• 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
    • 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 / Max Geyer / Building resilience trumps the prevention of harm

Building resilience trumps the prevention of harm

January 6, 2016 by Max Geyer 24 Comments

Building resilience trumps the prevention of harm.

Download a copy of the paper (includes the Bibliography for the references):  Building resilience trumps the prevention of harm

ResilienceThe prevention of harm is about trying to see, predict and control all things that may deliver an undesired outcome. Society and organisations develop regulations, rules, systems, procedures, structures, training, inspections, investigations, and punishment and reward programs, in order to manage the interaction of people and work activities. At the same time we have insurance policies, rehabilitation programs, law courts, audits, re-training programs, review and improvement programs, because of the humanness and fallibility of humans; because we know that where people are involved, not all will be anticipated, mistakes will be made, things will not go to plan and on occasions harm will result.

This paper argues that, when dealing with risk and safety, it is preferable to develop resilience than to try to prevent all harm. It does so by highlighting the limitations and by-products enacted by attempting to eliminate all harm and then identifies the advantages of developing resilient capacity when dealing with the unexpected.

The Collins English Dictionary (2003) defines harm as ‘physical or mental injury or damage’. A search of the top one hundred Australian listed companies will reveal many with declared values or risk and safety policies which espouse the elimination of harm and or have zero harm as a goal[1]. In relation to discerning and managing risk in the workplace, having the capacity to eliminate or prevent harm implies we would have the capacity to identify all physical or mental injury or damage associated with the operations of the organisation. Further, having an ability to identify all harm also implies we would have a capacity to foresee all events which could bring about that harm; that is, we would be omniscient, which is clearly not possible. The elimination of harm is not only not possible, as a negatively framed goal, it primes the organisation, its management and its people for failure (Custers, 2009). And as a by-product, it drives a culture of fear in relation to the reporting of incidents, it restricts the individual’s ability to exercise judgement and it stifles innovation, learning and improvement (Long, 2012); it stifles what it is to be human.

The international standard related to risk management AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and guidelines, defines risk as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives”[2] (cited in HB 327:2010). The companion guide to that Standard, HB 327:2010 Communicating and consulting about risk (The Handbook) warns that ‘Communicating and consulting about risk requires an understanding of the central role of uncertainty in the generation of risk.’ (HB 327:2010). When one further examines the attendant notes to the definition from the Standard (see footnote below) Note 2 points to the holistic nature of risk by emphasising that risk is not confined to health and safety or to any one part or level of an organisation. Indeed, in support of the view that the nature of “risk management” is a concept to be dealt with as a holistic issue, the World Health Organisation defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (cited in Aghadiuno, 2010).

The Australian Government Comcare website points to the health benefits of work when it references some of the hazards which are to be addressed when attempting to eliminate or minimise workplace harm, when it states:

Work is generally beneficial to mental health and personal wellbeing. It provides people with structure and purpose and a sense of identity. It also provides opportunities for people to develop and use their skills, to form social relationships, and to increase their feelings of self-worth. (Australian Government Comcare, 2014, accessed 22/09/2015).

For most people their stability of employment would be a critical component of their mental and social well-being and an attack on that employment would constitute an instance of harm. This indicates that our search for the sources of harm, and elimination of that harm would need to consider all components of the organisation, no matter how small that may impact of the success of the business and hence the well-being of its employees. It further highlights the holistic nature of harm and the implausibility of eliminating it.

Australian workplace health and safety legislation acknowledges that the total elimination of risk is not likely. Indeed, the basis of the legislation is ‘reasonable practicability’ (Model WHS Act 2011, Section 18). In order to exercise their workplace health and safety due diligence, management are required to take ‘reasonable steps’, and apply ‘appropriate resources and processes’ in the fulfilment of their duties and obligations (WHS Act 2011, Section 27 (5)).

The methods used to identify and assess risks, as described in the risk management Standard mentioned above, are subjective in nature and not an exact science. The identification and assessment processes are heavily dependent on: the knowledge, expertise and understanding of the people involved in the risk assessment exercise; on their knowledge and expertise related to the thing or process being assessed; and on how they make decisions. The process is dependent on the perception of those involved, and The Handbook accepts this when it states:

Perceptions are what people apprehend to be true—particularly through reliance on their own senses, concepts, experiences, assumptions, knowledge, value sets, intuition and prejudices.

Perceptions may therefore reflect, or vary from, reality but are often a powerful element in the way further information is considered. Consequently, different individuals may view the same information differently and draw different conclusions. (HB 327:2010).

The Handbook further warns us that in consulting and communicating about risk we need to also consider ‘… a number of demographic and socio-economic determinants such as age, sex, education, social class, ethnicity and income strata also affect individual and group perceptions.’ (HB 327:2010).

We know that people have ‘bounded rationality’ (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999) and generally make decisions as resourcefully as possible by employing ‘satisficing heuristics for searching through a sequence of available alternatives, and fast and frugal heuristics that use little information and computation to make a variety of kinds of decisions.’ (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Research informs us that when people make judgements and discern situations, which may involve risk, they take account of salience and accessibility (Hogg & Vaughan, 2010); they make decisions based on their own schemas (Hogg & Vaughan, 2010); and they apply their personal and collective biases such as: group think, clustering, confirmation bias, overconfidence (hubris), selective perception, anchoring bias and availability heuristic (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999; Hogg & Vaughan, 2010; Plous, 1993; Slovic, 2010; Sunstein, 2004), and their intuitions or ‘gut feelings’ (Gigerenzer, 2007). The Handbook acknowledges the humanity of people and the valuable role that heuristics play in decision making about risk when it states: ‘… Heuristics are valid risk assessment tools in some circumstances and can lead to “good” estimates of statistical risk in situations where risks are well known.’ (HB 327:2010).

The employment of short cuts, by the use of satisficing and heuristics, and the application of biases, ultimately results a great deal of ‘exformation’, that is, information which is either not considered, or is briefly considered and discarded during the decision making process (Norretranders, 1998).

Decisions and assessments made about risk are subjective. They are as much dependent on the makeup of the cohort considering the risks, the means those involved employ to identify risks, and the means they adopt to help their decision making process, as they are on the nature of the risks themselves. With so much subjectivity involved it is clearly impossible to identify all sources of harm let alone prevent all harm.

Another issue with preventing all harm has to do with the humanness of those involved. Billett, Gruber and Harteis (2012) tell us that ‘… Firstly, complex problems and fuzzy rules shape an environment of human behaviour which makes errors unavoidable; and, secondly, errors can be fruitful incidents for further development.’

This leaves us with a number of challenges. What do we do in relation to the harm that we cannot identify and/ or control? What do we do to manage harm from events that are unexpected? What do we do when people, as fallible humans, make mistakes? And how can we benefit from the lessons learned in order to better prepare for the next unexpected event?

We understand from social psychology, that risk management is a ‘wicked problem’ it cannot be totally resolved; it can only be tackled and worked on (Conklin, 2006). However, one answer is to enable people to be ready for and to deal with the unexpected when it inevitably happens. This means that we need to be ready for when things go wrong such that we: recognise the “wrongness” as soon as we can; we limit the harm caused, both in terms of its impact and its sphere of influence; and we either return expeditiously to the pre-incident state, or quickly adapt to our ‘newly enacted’ environment (Weick, 1969). Weick and Sutcliffe call this process having a ‘commitment to resilience’ (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

Weick and Sutcliffe adopt Allenby and Fink’s definition of resilience as ‘… the capability of a system to maintain its function and structure in the face of internal and external changes and to degrade gracefully when it must.’ (cited in Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Zautra, Hall and Murray (2010) tell us that ‘… resilience (sic) is best defined as an outcome of successful adaptation to adversity.’

A critical point here is the importance of adaptation to the enacted environment, in the role of developing resilience. Denhardt and Denhardt (2010) state that ‘Resilience involves the ability to adapt creatively and constructively to change, and change is the one constant in organizational (sic) life today.’ Importantly, Weick and Sutcliffe advise us that the resilient organisation carries the scars of its interactions; it learns and becomes better prepared as a result of dealing with the unexpected but not by wrapping itself in more defence systems; it does so by building its capability to respond (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

Adaptability is something that is developed over time and is something that actually benefits from the mistakes of people and the errors and failures, which are noticed and recovered, before they escalate into major events (Amalberti, 2013). This acceptance of failure is something that organisations, which are focussed on eliminating harm, cannot accept or acknowledge. For the resilient organisation, what is critical is that the response to challenges and the unexpected does not result in brittleness and inflexibility (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2010); instead it results in ‘antifragility’ (Taleb, 2012) and an ability to learn from failure. Conversely, an organisation which is focussed on the elimination of harm is in danger of becoming brittle, inflexible, fragile and stagnant.

Denhardt and Denhardt (2010) encompass a holistic approach to managing the unexpected when they identify that resilient organisations are characterised by five key elements: first, they have a capacity for redundancy, they have a capacity for their systems to degrade but for the organisation to survive as components fail; second, their robustness and vigour, typified by promoting ‘… the mental and psychological health of their employees’; third, their flexibility and willingness to ‘… try new approaches rather than relying only on standard operating procedures’; fourth, their reliability is based on organisational infrastructure that is ‘… sound, providing reliable and accurate data, working communication channels, and management of resources’; and lastly a culture of ‘… respect and trust’.

So how does the zero harm organisation measure up to these characteristics when dealing with uncertainty?

As pointed out above, such organisations cannot tolerate failure, they compensate by building more and more elaborate systems of control and control redundancy; they become so ‘tightly coupled’ that they eventually lose the capacity to adapt (Weick, 1982). Their focus is on mechanistic systems and people as human factors fitting into those systems, as opposed to promoting the health and psychological well-being of people. Adherence to procedures is fundamental and uncompromising. The pressure to achieve zero harm impacts negatively on reporting and the accuracy of data, and it stifles communication channels, the by-product of which is the loss of respect and trust in the organisation and its leadership.

An organisation which is focussed on resilience embraces uncertainty and the inevitability of mistakes and develops capability such that the impact of uncertainty and mistakes is restricted (when negative) or embraced and enhanced (when positive). (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007)

Of course the desire for resilience does not mean the acceptance of all harm as good; although often times good comes from harm ((Taleb, 2012). Life and decision making is never binary it is always grey and messy. The athlete knows that by stretching muscle tissue and developing small tears encourages the development of bigger muscle tissue and more strength.

We cannot see all harm, although we can acknowledge that unforeseen harm does exist. Therefore we need to develop the capacity to identify and deal with that which we cannot see. We need to be able to manage for the unexpected. In particular, we need to be ready for when things go wrong such that, harm is limited, consequences are constrained, damage can be controlled and a return to productivity can be expedited. In other words given that we cannot see the future, and that the unexpected will happen, we are better off developing our capacity for resilience than attempting to predict and control harm.

I welcome your comments and thoughts and maybe a chat about developing resilience instead of more controls.

Author: Max Geyer

Phone: 0419 143 457

E-mail: max@viamaxconsulting.com

Web: www.viamaxconsulting.com


[1] BHP Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto, Woolworths, Leighton Holdings (CIMIC), Lend Lease, Downer EDI, all have, or include, zero harm in their espoused goals as viewed on their websites.

[2] The definition is accompanied by four “Notes” as follows: (1) An effect is a deviation from the epected (sic) – positive and/or negative. (2) Objectives can have different aspects (such as financial, health and safety, and environmental goals) and can apply at different levels (such as strategic, organization-wide, project, product and process). (3) Risk is often characterized by reference to potential events and consequences or a combination of these. (4) Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event (including changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood of occurrence.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Max
Max Geyer

Max Geyer

Director at VIAMAX Consulting
Max Geyer

Latest posts by Max Geyer (see all)

  • WHS Legislation is NOT about Safety it’s about Culture - May 11, 2018
  • Due Diligence Is Not Just Ticking Boxes! - December 18, 2016
  • Corks on the quills of an Echidna = Safe–Really? - April 15, 2016
  • Do we really need “One More” safety brand? - March 17, 2016
  • Sensemaking and Signs - January 20, 2016
Max Geyer
Max is currently completing a Graduate Certificate in the Social Psychology of Risk; has a Graduate Certificate of Management (HR Management); Diplomas of Business – Auditing (OH&S, Environment & Quality); a Certificate in Coaching Skills; a Certificate in Emotional Intelligence Assessment & Coaching; a Certificate IV in Workplace Training & Assessment and a Certificate in Return to Work Coordination. With over 35 years experience at operational and management levels in industry, including the Pastoral Industry, General Industry, Mining Industry and Consulting; Max delights in bringing that experience and knowledge to his interactions with Viamax clients in order to help make a positive difference to their lives.

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: Max Geyer, Resilience, Social Psychology of Risk, Wicked Problems Tagged With: harm, resilience, satisficing, Zero Harm

Reader Interactions

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 7,498 other subscribers

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

ISO 45003 and What it Cannot Do

The KISS of Death in Safety

Behavioural Safety is NOT a Foundation for Tackling Psychosocial and Mental Health

The Worst Approach to Psychosocial Problems is an Attitude of ‘Fixing’

The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health

Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)

No Good Reason to Follow Reason

The Moral Harm of the Zero Cult

Toxic Positivity in Safety Doesn’t Help Anyone

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

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

Recent Comments

  • Brent Charlton on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Rob Long on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Brian Edwin Darlington on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Brian on The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Jaise on The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Rob Long on Posture Myths and Holistic Ergonomics
  • Linda McKendry on Posture Myths and Holistic Ergonomics
  • Rob long on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Matt Thorne on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Anonymous on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Jason on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Rob Long on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Admin on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Rob Long on 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Gustavo Saralegui on 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Rob long on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Wynand on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Rob Long on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • simon cassin on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Rob Long on Records of safety activities: evidence of safety or non-compliance?

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
  • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • NATIONAL SAFETY DAY/WEEK IN INDIA 2023
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS
  • The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health

Recent Posts

  • ISO 45003 and What it Cannot Do
  • An Advanced Understanding of Culture – A Video
  • Risk and Safety Maturity
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • Behavioural Safety is NOT a Foundation for Tackling Psychosocial and Mental Health
  • The Worst Approach to Psychosocial Problems is an Attitude of ‘Fixing’
  • SPoR Comes to Vienna June 2023
  • The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • The Visionary Imagination – Louisa Lawson
  • Heaven ‘n Hell and the Safety Religion
  • Confirmity in Conformity
  • Numerology and Psychic Numbing
  • Thinking of Mortality
  • Safety is the Wrong Anchor
  • Foresight Blindness, Hindsight Bias and Risk
  • Getting the Balance Right in Tackling Risk
  • What is SPoR?
  • How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Afraid to Let Go of What Doesn’t Work in Safety
  • When You Don’t Know What to do in Safety, Have Another Blitz!!!
  • Gloves and Glasses Compliance
  • A Case of Desensitisation – What Would You Do?
  • How to Leave the Safety Industry
  • The Mythic Symbology of Safety
  • Dark Waters, The True Story of DuPont and Zero
  • 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Am I stupid? I didn’t think of that…
  • Don’t Look Now Safety, Your Metaphor is Showing
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Culture as a Wicked Problem, for Safety
  • Safety Leadership Training
  • Cultural Orientation in Risk
  • The Stanford Experiment and The Social Psychology of Risk
  • Objectivity, Audits and Attribution When Calculating Risk
  • Records of safety activities: evidence of safety or non-compliance?
  • Zero, The Seeking of Infinity
  • Safety Leadership Essentials
  • What Can Indiana Jones Tell Us About Culture
  • Safety as a Worldview
  • The Loathing of Limits
  • Culture Cannot be Framed Through Safety
  • Free Online Workshops
  • Safety Culture–Hudson’s Model
  • Book Launch – For the Love of Zero – in Portuguese
  • Advancing Backwards in Safety
  • The ‘Noise’ of Safety, Silence and Practicing of Mindfulness
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

Non-Binary Decision Making in Risk

Free Poster–Risk

The Fallible Factor and What to Do About It

Fear of Being-in-the-World

Beware of Hazardous ‘OINTMENT’

The New Leadership – Risk and Safety

What’s the Alternative to Traditional Safety? SPoR.

You Don’t Want a Compliance Culture

Visualising Risk

Free Download – Real Risk – New Book by Dr Robert Long

Themes and Concepts in Risk – Requests

Risk and Safety Matrices and the Psychology of Colour

I Just Don’t Know

Certificate, Diploma and Masters Studies in SPoR

Safety Leadership Training

Failure Must be an Option

Ways in Which the Workplace Harms Us

Towards Dumb

The Different Levels of Wrongness!

Just Tell Your Mind to Stop It

Censorship and Taboos in Safety

Happy New Year and the ‘Good Life’ Paradox

Safety in Design as if Humans Matter

The Safety Cacophony Cupboard

Envisioning Risk in Canada

The Shock of Homeostasis

The Conundrum in Discerning Risk

Framing Folly and Fantasy in Safety

Zero Suicide and the Discourse of Denial

The Deficit Focus and Safety Balance

Is Choice The First Casualty in the Worker’s Compensation War?

Leadership, Risk and the Zone of Reciprocal Relationship

I Don’t Serve Systems

The Worm at the Core

Concept Mapping Risk iCue

Semiotics and the Unconscious Messages We Send

The Hero Myth in Modern Management

The Sound of Safety

Why Personify Safety?

Flooding is Dangerous, and I don’t Mean the Water….

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 7,498 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