Reach equilibrium for resilience: between proactivity and reactivity in a responsible construction sector Sylvaine MERCURI CHAPUIS Professor in Management Sciences Esdes, The Business School of Ucly 10 place des archives – 69002 – Lyon, France E-mail:
[email protected] Camille DE BOVIS Professor in Management Sciences Magellan Research Centre - IAE - University Jean Moulin Lyon 3 6 cours Albert Thomas - 69008 - Lyon, France Tel.: + 33 (0)6 88 92 09 04 E-mail:
[email protected]
Sub-Theme 19: Resilience and Meaningful Work
In this paper, we discuss new perspectives to engage actors of the construction sector more specifically in organizational resiliency trough the responsible management policy. We focus on a particular stakeholders‟ expectation: safety. It is essential to understand how it is managed locally to commit employees to meaningfulness (awareness capabilities, risk mitigation…). Through a case study conducted in the construction sector, safety practices and risk mitigation are observed through the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and High Reliability Organization (HRO). This analysis helps to understand how to reach resiliency: actors have to locally balance proactivity and reactivity attitudes, through a back and forth strategy.
Theoretical background CSR is a management style to overcome constraints. It corresponds to specific expectations for employees: consideration of their welfare, their safety, their health or their conditions of employment. CSR, Human Resources (HR) and risk management refer together to societal decisions initiated at different levels : by managing human risks and improving safety, social relationships are pacified and they improve performances and companies follow a natural path to fulfill their social responsibilities. The mission is to assume and to implement actions to promote establishment and development of CSR. All these actions become strength but have
1
to be relayed locally and some more tangible actions linked to the concept of HRO are appropriated to apprehend these security issues.
HRO generate a great capacity for committing operational errors that may degenerate into catastrophes. Members of HRO have great capabilities to identify and recognize latent mistakes, to mitigate them, before they turn into crises. According to Koenig inside them a double mechanism of organizational resilience operates (2007): 1) avoiding the exit of the system out of the security wrap; 2) bringing the ability to the system to go back into the wrap after it came out. This theorization has the advantage to identified risks, but also uncertainty. Actors are encouraged to project themselves. HRO theorization is dynamic; organizations are adaptive organizational constructs. They continuously adapt to survive into a world where environment grows in complexity (Weick & al., 1999). Actors are interested in a tight analyze of human interrelations, economic performance, and environmental goals (both at the external and internal levels). Through reliability, focus fits on operations, processes and systems. Mitigation of risk is intended primarily to protect people and material property. HRO are based on collective mind thought „heedful interaction‟ principle grounded on three inter-acting dimensions: contribution, representation and subordination (table 1). This system provides the basis for resilience: it gives individuals the capacity to: 1) develop new solutions, 2) change roles quickly and 3) maintain trust. Four sources of resilience are identified: 1) improvisation and bricolage; 2) virtual role systems; 3) wisdom as attitude, and 4) respectful interaction. All this is made possible by the structuring of the unit into a cohesive entity and the possibilities put in place for taking decisions at decentralized level, which in turn create a very robust system of communication (Roberts et al., 2005. p.3) Table 1 : Heedful interrelation (Weick & Roberts, 1993)
2
Through this literature we use a comprehensive model to discuss how people combined proactive and reactive attitudes. Research gap and approach taken Without claiming a responsible management, HRO have the same characteristics. Vigilance is not a replication of performance, but a perpetual change to follow the contingency of the situations (Ryle, 1949). Actors focus their interests on collective procedures to establish security. To eliminate disasters means to be aware to all weak signals to treat them adequately. These signals are not those expected as harbingers of disaster, but they can lead to incidents or accidents. Vigilance changes organization while creating a sense of action. Consciousness attached to situation creates mechanisms for developing fine adjustments to avoid and prevent errors accumulation (Weick & al., 1999). Analysis is conveyed through knowledge of stakeholders, by their ability to receive weak signals, and quickly propose an answer (de Bovis, 2006). Vigilance is related to action and its meaning. Organizations must identify risk situations to deal with, and to invent new responses. This implies a propensity to speak freely, accept decision and commitment into action that can achieve both field workers and the general management. Although CSR and HRO work separately, yet it seems that the concepts based on similarities such as the balance between proactive and reactive management, both operationally and generally.
The main question is: is responsible management increased resilience in the construction sector? To develop such research gap Table 2 below highlights their interactions. Table 2: CSR and HRO, balancing proactivity and reactivity of local actors An integrated approach : “Company cannot exist without the aspirations of individuals who work there and the social and environmental consequences of their activities for the communities in which they operate”
Proactivity
Reactivity
CSR Standards : ISO 26000, ISO 14001, ISO 9001, OSHAS 18001 Laws : GRI, NRE (France) HR policies (ethical, moral and prevention values) Definition of risk acceptability Knowledge about stakeholders
Taking into account the stakeholders Implementing new management practices Innovation HR managers supervising Nature of risks and compartmentalization
HRO Knowledge of latent errors Complexity of the environment Detailed analysis of situations Identification of weaknesses Consideration of a joint-action system (representation) Knowledge of several actors Reducing the accumulation of errors Advertence Adaptation and adaptability Flexibility Subordination to action Contribution to action Acute adjustments Variety development Catching the present and future opportunities 3
Methods of analysis and main findings Based on mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006), we followed an exploratory research. The construction sector company is committed and pioneer in responsible practices. Thus, we collected data to: - Elaborate a case study based on board meetings, safety and security meetings, with the representative instance of workers. - Analyze institutional documents (covering the period from 2011 to 2013); - Conduct a quantitative inquiry based on 171 items and sent to 354 respondents; - Conduct a qualitative inquiry bases on 25 semi-structured interviews from different workers.
The case study shows a company both proactive and reactive. A set of security procedures supports management. Some reactive activities are institutionalized (pow-wow and Practice Observation Visit). Members of HR or security and safety department coordinate for regularly update practices. They cannot be separate from actors‟ perceptions. As a result, it is important to share a common vision based on an understanding of both personal and collective situations of risk. This requires a regular updating to take into account collective dimensions and vigilance, via heedful interaction: subordination, representation and contribution (Weick & al., 1999). These principles are common with a socially responsible behavior: "we cannot play with men, as we play with money" says an employee, "and for me, as I involve men, there is respect for individuals and a respect for their physical integrity". An integrated approach is confirmed.
To adapt or adjust, individuals will fit into "a living coordinated network" (Rochlin, 1993). Good relations with colleagues and direct hierarchy allow this and exemplarity is fundamental. Security aspects could be included in annual interviews. The very good interpersonal communication is an asset to generate leading and responsible practices. Everyone acting with the company have to embed to correctly mitigating risks. Individuals will face risky situations through various channels and the more the representation of the situation will be consistent with safety, the more individuals will be committed.
Finally, be responsible for top and local management means questioning the nature of risks. Societal risks have a legal dimension, but also an ethical dimension. Public opinion, social acceptability of risk and media are new factors companies have to consider when they defined the level of risk acceptability. Beyond a constraint, to consider societal risks is an opportunity 4
to develop responsible practices. This practice would be a way: (1) to increase confidence of different stakeholders and maintain a good reputation by facilitating communication; (2) to meet multiple regulatory constraints (Périlhon, 2007).
How the paper links with the sub-theme 19 and overall theme of the conference In practice, CSR focus on social and individual implications of stakeholders, their interactions and their behaviors. Therefore, as highlighted by the Laemos Conference‟s sub-theme 19, we are interested in “the awareness the actors do in practice and how they accomplish resilience”. Literature is significant and we believe that it can help researchers to better understand how cognition and behavior create meaning from work. Normative expectations need to balance with heedful interrelations to increase meaningfulness and resilience.
References (indicative bibliography): Creswell, J. W and Plano Clark, V.L. (2006): Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 1st edition, Sage Publications Inc. de Bovis, C. (2006): « Développer la Fiabilité du Travail : les différentes formes de perception comme outil », Congrès AGRH, Reims, France, (16-17 novembre 2006). Koenig G, (2007): Karlene Roberts : l‟exigence de Fiabilité. Loillier et Letellier, Les grands auteurs en stratégie. EMS-management & société. Périlhon P. (2007): Gestion des risques, Méthode MADS MOSAR II, Manuel de mise en œuvre, Paris : Editions Démos. Roberts KH, V Desai, P Madsen, D Van Stralen, (2005) “Organizational Reliability, Flexibility and Security, in Quality and Safety. Health Care”, (June 1), 14(3), pp.216-2 Rochlin, G.I. (1993): “Defining « high reliability » organizations in practice: A taxonomic prologue”, in Roberts, New challenges to understanding organizations, p.11-32. Ryle, G, (1949): the concept of Mind, Hutchinsons University Library, London, 343 p. Weick K.E., Roberts K. (1993): “Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol 38, pp.357-381. Weick K.E, Sutcliffe K., Obstfeld D., (1999): “Organizing for High reliability: Processes of collective Mindfulness”, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, pp.81-123.
5
