Organizational hierarchy is an inescapable aspect of many exemplary high reliability organizations (HROs). As organizations begin to adopt HRO theorizing to improve practice, it is increasingly important to explain how HRO principles—which assume the hallmarks of a flat hierarchy—can be understood and enacted in rigidly stratified organizations. We propose a preliminary theoretical model suggesting how various supervisor–subordinate and work group communication patterns and practices enable members to navigate hierarchy to achieve high reliability. We test the model using structural equation modeling on a sample of N = 574 U.S. wildland firefighters from three federal agencies. Results suggest how organizational members might overcome common hierarchy-based constraints to HRO through considering how leaders throughout a chain of command communicate to cultivate the necessary cross-level awareness of an operation, and ways in which supervisors, members, and groups might cultivate interactional cultures with respectful affect.
AshbyW. R. (1962). Principles of the self-organizing system. In von FoersterH.ZopfG. W. (Eds.), Principles of self-organization (pp. 255-278). New York, NY: Pergamon.
2.
BakerD. P.DayR.SalasE. (2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41, 1576-1598. doi:10.1111/j.1475.6773.2006.00566.x
3.
BarkerJ. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437. doi:10.2307/2393374
4.
BartonM. A.SutcliffeK. M. (2009). Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: Organizational safety as a social achievement. Human Relations, 62, 1327-1356. doi:10.1177/0018726709334491
5.
BigleyG. A.RobertsK. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281-1299. doi:10.2307/3069401
6.
BlackA. E.McBrideB. B. (2013). Safety climate in the US federal wildland fire management community: Influences of organizational, environmental and individual characteristics. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22, 850-861. doi:10.1071/WF12154
7.
BlattR.ChristiansonM. K.SutcliffeK. M.RosenthalM. M. (2006). A sensemaking lens on reliability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 897-917. doi:10.1002/Job.392
8.
BruellerD.CarmeliA. (2011). Linking capacities of high-quality relationships to team learning and performance in service organizations. Human Resource Management, 50, 455-477. doi:10.1002/hrm.20435
9.
BundersonJ. S.ReagansR. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22, 1182-1194. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0590
10.
ConnaughtonS.ShufflerM.GoodwinG. F. (2011). Leading distributed teams: The communicative constitution of leadership. Military Psychology, 23, 502-527. doi:10.1080/08995605.2011.600147
11.
DetertJ. R.BurrisE. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183
12.
DetertJ. R.EdmondsonA. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 461-488. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967925
13.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. doi:10.2307/2666999
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
JahnJ. L. S. (2016). Adapting safety rules in a high reliability context: How wildland firefighting workgroups ventriloquize safety rules to understand hazards. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 362-389. doi:10.1177/0893318915623638
16.
JahnJ. L. S.PutnamL. L.MyersK. K. (2017). Metaphors of communication in high reliability organizations. In RamanujamR.RobertsK. (Eds.), From high reliability to reliable organizing: A handbook. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
18.
KnoxG. E.SimpsonK. R. (2004). Teamwork: The fundamental building block of high-reliability organizations and patient safety. In YoungbergB.HatlieM. (Eds.), Patient safety handbook (pp. 379-415). Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
19.
KriegerJ. L. (2005). Shared mindfulness in cockpit crisis situations: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 135-167. doi:10.1177/0021943605274726
20.
LaPorteT. R. (1996). High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding and at risk. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4, 60-71. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.1996.tb00078.x
21.
LaPorteT. R.ConsoliniP. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of “high-reliability organizations.”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 1, 19-48. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181764
22.
LekkaC.SugdenC. (2011). The successes and challenges of implementing high reliability principles: A case study of a UK oil refinery. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 89, 443-451. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2011.07.003
MorrisonE. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373-412. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
25.
MyersK. K. (2005). A burning desire—Assimilation into a fire department. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 344-384. doi:10.1177/0893318904270742
26.
MyersK. K.McPheeR. D. (2006). Influences of member assimilation in workgroups in high-reliability organizations: A multi-level analysis. Human Communication Research, 32, 440-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00283.x
27.
NembhardI. M.EdmondsonA. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941-966. doi:10.1002/job.413
28.
NoarS. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 622-647. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_8
29.
NovakJ. M.SellnowT. L. (2009). Reducing organizational risk through participatory communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 349-373. doi:10.1080/00909880903233168
30.
RobertsK. H. (1993). Cultural characteristics of reliability enhancing organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 5, 165-181. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603976
31.
RobertsK. H.BeaR. (2001). Must accidents happen? Lessons from high reliability organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 70-79. doi:10.5465/AME.2001.5229613
32.
RobertsK. H.RousseauD. M. (1989). Research in nearly failure-free, high reliability organizations: Having the “bubble.”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36, 132-139. doi:10.1109/17.18830
33.
RochlinG. I. (1993). Defining high reliability organizations in practice: A taxonomic prologue. In RobertsK. (Ed.), New challenges to organization research: High reliability organizations (pp. 11-32). New York, NY: MacMillan.
34.
RothE. M.MulterJ.RaslearT. (2006). Shared situation awareness as a contributor to high reliability performance in railroad operations. Organization Studies, 27, 967-987. doi:10.1177/0170840606065705
35.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistic and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von EyeA.CloggC. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
ScottC.AllenJ. A.BonillaD. L.BaranB. E.MurphyD. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post-incident discussion. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 383-402. doi:10.1177/0021943613497054
37.
SeiboldD. R. (1998). Groups and organizations: Premises and perspectives. In TrentJ. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 162-169). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38.
SteigerJ. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893-898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
39.
VogusT. J. (2004). In search of mechanisms: How do HR practices affect organizational performance? (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
40.
VogusT. J.SutcliffeK. M. (2007). The safety organizing scale: Development and validation of a behavioral measure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. Medical Care, 45, 46-54. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000244635.61178.7a
41.
VogusT. J.WelbourneT. M. (2003). Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 877-903. doi:10.1002/job.221
42.
WeickK. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high-reliability. California Management Review, 29, 112-127.
43.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
