Safety: From Accidents to Normal Work - Applying Luhmann's System Theory

Working as a safety practitioner and researcher, there are two dominant perspectives: We can study accidents (unsafety), or we can study “working (or producing etc.) safely”. This is the distinction Erik Hollnagel made in 2014, in his book about Safety-I and Safety-II.

As Niklas Luhmann sketched his general theory of social systems in 1981, he distinguished these two approaches: (1) we can assume an order as given and problematize its defects and (2) we can consider the normal as unlikely. Applied to safety, we can look at these two types of theory:

Accident theory

1. This theory would focus on identifying and analyzing defects or failures within an existing order. The assumption is that the system is generally safe or functional, and the goal is to understand why accidents or unsafe conditions occur. Classic examples include medical approaches to health and illness, where the emphasis is on diagnosing and curing diseases, and sociological studies of social problems, which concentrate on deviant behaviors rather than conforming ones. Economic theories like Keynes’s also fit here, beginning with issues such as economic crises and unemployment. This perspective assumes that the ideal state is a functional, safe, and orderly one, and deviations from this norm are the primary concern.

Normal work theory

2. This theory would start from the premise that the normal, safe functioning of systems is unlikely and requires explanation. This approach involves a more abstract and counterfactual mode of thinking, questioning how safety and order are maintained despite inherent uncertainties and potential for disorder. The theory might ask, "How is working safely possible?" and investigate the conditions and mechanisms that allow for consistent safe operations. This theoretical model demands a reconstruction of the normal world from the perspective of improbability, exploring how regular, safe functioning emerges from a fundamentally unstable or unsafe baseline.

Now, why did Luhmann choose to pursue this second type of theory? Because he saw that reductionist models can't fully explain the complexity of systems: The complexity inherent in social, biological and ecological life, makes it necessary to see systems as fluid, evolving constructs instead of static entities.

The Loop of Interdependence

Each participant in a social system acts based on the expected actions of others (subjects and objects). This creates a loop of interdependence that neither person can resolve independently through individual actions or insights shaped by socialization, but crucially through continuously addressing, responding, and adjusting to the messages from others (subjects and objects) within the system. Communication is the basis upon which systems justify their actions and attribute meanings both internally and externally. In the context of safety, this loop of interdependence necessitates ongoing vigilance and proactive communication among all system participants to prevent accidents and unsafe conditions. Safety is not solely the responsibility of individual actions but a collective outcome derived from the interaction of all subjects and objects involved.

Engaging with complexity

The improbable normality of social systems pertains to their ability to manage and mitigate the complexities of their environments through communication strategies. Systems engage with complexity, break it down, and reconstitute it in ways that align with their ongoing processes and goals. This involves a constant balancing act between external pressures and internal capacities. Communication serves as the mechanism for negotiating these pressures and enabling the system to function effectively. In safety management, engaging with complexity means understanding that hazards are not static but evolve as conditions change. Effective safety systems, therefore, must adapt their communication and control measures dynamically to address emerging risks and ensure resilience against potential failures.

Systemic Dynamics

Actions must be viewed as parts of a broader, highly interconnected, evolving relational system. These systems are driven by the need to manage interrelations among numerous elements effectively. The meaning and relevance of actions are derived not just from immediate contexts but from their roles within these dynamic relational structures. So we don't focus on individual actions, but on dynamics within the system. From a safety perspective, we need to understand actions as part of an interconnected system. We don't primarily focus on preventing individual failures, but on enhancing the system's ability to function safely under a variety of conditions.

Source:

Luhmann, N. (1981), Soziologische Aufklärung 3 - Soziales System, Gesellschaft, Organisation, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.