Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done

Abstract

In this study we identify the differences in goal realisation when applying two conflicting paradigms regarding rule perception and management. We gathered more than 30 scenarios where goal conflicts were apparent in a military operational unit. We found that operators repetitively utilized certain routines in executing their tasks in an effort to realize several conflicting goals. These routines were not originally intended nor designed into the rules and not explicitly included in documentation. They were not necessarily at odds with the literal wording and/or the intent of rules and regulations, although we did find examples of this. Our data showed that local ingenuity was created innovatively within the frame of existing rules or kept invisible to those outside the unit. The routines were introduced and passed on informally, and we found no evidence of testing for the introduction of new risks, no migration into the knowledge base of the organisation, and no dissemination as new best practices. An explanation for this phenomenon was found in the fact that the military organisation was applying a top-down, classical, rational approach to rules. In contrast, the routines were generated by adopting a constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions with operators as experts. The results of this study suggest that organisations are more effective in solving goal conflicts and creating transparency on local ingenuity if they adopt a constructivist paradigm instead of, or together with, a classical paradigm.

‘Ladder’‐based safety culture assessments inversely predict safety outcomes

“…these goal conflicts by employing what is called local ingenuity (Boskeljon-Horst et al, 2022): routines that help resolve goal conflicts and become part of the regular repertoire of operators, not necessarily contrary to the literal wording or intent of rules and procedures, but were not originally intended and not included in current documentation.…”

“…Within a complex setting, operators are faced with multiple goals that are often not compatible with one another (Woods et al, 2010). Operators find ways to deal with these goal conflicts by employing what is called local ingenuity (Boskeljon‐Horst et al, 2022): routines that help resolve goal conflicts and become part of the regular repertoire of operators, not necessarily contrary to the literal wording or intent of rules and procedures, but were not originally intended and not included in current documentation. How local ingenuity is employed to achieve safety, one of goals to be achieved, adds to the understanding of the workings of a complex system operators are part of and provides more insight than a SCA or an accident investigation.…”

Determining the Reliability of Critical Controls in Construction Projects

“…Individual risk-based decision making in the application of CCs (rules and/or barriers) is influenced by a complex interface of personal, work team, organizational and psychological factors [13,19,38]. Rules are perceived as 'guidance', with workers applying adaptive thinking to achieve work tasks and goals [42]. Further investigation into individual's decision making and the impact on CC implementation and effectiveness would benefit construction organizations looking to improve CC reliability.…”