Internal Crisis Communication by Mats Heide

Author:Mats Heide
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2019-05-24T00:00:00+00:00

The normal accident theory (NAT)

There are two central theories regarding mistakes in organizations, which focus on macro factors such as leadership and organizational culture: the normal accident theory (NAT) and the high reliability organization (HRO) theory. These theories are often presented as being completely different and with different objects of focus (Sagan, 1993). One of the pillars of NAT is that serious accidents will always occur in complex, risky systems, despite all possible efforts to avoid them. This goes against HRO theory, which believes that learning from mistakes by focusing on security, and through a decentralized structure wherein organizational members are empowered to make important decisions. Below we will describe the theories in more detail.

Charles Perrow (1984) penned the term NAT. Perrow is interested in systemic complexity and the connections between the different components of a system. According to Perrow, it is impossible to avoid system accidents in a complex, closely connected system, such as process industry or hydropower. In fact, the risk that accidents will occur is actually higher in such a system, as nothing is perfect, and in such a complex system, even a small mistake can be deeply integrated and can lead to a major accident (Perrow, 1994). Complex, tightly interwoven systems can be contrasted with linear systems such as production lines, which are predictable, possible to stop, and, in most cases, visible. Such predictability does not exist in a complex system. If a mistake or accident occurs in a linear system, it usually does not occur again. According to Perrow, the solution is to make organizations more loosely coupled, that is to say, the departments in the organization become more independent and not as interdependent. This gives a bit of wiggle room, as individual units are not so closely linked. In turn, this reduces vulnerability, and organizational members become more flexible and are able to make faster decisions. Loosely coupled systems are, simply put, better equipped to adapt to changes. Examples of loosely coupled systems include universities and public administrations. The various units are, to a certain extent, governed by rules, regulations, instructions and so on, but they also have a high degree of independence. For example, negative events within one department at a university do not affect the other departments, and there is a fairly high degree of freedom for the institutions in relation to one another.

Questions for discussion

Perrow, who authored NAT, argues that organizations that are based on loosely coupled units are less vulnerable and more flexible, which makes it easier to manage mistakes and avoid big crises.

Are there any disadvantages to loosely coupled organizations? What are these disadvantages, and how can they be reduced?

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.