical contact are up by 45%
between 1998 and 2006, and as noted, 79% of all workers
injured or killed in this manner are not licensed electricians [6].
Our accident data are improving; however, as Floyd et al.
noted, we do not have robust population-based databases
showing the granularity of accident data to help us improve
our understanding of why electrical accidents still take place
and are increasing [5]. The author sought to shed more light
on these questions by focussing his masters' research at the
sharp end of where electrical accidents take place: with the
men who work on or near electrical equipment and machinery
every day [1].
The answer to the apparently simple question of why men
work live is complex and tightly linked to the individual
personality type of the worker, the 21 risk drivers, and a host

978-1-4673-1059-8/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

of other factors, such their awareness of the proximity of
power lines. The author found there are three primary
enablers of why people work live on electrical equipment and
have called these: (a) the Supply----those who will take the
risks of live work; (b) the Demand---those who are asked by
others to work live; and (c) the Unplanned Events--those who
were not aware circuits were still live or that power lines were
nearby. The author set out to determine why these enablers
exist in the electrical industry.
II. ELECTRICAL SAFETY IS A PROBLEM OF
DYNAMIC COMPLEXITY
Based on in-depth, face-to face research conducted with
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and other
trade workers spanning 2006 to 2009, the author uncovered
at least 21 drivers of risk taking, risk bearing, and risk seeking
while conducting research for his master's thesis. These risk
drivers include: age, gender, personality, marital status, goals,
cognition, emotion, values, environment, years of experience,
familiarity with the task, entrenched thinking, safety training,
peer influence, supervisory influence, client pressure, the
culture of the company, the employer, the industry, the size of
the company, and a notion referred to as "ETTO, the
Efficiency-Thoroughness-Trade-Off principle", where workers
take the approach that "it's good enough" or "it will do" [4,
p. 152].
Looking at this list, which is by no means complete, shows
that improving electrical safety is one of dynamic complexity,
not simple or linear complexity [1] [7]. New research aimed at
the sharp end of electrical accidents is vital to improving
electrical safety [4]. The sharp-end actors are electricians,
both apprentices and seasoned journeymen, trades workers
and their apprentices, as well as their peers, supervisors,
journeymen, and foremen.
Woven into these core drivers of electrical risk are four
types of workers who get killed or injured while working on or
near electrical equipment: risk takers, risk bearers, risk
sekers, and risk finders. This paper will highlight risk, harm,
dIsaster, and accident research, which informed two recent
communication interventions developed in Ontario and
designed to minimize risk taking by expert electricians and
other trade workers. The propensity to take risks and to bear
risks amongst workers can be better explained through the
lens of the 21 drivers noted above and through use of new
evaluation techniques utilizing personality, temperament, and
style testing. Such identification could help determine those
who are most likely to take electrical risks and those who are
most likely to bear electrical risks and how this knowledge can
help to change the face of electrical accidents.
A. Who Gets Injured?
As noted, in the main it is not trained electricians who are
getting killed and injured in this manner; 79% of all those
injured or killed by occupational electrical contact were not
licensed electricians. Rather, they were employed as HVAC,
millwrights, drivers, service technicians, elevator repair, and
so forth [6]. Why are these other trades bearing the brunt of
occupational electrocution and working on live equipment over
50% of the time? Trained electricians know the danger of live
work. These other trades perhaps do not because they have
not had the daily, in-depth safety training needed to avoid
harm around electrical equipment.
Electricians continue the century-old cultural tradition of
working live: other than power line workers who often must
work live. In a survey of hundreds of electricians in Ontario,
the Electrical Safety Authority found that 69% of electricians
rated working live as being an above average to high risk. Yet
90% said they have worked live, with 64% stating they do so
to "test" the equipment, and of this group, 17% stated, "I
manage the risk." Therefore, working live for today's electrical
trade worker is the norm, not the exception [8]. Of note, 88%
of all electricians have been educated to minimize the risks of
live work, with 49% stating they have been asked to work
outside of established safe work practices [9].
These trained experts say they worked live for a number of
reasons: (a) supervisor needs (72%); (b) scheduling (80%);
and (c) customer needs (91%) [9]. For other trades, there is
no precise data; however, my preliminary research showed
that peer and supervisory influence play a significant role, as
does lack of safety training, macho or manly behaviour [10]
and personality [5]. These workers fall into the categories of
risk takers, risk finders, and risk seekers. Risk finders are
those who by chance, oversight, or other means find
themselves working unplanned on live equipment. True risk
seekers are extremely rare in occupational settings, and as
such, there are few reliable interventions useful in weeding
out these danger seekers.
Organizationally speaking, electricians believe that the
types of companies and work situations that pay the least
attention to worker safety are small business (94%),
commercial (93%), electrical maintenance (87%), large
usiness (78%), alteration or integration of equipment (77%),
mdustrial (72%), and institutional (68%) [11]. The small
company data may be misleading however, given that 87% of
all electrical contractors in Ontario have less than five
employees [11]. As noted earlier, today we do not know what
we do not know about electrical incidents and accidents
because of incomplete and fragmented accident reporting
data: for example, many electrical accidents involving ladders
are classed as falls rather than electrical accidents.
Therefore, under reporting of electrical incidents is still a
problem.
To summarize: electrical injuries have increased by 45%
[6], and a lost-time injury due to electrical contact is almost
100 times more likely to kill a worker as compared to all other
types of construction injuries combined [12]. Over 50% of all
deaths and injuries by electrical contact are caused by live
work, and 79% of all electrical injuries and deaths affect
workers who are not licensed electricians [6].
These data lead this author to suspect that the majority of
those killed and injured due to occupational electrical contact
are vulnerable workers, or risk bearers and risk finders.
These other trade workers are often subjected to the Demand
for risky work, as are electricians; however, they experience
more serious consequences because they do not have the
rigorous safety training, skills, on-the-job experience, or
mentoring to be working on or near energized circuits.
B. The Heuristics of Safe Electrical Work
Finally, the 45% increase in electrical accidents from 1998
to 2006 versus 20% drop over a similar time frame of all other
construction injuries [6] speaks to the need for urgent action in
developing mitigating strategies for these vulnerable trade
workers who, for a wide variety of reasons, work on or near
energized equipment and machinery. This potent stew of
negative and alarming trends argues for real and immediate
change.
In summary, these other trade workers do not have what this
author calls the heuristics of safe electrical worle the on-the-job
experience in a workplace culture where problem-solving,
discovery, and vicarious leaming of the intricacies of the craft of
electricity takes place every day on the job site. The rigorous
safety training shared with electricians and electrical apprentices
is working given the 21:79 ratios noted before. Is the electrician
safety-training regime perfect? By no means; however, general
trades can learn a great deal towards improving electrical safety
by adopting the best practices of licensed electricians.
C. Organizational Drivers of Electrical Risk
At the blunt end of electrical accidents, several actors are
important to reach, educate, and inform: clients or any client in
a position of authority, general contractors, consulting and
design engineers, building owners and supervisors, shop
foremen, and managers, as these many organizational
stakeholders are vital to solving the wicked problem of
occupational electrical contact. Other blunt-end stakeholders
include: regulatory bodies, licensing, inspection, Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board, Ministry of Labour, other
provincial and federal government agencies, colleges and
trade schools, industry associations, unions, and the various
trade bodies involved in the institutional, commercial, and
construction industries.
Much research and work is still needed to understand what
exists in organizations and their operations models that allow
men to take risks. However, other forms of direct
communications are working, tailgate briefings may have
saved many lives, and the leading-edge work being
undertaken by Harrington et al. [13] has suggested that
continual use of this simple tool can be effective in reducing
workplace accidents.
D. What is Being Done to Limit the Demand for Live Electrical
Work and How Do We Protect Vulnerable Workers?
In 2008, a consortium called the Electrical Safety Coalition
was formed in Ontario led by the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario, the
Electrical Contractors Associations of Ontario, and the
Greater Toronto Electrical Contractors Association. This core
team was able to recruit most of the Health and Safety
AgenCies in Ontario and included the Provincial Ministry of
Labour, the Electrical Safety Authority of Ontario, Industrial
Accident Prevention Association, Construction Safety
Association of Ontario, and the Electrical and Utilities Safety
Association. The aim of this first-ever consortium, which we
later named The Electrical Safety Coalition, was to research
what exists in organizations and on the job site that allows or
permits those in a supervisory position to demand that others
undertake live or risky work without proper safety protection of
planning. The goal of the campaign was to suppress the
Demand for live work.
The author developed and undertook research utilizing both
quantitative and qualitative methodology with five groups of
electricians and trade workers (all were volunteers and all
were male). Research included action research in a focus
group setting, a visual aids survey, and the Keirsey
Temperament II Survey. The visual aids survey was
completed by 352 electricians from the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and, though the sample
base who completed the temperament test was small ( n= 50),
a vast majority of electricians and trade workers tested
showed a propensity to be extroverted in personality type [14].
This was an important finding because young, single, male
extroverts are the most likely of all workers to take risks. In its
2005 Annual Safety Report, the Electrical Safety Authority of
Ontario noted that apprentices in the electrical trades are
getting killed or injured at a higher rate than journeyperson
electricians [15], and though these incidents are not as
frequent as those for general trades, their incidence is still of
great concern.
E. How Do We Limit the Supply of Those Who Will Work
Live?
The author utilized several different types of strong
emotional appeal in the work site posters and trade
advertisements in order to break through the clutter.
Research has shown strong emotional appeal can increase
attention paid to advertisements, and if a person notices an
advertisement, this will increase awareness and recall, and if
an advertisement is recalled, it can help in modifying risk
taking behaviour.
If we know the personality characteristics of a target
audience, it may be possible to tailor campaigns to zero-in
on the characteristic motivations, attitudes, and feelings of
the audience.... Knowledge of the psychological
characteristics that motivate you to engage in health-risk
behaviors may thus help public health officials choose more
effective campaigns, which would motivate risk takers to
minimize harm. [17, p. 1061]
F. Safety Communications Aimed at Different Personalities:
The Supply and the Demand
Research and the literature show that male extroverts (as
noted, 100% of research participants were male) demonstrate
a marked disinclination to say "no" when asked to work live
and are the personality type most likely to take risks:
ENFJ's [a personality style that is extraverted and uses
intuition, feeling, and judging to navigate through life] know
and appreciate people.... They are apt to neglect
themselves and their own needs for the needs of others.
They have thinner psychological boundaries than most, and
are at risk for being hurt or even abused by less sensitive
people. ENFJs often take on more of the burdens of others
than they can bear. [14, Explanation, para. 4]
Thus, we have a personality type that is both more inclined
to take risks willingly and, as well, more inclined to take a risk
if someone asks them to do so. Communication techniques
designed to improve safety need to be different for different
personality types because those who are extroverts learn
differently from those who are introverts, and important safety
and risk-deterrent messaging must recognize that one size
does fits all in communicating electrical safety
Looking at the supply and demand for risky electrical work
and how to change this condition, a fully integrated
communications program was created for the Electrical Safety
Coalition, called the "Just Don't Ask Campaign", with the
central element being the "Just Don't Ask Authorization Form"
[16]. This form was designed (a) to educate employers and
those in a position of authority to understand the dangers and
risks involved in live work so they would stop asking for this
type of work; (b) to empower electricians who, through job
pressures, economic vulnerability, or personality style, are
more inclined to say yes to a request for live work, and, as a
by-product, (c) to help remind those who take risks to avoid
doing so [16].
Reports from the field suggest that very few of our forms
have been signed and handed back to electricians, with
anecdotal reports that clients, when presented with the form,
are responding, "What's with you guys? Everybody is asking
us to sign this form." This suggests that workers are, in fact,
presenting the "Just Don't Ask Form" to clients when asked to
undertake risky work, and that clients are now working with
their electricians and trade workers to undertake safer
electrical work practices. One disturbing trend is the
anecdotal report of job sanction against electrical trade
workers who presented this form for signature, thus
supporting the author's suspicion of vulnerable electrical
workers.
Combined, the key learnings of the normalcy and demand
for live work and extrovert's natural inclination to be the go to
or solutions guy to work live, if requested, suggested the need
for creation of a "Just Don't Ask Authorization Form" [16].
This intervention was backed by a powerful communications
campaign utilizing job site posters, trade advertising, public
relations, and a website to gain attention while educating and
reminding viewers of the risks involved in electrical work.
G. Fear Alone in Safety Communications is not Effective
Of note, however, the author's research found, and the
literature confirmed, that the use of fear appeal alone in safety
communications is not effective in modifying behaviour [1].
This type of emotional appeal will garner attention; however,
the same principal applies if one spots a snake in the forest: It
is difficult to take one's eyes off of it, and there is an overall
feeling of dread. With a fear appeal alone, cognitive
processing of safety messages may not take place, as the
oldest part of the brain, the amygdale, is active in high fear
(and high pleasure) situations, leaving little in the way of
message recall of anything other than fear. Little in the way of
messages concerning safety actions or desired behaviour
change is registered. Only a strong fear memory is implanted.
In order for fear appeal to be effective in safety
communications aimed at modifying risk taking and risk
bearing, it must be accompanied by two important elements:
(a) the safety message being proposed must be efficacious at
minimizing harm (i.e., Don't Work Live); and (b) the workers
must deeply believe that they can put this advice into action.
Also, in 2008, the author created and the Electrical Safety
Authority of Ontario launched an arc flash awareness
campaign aimed at suppressing the Supply of those who
would take electrical risks on the job [18]. This multi-media
campaign was built on research learnings and utilized several
different types of emotional appeal: shock, fear, guilt, respect,
familial ties, and love, in order to reach many different kinds of
personality types. Familial love scored consistent attention
appeal as did fear and guilt, based on a Likert-type scale
ranging from like very much to like, to dislike, to dislike very
much, in response to visual examples of ads and posters.
From 2004 to 2010, the Electrical Safety Authority of
Ontario also chose to pick many different and important
electrical harms, such as power lines, farm safety, ladders,
tree trimming, dump trucks, multi meters, and so forth, in
order to educate specific target audiences on these harms.
With this focus, several highly effective consumer and trade
communication campaigns were successfully launched for the
Electrical Safety Authority of Ontario over the past six years
[18].
In 2010, the author created and the Electrical Safety
Authority of Ontario launched a blended communications
campaign in an effort to address both sides of the deadly
equation of Supply and Demand aimed at educating workers,
and supervisors to the risks of three specific harms: arc flash,
347 volts, and power lines, as well as utilizing a variation of
the "Just Don't Ask Authorization Form" [16] [19]. The early
success of this initiative was demonstrated by the wide range
of provincial and national organizations that placed their logo
on this form as a show of solidarity and support for this unique
empowerment and intervention tool.
H. Why is This WorK Important?
'The fast growing risk literature so far provides the least
guidance where the majority of practitioners are required to
operate---within the complex, multidimensional and textured
layers that lie between high level policy decisions and low
level incident response" [3, p. 17].
This is the sharp end of electrical accidents, the operational
level: (a) where electricians and trade workers are doing the
work of installation and repair of machinery and equipment;
and (b) where general trades people are going about their
tasks, often unaware that they are near a hazard. Electrical
accidents are not one of sequential development; therefore,
the Tree-Based Models are inadequate to show functional
dependencies that are so important to the systemic view [4],
which allows for greater inclusion of the potential and highly
inter-related causes of electrical accidents.
There is little research work being developed at the sharp
end of accidents, such as electrical accidents, in part because
in North America, we lack comprehensive population-based
databases of all occupational incidents, accidents, and
fatalities [4]. Instead, much policy and thought is devoted to
the blunt-end factors that are removed from space and time of
where the real work takes place: at the sharp-end.
III. CONCLUSION
This paper calls for the need to recognize electrical hazards
as being unique and different from all other types of
construction hazards because electricity is odourless, toxic,
and invisible. If contact is made with an energized electrical
circuit or machinery, its outcome is largely a matter of luck [5]
and is approximately 100 times more deadly than all other
types of lost-time injuries combined [12]. The Electrical Safety
Authority of Ontario data show that "death by working live has
not declined in the electrical trades" [19, p. 20], thus
confirming that experts still take inordinate risks, while non
experts and other trade workers still bear the risk of live or
unprotected work, in part because they do not have the long
term, in-depth safety training and on-the-job mentoring that
teaches electricians how to work safely.
Consider carefully the risk takers and risk seekers versus
the risk bearers and risk finders when developing risk and
harm mitigation and communication strategies aimed at
electricians and trade workers. Carefully utilize emotional
appeal in your communications because it is effective in
breaking through the clutter to gain attention. Reflect on the
21 drivers identified and how these allow or encourage men to
take risks. If you have identified that you have a
preponderance of risk takers in your workforce, you will need
to utilize specific communications techniques in order to gain
their attention and to start modifying their risk-taking
behaviour. Consider the social and behavioural implications
of attempting to change the culture of an organization, a work
crew, or a seasoned veteran whose response can range from
"We've always done it this way" or "I can control the risk" to "If
I don't do it (take the risk), the next guy the boss asks, will!" It
is not easy to break a 100-year-old tradition, but with time and
patience, it can be achieved.
Demand to see the aggregated electrical incident data,
because today we really have no idea how prevalent under
reporting of accidents is. Hollnagel wrote, "Near misses are
only rarely reported, and unsafe acts as a rule not reported at
all" [4, p. 25]. This condition perfectly fits electrical near
misses and unsafe acts (precursors of accidents), because
these types of events leave little in the way of noticeable
marks. Victims simply report receiving "a tingle or a jolt".
Introduce the "Just Don't Ask Authorization Form" [16] [19]
or a variant of this to your organization, workplace, or
construction trade to help empower those who, through
amenability of personality or through economic pressure, will
bear construction risks. Protect and educate your young
workers, if they are male, single, and extroverted, they are the
most vulnerable workers on your job site because they are the
most likely to take risks and bear risks. Finally, train your
veterans and supervisors to deeply understand the role they
play in developing safe or risky work habits in young workers.
Acknowledgement - I would like to acknowledge Mr.
John Pender of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Construction Council of Ontario for his vision and
unswerving commitment to the on-going need for new
information and new tools to help reduce occupational
electrical accidents.
IV. REFERENCES
[1] G. Howe, Why Men Take Risks and What is the Role of
Why Men Take Risks: A Way to Mitigate Risk Taking by
Experts, Library and Archives Canada. 2008 [AMICUS
No. 34493019].
[2] B. Rorhamm, Risk Attitude Scales: Concepts and
Questionnaires, Project Report. Melbourne, Australia:
University of Melbourne. 2002, p 3.
[3] M. K. Sparrow, The Character of Harms: Operational
Chal/enges in Contro/. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press. 2008.
[4] E. Hollnagel, Barriers and Accident Prevention.
Hampshire England: Ashgate Publishing. 2004.
[5] L. Floyd, K. Eastwood, and D. Liggett, "How can we
better learn from electrical accidents," IEEE Industrial
Applications Magazine, Paper No: PCIC-98-34, May/June
2000.
[6] Government of Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Electrical Blitz
2008 by Industrial Health and Safety Program. Ottawa,
ON: Queen's Printer. 2008.
[7] J. Downer. Anatomy of a Disaster: Why Some Accidents
are Avoidable. London, UK: Center for Analysis of Risk
and Regulation at the London School of Economics and
Political Science. 2010.
[8] Electrical Safety Authority, Annual Report. Toronto, ON,
Canada: Author. 2008.
[9] Acumen Research, ESA Contractor Survey November
14, 2008 Preliminary Results. Toronto, ON, Canada:
Electrical Safety Authority. 2008.
[10] R. Ely and D. Meyerson, Unmasking Manly Men: The
Organizational Reconstruction of Men's Identity. Harvard
Business School Working Paper, No. 07-054. 2007.
[11] Electrical Safety Authority, Occupational Health and
Safety System Review Comments. Toronto, ON, Canada:
Electrical Safety Authority, 2010.
[12] Government of Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Occupational
Health and Safety Branch Blitz on Electrical Safety in
Construction, Blitz Period October 2009. Ottawa, ON:
Queen's Printer. 2009.
[13] D. Harritington, B. Materna, J. Vannoy, and P. Scholz,
"Conducting effective tailgate trainings." Health Promotion
Practices, 10, 2009: 359. doi: 10.1177/
1524839907307885
[14] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, n.d. Retrieved August 25,
2010, from http://enfj.mbtLhuman-types.com/
[15] Electrical Safety Authority, Annual Report. Toronto, ON,
Canada: Author. 2005.
[16] Electrical Safety Authority, Electrical Worker Safety.
Retrieved August 22, 2010, from
http://www.esasafe.com/Contractors/ets_001.php?s=22
and http://electricalsafetycoalition.com/
[17] A. Caspi, H. Harrington, T. E. Moffitt, D. Begg, N.
Dickson, J. Langley, and P. A. Silva, "Personality
differences predict health-risk behaviors in young
adulthood: Evidence from a longitudinal study." Joumal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 73-5, November
1997, pp 1052-1063.
[18] Electrical Safety Authority, Arc Flash Campaign, 2008. advertising business for 25+ years. His academic studies,
Retrieved August 22, 2010, from which focus on improving electrical safety, inform his work
www.ebranders.com/showcase_electricaLsafetLauthorit and his firm, Howe Brand Communications. He has spent the
Larc_flash.html last decade developing unique risk and harm mitigation
strategies for a wide range of clients. He is a founding board
[19] Electrical Safety Authority, Annual Report. Toronto, ON, member of ESFLca, has spoken to national and international
Canada: Author. 2009. audiences, and has written widely on how to utilize modern
communications techniques to help modify electrical risk
V. VITA taking or risk bearing on the job site.

Gavan Howe graduated from Royal Roads University in

2008 with an MA in Leadership degree and is currently taking
a PhD in Human and Organizational Systems at Fielding
Graduate University. He has been in the communications and