Negotiating Safety by Movements: Articulation, Alignment and Separation between Train Driving and Railway Traffic Controlling Activities
Abstract
This article explores the negotiation of safety between two distinct activity systems that operate jointly on a daily basis: train driving and railway traffic controlling. We have employed cultural-historical activity theory and an ethnographic case study of a large European passenger and freight transport company to pinpoint three different types of movement underpinning the negotiation of safety. These different movements can be found in work organization, work situations, and workers’ actions. The negotiation of safety would appear to be based on the movements of articulation (articulation, disarticulation, re-articulation), alignment (alignment, misalignment, realignment), and separation (separation, re-separation, de-separation) between activity systems. Within the framework of activity theory, we have used evidence from highly reliable organizations and the management of high-risk organizations to offer a better understanding of the movements between activity systems in safety negotiation.
Downloads
References
Cambon-Bessières, L. & De Terssac, G. (2009). Savoir évaluer la situation pour doser l’action dans les prisons. In G. De Terssac, I. Boissières & I. Gaillard (Eds.), La sécurité en action (pp. 133–144). Octarès.
De Terssac, G. & Mignard, J. (2011). Les paradoxes de la sécurité. Le cas d’AZF. Presses universitaires de France.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7(5), 395–412. doi: 10.1016/0933-3657(95)00012-U
Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1), 63–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1008648532192
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires. Organization, 7(2), 301–310. doi: 10.1177/135050840072006
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747
Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1–2), 11–21. doi: 10.1108/13665620410521477
Engeström, Y. (2006). Development, movement and agency: Breaking away into mycorrhizae activities. In K. Yamazumi (Ed.), Building activity theory in practice: Toward the next generation (pp. 1–43). Kansai University.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Quand le centre se dérobe: la notion de knotworking et ses promesses. Sociologie du travail, 50(3), 303–330. doi: 10.4000/sdt.19398
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2011). Théorie de l’activité et management. Management & Avenir, 2(42), 170–182. doi: 10.3917/mav.042.0170
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Pihlaja, J., Helle, M., Virkkunen, J. et al. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. doi: 10.1108/09534811111132758
Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices: Canon or dissonance? Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 419–436. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00298
Gilbert, P., Raulet-Croset, N., Mourey, D. & Triomphe, C. (2013). Pour une contribution de la théorie de l’activité au changement organisationnel. @GRH, 2(7), 67–88. doi: 10.3917/grh.132.0067
Grusenmeyer, C. (2009). Interactions maintenance-exploitation et sécurité – La gestion de l’information relative aux interventions de maintenance lors d’un arrêt programmé sur une chaufferie nucléaire. In G. De Terssac, I. Boissières & I. Gaillard (Eds.), La sécurité en action (pp. 85–101). Octarès.
Hollnagel, E. (2014). Resilience engineering and the built environment. Building Research & Information, 42(2), 221–228. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.862607
Journé, B. (2017). Le modèle de la haute fiabilité et ses implications managériales. In P. Chaumette (Ed.), Challenge économique et maîtrise des nouveaux risques maritimes. Quelle croissance bleue ? (pp. 363–374). Gomylex.
Journé, B. & Stimec, A. (2015). Négociation et sûreté. Un état de l’art. Les cahiers de la sécurité industrielle, 2015(3). Retrieved from https://www.foncsi.org/fr/publications/cahiers-securite-industrielle/negociation-surete-etat-art
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. doi: 10.2307/259349
Licoppe, C. (2008). Dans le «carré de l’activité»: perspectives internationales sur le travail et l’activité. Sociologie du travail, 50(3), 287–302. doi: 10.1016/j.soctra.2008.06.002
Lorino, P. (2009). Concevoir l’activité collective conjointe: l’enquête dialogique. Étude de cas sur la sécurité dans l’industrie du bâtiment. Activités, 6(1), 87–110. doi: 10.4000/activites.2154
Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. doi: 10.2307/259200
Owen, C. (2008). Analysing joint work between activity systems. Activités, 5(2), 52–69. doi: 10.4000/activites.2040
Owen, C., Bearman, C., Brooks, B., Chapman, J. et al. (2013). Developing a research framework for complex multi–team coordination in emergency management. International Journal of Emergency Management, 9(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1504/IJEM.2013.054098
Rochlin, G. I. (1993). Essential friction: Error-control in organizational behavior. In N. Åkerman (Ed.), The necessity of friction (pp. 196–232). Physica-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-95905-9_11
Rochlin, G. I., La Porte, T. R. & Roberts, K. H. (1987). The self-designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Naval War College Review, 40(4), 76–92.
Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A. (1988). The articulation of project work: An organizational process. Sociological Quarterly, 29(2), 163–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1988.tb01249.x
Tillement, S., Cholez, C. & Reverdy, T. (2009). Assessing organizational resilience: An interactionist approach. M@n@gement, 12(4), 230–264. doi: 10.3917/mana.124.0230
Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2), 112–127. doi: 10.2307/41165243
Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in and age of uncertainty. Jossey-Bass.
Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H. & Kamsteeg, F. H. (Eds.). (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life. Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446278925
Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the AIMS.
Published by 