Organizing Safety in Security Organizations

  • Gwendolyn Bakx
  • James Nyce
Part of the NL ARMS book series (NLARMS)


Safety and security are often regarded as two separate concepts, both scientifically and organizationally. Both are often seen as two fundamentally conflicting institutional demands and their agendas as being based on two profoundly different organizing principles. Because of this, safety may get less attention in security organizations than necessary as such a distinction would mean in the perception of people that funding for the one would go at the cost of the other. This chapter points out that organizing for security and for safety may not be so different after all as both safety and security seem to develop from the same social structures and institutional complexities. The differences between the two seem to be a matter of social construction, power and policy, rather than that these differences would inevitably follow from what one would regard as their intrinsic features.


Military Safety Security System dynamics Social-construction Social science 


  1. Bakx GCH, Nyce JM (2013) Is redundancy enough? A preliminary study of Apache crew behaviour. Theor Issues Ergon 14:531–545Google Scholar
  2. Bakx GCH, Nyce JM (2015) Risk and safety in large-scale socio-technological (military) systems: a literature review. J Risk Res. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1071867 Google Scholar
  3. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Capra F (1996) The web of life. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekker SWA (2006) The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. Ashgate, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekker SWA (2011) Systems Thinking 1.0 and Systems Thinking 2.0: Complexity science and a new conception of “cause”. Aviat Focus 2:21–39Google Scholar
  7. Dekker SWA (2012) Drift into failure. From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Dekker SWA, Nyce JM (2014) There is safety in power, or power in safety. Saf Sci 67:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekker SWA, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr JH (2011) The complexity of failure: implication of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 49:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Firesmith DG (2003) Common concepts underlying safety, security, and survivability engineering. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2003-TN-033, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Gergen KJ, Gergen M (2003) Social construction: a reader. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson EV, Savych B (2005) American public support for US military operations from Mogadishu to Baghdad, RAND Arroyo Center report. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  14. Marais K, Dulac N, Leveson N (2004) Beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: the need for an alternative approach to safety in complex systems. Presented at the Engineering Systems Division (ESD) Symposium, MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29–31Google Scholar
  15. NOS (2014) NSS is grootste klus voor Defensie, NOS, March 19, 2014Google Scholar
  16. NSS (2014) Accessed 20 Aug 2015
  17. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Pettersen KA, Bjørnskau T (2015) Organizational contradictions between safety and security—perceived challenges and ways of integrating critical infrastructure protection in civil aviation. Saf Sci 71:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stacey RD (1995) The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strat Manag J 16:477–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vaughan D (1997) The Challenger Launch Decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Wheatley M (1992) Leadership and the new science. Berrett-Koehler, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Military SciencesNetherlands Defence AcademyBredaThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations