The paper reviews the literature from 1986 on the management of those safety rules and procedures which relate to the workplace level in organisations. It contrasts two different paradigms of how rules and their development and use are perceived and managed. The first is a top-down classical, rational approach in which rules are seen as static, comprehensive limits of freedom of choice, imposed on operators at the sharp end and violations are seen as negative behaviour to be suppressed. The second is a bottom-up constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions of operators as experts, where competence is seen to a great extent as the ability to adapt rules to the diversity of reality. The paper explores the research underlying and illustrating these two paradigms, drawn from psychology, sociology and ethnography, organisational studies

Part 1, the companion paper to this paper (Hale & Borys 2012, this issue) reviews the literature from 1986 on the management of those safety rules and procedures which relate to the workplace level in organisations. It contrasts two different paradigms of how work rules and their development and use are perceived and managed. The first is a top-down classical, rational approach in which rules are seen as static, comprehensive limits of freedom of choice, imposed on operators at the sharp end and violations are seen as negative behaviour to be suppressed. The second is a bottom-up constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions of operators as experts, where competence is seen to a great extent as the ability to adapt rules to the diversity of reality. That paper explores the research underlying and illustrating these two paradigms. In this second paper we draw on that literature study to propose a framework of rule management which attempts to draw the lessons from both paradigms. It places the monitoring and adaptation of rules central to its management process and emphasises the need for participation of the intended rule followers in the processes of rule-making, but more importantly in keeping those rules alive and up to date in a process of regular and explicit dialogue with first-line supervision, and through them with the technical, safety and legal experts on the system functioning. The framework is proposed for testing in the field as a benchmark for good practice.

The aim of this study was to determine how managers and workers interpret and use safe work method statements (SWMS) in the Australian construction industry in order to explore if there was a gap between work as imagined and work as performed. Despite recent improvements in its safety performance, the Australian construction industry continues to be among the top four most dangerous industries within which to work. SWMS are a key strategy relied upon by the construction industry to reduce this toll. However, few, if any studies have looked at the role of SWMS in creating a safe workplace. This ethnographic study focused on the role of SWMS at two commercial construction sites in Australia. The researcher spent six months 'getting to know' the organisation before conducting 18 semistructured interviews spanning labourers, supervisors and managers. The researcher also collected examples of completed SWMS. This study found: (1) that SWMS are important for safety, particularly for tasks that are out of the ordinary; (2) that social interaction as well as SWMS are important for safety; (3) gaps do exist between work as imagined in a SWMS and work as performed in practice, but in the minds of those on site, there were no unresolved gaps; (4) therefore construction companies must identify and resolve the gaps between SWMS, practice and task demands to make construction sites a safer place to work.

There is a strong political consensus in a number of countries that occupational safety and health regulation is stifling industrial innovation and development and is feeding a culture of damaging risk aversion and petty bureaucracy. In a number of countries this has led to proposals to repeal regulations and reduce the regulatory burden. The authors were commissioned to prepare a discussion paper on this issue by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, aimed particularly at an American audience.The paper is based on previous work of the first two authors, developing a framework of safety rule management at the workplace level (Hale & Borys 2012a and b). Based on a literature study, this paper analyses the similarities and differences between rules at the workplace level and the development, use and enforcement of regulations at the national level to influence and control organisational behaviour. It traces the forces encouraging the growth of regulatory detail and hence the bureaucratic burden of compliance and the options open to reduce that burden without loosening control so much that the level of safety declines. The analysis uses the hierarchy of rules from goals, through process (risk management) rules to detailed action rules as framework for predicting the level of ownership and responsibility felt by the regulated.

No abstract