In the crisis we are going through, two radically opposed behaviours are emerging, at individual but also collective level. They reveal two “worldviews”, two “paradigms” that the sciences of organisational safety and human factors know well.
Even if the term “paradigm” may raise a smile, or draw scorn, the highly emotional nature of the opposition between the two families of thought and behaviour justifies the choice of this term. Because, for many, it is not just an opposition between two modes of reasoning, but between two “worldviews”, irreconcilable or even incommensurable. And using it therefore refers to what is known about the consequences for implementing the associated changes.
Trust in organisations
The dominant approach is that of rationalisation, of social mechanicism, of trust in the ability of certain minds to master the world by taming it through organisations and procedures. Heirs to Taylorism and built on States (and large organisations) relying on inevitably bureaucratic structures, most of our Western societies therefore resort to an increasing proceduralisation of their activities: rules, standards, laws…
With this traditional approach, the further one strays from the objective, the more procedures are reinforced. When “compliance” is not respected, controls and controllers are increased. When budget variances grow, individual spending authorisations are reduced in favour of additional checks. When accidents increase, rules to control behaviour, verification procedures and experts tasked with monitoring operators are added. When laws are not respected, or are circumvented, new ones are invented and greater means of sanction and coercion are sought…
Because according to this approach, the procedure is rarely called into question. If it is not respected, there must be offenders – culprits.
The quest for a culprit
The search for “culprits” is at the heart of this paradigm. Culprits for not respecting the law, but also for not having found the right rule, for not having applied it in time, or firmly enough…
And this search never ends… The culprit is the operator facing the accident, or the maintenance technician, or the manager, or the capitalist who did not invest enough, the system designer, or the bureaucrat who multiplies rules, the education system that turns out idiots, or the one that lacks the resources to educate well-rounded citizens, or even incompetent or misguided parents…
Because the paradigm of total rationality cannot admit that it is ultimately impossible to master complexity. It always takes more work, more resources, more intelligence, more knowledge: by doing “more of the same”, it will eventually be possible to tame the world.
And even though we all know systems that are suffocating under bureaucratic inertia and a surfeit of rules and processes that are unworkable in practice or contradictory (and sometimes both), there are always those who are convinced that, if it doesn’t work, it is because the prescribed regulations are not being applied to the letter. What matters is to be “compliant” – even if you die of it, motionless and suffocated.
Judging “human error” after the fact
This paradigm also rests on another fundamental: analysis (and judgement) after the fact. Looking back, it would supposedly always be possible to identify “THE” flaw in the system: the cause of human error, the point of fragility – and therefore the point of guilt. This still widespread belief – a glance at the media and social networks is enough to see it – is nevertheless a sign of arrogance and/or incompetence, inherited from archaic and simplistic approaches in which an event has a single cause, and every action a predictable consequence.
Yet the analysis of accidents in the industrial and modern era shows that their “causes” are always multiple, interdependent and therefore emergent (and so cannot be reduced to a logical “deconstruction”).
And in this game of “human error”, everyone loses – and the quest for a culprit, like the “revolution”, always devours its children.
Choosing resilience
Since the 1980s, other approaches have been developing. In the nuclear and oil industries, submarine and aviation operations, and gradually in medicine – in any case, wherever life and death are at stake – and faced with the ineffectiveness of classic approaches in situations of extreme complexity, people are exploring the lessons of high reliability organisations (HROs) and developing “resilience engineering”.
At the root of these two schools lies the same paradigm. Socio-technical complexity generates problems that are no longer merely “complicated”, but “complex” or even “wicked”. And in the face of these risks, in which technical complexity combines with the unpredictability of human societies, it is more effective to seek the resilience of systems than their unattainable infallibility. The aim is to ensure the survival of the system rather than ultimately smothering it under protections that are always imperfect. To accept, where necessary, a degree of damage, but above all to prevent the whole system from dying. To learn from mistakes rather than condemn them. And to do so, not to try to exclude a “human factor” seen as a source of fragility, but to regard it as the “strong link”, since it alone is able to adapt, and to keep the system agile and creative.
Rather than focusing only on the rules that work “in theory”, attention is also paid to what works “in practice”. And not just for part of the organisation or society, but for the whole system and its interactions. So, for example, one does not deal only with the health aspect of a situation, but also with its social, strategic and economic interactions (and not just its consequences). One also accepts the limits of resistance of all systems, whether technical, human or socio-technical, made up of people and machines. And one accepts uncertainty and the compromises between conflicting objectives (the “trade-offs”), which will be made by people, fully responsibly, but without fear of being judged. It is up to all of them, however, to be humble and pragmatic, and not to set themselves up as “providential men”, because they would then raise irrational expectations with promises they cannot keep.
In the face of complex situations, these human dynamics – which encourage everyone’s psychological safety, the trusting sharing of weak signals of dysfunction that make it possible to anticipate, and good practices shared without fear of judgement – are then the keys to greater resilience.
This also implies accepting other profound changes, such as taking “repair” into account after an accident (except in the case of a deliberate act, with all the difficulty of defining this notion). An indispensable process – often economic, but above all psychological – which then cannot go through the search for “culprits”. So it has to be thought about “differently”.
In uncertainty, the paradigm of trust
The founding paradigm of these approaches is increasingly promoted and gradually accepted in the world of “classic” companies, as it is in that of critical operations, by those who see that, in the face of the complex threats of our world, building ever higher walls is no longer enough.
When doing “more of the same” no longer works, one must do things “differently”, and therefore accept a degree of uncertainty. Including from experts, who are very unfairly asked to be “certain”.
Because this share of uncertainty is the share of humanity in our world – as it is in technical systems, which are always fallible.
It is also at the heart of the “agile” methods that emerged in the digital field (which also faces crucial security challenges), but also in the industrial world – steeped in post-Taylorist ideology – where they are spreading, slowly admittedly, so profound is the cultural change.
Accepting uncertainty, or the “fog of war”, also means adopting the principles of individual and collective functioning based on shared meaning: “the commander’s intent”, according to proven military command methods, or the company’s “purpose”. Once this target has been set, a great deal of initiative is left to the various stakeholders responsible for implementation, while constantly checking that everyone’s actions contribute to the common objective. It is not the “experts” who govern, but the collective of “those who know” and “those who do”. Here again, these concepts come up regularly in good business management practice. Why do without them when working on what is essential and vital?
The “network” rather than the “wall”
This paradigm also means choosing the “network” – flexible, adaptable, resilient – rather than the “wall” – resistant, even unshakeable… until it collapses. The network of people rather than the wall of bureaucracy.
The network is the founding principle of the internet… At a time when every large company proclaims its “digital transformation”, are we ready to accept its philosophical and organisational fundamentals? To move from instrumentalisation to real transformation?
So, adopting the paradigm of trust in people, when one has lived in that of trust in technical or bureaucratic systems, may require making what Jean-Christian Fauvet, the founder of the sociodynamic approach, called “the leap of faith”. Taking the risk of trusting others, taking into account their opinions – even when they are not experts – and their constraints, because they are the ones who will ultimately guarantee the real implementation of decisions that are all the more difficult as they affect everyone’s lives. Ensuring the continuity of the collective in real life, and not just in theory.
Making this choice – a real break, because it calls into question the cultural fundamentals of individuals and organisations – means choosing a genuine “scientific revolution”, and a human one. And because these “paradigm shifts” are full of sincere emotions but also of power struggles (agreeing to work with rather than impose, seeing power as relationship rather than domination, seeing the balance of powers as an enrichment rather than a weakness…), it also means taking the risk of being accused of irresponsibility, of being excluded by the “circles of reason”, of being accused of “disobedience”, or even of betrayal.
Are you ready for it?
Leave a Reply