Organizing Risk: Organization and Management Theory for the Risk Society

Abstract

Risk has become a crucial part of organizing, affecting a wide range of organizations in all sectors. We identify, review and integrate diverse literatures relevant to organizing risk, building on an existing framework that describes how risk is organized in three 'modes' -prospectively, in realtime, and retrospectively. We then identify three critical issues in the existing literature: its fragmented nature; its neglect of the tensions associated with each of the modes; and its tendency to assume that the meaning of an object in relation to risk is singular and stable. We provide a series of new insights with regard to each of these issues. First, we develop the concept of a risk cycle that shows how organizations engage with all three modes and transition between them over time. Second, we explain why the tensions have been largely ignored and show how studies using a risk work perspective can provide further insights into them. Third, we develop the concept of risk translation to highlight the ways in the meanings of risks can be transformed and to identify the political consequences of such translations. We conclude the paper with a research agenda to elaborate these insights and ideas further.

Risk assessment without the risk? A controversy about security and risk in Norway

“…When something goes wrong, an approach that does not take probability into account corresponds, in M8 and other's experience, with the public's hindsight judgements. Prospective organizations of risks (risk assessment arrangements) are influenced by anticipated, retrospective actions and responsibilities in the future (audits and blame) (Hardy et al 2020).…”

A Paradox Approach to Societal Tensions during the Pandemic Crisis

“…If there is a silver lining to this state of affairs, it might be in shaping a paradox research agenda for global crises. A recent review of the risk literature by Hardy et al (2020) shows that paradox researchers would be wise to study the organizing of risk. Although these authors do not write about paradox per se, they depict organizations as sites for the production, measurement, and handling of risks that they are increasingly unable to control, especially in global environments and crises.…”

“…Such insight could help us understand the role of equifinal meanings in global crisis organizing. Hardy et al (2020) would also urge us to look at the aforementioned risk translations of U.S. mainstream and conservative media and to consider them as part of a global ecology of risks where risks translated by numerous actors on the world stage interact to shape the meaning of a risk object over time. They are sites for paradox and tension because translations can diverge but coalesce over time to shape debate without concerted action, another key insight for global crisis organizing.…”

Accountability infrastructures: Pragmatic compliance inside organizations

“…Frequently, an “ad hoc, high profile committee or panel, often commissioned by governments,” is formed “ostensibly to investigate, reflect on and learn from what happened” (Hardy et al . 2020, p. 18). These can be spectacular, headline‐grabbing inquiries such as that following the Challenger and Columbia space exploration disasters (Vaughan 1996, 2006, 2020); the Exxon Valdez and Erika oil spills (Fourcade 2011); the Deepwater Horizon (Mills & Koliba 2015), Chernobyl (Ballard 1988; Medvedev 1992; Petryna 2004), and Bhopal explosions (Fortun 2001); contaminated blood transfusions (Setbon 1993); and a host of less‐spectacular catastrophes.…”