In the Safety tradition of speaking nonsense to people here is the latest from IOSH: ‘We must predict to be preventative’
Of course, the same tradition upholds the idea that Safety is entitled to present or write on matter in which it has the least expertise, knowledge and experience. This is what is essential in Safety to be a ‘thought leader’. Any claim to knowledge and expertise when there is none, is pure fraudulence. It seems the moment one gets a diploma in safety one is entitled to comment on epidemiology, neurophysiology, jurisprudence, anthropology and theology.
The moment you hear or read anything that seeks ‘’prediction in relation to mental health you know that the speaker has no expertise, knowledge or expertise in mental health. But this never seems to stop Safety from putting its ignorance on full display.
In the real world of mental health there is no such thing as ‘recovery controls’. Only Safety would speak such nonsense. Indeed, only Safety loves the language of ‘controls’ while the rest of the real world knows that fallibility denial (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/ ) is the real mental illness.
The zero-safety industry is the industry of fallibility denial. Fallibility denial is a mental illness.
The most important thing to remember in Safety is that the industry has no expertise, knowledge or experience in tackling mental health. This is demonstrated by the ignorance of the industry in naming such as a ‘hazard’ (https://safetyrisk.net/not-just-another-hazard/; https://safetyrisk.net/the-language-of-hazards-and-psychosocial-mental-health/ ). The language of ‘hazards’ has no place in any discussion or thinking on mental health or psychosocial issues (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-psychosocial-safety/ ).
No-one with any knowledge, experience or expertise in the mental health sector would use such nonsense language as is used in this article. No-one with any knowledge, experience or expertise in the mental health sector would ever use the language of ‘prediction’ in relation to mental health.
None of what appears in this article is ‘thought leadership’ but ‘ignorance leadership’, what Safety does so well.
If you have an interest in understanding mental health or psychosocial issues, the last place to look is Safety.
So, here we go from this article: ‘At its core, managing psychosocial risk is very similar to any other safety or occupational health risk.’ This is complete and utter nonsense. Such assertions are not only ignorant but dangerous and harmful. There is no correlation between the way physical hazards are controlled by Safety and the challenges of mental health. Anyone who makes such a claim has no experience, knowledge or expertise in the mental health sector and should be rejected as fraudulence.
Then this: ‘Organisations make mistakes when they don’t treat the management of psychosocial risk with similar procedure and rigour that is applied to risk that results in physical harm.’ More ignorance and more dangerous worldview. This kind of stuff will only amplify harm to people in their mental health condition. Only the zero-harm industry could be so expert at more deeply harming people.
Then this: ‘UK law requires that we predict to be preventative.’ Again, complete nonsense. Prevention does NOT require prediction. Indeed, the delusion of prediction is a mental health disorder. BTW, no-one with any expertise, knowledge or experience in the legal sector would ever use such language. The law does not expect prediction to prevent. Again, more fallibility denial, what Safety does so well. Oh, don’t you know? ‘All accidents are preventable’.
The article later raises the idea of holistic approaches to wellbeing and the idea of ethical practice. Safety has no expertise, knowledge or experience in either. The Safety industry is not interested in holism, shows no interest in Transdisciplinarity and certainly has no interest in ethics.
If Safety had an interest in ethics, it wouldn’t parade its ignorance about psychosocial issues. If Safety had an interest in ethics, it would be transparent about its deontological worldview and its obsession with zero, injury rates and controls. The language of ‘controls’ with regard to mental health simply demonstrates fraudulence.
If you want to know how best to respond to the challenges of mental health at work, go to those with expertise, knowledge and experience in the sector. Safety had no idea of any dos or don’ts when it comes to mental health.
Here are a few sources with competence when it comes to understanding mental health:
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below