@article{2d997f673be0477e94c00a4a5dbc49a0,
title = "Worker-centered investigation of issues with procedural systems: Findings from interviews with a representative sample of workers in high-risk process industries",
abstract = "Issues related to procedural systems have been found to contribute to incidents in many high-risk industries such as petrochemical, oil and gas, etc. While previous research has focused on understanding issues with procedural systems from the perspective of the workers (who are the end-users of procedures), most of this research suffers from samples that only include companies with programs focused on improving safety by improving procedures. These companies may have inherent differences in their safety practices and thus the experiences of these workers may not completely represent all workers{\textquoteright} experiences in this domain. The purpose of this study is to gain insights into the thoughts and perceptions from a representative and broad sample of workers concerning procedure use and purpose. To improve the generalizability of previous findings, interviews were conducted with workers from a broad range of high-risk process industries to investigate issues related to procedure adherence that may be present in companies not currently implementing. Findings from a qualitative data analysis provide support for the generalizability of issues previously discovered, such as: more experience workers being more likely to deviate; procedure quality being inconsistent; and the procedure revision process being problematic. However additional prominent issues were found as well. Most importantly, this study found that adherence to procedures is often motivated by potential liability issues instead of genuine concerns for safety in organizations and many deviations from procedures were due to pressure from immediate supervisors. These findings suggest a relationship between the effectiveness/quality of procedural systems and the safety climate of the organization or work unit.",
keywords = "Industrial work, Procedures, Safety, Thematic analysis",
author = "Peres, {S. Camille} and Alec Smith and Farzan Sasangohar",
note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by a joint effort funded and supported by ATR{\textregistered}, Chevron , ExxonMobil , Nova Chemicals , and NASA . We thank Trey Roady, Timothy Neville, Sarah Thomas, Lena Clark, Whitney Mantooth, Changwon Son, Pranav Bagaria, and Nilesh Ade for their help in data collection and analysis. We would also like to thank the trainers at Shell's Robert training facility—Pat Kain and Curt Bourgeois. Funding Information: Workers experiencing pressure from supervisors to deviate from procedures to meet deadlines is a canonical example of a work environment that values productivity over safety (Beus et al., 2010). The results of this study do not allow for any inferences regarding the specific motivations for the supervisors' behaviors. Indeed, their motivations could range from: not being particularly focused on safety to having rigid timelines set by more senior management that they are required to meet. If supervisors' motivations were more similar to the former, then training and other interventions would be necessary to correct this behavior. However, if their motivations were associated with the latter, it could be that a procedural system that prioritized adherence to procedures (particularly for safety issues) could support supervisors? making decisions that would not require their pressuring workers to deviate from procedures. For instance, if adherence to procedures are prioritized, supervisors may be empowered by upper management to adjust timelines so adherence to procedures can be maintained. This would be reflective of a higher SC given that priorities and expectations at all levels (e.g., worker, supervisor, and upper management) reflect norms associated with working safely. This is an elegant example of how a procedural system and the SC of a unit are linked and how an effective procedural system could support a positive SC and more safe behavior.This work was supported by a joint effort funded and supported by ATR?, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Nova Chemicals, and NASA. We thank Trey Roady, Timothy Neville, Sarah Thomas, Lena Clark, Whitney Mantooth, Changwon Son, Pranav Bagaria, and Nilesh Ade for their help in data collection and analysis. We would also like to thank the trainers at Shell's Robert training facility?Pat Kain and Curt Bourgeois. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Ltd",
year = "2020",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104264",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
journal = "Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries",
issn = "0950-4230",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
}