倾听油井,倾听彼此,倾听沉默──深水地平线的新安全教训

IF 2.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lillian Espinoza-Gala, Antonie J. Jetter*, Ahmed Alibage
{"title":"倾听油井,倾听彼此,倾听沉默──深水地平线的新安全教训","authors":"Lillian Espinoza-Gala,&nbsp;Antonie J. Jetter*,&nbsp;Ahmed Alibage","doi":"10.1021/acs.chas.1c00050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >It is common for accident reports and the analysis of large-scale disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon blowout, to point to communication failures. This narrow explanation implicitly assumes that accidents could be prevented if employees spoke up about safety. In contrast, the first author of this paper, whose professional experience is introduced in this Commentary to provide context, has frequently observed that there are, in fact, many cases when employees speak up but are not listened to. These patterns of communication (or lack thereof) occur at the intersection of personal, leadership, and organizational factors, which jointly affect how safety issues are recognized, communicated, and addressed. As such, communication problems are at “the tip of the iceberg” of safety problems, not at their root. In this paper, we review research on high-reliability organizations (HROs) with excellent safety records to identify their communication patterns and practices and how they contribute to the ability to enact five principles of HROs: preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, deference to expertise, commitment to resilience, and sensitivity to operations. We then apply this lens to investigate the Deepwater Horizon disaster, based on court documents, expert reports, and personal interviews. Specifically, we investigate how the communication patterns between the onshore experts and the offshore crews compared to the recommendations of HRO theory and how existing discrepancies might help explain the accident. We found that many employees were aware of safety issues and communicated concerns openly, but there was little organizational response to the issues they raised. This failure to listen was largely owed to factors that were not directly related to communication, such as time pressure and lack of resources, and a culture that valued a “can do attitude” and getting things done so much that it got in the way of sensitivity to operations, expert-based guidance, and communication about problems. Moreover, the challenges of the project and its aggressive timeline created an extreme, almost toxic, commitment to resilience. Based on these findings, we discuss recommendations for improving safety in offshore oil and gas production.</p>","PeriodicalId":12,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Listening to the Well, Listening to Each Other, and Listening to the Silence─New Safety Lessons from Deepwater Horizon\",\"authors\":\"Lillian Espinoza-Gala,&nbsp;Antonie J. Jetter*,&nbsp;Ahmed Alibage\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.chas.1c00050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >It is common for accident reports and the analysis of large-scale disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon blowout, to point to communication failures. This narrow explanation implicitly assumes that accidents could be prevented if employees spoke up about safety. In contrast, the first author of this paper, whose professional experience is introduced in this Commentary to provide context, has frequently observed that there are, in fact, many cases when employees speak up but are not listened to. These patterns of communication (or lack thereof) occur at the intersection of personal, leadership, and organizational factors, which jointly affect how safety issues are recognized, communicated, and addressed. As such, communication problems are at “the tip of the iceberg” of safety problems, not at their root. In this paper, we review research on high-reliability organizations (HROs) with excellent safety records to identify their communication patterns and practices and how they contribute to the ability to enact five principles of HROs: preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, deference to expertise, commitment to resilience, and sensitivity to operations. We then apply this lens to investigate the Deepwater Horizon disaster, based on court documents, expert reports, and personal interviews. Specifically, we investigate how the communication patterns between the onshore experts and the offshore crews compared to the recommendations of HRO theory and how existing discrepancies might help explain the accident. We found that many employees were aware of safety issues and communicated concerns openly, but there was little organizational response to the issues they raised. This failure to listen was largely owed to factors that were not directly related to communication, such as time pressure and lack of resources, and a culture that valued a “can do attitude” and getting things done so much that it got in the way of sensitivity to operations, expert-based guidance, and communication about problems. Moreover, the challenges of the project and its aggressive timeline created an extreme, almost toxic, commitment to resilience. Based on these findings, we discuss recommendations for improving safety in offshore oil and gas production.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Chemical Health & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Chemical Health & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.1c00050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.1c00050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

事故报告和对“深水地平线”(Deepwater Horizon)井喷等大规模灾难的分析指出通信故障是很常见的。这种狭隘的解释隐含地假设,如果员工公开谈论安全问题,事故就可以避免。相比之下,本文的第一作者(他的专业经验将在本评论中介绍以提供背景)经常观察到,事实上,有很多情况下,员工畅所欲言,但没有得到倾听。这些沟通模式(或缺乏)发生在个人、领导和组织因素的交叉点,这些因素共同影响安全问题的认识、沟通和解决方式。因此,沟通问题只是安全问题的“冰山一角”,而不是根本问题。在本文中,我们回顾了对具有良好安全记录的高可靠性组织(hro)的研究,以确定其沟通模式和实践,以及它们如何有助于制定高可靠性组织的五项原则:关注失败、不愿简化、尊重专业知识、致力于弹性和对操作的敏感性。然后,我们根据法庭文件、专家报告和个人采访,将这一视角应用于调查深水地平线灾难。具体来说,我们调查了陆上专家和海上船员之间的沟通模式如何与人力资源管理理论的建议相比较,以及存在的差异如何有助于解释事故。我们发现许多员工都意识到安全问题,并公开沟通他们的担忧,但组织对他们提出的问题几乎没有回应。这种倾听的失败在很大程度上是由于与沟通没有直接关系的因素,比如时间压力和资源缺乏,以及一种重视“能做”的态度和把事情做好的文化,这种态度妨碍了对操作的敏感性、基于专家的指导和对问题的沟通。此外,项目的挑战及其激进的时间表创造了一个极端的,几乎有毒的,对弹性的承诺。基于这些发现,我们讨论了提高海上油气生产安全的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Listening to the Well, Listening to Each Other, and Listening to the Silence─New Safety Lessons from Deepwater Horizon

Listening to the Well, Listening to Each Other, and Listening to the Silence─New Safety Lessons from Deepwater Horizon

It is common for accident reports and the analysis of large-scale disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon blowout, to point to communication failures. This narrow explanation implicitly assumes that accidents could be prevented if employees spoke up about safety. In contrast, the first author of this paper, whose professional experience is introduced in this Commentary to provide context, has frequently observed that there are, in fact, many cases when employees speak up but are not listened to. These patterns of communication (or lack thereof) occur at the intersection of personal, leadership, and organizational factors, which jointly affect how safety issues are recognized, communicated, and addressed. As such, communication problems are at “the tip of the iceberg” of safety problems, not at their root. In this paper, we review research on high-reliability organizations (HROs) with excellent safety records to identify their communication patterns and practices and how they contribute to the ability to enact five principles of HROs: preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, deference to expertise, commitment to resilience, and sensitivity to operations. We then apply this lens to investigate the Deepwater Horizon disaster, based on court documents, expert reports, and personal interviews. Specifically, we investigate how the communication patterns between the onshore experts and the offshore crews compared to the recommendations of HRO theory and how existing discrepancies might help explain the accident. We found that many employees were aware of safety issues and communicated concerns openly, but there was little organizational response to the issues they raised. This failure to listen was largely owed to factors that were not directly related to communication, such as time pressure and lack of resources, and a culture that valued a “can do attitude” and getting things done so much that it got in the way of sensitivity to operations, expert-based guidance, and communication about problems. Moreover, the challenges of the project and its aggressive timeline created an extreme, almost toxic, commitment to resilience. Based on these findings, we discuss recommendations for improving safety in offshore oil and gas production.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Chemical Health & Safety
ACS Chemical Health & Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety focuses on news, information, and ideas relating to issues and advances in chemical health and safety. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety covers up-to-the minute, in-depth views of safety issues ranging from OSHA and EPA regulations to the safe handling of hazardous waste, from the latest innovations in effective chemical hygiene practices to the courts'' most recent rulings on safety-related lawsuits. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety presents real-world information that health, safety and environmental professionals and others responsible for the safety of their workplaces can put to use right away, identifying potential and developing safety concerns before they do real harm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信