use to overcome unexpected situations seems to be a relevant research topic to deepen.
As Blau noticed, two kind of communication management can address to the people
managed, depending on their “independence in the performance of [their] duty” [3]
and impacting responsibility distribution. Those two kinds of communication are
management devices that we would call order and injunction. Both of them are used
by an authority demanding something from someone but with a different approach
toward responsibility (which can imply notions such as liability or duty).
This contribution defines those two safety management devices called injunction
and order and demonstrate their contribution to system recovery in an emergency
situation. This “ongoing crisis in which conventional resources are lacking, but
societal expectations are high” [4] was a particularly interesting case as explicitation
processes and time acceleration effect emphasize how nuclear organizations deal
with those issues.
2 Safety Management Devices Definition
2.1 What Is Injunction?
Injunction is a communication triggering action as the addressee should adapt his
behavior regarding its message (conformity). This communication comes from an
authority and is both binding and relying on its addressee subjectivity [5]; as the
addressee is linked to the expected action or to its aim regarding responsibility
criterion. Fundamentally, injunction implies a tension between what comes from
oneself (autonomy) and what is implemented by external sources (heteronomy) [6].
This phenomenon affects one’s identity as no one can predict how far a subject will
integrate external things to his subjectivity [7] and experience.
By saying so, one would conclude right by stating that safety injunction is not
always or completely defined in time, space and form as shown by its legal evolutions from British Equity system to its 19th to early 20th variations in the United
States of America (Stewart 1895; Gregory 1898; Mc Murry 1961) cristalized in the
Pullman strikes repression through the Omnibus Indictment, and to its actual uses
demonstrating that the term ‘injunction’ has no fixed definition but is determined by
its practice (Preston 2012, p. 5). That is why, prevention posters from Oak Ridge
Laboratory dating from the Manhattan Project times are still quite relevant for any
worker exposed to radiation sources, even though some military elements might
have lost some sense since [8].
What is also interesting about injunction as a management device is that there is
a wider array of potential issuers than in the order case. So far, three kinds of
authorities have been identified as relevant to make an injunction.
The first authority observed is derived from the recognized power one has to
direct someone else, such as in hierarchy case. This typical authority has been
widely analyzed since management studies beginning, particularly with Henri Fayol
description of administrative skills use [9].
244
S. Agulhon
As Blau noticed, two kind of communication management can address to the people
managed, depending on their “independence in the performance of [their] duty” [3]
and impacting responsibility distribution. Those two kinds of communication are
management devices that we would call order and injunction. Both of them are used
by an authority demanding something from someone but with a different approach
toward responsibility (which can imply notions such as liability or duty).
This contribution defines those two safety management devices called injunction
and order and demonstrate their contribution to system recovery in an emergency
situation. This “ongoing crisis in which conventional resources are lacking, but
societal expectations are high” [4] was a particularly interesting case as explicitation
processes and time acceleration effect emphasize how nuclear organizations deal
with those issues.
2 Safety Management Devices Definition
2.1 What Is Injunction?
Injunction is a communication triggering action as the addressee should adapt his
behavior regarding its message (conformity). This communication comes from an
authority and is both binding and relying on its addressee subjectivity [5]; as the
addressee is linked to the expected action or to its aim regarding responsibility
criterion. Fundamentally, injunction implies a tension between what comes from
oneself (autonomy) and what is implemented by external sources (heteronomy) [6].
This phenomenon affects one’s identity as no one can predict how far a subject will
integrate external things to his subjectivity [7] and experience.
By saying so, one would conclude right by stating that safety injunction is not
always or completely defined in time, space and form as shown by its legal evolutions from British Equity system to its 19th to early 20th variations in the United
States of America (Stewart 1895; Gregory 1898; Mc Murry 1961) cristalized in the
Pullman strikes repression through the Omnibus Indictment, and to its actual uses
demonstrating that the term ‘injunction’ has no fixed definition but is determined by
its practice (Preston 2012, p. 5). That is why, prevention posters from Oak Ridge
Laboratory dating from the Manhattan Project times are still quite relevant for any
worker exposed to radiation sources, even though some military elements might
have lost some sense since [8].
What is also interesting about injunction as a management device is that there is
a wider array of potential issuers than in the order case. So far, three kinds of
authorities have been identified as relevant to make an injunction.
The first authority observed is derived from the recognized power one has to
direct someone else, such as in hierarchy case. This typical authority has been
widely analyzed since management studies beginning, particularly with Henri Fayol
description of administrative skills use [9].
244
S. Agulhon