Originally posted on September 13, 2021 @ 5:57 PM
200,000 SPoR Book Downloads
We’ve had a few milestones lately, first with the 1000th blog (https://safetyrisk.net/celebrating-1000-blogs-on-risk/ ) and now with over 200,000 book sales/downloads of Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR). This is in addition to over 100,000 video downloads (https://vimeo.com/humandymensions ). The most popular video download of all time is on Paperwork (https://vimeo.com/162034157 ). No surprises there.
The most popular book download of all time has been Fallibility and Risk, Living With Uncertainty (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/ ). There are however, 10 books for free download in the SPoR series (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/ ).
Along with these interests has also been thousands of people subscribing to the quarterly newsletter that is jam packed with research in SPoR. You can see the newsletter archive here: https://spor.com.au/downloads/newsletter-archive/ and subscribe here: firstname.lastname@example.org
When I started offering a free Introduction to SPoR I had no idea I would so overloaded with registrations from all over the globe, with each cohort being oversubscribed. People are starting to register for the next session even though it doesn’t commence till Feb 2022 (https://cllr.com.au/product/an-introduction-to-the-social-psychology-of-risk-unit-1-free-online-module/ ).
Little did I know when I published my first book Risk Makes Sense in 2012 (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risk-makes-sense/ ) that 10 years later there would be so much interest in SPoR. SPoR offers balanced, practical, positive help to anyone wishing to better tackle risk.
It is clear that SPoR has hit a nerve in the risk and safety industry with so many wanting to move away from traditional safety, systems safety, zero and brutalism, so that safety improves (https://safetyrisk.net/moving-away-from-zero-so-that-safety-improves/ ).
Then with each newsletter or blog, book, video or module I receive so much encouragement. People say they resonate with the voice raised that exposes how safety demonises people and how little help they receive help from traditional safety. Particularly, so many encourage my message against zero. No wonder, our online survey demonstrates (https://spor.com.au/zero-vision-survey/ ) that 85% of risk and safety people don’t believe in it. More so, the same percentage of people see zero as dangerous, dishonest and unethical. And with all the associations anchored to zero then wonder why people don’t want to become members. When an ideology takes you into a religious-like cult (https://safetyrisk.net/the-spirit-of-zero/ ) why would you join?
The topic that attracts the most demand of all the topics I write or speak on is Ethics. People realize that none of the industry associations or groups come close to helping them with the fundamental ethical challenges they face each day. They say that the industry talks about ‘ethical responsibility’ and yet at no time defines what that means? Similarly, the industry offers no help or skill development in enacting ‘ethical responsibility’. When the best you can offer is ‘check your gut’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/ ) you would be right to think you are being set up for a flogging. Can you imagine what a legal professional would do with this amateurish stuff in court? (https://www.waylandlegal.com.au/ ) Yep, roll up roll up for your belting and blame under the guise of CPD points. After all, you don’t even need the AIHS BoK on ethics because it tells Safety that it is innately ethical and objective! You couldn’t make this s*^t up!
Unfortunately, when you’re left ‘high and dry’, when something goes wrong and your templates and checklists are used against you in court (https://safetyrisk.net/the-seduction-of-templates-set-and-forget/ ), I wonder where that ‘ethical responsibility’ goes? I wonder how that ‘ethical responsibility’ sits with an industry that doesn’t provide the resources and skills you need to act professionally? You’re on your own baby. Reminds me of a conversation I had once with a crane driver who lost his house and marriage over a fatality and court case that went on for 5 years. I could tell similar stories from Beaconsfield.
When you need an ethical advocate in the times when things go wrong it won’t be Safety, it will be someone like Greg Smith (https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199 ). And one of the first things Greg (https://mysafetythoughts.com/about/ ) will advise as your advocate is, don’t show the court that safety mumbo jumbo stuff. The semiotics of curves, pyramids, swiss-cheese, matrices, TRIFR, zero, slogans and bow-ties will get pulled apart quickly by the court that hasn’t swallowed the safety Kool aide (https://vimeo.com/166158437 ). None of these can demonstrate ‘ethical responsibility’. As Greg often says none of these provide a ‘defendable position’ … and let’s hope your testimony is congruent with your paperwork. Because you might find out quickly that you are only ‘papersafe’ (https://www.waylandlegal.com.au/paper-safe ). You might discover very quickly that what you have been doing makes your workplace less safe (https://novellus.solutions/podcast/the-dangers-of-safety-bureaucracy/ ).
None of this safety stuff demonstrates you have exercised Due Diligence (https://mysafetythoughts.com/due-diligence-program/ ) or ‘ethical responsibility’ (https://www.waylandlegal.com.au/blog ). No amount of paperwork can demonstrate ‘ethical responsibility’ to a court when the best you can use to demonstrate professionalism is safety mythology.
BTW, you won’t find an ethic of advocacy in the AIHS BoK nor any clarity about ‘ethical responsibility’.
I guess this is why so many turn to the positive alternative and messages in SPoR. In SPoR you are not left high and dry to work out your own ethic of risk. Be assured ‘ethical responsibility’ is not about bumbling along in a vacuum or ‘slogan fest’ provided by an indolent industry, an industry so keen to use the work ‘professional’ without any of the ethical foundations necessary to demonstrate such. There is still nothing globally in the safety industry or its curriculum that offers support and intelligence about ‘ethical responsibility’. Indeed, the ideology of zero works against any possibility of ‘ethical responsibility’. If you want to understand ‘ethical responsibility’ perhaps you could start here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/.
But this is not just empty critique (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-critical-thinking-in-safety/ ). SPoR offers positive skills, tools, helping, iCue competence and practical methods to ensure that what you do works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/ ). Otherwise, why would a large global organisation move away from traditional safety and zero to SPoR if what they were doing worked?