As it is revealed, Jefferies is a photographer.

The essay excerpt below is taken from a paper by Bea Wildred, who gives us her gracious permission to use this text. Her more objective, academically appropriate essay begins this way:

If straight-up entertainment is your thing, Rear Window is a great way to spend your evening.

For those interested in the sociology I suggest reading the following account that covers the NASA study and two others: Diane Vaughan 2002 (PDF).

This essay on the Resilient Systems blog.

However, since Jefferies's boss refuses to let him go back to work, he applies his

I would like to expand on and question a few aspects of this post. First off, why does the wedding band necessarily represent Jeff’s trust for Lisa? I may have missed this, but I did not get this idea when I watched this part of the film. Maybe the wedding band more closely represents Lisa’s desire for marriage, and represents the turning point in their relationship- the point when Jeff can finally see a future with Lisa.

Well, technically, you don't. See you soon.

Casey's second sentence. "By the book" is seldom a term of praise, and "work to rule" is well known as a technique for deliberately slowing operations. In most organizations you have to know which rules you can break safely and when -- which is something people are really lousy at. And by the nature of promotion in most organizations, "getting things done" earns the promotion, with only minimal attention to how things got done. So as you go up the management ladder you have a population of more and more people who have ignored rules in the course of their rise. (And the ones who ignored rules and failed horribly don't rise, but that's attributed to them, not to the strategy.)

General aviation only needs one rule.

Developed societies, America especially, have gotten into an unhealthy dance in which safety requirements far outstrip the reasonable. Predictable result: people not only skip unnecessary steps, but also lose respect for the entire process, which leads to skipping the really important steps. The usual response when such disrespect comes to light is to make the rules even more ridiculous, and the spiral repeats.

"there are old ones and bold ones, but there areno old bold ones."

The solution I would stress is: pare down the list of requirements to the truly essential. This will gain respect for the process and lead to greater adherence to its rules.

Long answer short "the carrot and stick of society".

This analysis is missing the impact of normalization of compliance. It appears that the premise is that no negative outcomes are a result of following procedure to the letter. In fact, I believe it was this blog that had a link to a document called "How Complex Systems Fail" which points out a common mistake in forensics it labeled as "Post-accident attribution accident to a ‘root cause’ is fundamentally wrong". The point of which is that there is a social drive to simplify the system to a level where we can point a finger and say 'This was the problem' when a proper understanding has multiple factors contributing to the outcome.