Understanding and assessing safety culture through the lens of organizational management of uncertainty

The management of uncertainties is discussed as a key challenge for organizations and two approaches to handling uncertainties are introduced, i.e. minimizing uncertainties versus coping with uncertainties. The analysis of rules as for instance laid out in standard operating procedures is suggested as one method for identifying the approach to uncertainty management chosen in a particular organization. Given advantages and disadvantages of both approaches to uncertainty management, loose coupling is discussed as a way of balancing the two approaches and a conceptualization of safety culture as a means for loose coupling is proposed. One of the central controversies underlying discussions on designing organizations for safety, i.e. the relationship between autonomy and safety, is expanded upon in order to deepend the understanding of different design strategies within the framework of uncertainty management. Finally, it is argued that the role and importance of safety culture differs depending on the chosen approach to uncertainty management, requiring that any safety culture assessment is preceeded by an assessment of the fit between the uncertainties an organization is confronted with and the chosen forms of handling these uncertainties. Methods for carrying out these assessments are suggested.

[1]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[2]  Colin F. Mackenzie,et al.  Transactive Responsibility Systems and High Reliability Teams: A Tentative Formulation , 2002 .

[3]  H. P. Sims,et al.  A Typology for Integrating Technology, Organization, and Job Design , 1980 .

[4]  Judith Orasanu,et al.  DECISION-MAKING IN THE COCKPIT. , 1993 .

[5]  T. Wall,et al.  Empowerment, Performance, and Operational Uncertainty: A Theoretical Integration , 2002 .

[6]  J Leplat,et al.  About implementation of safety rules , 1998 .

[7]  D. Parker,et al.  Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule‐related behaviour , 1998 .

[8]  Andrew Hale,et al.  Changing regulation : controlling risks in society , 2002 .

[9]  C. Perrow A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[10]  David D. Woods,et al.  Distant Supervision–Local Action Given the Potential for Surprise , 2000, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[11]  H. Jungermann,et al.  DETERMINANTEN, KORRELATE UND KONSEQUENZEN DER BEURTEILUNG VON RISIKEN FUR DIE EIGENE GESUNDHEIT , 1991 .

[12]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[13]  Gudela Grote Uncertainty Management at the Core of System Design , 2003 .

[14]  K. Weick Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability , 1987 .

[15]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experiment , 1994 .

[16]  Eric Trist,et al.  An Experiment in Autonomous Working in an American Underground Coal Mine , 1977 .

[17]  Rainer Dietrich,et al.  Group interaction in high risk environments , 2004 .

[18]  Jacques Leplat,et al.  Occupational accident research and systems approach , 1984 .

[19]  Elliot E. Entin,et al.  Adaptive Team Coordination , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem , 1997 .

[21]  Barbara G. Kanki,et al.  Cockpit Resource Management , 1993 .

[22]  A Marchand,et al.  From a unidimensional to a bidimensional concept and measurement of workers' safety behavior. , 1998, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[23]  Andrew Hale,et al.  Issues in the Regulation of Safety: Setting the Scene , 2002 .

[24]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations , 1976 .

[25]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[26]  K. Weick Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[27]  Gudela Grote,et al.  Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits , 2000 .

[28]  G. Richter,et al.  Arbeitsinhaltsgestaltung zur Förderung von Arbeitssicherheit und Gesundheit , 1995 .

[29]  D. L. Simms,et al.  Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies , 1986 .

[30]  F. Emery Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems , 1993 .

[31]  James D. Thompson Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[32]  E. Trist,et al.  Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management , 1976 .

[33]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[34]  Paul Milgram,et al.  Planning behavior and its functional role in interactions with complex systems , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[35]  S. Dekker Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[36]  J. Klein A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing Practices , 1991 .

[37]  Harry S. Shannon,et al.  Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates , 1997 .

[38]  Paul Swuste,et al.  SAFETY RULES: PROCEDURAL FREEDOM OR ACTION CONSTRAINT? , 1998 .

[39]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  Contingent Workers in High Risk Environments , 1997 .

[40]  P. Vermersch Données d'observation sur l'utilisation d'une consigne écrite: l'atomisation de l'action , 1985 .

[41]  K. Roberts New Challenges to Understanding Organizations , 1993 .

[42]  E. Salas,et al.  The Role of Planning in Coordinated Team Decision Making: Implications for Training , 1993 .

[43]  D. Norman,et al.  New technology and human error , 1989 .

[44]  W. Pasmore,et al.  Sociotechnical Systems: A North American Reflection on Empirical Studies of the Seventies , 1982 .