Assessing organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems : Methodological evidence from studies in nuclear power plant maintenance organizations

Failures in industrial organizations dealing with hazardous technologies can have widespread consequences for the safety of the workers and the general population. Psychology can have a major role in contributing to the safe and reliable operation of these technologies. Most current models of safety management in complex sociotechnical systems such as nuclear power plant maintenance are either non-contextual or based on an overly-rational image of an organization. Thus, they fail to grasp either the actual requirements of the work or the socially-constructed nature of the work in question. The general aim of the present study is to develop and test a methodology for contextual assessment of organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems. This is done by demonstrating the findings that the application of the emerging methodology produces in the domain of maintenance of a nuclear power plant (NPP). The concepts of organizational culture and organizational core task (OCT) are operationalized and tested in the case studies. We argue that when the complexity of the work, technology and social environment is increased, the significance of the most implicit features of organizational culture as a means of coordinating the work and achieving safety and effectiveness of the activities also increases. For this reason a cultural perspective could provide additional insight into the problem of safety management. The present study aims to determine; (1) the elements of the organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems; (2) the demands the maintenance task sets for the organizational culture; (3) how the current organizational culture at the case organizations supports the perception and fulfilment of the demands of the maintenance work; (4) the similarities and differences between the maintenance cultures at the case organizations, and (5) the necessary assessment of the organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems. Three in-depth case studies were carried out at the maintenance units of three Nordic NPPs. The case studies employed an iterative and multimethod research strategy. The following methods were used: interviews, CULTURE-survey, seminars, document analysis and group work. Both cultural analysis and task modelling were carried out. The results indicate that organizational culture in complex sociotechnical systems can be characterised according to three qualitatively different elements: structure, internal integration and conceptions. All three of these elements of culture as well as their interrelations have to be considered in organizational assessments or important aspects of the organizational dynamics will be overlooked. On the basis of OCT modelling, the maintenance core task was defined as balancing between three critical demands: anticipating the condition of the plant and conducting preventive maintenance accordingly, reacting to unexpected technical faults and monitoring and reflecting on the effects of maintenance actions and the condition of the plant. The results indicate that safety was highly valued at all three plants, and in that sense they all had strong safety cultures. In other respects the cultural features were quite different, and thus the culturally-accepted means of maintaining high safety also differed. The handicraft nature of maintenance work was emphasised as a source of identity at the NPPs. Overall, the importance of safety was taken for granted, but the cultural norms concerning the appropriate means to guarantee it were little reflected. A sense of control, personal responsibility and organizational changes emerged as challenging issues at all the plants. The study shows that in complex sociotechnical systems it is both necessary and possible to analyse the safety and effectiveness of the organizational culture. Safety in complex sociotechnical systems cannot be understood or managed without understanding the demands of the organizational core task and managing the dynamics between the three elements of the organizational culture.

Organizing (with) Thirdness. A Dialogic Understanding of Bicultural Interactions in Organizations

This conceptual paper examines bicultural interactions in organizations as they are experienced by the involved individuals. Notions from Bakhtinian dialogism are used in order to conceptualize the sensemaking opportunities provided by the encounter with a cultural otherness. It is argued that in such bicultural situations, because of the lack of intimate understanding of the other culture, the third element in the dialogic relation - ‘thirdness’, i.e. the relation itself, without which there would be no sensemaking potential - may be lacking as a result of the distorting combination of projected similarity and stereotyping, added to certain counterproductive organizational dynamics. Therefore, it is suggested that, to make the bicultural work interaction the rewarding relation it could be, thirdness should be coordinated by management in a way that can transcend the spontaneous negative dynamics of the confrontational situation. If management was to fail to organize (with) thirdness appropriately, bringing in a third party could be a possible alternative in order to initiate the necessary mutual understanding that should eventually lead to a fruitful work interaction.

Sensemaking in the Third Space - Essays on French-Finnish Bicultural Experiences in Organizations and Their Narratives (summary section only)

Research on cross-cultural and intercultural aspects in organizations has been traditionally conducted from an objectivist, functionalist perspective, with culture treated as an independent variable, and often the key explanatory factor. In order to do justice to the ontological relativity of the phenomena studied, more subjectivist research on intercultural interactions, and especially on their relationships with the dynamics of cultural identity construction, is needed. The present research seeks to address this gap by focusing on bicultural interactions in organizations, as they are experienced by the involved individuals. It is argued that such bicultural situations see the emergence of a space of hybridity, which is here called a ‘third space’, and which can be understood as providing ‘occasions for sensemaking’: it is this individual sensemaking that is of particular interest in the empirical narrative study. A first overall aim of the study is to reach an understanding of the dynamics of bicultural interactions in organizations; an understanding not only of the potential for learning and emancipatory sensemaking, but also of the possibility of conflict and alienatory ordering (this is mainly addressed in the theoretical essays 1 and 2). Further, a second overall aim of the study is to analyze the reflexive identity construction of four young French expatriates involved in such bicultural interactions in organizations in Finland, in order to examine the extent to which their expatriation experiences have allowed for an emancipatory opportunity in their cases (in essays 3 and 4). The primary theoretical contribution in this study lies in its new articulation of the dynamics of bicultural interactions in organizations. The ways in which the empirical material is analyzed bring about methodological contributions: since the expatriates’ accounts are bound to be some kind of construction, the analysis is made from angles that point to how the self-narratives construct reality. There are two such angles here: a ‘performative’ one and a ‘spatial’ one. The most important empirical contributions lie in the analysis of, on the one hand, the alternative uses that the young expatriates made of the notion of ‘national culture’ in their self-narratives, and, on the other hand, their ‘narrative practices of the third space’: their politics of escape or stabilization, their exploration of space or search for place, their emancipation from their origin or return to home as only horizon.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.