Cognitive heterogeneity and incentive design in safety governance
Abstract
Frontline production units in high‐hazard industries face a persistent “knowing‐doing gap” in process safety management: despite formal hazard identification procedures, high reporting volumes coexist with persistent major risks. Through a mixed‐methods case study in a PetroChina Tarim Oilfield unit (survey N = 219; interviews n = 75), we integrate behavioral safety theory with incentive compatibility principles to develop a diagnostic typology of frontline employees. Cluster analysis reveals four archetypes—Reward‐Seekers, Expert Contributors, Disengaged Compliers, and Alienated Experts—each responding differently to the existing appraisal system. Our analysis demonstrates that a homogeneous, metrics‐driven appraisal system creates perverse incentives across archetypes, undermining genuine risk control. We propose differentiated governance principles that tailor communication, incentives, and support mechanisms to align each archetype's rational behavior with the collective goal of meaningful process hazard identification. This study contributes a micro‐level, human‐centric lens linking workforce heterogeneity to system effectiveness, offering a pathway from procedural compliance to substantive risk reduction.