Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of trust in high-risk organizations during technological changes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore a drilling crew’s acceptance of and safety concerns about implementation of a new automated drilling technology at a Norwegian offshore oil- and gas-producing installation. In this study, 23 interviews were conducted with personnel on a single offshore oil and gas installation who were all involved with the implementation process or the application of the technology itself. Observations of the drilling crew’s operation on the installation were also made. For data analyses, grounded theory was used. The conclusions were that the change process was successful in the sense that the operators accepted the new technology. However, it could be questioned whether the operators had too much trust in the safety aspects of the change process. High trust was found to cause a low-risk perception and a non-questioning attitude, which is not in accordance with the theory of a high reliability organization which the petroleum industry is expected to practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armenakis A, Harris SG (2009) Reflections: our journey in organizational change research and practice. J Change Manag 9(2):127–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannan MJ, Oultram T (2012) Participant observation. In: Symon G, Cassell C (eds) Qualitative organizational research. Core methods and current challenges. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 296–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Conchie SM, Burns C (2008) Trust and risk communication in high risk organizations: a test of principles from social risk research. Risk Anal 28(1):141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conchie SM, Taylor PJ, Charlton A (2011) Trust and distrust in safety leadership: mirror reflections? Saf Sci 49:1208–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox S, Jones B, Collinson D (2006) Trust in high-reliability organizations. Risk Anal 26(5):1123–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley JM, Fazio RH (1980) Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. Am Psychol 35(10):867–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JH, Schoorman FD, Mayer RC, Tan HH (2000) The trusted general manager and business unit performance: empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 21(5):563–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci EL (1972) The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organ Behav Hum Perform 8:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks KT, Karlicki DP (2004) Trust in leaders: existing research and emerging issues. In: Kramer RM, Cook KS (eds) Trust and distrust in organizations. Dilemmas and approaches. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 21–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Aizen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Furst SA, Cable DM (2008) Employee resistance to organizational change: managerial influence tactics and leader–member exchange. J Appl Psychol 93(2):453–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JA, Tang TL-P (1998) And examination of organisational trust antecedents. Public Pers Manag 27(3):321–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham B et al (2011) Deep water. The gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling report to the president. National Commission on the BP deepwater horizon oil spill and offshore drilling

  • Hardin R (2002) Trust and trustworthiness. Russel Sage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Business School (2005) Managing change to reduce resistance. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider F (1946) Attitudes and cognitive organization. J Psychol 21:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellesøy O (1985) Work environment Statfjord field. Universitetsforlaget AS, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Herscovitch L, Meyer J (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. J Appl Psychol 87(3):474–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter JP (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu Rev Psychol 50:569–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM, Cook KS (2004) Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. In: Kramer RM, Cook KS (eds) Trust and distrust in organizations. Dilemmas and approaches. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S (1996) Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB (1995) Trust in relationships: a model of development and decline. In: Bunker BB, Rubin JZ (eds) Conflict, cooperation and justice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 133–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis JD, Weigert A (1985) Trust as a social reality. Soc Forces 63(4):967–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lines R, Selart M, Espedal B, Johansen ST (2005) The production of trust during organizational change. J Change Manag 5(2):221–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra AK (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations. Frontiers of theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 261–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents living with high risk technologies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, O’Leary M (2000) Man-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Saf Sci 34:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor RW, Proctor JD (2006) Sensation and perception. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 53–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott CL (1980) Interpersonal trust: a comparison of attitudinal and situational factors. Hum Organ Stud 8:319–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle R, Den Hartog DN, Weibel A, Gillespie N, Six F, Hatzakis T, Skinner D (2011) Trust in the employer: the role of high-involvement work practices and procedural justice in European organizations. Int J Hum Resour Manag 22(5):1069–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle T (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J Risk Res 8(2):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons T (2002) Behavioral integrity: the perceived alignment between manager’s words and deeds as a research focus. Organ Sci 13(1):18–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9):1059–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe K (2011) High reliability organizations (HROs). Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 25(2):133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tharaldsen JE, Mearns KJ, Knudsen K (2010) Perspectives on safety. The impact of group membership, work factors and trust on safety performance in UK and Norwegian drilling company employees. Saf Sci 48:1062–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torbiörn I (2006) Elements of uncertainty and risk in intercultural contact. In: Svenson O, Salo I, Oedewald P, Reiman T, Skjerve AB (eds) Nordic perspectives on safety management in high reliability organizations. Stockholm University, Department of psychology, Stockholm, pp 183–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanberg CR, Banas JT (2000) Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. J Appl Psychol 85(1):132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick K, Sutcliffe K (2007) Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Yardley L (2000) Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychol Health 15:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the Norwegian Research Council’s Petromaks program (eLAD Grant Number 176018), Statoil ASA, and ConocoPhillips who funded this research. We would also like to thank our scientific collaborating partners Institute for Research in Stavanger (IRIS), Christian Michelsen Research (CMR), and Institute of Energy Technology (IFE). Additionally, we would like to thank those who participated in this case study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Gunhild B. Sætren & Karin Laumann

Authors
  1. Gunhild B. Sætren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Laumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunhild B. Sætren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sætren, G.B., Laumann, K. Effects of trust in high-risk organizations during technological changes. Cogn Tech Work 17, 131–144 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0313-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0313-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation