Transmission line construction is one of the most complex and politically sensitive infrastructure endeavors in the United States. Crews routinely work across dozens and sometimes hundreds of distinct land parcels, navigating a patchwork of easement rights, property histories and landowner temperaments. What happens when that navigation breaks down isn’t always a polite conversation at the fence line. In one documented incident in the Upper Midwest, a 12-member utility project team conducting a formal, scheduled right-of-way walkdown was confronted by a landowner wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a rifle. Police were called and ultimately resolved the standoff, clarifying that the crew was accessing utility property. This encounter was prompted by a pipeline contractor who had worked in the same corridor the year before; their employees did not use access mats, tore up the property and left it unrestored. In essence, the new project team paid the price for the previous team’s errors. In a second incident that also occurred in the Upper Midwest, a utility project manager directed a site access contractor to cross a private landowner’s property to reach a transmission line right-of-way. The project manager believed that landowner engagement had occurred and access had been arranged. This was not the case. The contractor’s vehicles were stopped mid-property by the landowner, who refused to let them move, effectively ceasing work until police intervened. No Anomalies Here These incidents are not anomalies. Across the country, utility field crews regularly encounter unhappy landowners, some of whom are carrying weapons. Earlier this year, two Los Angeles Department of Water and Power field employees were threatened at gunpoint by a customer while attempting to perform a scheduled water shutoff (see https://ladwpnews.com/ladwp-urges-customers-to-treat-utility-workers-with-respect-and-kindness-as-they-perform-essential-functions/). In an older case, a Pennsylvania business owner drew a pistol on contractors working in a right-of-way, ordering them off the property despite having signed an access agreement with the contracting firm; he was charged with several crimes, including aggravated assault and terroristic threats (see www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/new-castle-business-owner-accused-of-pulling-gun-on-sewer-workers/). No single federal database tracks landowner-versus-utility-worker confrontations as a discrete category, but the broader data is sobering. From 2015 to 2019, for instance, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported an annual average of 1.3 million nonfatal workplace violent victimizations (see https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/federal-agencies-release-joint-study-workplace-violence). Industry employers must understand that (1) field employees face elevated harm risk when working in remote or isolated locations on or near private property and (2) poor communication with landowners plays a significant role in triggering these encounters. Failure Modes The incidents described above illustrate the two most common failure modes with respect to landowner engagement: inherited distrust, such as when a previous contractor’s poor conduct poisons landowner perceptions, and assumed engagement (e.g., a project manager erroneously believes communication has occurred, an assumption that travels down the chain of command until it hits a locked gate). Boundary confusion is a less dramatic but equally disruptive third failure mode. Some landowners do not fully grasp the distinction between their property and a utility’s right-of-way, even if they have lived alongside an easement for decades. Failing to proactively clarify this distinction with the landowner is a recipe for confrontation. Best Practices Given the significant issues that can arise in lieu of effective landowner engagement, utility organizations that haven’t already would be wise to develop an engagement program that incorporates these six best practices. 1. Engage early and in person. Written notices satisfy legal requirements, but they may not satisfy or even reach landowners. A phone call or doorstep conversation before work begins is the best way to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings. Explain who will be on-site, the equipment that will be used, how long the work will take and how the property will be restored. Landowners who understand project details are far less likely to interpret crew vehicles on the right-of-way as trespassing. 2. Document everything. The standoff in the second incident above began because a project manager believed landowner engagement had occurred. For any project that involves access across or near private land, engagement should be documented in writing with the same rigor as permitting. Include the name of the person who was contacted, the date, the information communicated and what was agreed to. This should be done before any crew members enter the field. 3. Acknowledge and address prior contractor damage. If a corridor has seen previous utility or pipeline activity, especially activity that left property in poor condition, the current project team should proactively acknowledge that history. Arriving on-site with a clear commitment to land protection, including use of access mats to prevent rutting and compaction, signals that this project will be different. 4. Plainly clarify rights and boundaries. Landowners do not always know where their property ends and the utility’s property begins. Any engagement conversation should include a plain-language explanation of the right-of-way: what it is, what rights the utility holds within it and what that means for the landowner’s day-to-day access. This basic transparency helps to prevent misunderstandings that could escalate into confrontation. 5. Commit to restoration and follow through. Landowners burned by prior contractors will be watching your workers. The fastest way to rebuild trust is to leave property in better condition than you found it. Specific commitments regarding restoration timelines, soil stabilization and any damage remediation should be part of every landowner engagement conversation. Critically, these commitments must be tracked and met. 6. Assign a single point of contact. Landowners who have questions or concerns during active construction need to know who to call. An employer that appoints a dedicated landowner liaison – with a real phone number and authority to respond – greatly reduces the likelihood of a frustrated property owner showing up at a jobsite to resolve things themselves. Conclusion The transmission buildout underway across the U.S. is historic in scale, with Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. (MISO) alone approving more than 5,000 miles of new transmission corridors in December 2024 (see www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/miso-board-approves-historic-transmission-plan-strengthen-grid-reliability). Thousands of landowner interactions are still to come. Employers must recognize that the time, legal exposure and reputational damage from a single armed standoff or police intervention could vastly exceed the cost of a robust landowner engagement program. Even more importantly, effective engagement helps to ensure utility crews can move through corridors freely and safely. Our industry’s workers deserve better than to inherit risk that a simple phone call could have prevented. About the Author: Levi Frost is vice president of construction services for Sterling Solutions (https://sterlingsolutions.com), a manufacturer and installer of site access mats.

Walk through any industrial environment and you’ll hear familiar messaging: “Be proactive.” “Own safety.” “Follow the procedure.” Then step into the boardroom, where the conversation shifts to yield, uptime, injuries and cost. We coach people on behaviors yet judge them based on outcomes, sending mixed signals to the frontline workers at the sharp end of the stick. People tend to rally faster and stay aligned longer when we direct them toward a clear goal and support it with a few nonnegotiable guidelines or guardrails. Most disappointment lies within the gap between what leaders expected and what they made clear and achievable and reinforced to workers. This isn’t an argument against coaching behavior; it’s encouragement to design expectations so that the right behavior becomes the worker’s safest and easiest choice. Human beings naturally think in terms of outcomes. Crews can visualize a target like “first-pass yield at 98%,” “no loss of containment” or “pressure steady at 40-45 psi.” Comparatively, “be proactive,” “own safety” and “follow the procedure” are broad phrases that ultimately break down into dozens of judgment calls. Experienced workers can interpret them differently when stress, aging equipment or limited staff availability is a factor. Drift occurs, debates multiply, and blame begins to look for a place to land. Naturally, behavior still matters, aligning much more quickly when it’s anchored to a concrete outcome and protected by a few clear guidelines that every worker understands. Resolving Disappointment For our purposes, disappointment equates to actual performance minus expected performance. It becomes inevitable when expectations are vague, impossible or under-resourced, appearing as rework, near misses and shortcuts that gradually become normalized under the banner of “getting ’er done.” The more generic leadership’s guidance is, the greater the gaps between how work is imagined, directed and actually performed. Consider this familiar scenario: The words “Zero Recordables” prominently displayed on company banners and dashboards. Management’s goal is clear – to keep the streak going – but the behaviors and systems necessary to achieve it are not. In lieu of clarity, supervisors begin to minimize minor injuries and discourage workers from reporting gray-area events. Later, when a contractor needs stitches, three earlier near misses suddenly come to light. The leadership solution here isn’t to abandon the goal but to establish and communicate clear boundaries: no hiding or reclassifying incidents, all incidents must be reported within 24 hours, and each one must be investigated for systemic causes. Typically, reporting will increase and then eventually decrease as systems and conditions improve (i.e., recordables will drop for the right reasons). Theater or Performance Management? Behavior is a byproduct of influence, which is one reason why it’s ineffective to solely focus on changing it. Here’s another reason: Broadly or vaguely defined behaviors carry an ambiguity tax. Without translation, people improvise, and they do so differently. Behavior often gets distorted once it’s turned into a target; workers tend to focus on the number or specific goal they’ve been instructed to achieve rather than how they will achieve it. Thus, while it may sometimes seem easier to correct people than fix systems, over time, that choice largely results in meaningless theater – not true performance management. To design expectations that won’t lead to disappointment, begin by communicating in system states, not slogans. “Hold suction pressure between 40 and 45 psi during transfer,” for example, provides workers far more clarity than “Keep it steady.” “No energized work without verified isolation” conveys more detail than “Work safely.” From there, pair each expectation with two kinds of protection: the behavioral lines we won’t cross (e.g., no work above 4 feet without full tie-off, period) and the resources that must be present before we start (e.g., work shall not begin if anchor points or lifelines are missing). Stated goals tell us what we’re after; the protective measures we implement define how we get there. Collaboration and Ownership Translating broad or vague ideas ideally occurs where the work takes place. Sit with your team to turn each one into clear expectations. For instance, when working on a specific tank, the team may collaboratively define “speaking up” as (1) stopping if the gas reading exceeds X ppm, (2) calling Control, and (3) resuming work only after receiving clearance to do so. Next, select leading indicators that truly impact exposure, such as physical barrier inspections and independent valve checks. Be sure to thoroughly test all targets before setting them in stone. If bending the rules is the only way to reach them, you won’t achieve excellence. Add buffers, capacity or staffing instead. Accountability Done Right Accountability demands the same careful design, working best when measures are implemented early and fairly using a layered approach. Start with leaders: Have guardrails and expected results been clearly communicated to workers in operational language? Have leaders allocated ample time, tools and staffing? Are any incentives subtly promoting the wrong trade-offs? Accountability begins at the top. Examine the system next: Is the work process truly feasible under real-world conditions? Have controls been integrated, with PPE as the last line of defense? Can workers quickly escalate problems without issue? Then, assess the team: Do they translate expectations into specific standards suited to their context? Stop and escalate when a guardrail can’t be met? Implement learning loops that lead to actual improvements? Only now do we evaluate the individual, and fairness is essential. Human errors require support and system improvements. At-risk behaviors call for coaching and safer conditions. Reckless actions (e.g., knowingly bypassing critical controls) merit proportionate consequences. Make It Tangible To make a lasting impact using this approach, develop one-page expectation briefs for every critical outcome. Each brief should specify the overarching goal and include details about guardrails, resources, known traps, error precursors, and stop-work or pause-work triggers. When work is complete, check for fidelity to the guardrails and resource availability, not just whether a number or metric has changed. Consider both the work results and all evidence that employees upheld the guardrails while doing the work. Publicly support schedule delays when a worker invokes a guardrail. We must be willing to celebrate a missed target when someone refuses a bad trade-off. This is how you teach real expectations and pursue excellence. Many safety failures are easy to understand when viewed from this perspective. “Zero harm” is an endless promise wrapped into a limited time frame. Lack of clear design goals, such as avoiding single-point energy vulnerabilities, can prompt people to hide issues. Observation programs are useful only when they result in changes to the design, tools, staffing or training; otherwise, they’re just paperwork. Also note that many “leading” indicators are in fact misleading. Counting conversations rarely influences hazard trends, for example, while independently verifying high-energy isolations before starting work often does. Leaders must clearly communicate the trade-offs they will never accept and allocate the time needed to keep those commitments credible. This means observing work firsthand. While on-site, ask, “When did a guardrail last stop an issue, and what happened next?” and then recognize that decision. In addition, consistently share stories of people who protected a guardrail and earned leadership support. Stories are how a culture updates its operating system. Conclusion Traditional ideas suggest that clearly defining the right worker behaviors will lead to desired results. Experience proves the opposite. A safer way forward begins when leaders define optimal results as specific system states. Clearly communicate the trade-offs you won’t accept. Allocate resources to those constraints. Hold leaders and teams accountable for respecting the plan’s design. When we set specific expectations for results and provide clear guidance, guardrails and resources, the right behaviors naturally develop as the normal, effortless way to work. Disappointment shrinks to the size of your next learning opportunity. And performance becomes what it was meant to be all along: not just luck but a deliberate outcome. This is how you make safety the easy choice. About the Author: Shawn M. Galloway is CEO of ProAct Safety (https://proactsafety.com) and a globally recognized adviser on safety strategy, leadership and organizational performance. For nearly three decades, he has helped executive teams build the capacity to prevent harm, recover from disruptions and integrate safety as a key driver of business value. Galloway has also written multiple bestselling books and hosts the Safety Culture Excellence podcast.