Safety and Strategy

Safety in organizational contexts: the importance of strategic decisions

Safety is often shaped by “resident pathogens” in the system1 arising from strategic decisions made by top management. These decisions encompass various aspects such as:

- what to produce;

- where to produce;

- what to buy;

- how to/ how much budget to allocate;

- what organizational structure to use;

- how to lead the organization;

- what work methodologies to choose;

- how to evaluate performance; and

- how to resolve conflicts.

These choices can create latent conditions affecting work processes in unexpected ways—sometimes yielding success, and at other times, leading to less desirable outcomes. Such conditions are an inevitable consequence of strategic decisions and remain prevalent in complex systems2.

When it comes to safety management, our focus in recent decades initially centered on human error3 before shifting toward organizational issues4. Surprisingly, the role of top management in safety recently seems to have been overlooked5. However, already in the early 20th century, sociologists and safety researchers like Eastman, DeBlois and Heinrich did write about the influence of top management6.

The evolution of safety considerations and strategy from the early 20th century on

More than a century ago, sociologist Crystal Eastman delved into the occupational safety of miners, steelworkers, and railroad workers. They toiled long hours, had to work hastily, and received minimal guidance despite their lack of experience. In 1911, Eastman7 emphasized the significance of integrating the economic need to reduce work accidents into the decisions of those in power within enterprises. She stressed the complexities connected to enterprise management, and emphasized the critical role these factors played in accident prevention.

A recent report about Dutch road tunnel construction8 shows that Eastman’s analysis still applies even a hundred years later. Employees in a large construction project, during critical project phases, work twelve-hour shifts for seven days a week. The pressure of speed and time constraints often leads them to compromises in work execution. Although these systemic factors change slowly, they have substantial impact on employees' ability to adapt successfully.

The impact of “productivity” strategies on the prioritization of safety risks

The risks we prioritize differ, influenced by our organization's strategies. We identify risks as concerns needing attention and see dangers as external factors that should be eliminated. For instance, in a globalized world, the outsourcing of work to unfamiliar entities often raises concerns among individual safety professionals. In public infrastructure, mishaps are sometimes simplistically attributed to "bad users" through organizational communication; this too is a strategic choice.

From the 1980s onward, declining productivity growth and margins led to pressure for reorganization of organizations9. Companies evaluated departments for added value, leading to a shift in focus to core activities. Large government services in the Netherlands sent employees home, and outsourced engineering work. This shift led to a focus on visible outcomes like incident reports, diminishing reliance on binding rules and regulations. Market-oriented companies saw reduced employee participation and co-determination.

The Evolution of Safety Management

Strategic decisions are built on paradoxes and impossibilities. They are often justified after-the-fact by plans and visions. Strategic change in organizations mirrors an evolutionary process, continuously adapting to internal and external dynamics influenced by variations, selections, and retentions. For instance, new safety technology prompts variations, and selected improvements become part of long-term safety strategies.

The unpredictability of social systems implies that despite careful planning, unforeseen shifts can disrupt safety practices. Organizations need to be adaptive and responsive to changes beyond their control, especially when safety is concerned.

Paradoxes organizations face in safety management – Integrating planned and emergent strategies

Strategic decisions in safety management face a paradox—organizations can aim for rigorous safety strategies but often encounter unforeseen operational complexities. These complexities lead to emergent strategies enacted by frontline workers to address immediate safety concerns not covered in planned strategies.

The intertwining of planned and emergent strategies is vital for adapting to unforeseen situations. Incorporating emergent responses into planned strategies creates a more resilient safety framework, adapting to both anticipated and unexpected challenges.

Communication shapes social reality within organizations - the construction of strategies

At its core, society thrives on interactions, exchanges, and information flows among individuals, groups, and institutions. Communication forms the backbone of these interactions, shaping social reality. Each conversation, message, or action contributes to the construction and reconstruction of social structures, norms, values, and relationships. These communications create interconnectedness, and form self-referential systems that influence future interactions; these are essential in understanding societal coherence and the establishment of norms and behaviors over time.

Organizations act as communication systems, creating their reality through observations, complex in decision-making. Competitive environments are constructed through internal communications, shaping strategic management categories like 'customers' and 'markets' based on each organization's internal logic and context.

Meta-communication in strategic management - maintaining boundaries between reflective communication and daily operations

The sociologist Niklas Luhmann wrote about the important role of meta-communication in strategic management10. Meta-communication refers to reflecting on the way communication happens, its patterns, and its effects on the organization. When organizations engage in strategizing, they're not just making decisions about the direction or goals; they're also communicating about these decisions. It's the process of reflecting on how the organization communicates its intentions, plans, and actions both internally and externally.

One challenge in meta-communication is establishing clear boundaries between reflective communication (strategic discussions, planning, and analysis) and ordinary communication (daily interactions, routine information exchange). It's essential to ensure that strategic reflections don't get lost or diluted in day-to-day operations.

Even if boundaries are initially set, maintaining them over time can be challenging. As organizations evolve, there's a risk that strategic discussions might become diluted or sidelined in favor of immediate operational needs. Sometimes, the strategic reflection might become disconnected from actual implementation due to various factors such as organizational structure, communication gaps, or resistance to change. Reconnecting these processes ensures that strategic decisions are effectively translated into action, or are revised if signals show that they are not working.

Effective communication - Bridging differing perspectives for strategy implementation

Effective organizational communication is crucial for strategizing. However, achieving objectivity in assessing the environment—especially in the context of strategy—is difficult. The environment is complex, dynamic, and often ambiguous. Factors like biases, incomplete information, and differing perspectives within the organization can hinder the objective assessment of the environment.

In terms of strategy, different departments within an organization might have varied perceptions of safety risks. A production team might prioritize efficiency, while the safety team might emphasize risk mitigation. Bridging these perspectives requires effective communication and an understanding of the challenges each department faces. Strategy may also help resolve the conflicts and facilitate balancing competing issues.

Conclusion

Strategizing involves observing, preparing, implementing, and reflecting; a task fraught with conflicts. In uncertain times, continuous observation and decision-making are even more important. So, understanding how strategies impact safety within high-risk systems remains a discussion we should have.

Notes:

1 Reason, J. (2000), Human error: models and management, in: BMJ. 2000 Mar 18; 320(7237): 768–770; doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.

2 In defense of top management: while their decisions exert significant influence, we must acknowledge that their decisions are often constrained by various factors and contextual circumstances. @Stian Antonsen humorously illustrated this during a talk by using a picture of Dr. Evil, implying that management is frequently misrepresented as inherently evil.

3 See: Reason, J. (1990) Human Error; although, to be fair to Reason, he warned against the “Person approach” and advocated for a System approach; See Reason, J. (2000).

4 e.g. Turner, 1994; Hopkins, 2014, Hopkins, 2019.

5 Le Coze, J.C. (2019), Safety as Strategy: Mistakes, Failures and Fiascos in High-Risk Systems. Safety Science, 116, 259-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.023; Perrow, C. (1984), Normal Accidents.

6 Eastman wrote about: “The Powers that Be”; Heinrich about: “employers and executives”.

7 Eastman, C. (1911), The Three Essentials for Accident Prevention, in: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 38, No. 1, pages 98-107.

8 Palm, T., Suntjens, A. (2022), Met een harde knal schiet de betonspuit los – wat er misgaat in het ‘veiligste bouwproject van Nederland’, in: NRC, 18 februari 2022.

9 Brinkmann, U. (2011), Die unsichtbare Faust des Marktes - Betriebliche Kontrolle und Koordination im Finanzmarktkapitalismus, Berlin: edition sigma.

10 Rasche, A., Seidl, D. (2017), A Luhmannian perspective on strategy: Strategy as paradox and meta-communication, Crit Perspect Account (2017), https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.03.004

?