Other stories of resilient safety management in the Norwegian offshore sector: Resilience engineering, bullshit and the de-politicization of danger

Plessis, Erik Mygind du; Vandeskog, Bjarne

doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101096

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe this implies a critique of resilient thinking. Du Plessis and Vandeskog 42 illustrate some of the critique, claiming “resilience” to be a manifestation of “bullshit” believed to promote successful operations and thus legitimize management strategies. Hence, we realize that we need to pay attention to this ambiguity and ambivalence, upon exploring adaptive capacity and learning potential in practical supervisory context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Hospital Supervision: A Case Study of Regulatory Inspectors’ Roles as Potential Co-creators of Resilience

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to explore if, and in what ways, there has been changes in the supervisory approach toward Norwegian hospitals due to the implementation of a new management and quality improvement regulation (Regulation on Management and Quality Improvement in the Healthcare Services, hereinafter referred to as “Quality Improvement Regulation”). Moreover, we aimed to understand how inspectors’ work promotes or hampers resilience potentials of adaptive capacity and learning in hospitals. Methods The study design is a case study of implementation and impact of the Quality Improvement Regulation. We performed a document analysis, and conducted and analyzed 3 focus groups and 2 individual interviews with regulatory inspectors, recruited from 3 county governor offices who are responsible for implementation and supervision of the Quality Improvement Regulation in Norwegian regions. Results Data analysis resulted in 5 themes. Informants described no substantial change in their approach owing to the Quality Improvement Regulation. Regardless, data pointed to a development in their practices and expectations. Although the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, at the national level, occasionally provides guidance, supervision is adapted to specific contexts and inspectors balance trade-offs. Informants expressed concern about the impact of supervision on hospital performance. Benefits and disadvantage with positive feedback from inspectors were debated. Inspectors could nurture learning by improving their follow-up and add more hospital self-assessment. Conclusions A nondetailed regulatory framework such as the Quality Improvement Regulation provides hospitals with room to maneuver, and self-assessment might reduce resource demands. The impact of supervision is scarce with an unfulfilled potential to learn from supervision. The Government could contribute to a shift in focus by instructing the county governors to actively reflect on and communicate positive experiences from, and smart adaptations in, hospital practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Hospital Supervision: A Case Study of Regulatory Inspectors’ Roles as Potential Co-creators of Resilience

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While such leveraging might prove more difficult in relation to the co-existence of an ambition of surveillance and control with that of dialogue and empowerment, we should be open to the possibility, that dispositional co-existence, and the concomitant vagueness and ambiguity, does not necessarily present itself as a limitation, but can also function as a strategic asset (see e.g. Du Plessis and Vandeskog, 2020: 7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking truth through power: Conceptualizing internal whistleblowing hotlines with Foucault’s dispositive

Plessis

2020

Organization

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is an examination of the various ambivalences, limitations and dilemmas that are associated with the internal whistleblowing hotline – which is conceptualized as a management technique that strives to contain, codify, constrain, standardize, and neutralize acts of speaking up against illegal or unethical practices. In other words the interest is on what happens when the critical practice of whistleblowing or ‘speaking truth to power’ is sought institutionalized and transformed into a practice of ‘speaking truth through power’ – that is, through the managerial instrument of the whistleblowing hotline. The article argues that the Foucauldian concept of dispositive can help explain how a seemingly expedient and pragmatic technique such as the whistleblowing hotline, is in fact riddled with complexity and contradiction, which in turn creates a series of dilemmas and limitations related to aim and function the hotline. The analysis thus shows how the internal whistleblowing hotline can take different forms depending on the dispositive permeating it. Empirically, the analysis is based on descriptions of the use and function of internal whistleblowing hotlines in a Danish context.

show abstract

“…A second example of the social practice of bullshitting at work can be found in a study of health and safety practices in the Norwegian offshore oil industry (du Plessis & Vandeskog, 2020). They found that many of the onshore agencies were adept users of the language of ‘resilience’.…”

Section: Bullshit As a Social Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Playing the Bullshit Game: How Empty and Misleading Communication Takes Over Organizations

Spicer

2020

Organization Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why is bullshit so common in some organizations? Existing explanations focus on the characteristics of bullshitters, the nature of the audience, and social structural factors which encourage bullshitting. In this paper, I offer an alternative explanation: bullshitting is a social practice that organizational members engage with to become part of a speech community, to get things done in that community, and to reinforce their identity. When the practice of bullshitting works, it can gradually expand from a small group to take over an entire organization and industry. When bullshitting backfires, previously sacred concepts can become seen as empty and misleading talk.

show abstract

Other stories of resilient safety management in the Norwegian offshore sector: Resilience engineering, bullshit and the de-politicization of danger

Cited by 16 publications

References 57 publications

Investigating Hospital Supervision: A Case Study of Regulatory Inspectors’ Roles as Potential Co-creators of Resilience

Investigating Hospital Supervision: A Case Study of Regulatory Inspectors’ Roles as Potential Co-creators of Resilience

Speaking truth through power: Conceptualizing internal whistleblowing hotlines with Foucault’s dispositive

Playing the Bullshit Game: How Empty and Misleading Communication Takes Over Organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About