Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done
In this study we identify the differences in goal realisation when applying two conflicting paradigms regarding rule perception and management. We gathered more than 30 scenarios where goal conflicts were apparent in a military operational unit. We found that operators repetitively utilized certain...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Safety |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/8/2/37 |
| _version_ | 1827656824148459520 |
|---|---|
| author | Leonie Boskeljon-Horst Robert J. De Boer Simone Sillem Sidney W. A. Dekker |
| author_facet | Leonie Boskeljon-Horst Robert J. De Boer Simone Sillem Sidney W. A. Dekker |
| author_sort | Leonie Boskeljon-Horst |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this study we identify the differences in goal realisation when applying two conflicting paradigms regarding rule perception and management. We gathered more than 30 scenarios where goal conflicts were apparent in a military operational unit. We found that operators repetitively utilized certain routines in executing their tasks in an effort to realize several conflicting goals. These routines were not originally intended nor designed into the rules and not explicitly included in documentation. They were not necessarily at odds with the literal wording and/or the intent of rules and regulations, although we did find examples of this. Our data showed that local ingenuity was created innovatively within the frame of existing rules or kept invisible to those outside the unit. The routines were introduced and passed on informally, and we found no evidence of testing for the introduction of new risks, no migration into the knowledge base of the organisation, and no dissemination as new best practices. An explanation for this phenomenon was found in the fact that the military organisation was applying a top-down, classical, rational approach to rules. In contrast, the routines were generated by adopting a constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions with operators as experts. The results of this study suggest that organisations are more effective in solving goal conflicts and creating transparency on local ingenuity if they adopt a constructivist paradigm instead of, or together with, a classical paradigm. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T22:34:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-540dab4eff79419f929574663090e7b7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2313-576X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T22:34:43Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Safety |
| spelling | doaj.art-540dab4eff79419f929574663090e7b72023-11-23T18:50:43ZengMDPI AGSafety2313-576X2022-05-01823710.3390/safety8020037Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things DoneLeonie Boskeljon-Horst0Robert J. De Boer1Simone Sillem2Sidney W. A. Dekker3Royal Netherlands Air Force Headquarters, Luchtmachtplein 1, 4822 ZB Breda, The NetherlandsDepartment of safety management, SDO University of Applied Sciences, Doctor Kuyperkade 28, 3142 GC Maassluis, The NetherlandsDepartment of Values, Technology and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The NetherlandsSafety Science Innovation Lab, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, AustraliaIn this study we identify the differences in goal realisation when applying two conflicting paradigms regarding rule perception and management. We gathered more than 30 scenarios where goal conflicts were apparent in a military operational unit. We found that operators repetitively utilized certain routines in executing their tasks in an effort to realize several conflicting goals. These routines were not originally intended nor designed into the rules and not explicitly included in documentation. They were not necessarily at odds with the literal wording and/or the intent of rules and regulations, although we did find examples of this. Our data showed that local ingenuity was created innovatively within the frame of existing rules or kept invisible to those outside the unit. The routines were introduced and passed on informally, and we found no evidence of testing for the introduction of new risks, no migration into the knowledge base of the organisation, and no dissemination as new best practices. An explanation for this phenomenon was found in the fact that the military organisation was applying a top-down, classical, rational approach to rules. In contrast, the routines were generated by adopting a constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions with operators as experts. The results of this study suggest that organisations are more effective in solving goal conflicts and creating transparency on local ingenuity if they adopt a constructivist paradigm instead of, or together with, a classical paradigm.https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/8/2/37local ingenuitygoal conflictsgoal attainmentrule managementsafetyproductivity |
| spellingShingle | Leonie Boskeljon-Horst Robert J. De Boer Simone Sillem Sidney W. A. Dekker Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done Safety local ingenuity goal conflicts goal attainment rule management safety productivity |
| title | Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done |
| title_full | Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done |
| title_fullStr | Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done |
| title_full_unstemmed | Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done |
| title_short | Goal Conflicts, Classical Management and Constructivism: How Operators Get Things Done |
| title_sort | goal conflicts classical management and constructivism how operators get things done |
| topic | local ingenuity goal conflicts goal attainment rule management safety productivity |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/8/2/37 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT leonieboskeljonhorst goalconflictsclassicalmanagementandconstructivismhowoperatorsgetthingsdone AT robertjdeboer goalconflictsclassicalmanagementandconstructivismhowoperatorsgetthingsdone AT simonesillem goalconflictsclassicalmanagementandconstructivismhowoperatorsgetthingsdone AT sidneywadekker goalconflictsclassicalmanagementandconstructivismhowoperatorsgetthingsdone |