Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Organization Studies, 37 (1), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Organization Studies page: http://oss.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/
Accepted author manuscript, 352 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Rationalizing violation
T2 - ordered accounts of intentionality in the making and breaking of safety rules
AU - Busby, Jeremy Simon
AU - Iszatt-White, Marian
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Organization Studies, 37 (1), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Organization Studies page: http://oss.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/
PY - 2016/1
Y1 - 2016/1
N2 - Regulative rules are central to the efforts made in organizations to ensure orderliness in the presence of physical danger. The reportedly routine violation of safety rules in organizations therefore brings into question the longstanding association of rules with organizational order, and the literature is sharply divided on whether rule violation represents a dangerous disorder or a reasonable way of getting by. This study is an attempt to carry out a more interpretive analysis, looking at how organizational members construct a sense of order in the presence of rule violation – and in particular how they do so by using a concept of intentionality to maintain accountability yet avoid rules becoming taboos. We find that the way people explain intentions attests to several senses of order that otherwise appear to be lost when rules are violated, such as predictability, purposefulness and progressiveness. This indicates that rules do not maintain, symbolize and constitute order simply because they are normative restraints on behaviour – but act as nuclei for discourses that can repair order even when they are violated. The order that is repaired in this way is both a mechanistic and a moral one.
AB - Regulative rules are central to the efforts made in organizations to ensure orderliness in the presence of physical danger. The reportedly routine violation of safety rules in organizations therefore brings into question the longstanding association of rules with organizational order, and the literature is sharply divided on whether rule violation represents a dangerous disorder or a reasonable way of getting by. This study is an attempt to carry out a more interpretive analysis, looking at how organizational members construct a sense of order in the presence of rule violation – and in particular how they do so by using a concept of intentionality to maintain accountability yet avoid rules becoming taboos. We find that the way people explain intentions attests to several senses of order that otherwise appear to be lost when rules are violated, such as predictability, purposefulness and progressiveness. This indicates that rules do not maintain, symbolize and constitute order simply because they are normative restraints on behaviour – but act as nuclei for discourses that can repair order even when they are violated. The order that is repaired in this way is both a mechanistic and a moral one.
U2 - 10.1177/0170840615593590
DO - 10.1177/0170840615593590
M3 - Journal article
VL - 37
SP - 35
EP - 53
JO - Organization Studies
JF - Organization Studies
SN - 0170-8406
IS - 1
ER -