• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Psychosocial Safety
    • Resiliencing
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Ethics / Brady Review, Nothing New, No Way Forward – Republished

Brady Review, Nothing New, No Way Forward – Republished

February 21, 2023 by Dr Rob Long 32 Comments

3 years on and nothing has changed………….

One of the things that Safety does well is keep the doors closed to critical thinking outside of its own paradigm. Dialogue within the discipline of safety is tight, engaging similar worldviews, ensuring that nothing changes. This was confirmed recently with the release of the Brady Report to Qld Parliament on 6 February 2020, Boland Report in 2018 and the release of the AIHS BoK on Ethics.

If you want to know anything in Safety just keep your exploration within the disciplinary club. In that way you can predict the same kind of review with the same kind of outcomes. That way nothing will change but Safety looks really busy on the pathway to zero. The Brady Review is a good example.

The first thing we learn in the Brady Review into fatalities in Queensland Mining over the last 20 years is that the review takes a particular view that it doesn’t disclose. This view, though not openly disclosed, is entirely consistent with many other safety reviews. The review is fixated and endorses the Regulator, data myopia and naïve mythologies believed in the sector eg. sustaining the ideology of Zero, human error and that ‘accidents are preventable’. Of course, the review makes no connection between safety mythologies and later concerns in the report about excessive paperwork, problems with reporting, blaming and problems with measurement.

Indeed, the report has no discussion at all about any of the safety mythologies that influence culture creating cultural norms such as ‘tick and flick’, hubris, ‘flooding’ and risk naivety. Further, the review says nothing about culture at all except to project the naïve idea that a culture can be a ‘reporting’ culture. The report doesn’t define culture.

Aspects of the report accept the construct by Dekker that organisations ‘drift’ into failure. Of course, there is no such thing as ‘drift’ into failure, the metaphor conjures up this idea organisations were somehow ‘successful’ and now slowly and ignorantly, they are not. Brady then takes the Dekker thesis and applies it to data. One could easily get the opposite view by applying the data to a construct such as ‘wicked problems’. Yet people will read this review from the engineering-regulation bias and deem that is somehow objective!

At no time in the review is the ideology of zero explored as a causal factor in the increase in fatalities in Qld. This is despite the fact that the Regulator committed to zero in 1999 and has clearly failed by any measure. The ideology of zero projects a fixation on: minutia, counting and numerical claims of success eg. catch any plane to western Qld and see all the shirts with zero mantra and ‘1 millions hours with out injury’ etc. Thereby creating mythology that injury rates are a measure of safety.

The cultural norms of counting, fixation on minutia and numerics are indeed part of the problem but will never be entertained by such a review. One of the most important things in safety since the global ideology has been made zero (http://visionzero.global/node/6) is to ensure this sacred mantra remains untouched. So, 20 years later after the Qld Regulator embraces zero (https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/construction/articles/zero-harm-at-work-leadership-program ), fatalities continue to increase but zero remains unquestioned? Hmmm. Questioning Zero is the great taboo!

Another bias of the Brady review is the way it interprets the works of Prof K. Weick through the lens of Hopkins. Weick comes from the discipline of Social Psychology. One needs to frame what one knows of Weick through such a lens. Weick’s first book The Social Psychology of Organisaing is a must read (1969) and this helps one understand the way in which he thinks about High Reliability Organising. He makes it clear in his later writings that there is no such thing as a HRO! There is no such thing as a static High Reliability Organisation. There is no stasis for humans nor place where we ‘arrive’. There is only HROing. You can read here how his colleague Suttcliffe explains the problem: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388695/)

‘Despite everything we know about HROs, there is no recipe for transforming an organization into an HRO. Put another way, there is no easy path to achieving safe and reliable performance. Some HRO scholars emphasize the idea of high reliability organizing rather than high reliability organizations to highlight two issues. First, high reliability is not a state that an organization can ever fully achieve; rather, it is something the organization seeks or continually aspires to. Second, reliability is fundamentally a dynamic set of properties, activities, and responses’.

In the Weick meaning of HRO, one never arrives or can arrive. All organisations are fallible and grouped around fallible people. There is no ‘drift’ into failure. Yet, the Brady review states: ‘In all industries there is a tendency to simplify – in part because of a Newtonian drive to break a system into components (7.4 p.70)’. The opposite is the case. The reason why there is so much excess of paperwork in the safety industry is because Safety loves bureaucracy and minutia. This is because Safety trusts no one and believes that knowledge in risk is cognitive. The opposite is the case. There is no discussion in the Brady Review on intuitive knowledge and the part heuristics play in incidents.

Weick was right, the human disposition and that of organisations is a ‘reluctance to simplify’. One thing I will predict from this Brady Review is that paperwork and complexity will further increase. We can see this in the logic of the recommendations:

Recommendation 1. Drawing causal connections between fatality rates and increasing or decreasing vigilance is unfounded (p.iii). There is no evidence to demonstrate that fatalities are due to a lack of vigilance but that’s what Brady asserts. So, what comes with increased vigilance? More policing, more detail because the culture of Safety is dominated by a lack of trust. It’ s only Safety who knows what is safe.

Recommendation 2. Shows the engineering worldview in the review. Once again the focus is on a fixation with causation and systemic failures.

Recommendation 3. More training of course will lead to more paperwork, again the assumptions is that fatalities occur due to problems in cognition.

Recommendation 4. Similarly a focus on more supervision under the rubric of vigilance will lead to more policing.

Recommendation 5. Predictably, in comes the ‘enforcement’ of controls and the mythology of the Hierarchy of Controls. Just what safety wants to hear.

Recommendation 6. Is founded on the mythology of the HRO. There is only HROing. Organisations never ‘arrive’ neither do they ‘drift’ into failure. Such constructs imposed on organizational life come from an assumptional positions of either completeness or perfection. Perfect for the ideology of zero.

Recommendation 7. In comes the focus on the Regulator. Regulators are not institutions of learning, neither are they able to approach the challenge of risk through a methodology of learning. To shift the Regulator from its current punitive focus would take nothing less than a cultural revolution.

Recommendation 8. The key question here is: Why is it that people and organisations don’t report? Of course, one would need to look here at deep cultural issues, something the review doesn’t do.

Recommendation 9. Next incomes more measurement and different measurement. Shifting a measure from LTI to LTIFR changes nothing. Indeed, now the mining industry will not drop the old measure but start fixating on both. Neither are connected to safety. There is no relationship between injury rates and safety, it is all an attribution.

Recommendation 10. Again, more measures this time Serious Accident Frequency Rate SAFR as a measure of safety in the industry. Read the sub-text, more measures and more paperwork.

Recommendation 11. High Potential Incident Frequency Rate (HPIFR) as a measure of the level of safety in the industry. Read the sub-text, more measures and more paperwork.

So, that is it. There you are Mining Qld, you have your review. Keep up with zero even though fatalities are increasing, keep up your vigilance, counting and measures, keep up with more policing and mystically hope that things will improve. Keep thinking within the disciplinary bubble that creates for your own intellectual and cultural comfort because the next review from within the club may be in 5 years.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Rob
Dr Rob Long

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Dr Rob Long

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

  • Gesture and Symbol in Safety, the Force of Culture - March 20, 2023
  • Human Factors is Never About Humans - March 19, 2023
  • Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline - March 19, 2023
  • Smart Phone Addiction, FOMO and Safety at Work - March 19, 2023
  • Entertainment, Suckers and Making Money From Safety - March 19, 2023
Dr Rob Long
PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Ethics, Mining Safety, Robert Long Tagged With: AIHS BoK on Ethics, Brady Review, mining safety

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Bernard Corden says

    April 23, 2021 at 5:24 PM

    In Our Hurry to Conquer Nature and Death, We Have Made a New Religion of Science:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/22/in-our-hurry-to-conquer-nature-and-death-we-have-made-a-new-religion-of-science/

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      April 24, 2021 at 11:06 AM

      Bernard, a great piece in Counterpunch and yes, it seems that faith in science is the political preference for the challenges of mystery and uncertainty.

      Reply
  2. RonT says

    April 22, 2021 at 9:11 AM

    I suspect your biggest issue with the report Dr Rob … is that it is not your report.

    I’ve looked far and wide and find no other example of a detailed and thoughtful analysis of two decades of incident data. Brady also got into the field and spoke with a wide cross-section of workers, managers, senior leaders across mining and quarrying sectors.

    The section on ‘controls applied in the aftermath of a serious accident’ is simple, clear and informative for industry and regulator. It provides a basis for objective measurement of improvement.

    You appear to find nothing in the report to be positive about, I find that remarkably disappointing. That said, I concede that I tried to find something in your article to be positive about … but similarly could not.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      April 23, 2021 at 7:19 AM

      Ron, I have no interest in who wrote the report or territory between disciplines. My critique comes from a Social Psychological perspective and like all analysis, including an engineering analysis, the idea of negativity or positivity is irrelevant to critique. I have no interest in data unless I know the hermeneutic from which it is interpreted, in this case the engineer is certainly welcome to his resarch and his own critique but data is not neutral or objective and so the engineering lens simply applies its own lens to the data, this doesn’t certify that such an interpretation is real or true. I have little interest in the mechanistic worldview or the idea that regulation is the only answer to tackling risk. Indeed, as risk is a wicked problem a transdiciplinary approach is essential, neither engineering or science hold special privileged in knowledge when it comes to risk and safety. Indeed, the priveleding of these disciplines is part of the problem oferred in my critique. As for positivity in my work, it is endless, not just in the 10 books I have published of which 5 are free, but in so much of what I offer is practical, constructive and positive. This particular blog is actually much longer than what I normally offer and its purpose was to address the discourse (social politics) of the review. I am not seeking agreement but simply demonstrate that other valid worldviews don’t see the world as an engineer does nor suppose that one view is the only solution or be privileged in facing the challenges of risk.

      Reply
  3. Tommy D says

    August 23, 2020 at 8:49 AM

    I think you make some valid points but in a negative way. What you wrote isn’t actually constructive or helpful and doesn’t propose a way forward either. You clearly have a few hangups around zero harm, I’m not sure what you propose should be done differently.

    I would conject that Brady actually addresses a lot of your criticisms in the report. It’s a well written report.
    I’ll agree with you whole heartedly about paperwork, my interpretation is that Brady actually proposes reform of reporting systems not additional systems. He talks about using IT effectively with the implication being we move away from paper altogether.

    We have actually come a long way in a short time as an industry. We just have to keep pushing and raising standards, perfectly valid to criticise the status quo.

    Toughen up mate, we’ve all got work to do and we don’t have time to read your whining. Lol jks, just having a dig.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      August 23, 2020 at 10:24 AM

      Dear Tommy D, it’s called criticism for a reason and no zero harm is not a ‘hang up’, not some 1970s notion of irrational sense making about a concept. If you read the literature and or pay any attention to the research on zero harm, it not only doesn’t work it actually increases injury rates. There is nothing more divisive or negative than this ideology that symbolises negativity to this industry. The quest for zero only breeds dishonesty, underreporting, fear and brutalism.

      There is so much the Brady Report completely misses of significance, with critical issues in culture yet again brushed under the safety carpet. Just watch what comes out of the report, paperwork and systems are already increasing across the mining sector as a result of this report.

      ’Toughen up” are your serious, what kind of statement is that? Without criticism of the deeply problematic culture of this industry it’s not likely that the current sycophantic retreat into engineering and regulation for answers will solve much. If any toughening up is needed it’s for those who can’t cope with diversity, transdisciplinary critique and alternative research. The latest survey data by the way shows that 97% of the industry don’t believe all this zero stuff.

      Rob

      Reply
  4. Michelle says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

    I agree with the majority of comments here, however to shift organisational culture from ‘zeronothingness’ then we need to recognise maturity levels & use what’s known ie stats. Transferring to fatality actual and potential reporting is necessary to move organisations along, yes it’s not the answer but a step change in continuous improvement.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:49 PM

      Michelle, there are other approaches from other worldviews that can achieve much better step change, culture change and development without needing traditional mechanistic, metrics or numerics to tackle risk.

      Reply
      • Michelle says

        February 13, 2020 at 8:57 PM

        I am sure that there are Rob and this was not my point. Its really important to not be too academic and to come at things with a real world approach therefore the step change.

        Reply
        • Rob Long says

          February 13, 2020 at 9:12 PM

          Sorry Michelle, was just responding to your example of what is known eg. stats. Without being academic at all, what is known depends on what worldview one takes when looking at a problem. If the problem is a nail then the only solution is a hammer. Unless safety can bring in new transdisciplinary worldviews to the problem then whatever interpretation of maturity you hold according to the safety paradigm, is not likely to bring any change.

          Reply
  5. Shane says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Rob. I’ll have to go and check out the report now. I like your point about the fact we never talk about the ‘view’ of safety. As long as we stay in our box and copy and paste all is good with the world. Maybe, just maybe, one day all this will be flipped around to remove our focus on systems for systems sake. This is why I really like working with small businesses, when working in this space there is a sense of what the world should be like when we remove bureaucracy and are honest about the fact businesses are here to make money! In small business you can only pursue risk mitigation as much as you can afford, zero is just not a reality when you can’t afford to fixate on it. Thanks again for sharing and look forward to many more blog posts!

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

      I enjoy working with small business as well – it’s where you can find true care and this inspires a very different safety methodology. Unfortunately they sometimes have to play with the big boys and this certainly causes them a good deal of grief, particularly those who are bullies and use safety as their weapon

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

        Couldn’t agree more. There is much in common in tier one organisations that simply don’t think critically and all replicate each other. As we know size is a key element to bureaucratisation but on the odd ocassion there is some hope. I am working with a couple of global organisations at the moment who are doing some great things in SPoR that are making a difference.

        Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

      Thanks Shane, systems for systems sake is certainly the key to understanding being Papersafe. Greg Smith nails the fixation and psychosis that is documented in the Brady Review but at no time is it tackled. This idea that safety is somehow objective and not tied to worldviews is laughable. It’s why we have all these reviews by regulators and engineers and nothing changes.

      Reply
  6. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

    I’d like to see the invoice.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

      That’s what this is all about.

      Reply
  7. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:38 PM

    The following link entitled “Improving safety in the mining and quarrying sector” is from the Queensland Government DNRME website, which was last updated on 06/02/2020:

    https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/mining-resources/initiatives/safety-reset

    It includes a zero serious harm initiative.

    On which planet are these troglodytes living?

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

      Bernard, there is nothing more religious and sacred than zero. So, when one does a ‘reset’ and nothing changes ensure that of all things the sacred cow is not touched. Of course, the reset didn’t work so now we must hide data to maintain the ideology of zero, anything else is sacrilegious. Of course all the time the focus is on data with no connection to culture as a measure of safety. AS long as thinking remains in the club, nothing will improve.

      Reply
  8. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:38 PM

    The recommendations are merely polishing a turd and putting more lipstick on a pig.

    Reply
  9. Michelle says

    February 9, 2020 at 10:16 AM

    I agree with the majority of comments here, however to shift organisational culture from ‘zeronothingness’ then we need to recognise maturity levels & use what’s known ie stats. Transferring to fatality actual and potential reporting is necessary to move organisations along, yes it’s not the answer but a step change in continuous improvement.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 9, 2020 at 1:37 PM

      Michelle, there are other approaches from other worldviews that can achieve much better step change, culture change and development without needing traditional mechanistic, metrics or numerics to tackle risk.

      Reply
      • Michelle says

        February 9, 2020 at 3:33 PM

        I am sure that there are Rob and this was not my point. Its really important to not be too academic and to come at things with a real world approach therefore the step change.

        Reply
        • Rob Long says

          February 10, 2020 at 6:22 AM

          Sorry Michelle, was just responding to your example of what is known eg. stats. Without being academic at all, what is known depends on what worldview one takes when looking at a problem. If the problem is a nail then the only solution is a hammer. Unless safety can bring in new transdisciplinary worldviews to the problem then whatever interpretation of maturity you hold according to the safety paradigm, is not likely to bring any change.

          Reply
  10. Shane says

    February 8, 2020 at 9:40 PM

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Rob. I’ll have to go and check out the report now. I like your point about the fact we never talk about the ‘view’ of safety. As long as we stay in our box and copy and paste all is good with the world. Maybe, just maybe, one day all this will be flipped around to remove our focus on systems for systems sake. This is why I really like working with small businesses, when working in this space there is a sense of what the world should be like when we remove bureaucracy and are honest about the fact businesses are here to make money! In small business you can only pursue risk mitigation as much as you can afford, zero is just not a reality when you can’t afford to fixate on it. Thanks again for sharing and look forward to many more blog posts!

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 8, 2020 at 10:17 PM

      I enjoy working with small business as well – it’s where you can find true care and this inspires a very different safety methodology. Unfortunately they sometimes have to play with the big boys and this certainly causes them a good deal of grief, particularly those who are bullies and use safety as their weapon

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 9, 2020 at 6:34 AM

        Couldn’t agree more. There is much in common in tier one organisations that simply don’t think critically and all replicate each other. As we know size is a key element to bureaucratisation but on the odd ocassion there is some hope. I am working with a couple of global organisations at the moment who are doing some great things in SPoR that are making a difference.

        Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 9, 2020 at 6:32 AM

      Thanks Shane, systems for systems sake is certainly the key to understanding being Papersafe. Greg Smith nails the fixation and psychosis that is documented in the Brady Review but at no time is it tackled. This idea that safety is somehow objective and not tied to worldviews is laughable. It’s why we have all these reviews by regulators and engineers and nothing changes.

      Reply
  11. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 11:45 AM

    I’d like to see the invoice.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 9, 2020 at 6:35 AM

      That’s what this is all about.

      Reply
  12. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 9:44 AM

    The recommendations are merely polishing a turd and putting more lipstick on a pig.

    Reply
  13. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 9:40 AM

    The following link entitled “Improving safety in the mining and quarrying sector” is from the Queensland Government DNRME website, which was last updated on 06/02/2020:

    https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/mining-resources/initiatives/safety-reset

    It includes a zero serious harm initiative.

    On which planet are these troglodytes living?

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 8, 2020 at 11:13 AM

      Bernard, there is nothing more religious and sacred than zero. So, when one does a ‘reset’ and nothing changes ensure that of all things the sacred cow is not touched. Of course, the reset didn’t work so now we must hide data to maintain the ideology of zero, anything else is sacrilegious. Of course all the time the focus is on data with no connection to culture as a measure of safety. AS long as thinking remains in the club, nothing will improve.

      Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,515 other subscribers

Recent Comments

  • Leon Lindley on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Rob Long on Entertainment, Suckers and Making Money From Safety
  • Rob Long on Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline
  • Gregg Ancel on Entertainment, Suckers and Making Money From Safety
  • Rob Sams on Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline
  • Rob long on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Rob Long on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Rob Long on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Rob Long on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Admin on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Leon Lindley on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Admin on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Mariaa Sussan on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Brian Darlington on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Leon Lindley on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Narelle Stoll on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Narelle Stoll on Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • The Safety Love Affair with AI – Tyrancatech on CLLR NEWSLETTER–March 2023
  • Brian Edwin Darlington on SPoR Workshops Vienna 26-30 June
  • Rob Long on How to Manage Psychosocial Risks in your organisation

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline

Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness

Duty of Care is NOT Duty to Care (for persons)

Safety, Ethics, SPoR and How to Foster the Abuse of Power

Psychosocial Spin – Naming Bad as Good, Good Work Safety!

How to Manage Psychosocial Risks in your organisation

The Delusions of AI, Risk and Safety

Health, the Poor Cousin of Safety

Psychosocial Health Conversations – Three

Conversations About Psychosocial Risk – Greg Smith, Dr Craig Ashhurst and Dr Rob Long

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • Gesture and Symbol in Safety, the Force of Culture
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
  • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Entertainment, Suckers and Making Money From Safety
  • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
  • Safety Acronyms

Recent Posts

  • Gesture and Symbol in Safety, the Force of Culture
  • Human Factors is Never About Humans
  • Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline
  • Smart Phone Addiction, FOMO and Safety at Work
  • Entertainment, Suckers and Making Money From Safety
  • Breaking the Safety Code
  • The Futility of the Centralised Safety Management System?
  • Liking and Not Liking in Safety, A Tale of In-Group and Out-Groupness
  • Risk iCue Video Two – Demonstration
  • Radical Uncertainty
  • The Safety Love Affair with AI
  • Safety is not a Person, Safety as an Archetype
  • Duty of Care is NOT Duty to Care (for persons)
  • What Can ‘Safety’ Learn From a Rock?
  • Safety, Ethics, SPoR and How to Foster the Abuse of Power
  • Psychosocial Spin – Naming Bad as Good, Good Work Safety!
  • SPoR Workshops Vienna 26-30 June
  • What Theory of Learning is Embedded in Your Investigation Methodology?
  • How to Manage Psychosocial Risks in your organisation
  • Risk You Can Eat
  • Triarachic Thinking in SPoR
  • CLLR NEWSLETTER–March 2023
  • Hoarding as a Psychosis Against Uncertainty
  • The Delusions of AI, Risk and Safety
  • Health, the Poor Cousin of Safety
  • Safety in The Land of Norom from the Book of Nil
  • Psychosocial Health Conversations – Three
  • Conversations About Psychosocial Risk – Greg Smith, Dr Craig Ashhurst and Dr Rob Long
  • Jingoism is NOT Culture, but it is for Safety
  • CLLR Special Edition Newsletter – Giveaways Update
  • The Disembodied Human and Persons in Safety
  • 200,000 SPoR Book Downloads
  • What SPoR Network is.
  • Trinket Safety
  • How to Know if Safety ‘Works’
  • Due Diligence is NOT Quantitative
  • SPoR Community Network
  • Conversations About Psychosocial Risk Session 2 – Greg Smith, Dr Craig Ashhurst and Dr Rob Long
  • The Psychology of Blaming in Safety
  • By What Measure? Safety?
  • Safe Work Australia a Vision for No Vision
  • Do we Need a Different Way of Being in Safety?
  • Non Common Sense Mythology
  • Language Shapes Culture in Risk
  • What Does Your Risk and Safety Icon Say?
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Socialitie
  • The Deficit Focus and Safety Balance
  • The Beaconsfield Leadership Workshop
  • The Challenges for Organisations in Dealing with Mental Health
  • Brady Review, Nothing New, No Way Forward – Republished

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

Confirmity in Conformity

How Workers Really Make Decisions

The Worm at the Core

Zero Accident Vision Non-Sense

Risk and Safety Rituals

Risk and Safety as a Social Psychological Problem

Questioning Skills and Investigations

Making Sense of Safety Management Systems

Meeting is NOT About Technique

Breaking the Safety Code

Humanising Leadership in Risk, Shifting the Focus from Objects to Persons

Safety and The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Could Understanding Grey Be The Silver Bullet

Introduction to The Social Psychology of Risk – Free Online Module

The Heart of Wisdom at Covid Time

Pascal’s Wager and Sacred Safety

How Do We Know?

A Better Language for Risk and Safety

You Can’t Will Attentiveness

Safety – Just a Few Bad Apples

What Does SPoR Do?

The Social Psychology of Risk Event Exploration (Investigation) Knowledge

A Philosophy of Safety

The Fear of Power and the Power of Fear

The 10 Behaviours of the Safety Sociopath

Four Indicators of Toxic Safety Culture

How is the unconscious in communication critical for understanding and managing risk?

Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk

The Sully Effect

Towards Dumb

The Last Thing is, Don’t Start with Safety

The Disembodied Human and Persons in Safety

Behaviourist Neuroscience as Safety

How to Do the Best Risk Assessment

The Sickness of Safetyism

The Real Barriers to Safety

It’s a Great Goal, it Just Doesn’t Work

It’s not in the KPI or LTI but the MRI

Real Risk – Free Download

A Professional Ethic of Risk

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,515 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY