Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review

Abstract

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

Safety Management Systems as communication in an oil and gas producing company

“…], trough documented experiences, best practices, and expert references'' (Norheim and Fjellheim, 2007:2). Keeping these documents up to date is important, and although most documents are developed according to a top-down approach, a Safety Management System can also be an instrument for knowledge flow the other way so the practical experience and implicit knowledge of the workers can be incorporated in the living documents (Hale et al, in press;Hale and Borys, 2013;Blakstad et al, 2010;Bragatto et al, 2010). Safety Management Systems are integrated mechanisms in the organizations, and the purpose is to control the hazards that can affect workers' health and safety , to maintain risk within an acceptable range in the operations of any organization , and to help the organization meet the regulatory requirements .…”

The Relative Factors Shaping Construction Workers' Behaviors and Leading to Accidents

“…Despite having the necessary improvement of safety condition or safety technology, workers frequently choose to violate safety rules, procedures or not use protective equipment for their own proposes [43]. Therefore, it is wise to discover the influencing factors of these workers' behaviors which consequentially result in unsafe actions and potentially lead to an accident.…”

Improving Organisational Health and Safety Performance: Theoretical Framework and Contemporary Approaches

“…Organisations which use SSW for controlling and managing unsafe behaviour with the above mindset are unlikely to experience any visible improvements in safety performance. In spite of these, human error and safety rules continue to be subject of interest; with recent research suggesting that flexibility in the applications of such rules are critical to their success [93]. In the construction industry for example, such flexibility has been suggested, for example; in safe work method statements (SWIMS) being reserved for tasks that are out of the ordinary instead of every-day construction work, used as a cognitive artefact, and as a tool for social interactions [94] [95].…”