IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i7p1383-1398.html

Understanding the Ecological Validity of Relying Practice as a Basis for Risk Identification

Author

Listed:
  • T. Anderson
  • J. S. Busby
  • M. Rouncefield

Abstract

Understanding the reliability of hazardous organizations and their protective systems is central to understanding the risk they produce. Work on “high reliability organization” has done much to illuminate the conditions in which social organization becomes reliable in highly demanding conditions. But risk depends just as much on how relying entities do their relying as it does on the reliability of the entities they rely on. Patterns of relying are often opaque in sociotechnical systems, and processes of relying and being relied on are mutually influencing in complex ways, so the relationship between relying and risk may not be at all obvious. This study was an attempt to study relying as a social practice, in particular analyzing how it had ecological validity in a social organization—how practice was responsive to the conditions in which it took place. This involved observational fieldwork and inductive, qualitative analysis on an offshore oil and gas production platform that was nearing the end of its design life and undergoing refurbishment. The analysis produced four main categories of ecological validity: responsiveness to formal organization, responsiveness to situational contingency, responsiveness to information asymmetry, and responsiveness to sociomateriality. This ecological validity of relying practice should be a primary focus of risk identification, assessing how relying can become mismatched to reliability in certain ways, both when relying practice is responsive to circumstances and when it is not.

Suggested Citation

  • T. Anderson & J. S. Busby & M. Rouncefield, 2020. "Understanding the Ecological Validity of Relying Practice as a Basis for Risk Identification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1383-1398, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:1383-1398
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13475
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13475?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Hamer Powell & Michael Hammond & Albert Chen & Navonil Mustafee, 2018. "Human Agency in Disaster Planning: A Systems Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1422-1443, July.
    2. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    3. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    4. Jan-Kees Schakel & Paul C. van Fenema & Samer Faraj, 2016. "Shots Fired! Switching Between Practices in Police Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 391-410, April.
    5. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    6. Robert Goble & Vicki Bier & Ortwin Renn, 2018. "Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1795-1801, September.
    7. Jerry Busby & Dominic Duckett, 2012. "Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1049-1074, October.
    8. Curtis LeBaron & Marlys K. Christianson & Lyndon Garrett & Roy Ilan, 2016. "Coordinating Flexible Performance During Everyday Work: An Ethnomethodological Study of Handoff Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 514-534, June.
    9. Karlene H. Roberts, 1990. "Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 160-176, May.
    10. Adnan Sarwar & Faisal Khan & Majeed Abimbola & Lesley James, 2018. "Resilience Analysis of a Remote Offshore Oil and Gas Facility for a Potential Hydrocarbon Release," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1601-1617, August.
    11. Hales, Douglas N. & Chakravorty, Satya S., 2016. "Creating high reliability organizations using mindfulness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2873-2881.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.
    13. Karlene H. Roberts & Suzanne K. Stout & Jennifer J. Halpern, 1994. "Decision Dynamics in Two High Reliability Military Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 614-624, May.
    14. Stacy E. Lom, 2016. "Changing Rules, Changing Practices: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Tight Coupling in Figure Skating," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 36-52, February.
    15. Josh Whitford & Francesco Zirpoli, 2014. "Pragmatism, Practice, and the Boundaries of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1823-1839, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    2. Dehua Gao & Aliakbar Akbaritabar, 2022. "Using agent-based modeling in routine dynamics research: a quantitative and content analysis of literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 521-550, February.
    3. Geoffrey Leuridan & Benoît Demil, 2022. "Exploring the dynamics of slack in extreme contexts," Post-Print hal-03931024, HAL.
    4. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    5. John W. Gardner & Kenneth K. Boyer & Peter T. Ward, 2017. "Achieving Time-Sensitive Organizational Performance Through Mindful Use of Technologies and Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1061-1079, December.
    6. Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Hart, Timothy A., 2020. "How employee behaviors effect organizational change and stability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-131.
    7. Tiziana Callari & Corinne Bieder & Barry Kirwan, 2019. "What is it like for a middle manager to take safety into account? Practices and challenges," Post-Print hal-01935746, HAL.
    8. J. S. Busby & A. M. Collins, 2014. "Organizational Sensemaking About Risk Controls: The Case of Offshore Hydrocarbons Production," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1738-1752, September.
    9. Ryan Krause & Michael C. Withers, 2022. "Propulsions Toward What Capes? Testing Normative Theory Through a Panorama of Consequences," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 317-333, November.
    10. Lisa Balzarin & Francesco Zirpoli, 2021. "How organizational identity and organizational routines affect each other through agency," Working Papers 04, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    11. Ignacio J. Martinez-Moyano & David P. McCaffrey & Rogelio Oliva, 2014. "Drift and Adjustment in Organizational Rule Compliance: Explaining the “Regulatory Pendulum” in Financial Markets," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 321-338, April.
    12. Léna Masson & Julienne Brabet, 2018. "The paradoxes of externalization strategy in a safety critical industry," Post-Print hal-01765294, HAL.
    13. Yutaka Yamauchi & Takeshi Hiramoto, 2020. "Performative Achievement of Routine Recognizability: An Analysis of Order Taking Routines at Sushi Bars," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(8), pages 1610-1642, December.
    14. Michael J. Zyphur & Dean C. Pierides, 2017. "Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Tae Wan Kim & Thomas Donaldson, 2018. "Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 5-20, March.
    16. Johannessen, Idar A. & McArthur, Philip W. & Jonassen, Jan R., 2015. "Informal leadership redundancy: Balancing structure and flexibility in subsea operations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 409-423.
    17. Nathalie Lazaric, 2021. "Cognition and Routine Dynamics," Post-Print halshs-03402421, HAL.
    18. Patrick Sailer & Georg Josef Loscher & Stephan Kaiser, 2024. "Coordinated Interdependence: How Patterning Governs Flexibility in a Routine Cluster," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1884-1915, July.
    19. Tom Steinberger & Ju Yeon Jung, 2019. "Designing the microstructure of routines," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:1383-1398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.