Skip to main content
Log in

Coordination in high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierly PE, Spender J-C (1995) Culture and high-reliability organizations—the case of the nuclear submarine. J Manage 21:639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (2005) The social structures of the economy. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S (2003) Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Appl Ergon 34:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP (2001) Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q 46:685–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery FE (1959) Characteristics of socio-technical systems. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington-Darby T, Pickup L, Wilson JR (2005) Safety culture in railway maintenance. Saf Sci 43:39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48:94–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manage J 48:741–763

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale AR, Swuste P (1998) Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Saf Sci 29:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale AR, Heijer T, Koornneef F (2003) Management of safety rules: the case of railways. Saf Sci Monit 7:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath C, Svensson MS, Hindmarsh J, Luff P, vom Lehn D (2002) Configuring awareness. Comput Support Coop Work 11:317–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Grenville JA (2005) The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role of agency and organizational context. Organ Sci 16:618–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein JA (1991) A reexamination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices. Hum Relat 44:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte TR, Consolini PM (1991) Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of high-reliability organizations. J-PART 1:19–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton R (1998) Not working to rule: understanding procedural violations at work. Saf Sci 28:77–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leplat J (1998) About implementation of safety rules. Saf Sci 29:189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris P (1996) The politics of uncertainty: attachment in private and public life. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Am Sociol Rev 32:194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Power M (2004) The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J, Parker D, Lawton R (1998) Organizational controls and safety: the varieties of rule-related behaviour. J Occup Organ Psychol 71:289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41:322–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermersch P (1985) Donées d’observation sur l’utilisation d’une consigne écrite: L’atomisation de l’action. Trav Hum 48:161–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall TD, Cordery JL, Clegg CW (2002) Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: a theoretical integration. Appl Psychol 51:146–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm Sci Q 21:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1987) Organizational culture as a source of high-reliability. Calif Manage Rev 29:112–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations—heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38:357–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD, Shattuck LG (2000) Distant supervision-local action given the potential for surprise. Cogn Technol Work 2:242–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gudela Grote.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0119-y

Keywords

Navigation