The Contribution of Organizational Design to Safety

In this article, I argue that the study of the relationship between organizational design and safety has been largely neglected. Substantial progress has been made in social sciences by considering taking workers' practices and associated social inventions into account. By and large, the human factor community has also championed the view that for the sake of safety, individuals have regularly reinterpreted rules, procedures and formal organizations. Many studies have underlined the crucial role of the way in which members of an organization adjust to their formal environment, by redefining part of the framework in which they are supposed to operate. Nevertheless, other studies have also emphasized that some of these adjustments are deviances that can lead to catastrophic consequences. I suggest that this hazard and the on-going debate in which the community seems stuck--i.e. deviation versus deviance and how to allow for deviation while preventing deviance--might benefit from a new look at organizational design. It is generally accepted that organizational design is a process, mainly concerned with the formal elaboration of work settings, responsibilities, and collaborative frameworks. Current research suggests that the time is right to assess the broader effects of the costs (human, social, economic...) induced by alternative organizational designs. A new perspective on phenomena like "Normalization of Deviance" or "Necessary Violations" would enable both the human and organizational factor specialists and managers of these organizations to better understand the conditions which generate deviations. This in turn could clarify the contribution of organizational design to safety (and safety failure). Research experience in the civil nuclear industry will be used to develop this approach.