Helping People Learn Safety
Helping People Learn Safety
Guest post by Dr Rob Long from www.humandymensions.com
The first thing we need to observe is embedded in the title, this article is not learning βaboutβ safety, learning βaboutβ safety is just data and information, βlearning safetyβ is real learning, when safety is owned and change results. Argyris and Schon (1974 Theory in practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness) called this βdouble loop learningβ. Everything else is just training or indoctrination, what they called βsingle loopβ learning. Learning βaboutβ safety is like learning βaboutβ anything, information is not education.
There is a strange mythology out there that βtellingβ is the primary methodology for learning and we know this is not true. People sit through endless telling processes like inductions and βwhite cardsβ and learn so little safety. People have no amount of safety βpreachedβ at them but soon observe that the preaching doesnβt match the modelling and so they learn that the telling is meaningless. This is called βDouble Speakβ and is far more powerful than telling, this is because educators know that the congruence or incongruence of the βhidden curriculumβ (method of telling) overrides the content of the telling. Hitting people so they wonβt hit others comes to mind as an example of Double Speak and the hidden curriculum, a parent swearing at a child not to swear etc, you get the idea.
The mythology of telling-as-learning seems to have people convinced that a data dump is how people βlearn safetyβ. Then when people donβt learn safety they donβt question the validity of the telling model, they presume people didnβt learn because they have a hearing problem. So, they will learn safety next time if someone yells it. Then when safety remains unlearned it must be because the other person is βstupidβ, it couldnβt possibly be because the methodology of βtellingβ is mythology.
Safety people proclaim the need for βsafety ownershipβ, rant and rave about people needing βcommon senseβ and despair of the repetitive nature of their job yet, have little expertise in learning and confuse indoctrination and training with learning. Itβs the Fodor Paradox, the beginning of learning comes from knowing what you donβt know. So we donβt know about medicine and trust a doctor, we donβt know about flying so we trust a pilot but, when it comes to learning we know what we know.
One of the unfortunate characteristics of safety education is that people donβt learn about education and learning. A safety diploma or degree trains people to think that safety is all about a regulation and a data βdumpβ and then when the safety person gets out on the job discovers itβs all about people. Most safety people tell me they wish they had learned about learning, motivation, perception, influence, knowledge development and inspiration in their safety training because, they discover pretty quickly when they get into the workplace that telling people about regulation doesnβt create safety.
Humans learn in many ways, a study of early childhood is a good place to start in learning about learning. One of the most powerful ways to learn is by experience. Even our experiences in the womb teach us about our mother and from the second we get out of the womb, without any form of language to be βtoldβ we discover by putting things in our mouth or touching with our hands. We hear and listen, see and observe and our brain and mind processes these as we experiment in trial and error, imitation and copy. It is through these observations that we create attributions, attachment and heuristics. We learn who loves us because we feel it, and yet have no comprehension of language for at least a few years. We observe modelling about us and copy more the modelling rather than what the model tells us. We often learn best by playing around (trial and error) with things without being βtoldβ. It wonβt be till we are in mid childhood that we will learn how abstract ideas have meaning. Many of these abilities to learn are carried genetically, it is in both nature and nurture that we learn. As we engage in relationships with others we learn through that relationship and by community belonging, without being βtoldβ anything. Most things we learn are βcaught not taughtβ is the old saying, what this means is, we learn mostly though the βhidden curriculumβ not the overt curriculum. The power of the hidden curriculum in learning is so strongly demonstrated by Freire, Holt, Dewey, R. S. Peters, Goodman, Postman and McLaren. Sadly, these are not on the reading list for safety people.
We learn best throughout our lives (not just in childhood) by discovery, observation, experience, creation, modelling, imitation, feeling, relationships, community and play (trial and error). These are the best methods to help people learn safety.
Those who confuse indoctrination with learning use the βtabula rasaβ (empty vessel) argument of John Locke from the 17th century to demonstrate their behaviourist anthropology. A quick look at Bloomβs Taxonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy) demonstrates that humans mostly learn without being told. For example, you can give a receptacle to a Kalahari bushman and he will quickly look at it and discover he can fill it, hit with it, learn its properties and use it and it doesnβt matter what he calls it, it doesnβt matter what its called. You can tell a Kalahari bushman βaboutβ a bottle but this is not learning. The bushman will quickly learn the value of the bottle or indeed, if the bottle threatens the fundamentals of their culture. People learn about culture through belonging, feeling and social absorption.
The idea that humans are somehow something like a computer is an unhelpful way of understanding educational anthropology. The fallibility of being human and the power of unconscious learning are so important to understanding how people learn and make decisions. The behaviourist mindset that dominates the safety industry is partly responsible for the industries inability to learn. Training is not learning, data is not learning, information is not learning. The idea that a human is the sum of inputs and outputs is the absurd assumption of a behaviourist worldview. At the heart of βlearning safetyβ is the nature of belief and values, machines canβt have belief and values. Learning invokes belief and there can be no belief without consciousness and unconsciousness. Machines canβt learn unconsciously through feeling but humans do. Humans are not machines and treating humans as machines is a dehumanizing process. Try responding to someone with a mental health condition as if humans are machines. Just give a person with depression, the right data and bingo, all will be well. Just tell someone with a disorder, not to be anxious and bingo, all will be well. Just tell someone who has not learned safety βbe safeβ and bingo, they will be safe. How absurd, the truth is, many people are trained βaboutβ safety but donβt know safety.
So, next time you despair about inductions that waste time or the lack of safety ownership and learning on site, maybe its time to ditch the old mythology and learn something about learning.
If you are interested in the Human Dymensions two day program Learning Safety, please contact admin@humandymensions.com
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Do You Care Enough to Blame in Safety? - June 14, 2026
- Slogan Seduction and Safety Beliefs - June 13, 2026
- Weick and Organisational Sensemaking - June 12, 2026
- Safety Beliefs β Free Workshop July - June 10, 2026
- Weickβs Understanding of Systems - June 8, 2026