"MISTAKES AT WORK" THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF ERROR IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORK*

Worker mistakes are shown to be a routine and inevitable part of building construction work. Buildings emerge out of a context of accumulated mistakes which take on an irreversible continuity in the process. Consumers (and taxpapers) unknowingly accept these products that may be permeated with many hidden, unanticipated future problems. Four varieties of mistakes are delineated as are the various management techniques employed by workers for dealing with these errors. This unintended, yet consequential, error stems from three inter-related phenomena: the transitional nature of the work setting; the specialized nature of the work performed including the diverse multi-skilled specialists who do that work; and the "negotiated" process by which the work gets done. Much of the damage and added cost created by these mistakes is predictable and manageable. Yet, unions, business, and government make little effort to limit these costs to the consumer (and taxpayer). This paper' will portray the variety of mistakes that occur during a building construction sequence2 and the techniques employed by skilled tradesmen in the management of these mistakes. The discussion will focus on the root causes and resultant consequences of these mistakes as they are illuminated through the social organization of building construction work. Buildings3 are seen to be constructed out of a series of mistakes. These mis* This research was supported in part by a Summer Fellowship from the University of New Hampshire. The author is indebted to Stuart Palmer, Bud Khleif, Arnold Linsky, Gordon Haaland, and Louis Klotz for their critical reading and suggestions of an earlier version of this paper. 1 The research is drawn from a more extensive study that focused on building construction workers and their "work world." Background data for this study came from the investigator's former occupation as a journeyman construction electrician, five years in an indentured construction electrician apprenticeship, and an additional four years of work experience as a journeyman construction electrician (Riemer, 1975). 2 This research was conducted on a building construction project near a large midwestern city during the summer of 1973. This setting provided a natural location that was in constant structural transition while bounded in time and space. A longitudinal research design was employed. A phase analysis was used to compare the behavior patterns of workers with two transitional phases of the physical setting (the roughing phase and the finishing phase). The sample included all of the workers on the project, approximately 75 workers in total with approximately 35 workers present at any one time. All workers were skilled building construction tradesmen, and the majority were affiliated with a building trades union. The methodological techniques employed included: participant observation; selective, focused interviewing; and the use of available records and documents, e.g. architectural drawings and job specifications. During the first part of the research sequence, the investigator worked on the project as a journeyman construction electrician, and during the last part, as an expeditor-consultant for the builder. Each of these participant observer roles provided supplementary and complementary insight into the building construction sequence. 3 The buildings are light residential structures. Observations were made during the con