Abstract
In this article, we link the literatures on organizational routines and the management of uncertainties in order to establish the concept of flexible routines. Supported by flexible rules, this type of routine is argued to help achieve the right balance between standardization and flexibility, thus enabling resilience through loose coupling in high-risk organizations. The operationalization of the concept of flexible routine can help strategic decision-making regarding the design of high-risk systems as well as operational decision-making in the course of handling complex work processes. To underpin these arguments, findings from a case study on rules management in a railway organization are presented, where alignment of rules with the amount of uncertainty and actors’ competencies for handling uncertainties were analyzed. Implications for future research on flexible routines are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amalberti R (1999) Risk management by regulation. Paper presented at the 19th Myron B Laver International postgraduate course risk management, Department of Anaesthesia, University of Basel, Switzerland, March 26–27, 1999
Becker MC, Knudsen T (2005) The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. J Bus Res 58:746–757
Bierly PE, Spender J-C (1995) Culture and high-reliability organizations—the case of the nuclear submarine. J Manage 21:639–656
Bourdieu P (2005) The social structures of the economy. Polity Press, Cambridge
Bourrier M (1998) Constructing organizational reliability: the problem of embeddedness and duality. In: Misumi J (ed) Nuclear safety: a human factors perspective. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 25–48
Dekker S (2003) Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Appl Ergon 34:233–238
Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP (2001) Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q 46:685–716
Emery FE (1959) Characteristics of socio-technical systems. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London
Farrington-Darby T, Pickup L, Wilson JR (2005) Safety culture in railway maintenance. Saf Sci 43:39–60
Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48:94–118
Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manage J 48:741–763
Gilson LL, Mathieu JE, Shalley CE, Ruddy TM (2005) Creativity and standardization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Acad Manage J 48:521–531
Gouldner A (1959) Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory. In Gross L (ed) Symposium on social theory. Harper Row, New York
Grote G (1997) Autonomie und Kontrolle - Zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme. vdf Hochschulverlag, Zürich
Grote G (2004a) Organizational measures for achieving loose coupling in high-risk systems: the importance of systematic rules management. Paper presented at the IEEE-Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, The Hague, October 2004
Grote G (2004b) Uncertainty management at the core of system design. Ann Rev Control 28:267–274
Grote G, Zala-Mezö E, Grommes P (2004) The effects of different forms of coordination in coping with work load. In: Dietrich R, Childress TM (eds) Group interaction in high-risk environments. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 39–55
Hale AR, Heijer T (2006) Is resilience really necessary? The case of railways. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, London, pp 125–148
Hale AR, Swuste P (1998) Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Saf Sci 29:163–177
Hale AR, Heijer T, Koornneef F (2003) Management of safety rules: the case of railways. Saf Sci Monit 7:1–11
Heath C, Svensson MS, Hindmarsh J, Luff P, vom Lehn D (2002) Configuring awareness. Comput Support Coop Work 11:317–347
Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, London
Howard-Grenville JA (2005) The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role of agency and organizational context. Organ Sci 16:618–636
Klein JA (1991) A reexamination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices. Hum Relat 44:21–38
LaPorte TR, Consolini PM (1991) Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of high-reliability organizations. J-PART 1:19–48
Lawton R (1998) Not working to rule: understanding procedural violations at work. Saf Sci 28:77–95
Leplat J (1998) About implementation of safety rules. Saf Sci 29:189–204
Marris P (1996) The politics of uncertainty: attachment in private and public life. Routledge, London
Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Orton JD, Weick KE (1990) Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization. Acad Manage Rev 15:203–223
Perrow C (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Am Sociol Rev 32:194–208
Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Basic Books, New York
Power M (2004) The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demos, London
Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213
Reason J, Parker D, Lawton R (1998) Organizational controls and safety: the varieties of rule-related behaviour. J Occup Organ Psychol 71:289–304
Reynaud B (2005) The void at the heart of rules: routines in the context of rule-following. The case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Ind Corp Change 14:847–871
Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41:322–338
Vermersch P (1985) Donées d’observation sur l’utilisation d’une consigne écrite: L’atomisation de l’action. Trav Hum 48:161–172
Wall TD, Cordery JL, Clegg CW (2002) Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: a theoretical integration. Appl Psychol 51:146–169
Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm Sci Q 21:1–19
Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing. McGraw-Hill, New York
Weick KE (1987) Organizational culture as a source of high-reliability. Calif Manage Rev 29:112–127
Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations—heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38:357–381
Woods DD, Shattuck LG (2000) Distant supervision-local action given the potential for surprise. Cogn Technol Work 2:242–245
Wright P, Pocock S, Fields B (1998) The prescription and practice of work on the flight deck. In: Green TRG (ed) Proceedings from the 9th European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE9). EACE Press, Limerick, pp 37–42
Acknowledgment
We thank our project partners at the Swiss Federal Railways and the Swiss Federal Transport Agency for financial support as well as for the stimulating and fruitful cooperation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grote, G., Weichbrodt, J.C., Günter, H. et al. Coordination in high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines. Cogn Tech Work 11, 17–27 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0119-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0119-y