Citation

Grote G. Safety Sci. 2020; 127: e104709.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104709

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Much of current research on designing safe organizations centers around the question of how to best manage concurrent demands for stability and flexibility in the face of external and internal uncertainties. Classic approaches to safety management have favored centralized decision-making in organizations which promises stability through hierarchical control and adherence to predefined procedures. Newer research has stressed the need for decentralized decision-making to enable flexibility through fast local adaptations and improvisation in unprecedented situations, thereby confronting the apparent contradiction between safety and autonomy. Especially research on high-reliability organizations (HROs) has aimed to resolve this contradiction by identifying mechanisms for bridging centralization and decentralization through what has been termed loose coupling. However, the contradiction still lives on in many debates in safety research, for instance concerning safety rules, safety leadership, and safety culture. Using these research domains as examples, it is argued in this paper that by distinguishing between process and personal safety and between operational and higher-order autonomy the relationship between safety and autonomy can be better understood and eventually better managed. Moreover, uncertainty is assumed to be a crucial moderating influence in this relationship. Based on this framework, propositions are developed to guide future research towards reconciling safety and autonomy in safety management.

Language: en

Keywords

Personal safety; Process safety; Safety culture; Safety leadership; Safety rules; Uncertainty