Skip to main content

Führung

  • Chapter
Human Factors

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    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.

    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 leaderhip. Organization Science, 6,524–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. & Carroll, J. S. (2002). Leading orgaizational learning in health care. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11, 51–56.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flin, R. (2003). »Danger – Men at work«: Management influence on safety. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13,261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (1997). Autonomie und KontrolleZur 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.

    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.

    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). Abingdon, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2009). Management of uncertainty – Theory and application in the design of systems and organizations. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G., Kolbe, M., Zala-Mezö, E., Bienefeld-Seall, N., & Künzle, B. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 53, 211–228.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    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.

    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 

  • Künzle, B., Kolbe, M. & Grote, G. (2010). Ensuring patient safety through effective leadership behaviour: A literature review. Safety Science, 48, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J., Grote, G. (2010). Substitutes for leadership in anaesthesia teams and their impact on leadership effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 505–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J., Grote, G. (in press). Leadership in anaesthesia teams: The most effective leadersip is shared. Quality and Safety in Health Care. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2008.030262.

    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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership(2ndedn.). 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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. (1993). Collective mind in organizations. Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,357–381.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, D. (2002a). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, D. (2002b). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, D. & Luria, G. (2010). Group leaders as gatekeepers: Testing safety climate variations across levels of analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 647–673.

    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 

  • Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Künzle, B., Brüesch, M. & Grote, G. (2009). The influence of standardisation and task load on team coordination patterns during anaesthesia inductions. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18. 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grote, G. (2012). Führung. In: Badke-Schaub, P., Hofinger, G., Lauche, K. (eds) Human Factors. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19886-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics