On the Edge: Heeding the Warnings of Unusual Events

Abstract

When organizations pay inadequate attention to unusual events, the possibility of breaching a safety barrier increases. With hindsight it often appears that full advantage is not taken of what is known. Part of the reason organizations neglect apparent warnings is because of limited resources and the way resources are allocated. Drawing on concepts from the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, this paper examines situations where resource availability and use can compromise safety by initiating drift. Empirical evidence from the nuclear power industry is reviewed to demonstrate the relationship between resources, resource deployment, and drift. Drift is influenced by error signals, feedback loops, and imperfect watchfulness. Resource availability and use can initiate drift, but they do not necessarily yield catastrophe. Should organizations fall into a threatened position, they can enlist characteristics, behaviors, and capabilities to stabilize the situation, avoid breaching the safety border, and achieve greater security. Through an in-depth study of two plants with contrasting reputations for safety, this paper identifies the characteristics, behaviors, and capabilities that organizations on the edge exhibit. The characteristics, behaviors, and capabilities of the plant with the stronger safety reputation changed after a significant reduction of resources. Resource reduction led to movement toward the safety border, which in turn led to change. Evidence shows that organizations operating closer to the border of safety respond to warnings from unusual events in a resilient rather than anticipatory way. To overcome unexpected problems and limitations, they rely on after-the-fact intervention rather than preparation, foresight, and the provision of countermeasures. Once they recognize they have problems, they explore for novel approaches, typically seeking new knowledge and skills by dismissing old staff and hiring new people, buying advice from outside experts or consultants, and modeling, benchmarking, and copying other organizations' best practices. Organizations on the edge initiate change in response to external demands for change often only after painful public incidents. These organizations emphasize hierarchy and powerful headquarters staff, and their leaders tend to act as commanders and controllers rather than as catalysts and facilitators. The focus of this paper is not on the occurrence of accidents per se, nor on highly reliable operations, but on the precursors and consequences of drift within a safety border. Operating on the edge of the border extends beyond safety to other performance measures and beyond nuclear power to other industries. In settings as diverse as U.S. banks, hospitals, and universities, Israeli kibbutzim, Japanese kereitsu, and Korean chaebol, operating on the edge has become more common.

Too Much Is as Bad as Too Little? Sources of the Intention-Achievement Gap in Sustainable Innovation

“…In doing so, our paper stands to make significant contributions to extant research. First, this study contributes to the literature on competitive environmental strategy [28][29][30][31] by showing that environmental innovation, if well implemented with respect to external knowledge utilization, can serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage. Second, our paper makes a contribution to research on organization learning and technological innovation by highlighting the potential liability arising from external learning processes and thereby offering a more nuanced imagery of innovation dynamics for environmental sustainability.…”

Organizational Design and Restructuring in Response to Crises: Lessons from Computational Modeling and Real-World Cases

“…Observation 3. This pattern is not supported due to the insignificant results in the empirical data, which suggests that more exploration is needed to extend current organizational theories to nonconventional events or crisis situations (Carley andHarrald 1997, Marcus andNichols 1999).…”

“…Whether theories of organization can be applied to nonconventional events or crisis situations has largely been assumed but certainly not fully explored (Carley and Harrald 1997, Marcus and Nichols 1999, Perrow 1994. Crises are important organizational phenomena not only because they can cause severe consequences or even devastating disasters if not properly handled, but also because they are becoming inevitable, given the increasingly complex and technology-oriented processes of organizations (Perrow 1984, Shrivastava 1987.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Strategies: An Impact in Risk Management

“…Reputational capital, understood as the reputation earned or accrued until today, is influenced by the interaction between the companies with interest groups (stakeholders). Thus, this reputational capital is created when managers convince employees to work with commitment, to consumers to buy their products and investors to buy their shares; grows when managers convince analysts and media to praise the company and recommend its units, and finally destroyed when stakeholders lose confidence in the managers, products, expectations or jobs.In line with Vizcaino (2010), reputational risk can be classified into two types: The first is situational reputational risk, which is characterized as immediate, that is, it is impossible to anticipate RSC him to control the situation (Marcus and Nichols, 1999). For example, a terrorist attack.…”

“…First, measure the impact of CSR on social and economic development of the community (Garriga and Melé, 2004), and secondly the importance of CSR in building corporate reputation (Rayner, 2003;March and Shapira, 1987). The main aspect is about the impact and scope generated because, if the company decides to incorporate CSR into their strategic planning from the point of view of stakeholders, that is, considering all stakeholders associated with the company, then the perception of stakeholders on the actions and commitments of the company is positive, which strengthens the business reputation and reduce reputational risk.Also, two theories hold this research: the first is the theory of CSR from a viewpoint of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984;Mitchell et al, 1997; Kaptein and Van Tulder, 2003; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), the second is the theory of corporate reputation and reputational risk associated (Marcus and Nichols, 1999). Figure 1 in the Appendix shows the relationship between CSR and reputational risk.…”