Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Führung

  • Chapter
Human Factors

  • 4881 Accesses

Auszug

Ein Operateur im Kontrollraum einer petrochemischen Produktion sanlage überwacht kritische Kenngrößen des Produktion sprozesses auf einer Reihe von Bildschirmen und Prozessschreibern. Mit Blick auf einen der Prozessschreiber erläutert einer seiner Schichtkollegen: „Wenn diese beiden Kurven nicht mehr parallel laufen, ist Vorsicht geboten — wenn sie sich kreuzen, muss sofort der Prozess gestoppt werden.“ Neben den Prozessschreibern sind auf einem Blatt Papier die kritischen Werte für diese beiden Parameter — Druck in einem Reaktor und Energieverbrauch bei einer Gruppe von Pumpenvermerkt, unterschieden nach dem Wert, bei dem der Vorgesetzte zu unterrichtenist, und dem Wert, bei dem der Prozess abgestellt werden muss, was sofortiges Leeren des Reaktors und Spülen mit Wasser sowie eine mehrstündige Produktionsunterbrechung bedeutet.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Barling, J., Loughlin, C. & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488–496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, K. (1992). Das Konzept Integriertes Management. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.& Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 3, 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R. & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F. E. (1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems. London: Tavistock Document No. 527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entin, E. E. & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flin, R. (2003). „Danger — Men at work“: Management influence of safety. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13, 261–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (1997). Autonomie und Kontrolle — Zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2004). Uncertainty management at the core of system design. Annual Reviews in Control, 28, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2007a). Arbeits-und Prozesssicherheit. In H. Schuler & K.-H. Sonntag (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie (S. 155–162). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2007b). Understanding and assessing safety culture through the lens of organizational management of uncertainty. Safety Science, 45, 637–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2007c). Rules management: How to achieve flexible guidance for safe railway operations. In J. R. Wilson, B. J. Norris, T. Clarke& A. Mills (Eds.), People and rail systems: Human factors at the heart of the railway (pp. 591–599). Abindon, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2008). Diagnosis of safety culture: A replication and extension towards assessing „safe“ organizational change processes. Safety Science, 46, 3, 450–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G., Ryser, C., Wäfler, T., Windischer, A. & Weik, S. (2000). KOMPASS: A method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G., Zala-Mezö, E. & Grommes, P. (2004). The effects of different forms of co-ordination on coping with workload. In R. Dietrich& T. Childress (Eds.), Group interaction in high risk environments (pp. 39–55). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guldenmund, F. (2000). The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Safety Science, 34, 215–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. R. & Heijer, T. (2006). Is resilience really necessary? The case of railways. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods& N. G. Levenson (Eds.), Resilience engineering — Concepts and precepts (pp. 115–137). London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. R., Heming, B. H. J., Carthey, J. & Kirwan, B. (1997). Modelling of safety management systems. Safety Science, 26, 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. R. & Swuste, P. (1998). Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Safety Science, 29, 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos, C. Graf, Gockeln, R. & Palecek, H. (1981). Handlungsorientierte Gefährdungsanalysen an Unfallschwerpunkten der Stahlindustrie. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 35, 146–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • INSAG (1999). Management of operational safety in nuclear power plants. A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (No. 13). Vienna: IAEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human performance, 22, 375–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A. & Kubicek, H. (1992). Organisation. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. A. (1991). A reexamination of autonomy in the light of new manufacturing practices. Human Relations, 44, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P. & Xiao, Y. (in press). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadersip in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, T. R. & Consolini, P. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of „high-reliability organizations“. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, O. (2002). Führen und führen lassen. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Kritik der Führungsforschung (6. überarbeitete Aufl.). Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orasanu, J. M. (1993). Decision-making in the cockpit. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki& R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 137–172). San Diego, California: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D. & Weick, K. E. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L. & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perron, M. J. & Friedlander, R. H. (1996). The effects of downsizing in safety in the CPI/HPI. Process Safety Progress, 15, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, G. & Naujoks, H. (1995). Führungstheorien — Evolutionstheorien der Führung. In A. Kieser, G. Reber& R. Wunderer (Hrsg.). Handwörterbuch der Führung (2. Aufl.) (S 915–926). Stuttgart: Schäffer Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstiel, L. v. (2003). Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie (5. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. & Libuser, C. (1997). Contingent workers in high risk environments. California Management Review, 39, 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo, T. & Hale, A. R. (2003). Managers’ attitudes towards safety and accident prevention. Safety Science, 41, 557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edn.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semmer, N. & Regenass, A. (1996). Der menschliche Faktor in der Arbeitssicherheit — Mechanismen, Verhütung und Korrektur von menschlichen Fehlhandlungen. In G. Grote& C. Künzler (Hrsg.), Theorie und Praxis der Sicherheitskultur (S. 53–81). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, H. S., Mayr, J. & Haines, T. (1997). Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates. Safety Science, 26, 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staehle, W. H. (1991). Redundanz, Slack und lose Kopplung in Organisationen: Eine Verschwendung von Ressourcen? In W. H. Staehle& J. Sydow (Hrsg.), Managementforschung 1 (S. 313–345). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G. I. (1976). The impact of automation on work group autonomy and task spezialization. Human Relations, 23, 568–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. C., Hilton, T. F. & Witt, L. A. (1998). Where the safety rubber meets the shop floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety Journal of Safety Research, 29, 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L. & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29, 112–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. & Roberts, K. H. (1983). Collective mind in organizations. Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6. Aufl.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun, S., Faraj, S. & Sims, H. P. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1288–1296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L. & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zala-Mezö, E., Künzle, B., Wacker, J. & Grote, G. (2004). Zusammenarbeit in Anästhesieteams aus Sicht der Teammitglieder. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 58, 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gudela Grote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Product Innovation Management Faculty for Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

    Petra Badke-Schaub  & Kristina Lauche  & 

  2. Krisenmanagement, Hohenheimerstr. 104, 71686, Remseck

    Gesine Hofinger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grote, G. (2008). Führung. In: Badke-Schaub, P., Hofinger, G., Lauche, K. (eds) Human Factors. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72321-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation