Proactive Safety Management and Proactive Behavior of Personnel as Resources of Resilience Engineering



The article substantiates the relevance of ensuring the technosphere safety of socio-technical systems based on proactive management and proactive working behavior. The development of ideas about the role of the human factor in solving the problem of integrated adaptive safety of socio-technical systems is described. Modern organizations should be able to adapt to work in an unpredictable social, political and climatic environment, with the likelihood of an unforeseen resonant combination of technical, climatic and humanitarian threats, possessing the capabilities of a comprehensive adaptive system. As a result, the role of the human factor as an active element of the sociotechnical system is increasing. The comparative characteristics of the concepts of classical Safety management systems (SMS), High Reliable Organization (HRO) and Resilience Engineering (RE) are given in terms of the possibilities for ensuring the safety of social and technical systems in a dynamic technosphere environment. Safety management systems (Safety-I) try to prevent future incidents based on past events, which does not reflect the dynamics of changes in the external and internal environment. High Reliable Organizations create excessive control loops and additional resources, which results in the loss of effectiveness of most organizations, and at the same time does not provide absolute safety. Resilience Engineering (Safety-II) relies on the normal variability of activity processes as a potential for proactive safety. Analysis of the role of the human factor suggests the need for the implementation of proactive safety management to prevent the occurrence of dangerous resonant states in the system. The proactive working behavior of personnel ensures the adaptation of functions to changing conditions of the external and internal environment of the organization and the anticipation of dangerous resonant variability of working activity. The synthesis of the traditional approach to safety (Safety-I) and Safety-II, based on the introduction of resilience engineering, allows for the prevention of dangerous resonant deviations in activity, while maintaining the necessary level of productivity and quality.

General Information

Keywords: technosphere safety, resilience engineering, Safety-II, proactive safety management, anticipation, proactive working behavior

Article type: scientific article


Funding. The study was supported by Russian Foundation for Humanities, project “Proactive behavior in modern work design”, no. 19-013-00947.

For citation: Manichev S.A., Lepekhin N.N. Proactive Safety Management and Proactive Behavior of Personnel as Resources of Resilience Engineering. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 2020. Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 33–45. DOI: 10.21638/spbu16.2020.103. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. The security of Russia. Legal, socio-economic and scientific-technical aspects. Fundamental’nyye i prikladnyye problemy kompleksnoy bezopasnosti. Moscow, Znanie Publ., 2017. (In Russian)
  2. Devisilov V.A. Safety Culture and Education. Formation of a culture of life safety in the educational environment: priorities, problems, solutions. Moscow, 2018, pp. 19–23. (In Russian)
  3. Lepekhin N.N., Manichev S.A. Ensuring the technosphere safety of socio-technical systems based on psychological factors of sustainability engineering. Materialy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii “Bezopasnost’ kak faktor ustoichivogo razvitiia obshchestva” , Respublika Krym, g. Sudak, 25–26 sentiabria 2019 goda. (In Russian)
  4. Novikov N.N. Role and place of a specialist in safety in the organizational structure of the company. Bezopasnost’ i okhrana truda, 2017, no. 2, pp. 13–22. (In Russian)
  5. Proctor R., Zandt T. Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2018.
  6. Performing safety culture self-assessments. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2016.
  7. Self-assessment of nuclear security culture in facilities and activities. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017.
  8. Wetering R., Mikalef P., Helms R. Driving organizational sustainability-oriented innovation capabilities: a complex adaptive systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2017, vol. 28, pp. 71–79.
  9. Pushnoi G. S. MSP-Model of the Economic Complex Adaptive System (ECAS): Economy as a Complex Adaptive System. Method of Systems Potential (MSP) Applications in Economics: Emerging Research and Opportunities. IGI-Publishing, Hershey, London, 2017, pp. 1–30.
  10. Pariès J., Macchi L., Valot C., Deharvengt S. Comparing HROs and RE in the light of safety management systems. Safety Science, 2019, vol. 117, pp. 501–511.
  11. Casler J.G. Revisiting NASA as a High Reliability Organization. Public Organization Review, Springer, 2014, vol. 14 (2), pp. 229–244.
  12. Enya A., Pillay M., Dempsey S.A. Systematic Review on High Reliability Organisational Theory as a Safety Management Strategy in Construction. Safety, 2018, vol. 4, issue 1, no. 6, pp. 1–18.
  13. Borys D., Else D., Legget S. The fifth age of safety: the adaptive age. Journal of Health & Safety Research in Practice, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 19–27.
  14. Weick K.E., Kathleen M. Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd ed., USA, 2015.
  15. Hollnagel E., Woods D., Leveson N. Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006.
  16. Hollnagel E. Resilience Engineering: A New Understanding of Safety. Ergonomics Society of Korea. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 2016, vol. 35 (3), pp. 185–191.
  17. Hollnagel E. The nitty-gritty of human factors. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Practice: Improving System Performance and Human Well-Being in the Real World. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 2016, pp. 45–64.
  18. Fedorets A.G. Risk management in the technosphere. Bezopasnost’ i okhrana truda, 2017, no 2, pp. 23–35. (In Russian)
  19. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Disaster. Investigating the Myth and Reality: The Independent Investigation on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Routledge, 2014.
  20. Reason J. Safety paradoxes and safety culture. Injury Control & Safety Promotion, 2000, no. 7 (1), pp. 3–14.
  21. Hollnagel E. Is safety a subject for science? Safety Science, 2014, vol. 67, pp. 21–24.
  22. Furuta K. Resilience Engineering — A New Horizon of Systems Safety. Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Toward Social‐Scientific Literacy and Engineering Resilience. New York, Springer, 2015, pp. 435–454.
  23. Leont’yev D.A. Mnogourovnevaia model’ vzaimodeistviia s neblagopriiatnymi obstoiatel’stvami: ot zashchity k izmeneniiu. Materialy III Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. Kostroma, 26– 28 sentiabria 2013 g. , vol. 1, KGU im. N.A.Nekrasova Publ., 2013, pp. 258–261. (In Russian)
  24. Back J., Furniss D., Hildebrandt M., Blandford A.Resilience markers for safer systems and organisations. Computer safety, reliability, and security. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2008, pp. 99–112.
  25. Hollnagel E. Barriers and accident prevention. Routledge, London, 2016.
  26. Resilience Engineering Perspectives, Volume 1: Remaining Sensitive to the Possibility of Failure. Hollnagel E., Nemeth C.P., Dekker S.W.A. (Eds). Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, 2008.
  27. Nemeth C.P., Hollnagel E. Resilience Engineering in Practice, vol. II, Becoming resilient, Farnham, UK, Ashgate, 2014.
  28. Hollnagel E. The ETTO Principle: Why things that go right sometimes go wrong. Farnham, UK, Ashgate, 2009.
  29. Hollnagel E. FRAM — The Functional Resonance Analysis Method: Modelling Complex Socio-technical Systems. Farnham, UK, Ashgate, 2012.
  30. Hollnagel E. Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Farnham, UK, Ashgate, 2014.
  31. Wahl A., Kongsvik T., Antonsen S. Balancing Safety-I and Safety-II: Learning to manage performance variability at sea using simulator-based training, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, vol. 195, p. 106–698.
  32. Tret’yakov V.P. Generating games as a way of developing the apperception ability of operating personnel of power facilities. Trudy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Psikhologiia truda, inzhenernaia psikhologiia i ergonomika 2014» (Ergo 2014), 2014, pp. 268–270. (In Russian)
  33. Hollnagel E. Safety-II in Practice. Developing the Resilience Potentials. Routledge, 2017.
  34. Tret’yakov V.P., Yepatko S. S. The Generating Business Game “Labor Protection”. Human factor in technical systems and environments (Ergo-2018). Trudy Tret’ei mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 2018, pp. 548–551. (In Russian)

Information About the Authors

Sergey A. Manichev, PhD in Psychology, St. Petersburg State University, St.Petersburg, Russia, e-mail:

Nikolay N. Lepekhin, PhD in Psychology, St. Petersburg State University, St.Petersburg, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail: