Human Development and the Evolution of Safety: Insights from Erikson, Kohlberg and Fowler

By Simon Renatus

Transcending Rules: Safety in the Context of Human and Faith Development

Safety, as a practice, focuses on rules, compliance, and technical systems while neglecting the human development underpinning those it claims to protect.  By incorporating Erik Erikson’s psychosocial development theory, Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and James Fowler’s faith development framework, we can examine how growth, maturity, and ethical reasoning influence safety culture and ways of being.  These frameworks offer profound insights into why rigid, rule-based approaches falter in addressing the complexity of relational dynamics in the workplace.

To evolve, safety must transcend its fixation on systems and procedures to embrace the deeper complexities of what it means to be human.  It must engage with ontology, the study of being, and hermeneutics, the interpretation of meaning in human experiences and ways of being.  Crossing into these philosophical realms requires learning a “new language,” but doing so reveals safety’s deeper purpose: to navigate the human condition with care, empathy, and understanding.  These frameworks offer not only insights into individual development but also a lens to examine how safety cultures themselves can grow and adapt.

Safety, as a practice, clings to an illusion of certainty, rooted in rule-based dogma that stifles growth, ethical reasoning, relational trust, and the evolution of faith.  By reimagining safety through the perspectives of Erikson’s psychosocial development, Kohlberg’s moral reasoning, and Fowler’s faith development, we expose its developmental immaturity and unlock the potential for a more human-centred, adaptive practice.

Theoretical Foundations

At their core, the models of Erik Erikson, Lawrence Kohlberg, and James Fowler share a profound similarity: they each describe how human development unfolds across distinct dimensions, shaping our identity, morality, and capacity for meaning.  Each framework explores how individuals progress through stages, guided by their ability to navigate uncertainty and complexity.  Erikson examines how challenges influence identity and relationships, Kohlberg focuses on the progression of moral reasoning, and Fowler frames faith as a journey enriched by doubt and experience.

These frameworks not only provide insights into personal development but also offer a pathway to understand how safety cultures grow and adapt.  Just as individuals progress by engaging with uncertainty, organisations must navigate the tension between certainty and change to evolve into practices rooted in trust, ethical reasoning, and relational depth.

Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages

Erikson’s model presents eight stages of psychosocial development, each framed as a conflict that shapes identity and relationships.

1. Trust vs. Mistrust (Infancy): Developing trust in caregivers lays the foundation for relational security.
2. Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (Early Childhood): Fostering independence while managing external constraints.
3. Initiative vs. Guilt (Preschool Years): Balancing assertiveness with respect for others.
4. Industry vs. Inferiority (School Age): Developing competence through social and academic tasks.
5. Identity vs. Role Confusion (Adolescence): Forming a clear sense of self and purpose.
6. Intimacy vs. Isolation (Young Adulthood): Building meaningful, reciprocal relationships.
7. Generativity vs. Stagnation (Middle Adulthood): Contributing to the growth of others and leaving a legacy.
8. Ego Integrity vs. Despair (Late Adulthood): Reflecting on life with wisdom or regret.

While all stages contribute to human growth, Trust vs. Mistrust and Generativity vs. Stagnation are especially relevant to safety practices.  Trust is the cornerstone of collaborative safety cultures, enabling openness and shared responsibility.  Generativity challenges leaders to nurture innovation and invest in the future, ensuring their contributions extend beyond immediate results.

In safety cultures, Trust vs. Mistrust manifests in how workers feel secure to report issues without fear of blame or retribution.  When trust is absent, critical information is withheld, undermining the collective understanding of risk.  Similarly, Generativity vs. Stagnation becomes vital for leaders.  A leader stuck in stagnation prioritises compliance-driven metrics, while one embracing generativity fosters mentorship, innovation, and relational practices.   Addressing these developmental tensions unlocks new pathways for ethical decision-making and meaningful cultural change

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg complements Erikson by focusing on the evolution of moral reasoning through three levels:

1. Pre-conventional Level: At this stage, behaviour is guided by self-interest and avoidance of punishment.  Workers adhering to safety protocols out of fear of disciplinary action illustrate this level.
2. Conventional Level: Here, conformity to societal norms or authority becomes paramount.  This is where most safety cultures operate, valuing rule-following over ethical discernment.
3. Post-conventional Level: Individuals begin to act based on abstract principles, such as justice or care. At this stage, safety practices are driven by deep ethical commitments rather than rigid adherence to procedures.

Safety cultures mainly operate at the Pre-conventional and Conventional levels. Workers comply with protocols to avoid punishment or to gain approval, which reinforces rule adherence without fostering ethical reasoning.  By fostering Post-conventional thinking, safety programs can prioritise care, justice, and systemic learning, empowering leaders and workers to view safety as a relational and moral commitment rather than a checkbox exercise.

Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development

James Fowler’s model outlines six stages of faith development, framing faith as a dynamic process that evolves through life.  Each stage reflects a deepening relationship with doubt, meaning, and relational trust:

1. Intuitive-Projective Faith (Early Childhood): Faith emerges from imagination and experiences, influenced by parents and caregivers.
2. Mythic-Literal Faith (Middle Childhood): Faith becomes more concrete and rule-bound, relying on literal interpretations of stories and teachings.
3. Synthetic-Conventional Faith (Adolescence): Faith is shaped by relationships and external authority, often conforming to the expectations of communities.
4. Individuative-Reflective Faith (Young Adulthood): Individuals begin to critically examine beliefs, embracing doubt as a tool for self-discovery and meaning-making.
5. Conjunctive Faith (Midlife): Faith becomes more relational and paradoxical, integrating complexity and accepting truths that may seem contradictory.
6. Universalising Faith (Later Adulthood): Faith transcends personal experience, focusing on universal values such as justice, love, and compassion, with a commitment to serving humanity.

Fowler’s early stages mirror how immature safety cultures treat doubt and uncertainty as destabilising rather than developmental.  Safety programs stuck in rigid adherence to rules operate within Mythic-Literal Faith, where belief systems are unquestionable. Mature safety cultures, akin to Conjunctive Faith, embrace doubt as a pathway to relational trust and adaptive practices.  By fostering environments where uncertainty and complexity are acknowledged, safety can evolve into a reflective practice positioned in care, relational depth, and developmental learning.

Application to Workplace Safety

Together, Erikson’s, Kohlberg’s, and Fowler’s frameworks reveal the developmental immaturity of many safety practices, which often prioritise rule adherence over relational trust, ethical reasoning, and adaptability.  Addressing Trust vs. Mistrust and Generativity vs. Stagnation (Erikson), fostering Post-conventional reasoning (Kohlberg), and embracing Conjunctive Faith (Fowler) enables safety cultures to mature.  This developmental approach positions safety not as a rigid system but as a dynamic, human-centred practice that prioritises connection, care, and moral growth.

A Closer Look at Faith and “As If”

Human ways of being often operate within the context of “as-if.” Workers engage “as-if” procedures guarantee safety, much like individuals live “as-if” their health will endure forever—but there are no guarantees.  We live “in faith” (as-if) that this is how the future will unfold, trusting in people, relationships, and values to hold us, all while remaining in tension with the uncertain. This is also the same as how we should understand risk. Faith and risk are flip sides of the same coin.

This framework reveals the subtle faith underpinning safety systems—a concept rarely, if ever, acknowledged in the field.

Fowler’s stages of faith development highlight how true faith evolves through engagement with doubt, growing more nuanced and adaptive over time.  In the early stages, faith mirrors belief: rigid, literal, and reliant on external authority.  As faith matures, it becomes more relational and reflective, embracing uncertainty as a space for growth.  This developmental perspective parallels safety’s journey.  Safety, as it is often practiced, clings to Fowler’s earlier stages, where doubt is seen as destabilising rather than necessary.  By contrast, a mature safety culture—like mature faith—would recognise that doubt and uncertainty are integral to progress.

Theologian and philosopher Jacques Ellul provides a complementary view to understand faith’s transformative nature.  Faith, Ellul asserts, abides in the presence of doubt.  It exists in the tension between uncertainty and trust, fostering a dynamic relationship with risk and growth.  Belief, by contrast, excludes doubt entirely, demanding unwavering adherence to mandates and commandments. In safety, this manifests as dogmatic certainty—clinging to procedures as if they can eliminate harm entirely.  However, when these procedures fail, the fragility of belief is laid bare, leaving a void of meaning.

Faith, however, does not collapse under the weight of doubt—it evolves.  Fowler’s mature stages emphasise a relational and reflective faith that embraces complexity and paradox, finding strength and growth through challenge.  In safety, a shift from belief to faith means moving beyond rigid adherence to rules and embracing the uncertainties and fallibilities of human existence.  Faith enables adaptation, learning, and deeper connection.  By integrating Fowler’s understanding of faith as a developmental journey, safety can transcend its rigid foundations, growing into a dynamic practice that honours trust, relational depth, and human potential.  This framework also sheds light on the dangers of belief systems rooted in dogma—systems that, when challenged by reality, reveal their fragility.  This perspective naturally leads to a deeper examination of belief systems within safety practices, which often mirror the dogmatic structures of theological traditions.

The Dogma of Safety Belief Systems

In both theology and safety, belief systems can become rigid frameworks that resist doubt and exclude dissent.  We call this ‘dogma’.  Consider the Anglican Church’s 39 Articles of Faith, finalised in 1571, which dictates the beliefs required to be ‘part of the group’.  It is unclear if God contributed directly to these articles, yet they are accepted as absolute truths. Those who question or reject them are excluded—outsiders to the belief system.

Belief systems, whether theological or operational, provide an anchor in the face of uncertainty.  They operate as ‘gate-keepers’ and shibboleths (cultural custodians). In safety, as in theology, these systems offer the illusion of control—a sense that by adhering to a set of prescribed ‘truths’, we can mitigate risk and ensure order.  Yet this reliance on dogma often overlooks the complexities and randomness of the real world, where rigid frameworks are bound to encounter dissonance and fail.

How is safety any different?  Frameworks like the Heinrich Pyramid, the Pillars of Zero Harm, and Dupont’s Bradley Curve are sanctified as foundational truths, despite lacking proof that they accurately represent risk or effectively prevent harm.  But to question these beliefs is to risk being labelled “anti-safety”—a heretic in a field that clings to its dogma.

This exclusionary mindset leaves no room for doubt, nuance, or the recognition of human fallibility.  Yet belief systems, by their very nature, are fragile.  When faced with the realities of an uncertain world or the inevitability of human error, these beliefs are vulnerable to collapse.  The dissonance between the idealised vision of safety and the complexities of real-life risk shatters belief, exposing its fragility.

Beliefs will be challenged—and it hurts.  Like the pain of a first love lost, the shattering of deeply held beliefs brings profound discomfort and even grief.  Yet just as one’s faith in love itself can endure, maturing through the loss, so too can faith in safety evolve. Faith, unlike belief, embraces the tension between certainty and uncertainty.  It adapts and grows, finding strength not in rigid adherence to dogma but in its capacity to withstand and transform through doubt.

Faith abides in the presence of doubt.  It evolves, adapts, and grows in response to challenges, embracing uncertainty as an integral part of the human experience.  For safety to mature, it must shift from dogmatic belief to a relational practice positioned in faith—one that acknowledges fallibility and builds trust rather than enforcing exclusion.

Real-Life Dynamics

Safety professionals themselves often reflect the challenges of psychosocial and moral development.  Leaders in Erikson’s Generativity stage may find themselves constrained by organisational structures that inhibit meaningful impact, creating a sense of stagnation or dissatisfaction.  Meanwhile, those earlier in their professional journeys, shaped by fewer hardships or crises, may hold a confidence in the stability of rules and procedures—a stability that those with greater experience recognise as fragile.  This is not a question of age or capability but of exposure to the unpredictable, where certainty gives way to complexity.

Kohlberg’s theory explains this dynamic: individuals operating at the Conventional Level may find the questioning of rules unsettling, while those at the Post-conventional Level recognise that ethical reasoning thrives on flexibility and doubt.  Fowler’s framework adds a further dimension: those in earlier stages of faith development may see doubt as destabilising, while those in Conjunctive or Universalising stages view it as a necessary step toward deeper trust and understanding.  These differences are not antagonistic but reflect the diversity of perspectives needed for safety to evolve.

A Developmental Path Forward

To evolve, safety must transcend its current developmental ceiling.  By integrating Erikson’s, Kohlberg’s, and Fowler’s models, safety practices can embrace growth as a dynamic process:

• At the Post-conventional Level (Kohlberg): Leaders challenge dogmatic policies like “zero harm” to prioritise care, justice, and systemic learning.
• In Generativity vs. Stagnation (Erikson): Leaders cultivate a culture of mentorship and innovation, ensuring their legacy extends beyond immediate compliance and metrics.
• Relational Trust in Trust vs. Mistrust (Erikson): Relational trust becomes the foundation for open communication and collaborative problem-solving.
• Embracing Mature Faith (Fowler): Inspired by Fowler’s higher stages, safety evolves from rigid adherence to rules toward a reflective, relational understanding that acknowledges doubt as integral to growth.  By fostering environments where uncertainty and complexity are embraced, safety cultures can align with universal principles of justice, compassion, and care.

From Certainty to Growth: Safety’s Developmental Journey

Safety, as it stands, remains anchored in the early, immature stages of psychosocial and moral development, clinging to rules and the illusion of certainty. These stages are not the pinnacle but the foundation—the base from which safety must climb.  By integrating Erikson, Kohlberg and Fowler’s insights, safety can begin its ascent, evolving into a dynamic practice rooted in growth, relational trust, and ethical reasoning.

Safety exists in the tension between certainty and uncertainty, between what is known and what is yet to be discovered.  Fowler’s stages remind us that mature faith does not fear doubt; it welcomes it as a gateway to greater understanding and deeper connection.  This transformation invites us to let go of rigidity and embrace the complexities of human existence.  Safety is not a static endpoint but a developmental journey—a continual ascent guided by care, empathy, and the boundless potential of human beings.  And, there is nothing to fear in understanding risk in this way.

Sources

Anglicanism.info. (n.d.). Thirty-nine articles of religion. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://www.anglicanism.info/thirty-nine-articles-of-religion

Christ in You Ministries. (n.d.). Faith vs. belief. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from http://www.christinyou.net/pages/faithbelief.html

McLeod, S. (2023). Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/erik-erikson.html

McLeod, S. (2023). Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Unitarian Universalist Association. (n.d.). Handout 1: Stages of faith development. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/wholeness/workshop2/handout1-stages-faith-development