How logical is safety? An institutional logics perspective on safety at work.
Pieter A Cornelissen, Mark Van Vuuren, Joris J Van Hoof
PMID 32417821WHAT IT FOUND
Railroad supervisors justified safety using different workplace logics: profit, professional expertise, and hierarchy.
When these logics clashed, safety decisions became harder and demands conflicted.
Key findings
01Interviewees explained safety-related behaviour through three institutional logics: market, profession, and corporation.
02Market logic appeared when safety performance was treated as an asset and when competition pressured safety against production.
03The interviews also showed complexity when incompatible prescriptions from the market, profession, and corporation logics met.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 22 supervisors from one railroad construction and maintenance organisation were interviewed, and all were male, so the themes may not fit other workplaces. The study reports interview themes, not measured safety outcomes, so it does not show that any workplace safety intervention reduces accidents or injuries. The authors excluded references to state and community logics because they were few or unclear, so the analysis may not capture all influences on safety.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that any safety programme or management message reduces accidents or injuries. It is a qualitative account of how supervisors explained safety decisions in one railroad organisation.