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

Safety Risk .net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE RESOURCES
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • 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
  • PSYCHOLOGY OF SAFETY & RISK
    • 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
  • Covid-19
    • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
    • Covid-19 Returning to Work Inductions, Transitioning, Safety Start Up and Re Entry Plans
    • Covid-19 Work from Home Safety Checklists and Risk Assessments
    • The Hierarchy of Control and Covid-19
    • Why Safety Loves Covid-19
    • Covid-19, Cricket and Lessons in Safety
    • The Covid-19 Lesson
    • Safety has this Covid-19 thing sorted
    • The Heart of Wisdom at Covid Time
    • How’s the Hot Desking Going Covid?
    • The Semiotics of COVID-19 and the Social Amplification of Risk
    • Working From Home Health and Safety Tips – Covid-19
    • Covid-19 and the Hierarchy of Control
  • Dr Rob Long 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!
  • Quotes & Slogans
    • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
    • When Slogans Don’t Work
    • 77 OF THE MOST CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
    • 500 BEST and WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2021
    • 167 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
    • 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
You are here: Home / Ethics / Brady Review, Nothing New, No Way Forward

Brady Review, Nothing New, No Way Forward

February 8, 2020 by Dr Rob Long 32 Comments

imageOne 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)

  • Culture Silences in Safety – Linguistics - May 26, 2022
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Embodiment - May 26, 2022
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Holism - May 23, 2022
  • Culture Silences in Safety The Collective Unconscious - May 21, 2022
  • Culture Silences in Safety Artefacts - May 20, 2022
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 this 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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Visit Count – Started Jan 2015

  • 24,030,230 Visitors

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 7,427 other subscribers

NEW! Free Download

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

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

Recent Comments

  • Matt Thorne on SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
  • Matt Thorne on SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
  • Rob Long on Culture Silences in Safety – Embodiment
  • Rob Long on SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
  • Brian Darlington on SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
  • Wynand on Culture Silences in Safety – Embodiment
  • Lynn Getzinger on Free Online Safety Training Courses
  • Rob Long on How to Give an Unforgettable Safety Presentation
  • Ndilimeke Shiwayu on How to Give an Unforgettable Safety Presentation
  • Mark Wayne Arboso on 500 BEST and WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2021

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Recent Posts

  • SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Linguistics
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Embodiment
  • Culture Silences in Safety – Holism
  • Culture Silences in Safety The Collective Unconscious
  • Culture Silences in Safety Artefacts
  • Culture Silences in Safety Symbolism
  • Culture Silences in Safety Mythology
  • The Safety Trifecta and Nothing Changes
  • Sleep Dysfunction, Dreaming and Safety

What is Psychological Safety at Work?

Footer

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 7,427 other subscribers

AUTHORS

  • Alan Quilley
    • Heinrich–Industrial Accident Prevention
    • The Problem With ZERO Goals and Results
  • Bernard Corden
    • After the goldrush
    • The Internationale
  • Bill Sims
    • Employee Engagement: Chocolate, Vanilla, or Strawberry?
    • Injury Hiding-How do you stop it?
  • Craig Clancy
    • Task Based vs Activity Based Safe Work Method Statements
    • Safety And Tender Submissions
  • Daniel Kirk
    • It’s easy being wise after the event.
    • A Positive Safety Story
  • Dave Whitefield
    • Safety is about…
    • Safety and Compliance
  • Dennis Millard
    • Are You Risk Intelligent?
    • Honey they get me! They get me at work!
  • Drewie
    • Downturn Doin’ Your Head In? Let’s Chat….
    • How was your break?
  • Gabrielle Carlton
    • All Care and No Care!
    • You Are Not Alone!
  • George Robotham
    • How to Give an Unforgettable Safety Presentation
    • How To Write a Safety Report
  • Goran Prvulovic
    • Safety Manager – an Ultimate Scapegoat
    • HSE Performance – Back to Basics
  • James Ellis
    • Psychological Core Stability for Wellbeing in Workers Comp
    • In search of plan B in workers’ recovery
  • James Parkinson
    • To laugh or not to laugh
    • People and Safety
  • John Toomey
    • In it for The Long Haul – Making the most of the FIFO Lifestyle
    • Who is Responsible for This?
  • Karl Cameron
    • Abby Normal Safety
    • The Right Thing
  • Ken Roberts
    • Safety Legislation Is Our Biggest Accident?
    • HSE Trip Down Memory Lane
  • Mark Perrett
    • Psychology of Persuasion: Top 5 influencing skills for getting what you want
  • Mark Taylor
    • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
    • Enculturing Safety
  • Max Geyer
    • WHS Legislation is NOT about Safety it’s about Culture
    • Due Diligence Is Not Just Ticking Boxes!
  • Matt Thorne
    • Safety Culture–Hudson’s Model
    • Culture – Edgar Schein
  • Peter Ribbe
    • Is there “Common Sense” in safety?
    • Who wants to be a safety professional?
  • Phil LaDuke
    • Professional Conferences Are A Sleazy Con
    • Hey Idiots, You’re Worried About the Wrong Things
  • Admin
    • SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP
    • Study Reveals an Unexpected Side Effect of Traffic Safety Messages
  • Dr Rob Long
    • Culture Silences in Safety – Linguistics
    • Culture Silences in Safety – Embodiment
  • Rob Sams
    • The Learning (and unlearning) that Revealed my Vocation
    • I’m just not that into safety anymore
  • Barry Spud
    • Things To Consider When Developing And Designing Your Company SWMS
    • Bad Safety Photos
  • Sheri Suckling
    • How Can I Get the Boss to Listen?
  • Simon Cassin
    • Safety values, ideas, behaviours and clothes
  • Safety Nerd
    • The Block isn’t portraying safety as it should be
    • Toolbox Talk Show–PPE
  • Wynand Serfontein
    • Why The Problem With Learning Is Unlearning
    • I DON’T KNOW
  • Zoe Koskinas
    • Why is fallibility so challenging in the workplace?

Most commented on

Forecasting Safety

The Banned Objects Index – A New Development in Safety Culture

The Unconscious and the Soap Dispenser

Dumbs for Safety

The Real Barriers to Safety

Safety as Faith Healing

Who Said We Don’t Need Systems?

Why Safety Controls Don’t Always Work

How to use signs, symbols and text effectively in communicating about risk

Safety Should NOT Be About Safety

FEATURED POSTS

Cognitive Dissonance and Safety Beliefs

Selective and Slow Harm is not Zero Harm

Foundations of Perception and Imagination in Risk

Making Safety Better by Using Our Adaptive Toolbox

Personhood and Risk

Numerology and Psychic Numbing

What is Your Risk iCue?

Safety Gives Me the Right over Other Rights

Doing Something Bad Well

3 Things I learned about Safety from Buddhism

Safety as a Worldview

Building resilience trumps the prevention of harm

The Mechanistic Worldview and the Dehumanisation of Risk

What’s Faith Got To Do With Safety

Tackling the Reality of Harm

Social Sensemaking Available Now PLUS Free Share and Giveaway

Safetie

The Idealization of Humans and The Zero Delusion

The Mystery and Paradox of Being an Individual in a Social World

Sanctimonious Safety

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 7,427 other subscribers

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

 

How To Make Your Own Hand Sanitizer

 

 

How to Make your own Covid-19 Face Mask

 

Covid-19 Returning To Work Safety, Transitioning, Start Up And Re Entry Plans

 

How’s the Hot Desking Going Covid?

imageOne of the benefits of the Covid-19 epidemic is a total rethink about how we live and work (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-28/coronavirus-could-reshape-how-australians-work-forever/12097124 ).

Expertise by Regurgitation and Re-Badging

One of the fascinating things about the Coronavirus pandemic is watching Safety morph into epidemiology expertise. I would like a dollar for every flyer, presentation, podcast, powerpoint, checklist template, toolbox talk and poster set that had jumped into my inbox… Read the rest

The Stress of Stasis

One of the challenging things about the Coronavirus crisis is stasis. For those without work and confined to home, for those in self-isolation, it’s like life is frozen in time. ‘Stay at home’ is the mantra. The trouble is, in… Read the rest

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.