Normal Accident Theory versus High Reliability Theory: A resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents Samir Shrivastava, Karan Sonpar and Federica Pazzaglia ABSTRACT We resolve the longstanding debate between Normal Accident Theory (NAT) and High-Reliability Theory (HRT) by introducing a temporal dimension. Specifically, we explain that the two theories appear to diverge because they look at the accident phenomenon at different points of time. We, however, note that the debate’s resolution does not address the non-falsifiability problem that both NAT and HRT suffer from. Applying insights from the open systems perspective, we reframe NAT in a manner that helps the theory to address its non-falsifiability problem and factor in the role of humans in accidents. Finally, arguing that open systems theory can account for the conclusions reached by NAT and HRT,we proceed to offer pointers for future research to theoretically and empirically develop an open systems view of accidents. KEYWORDS high reliability  negentropy  normal accident  open system theory  requisite variety It is hardly possible for organizational theorists to write about accidents without referring to Normal Accident Theory (NAT) and High Reliability Theory (HRT). But this is not to say that the theories enjoy uncritical acceptance. Moreover, the proponents of the two theories cannot seem to agree whether their views complement or contradict each other. The genesis of the NAT-HRT debate can be traced back to Sagan’s (1993) book, The 1357 Human Relations DOI: 10.1177/0018726709339117 Volume 62(9): 1357–1390 © The Author(s), 2009 Reprints and Permissions: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/ journalsPermissions.nav The Tavistock Institute ® http://hum.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on September 17, 2015 hum.sagepub.com Downloaded from