There are many models, tools and methods we offer in SPoR that clearly include traditional approaches to safety. We don’t talk about this much because why discuss traditional safety with people who already know what it is. Afterall, when the safety curriculum is 85-90% Technical/Engineering in focus, we don’t need more.
Instead, in SPoR we discuss what can add value to traditional safety indeed, what aspects of traditional safety can be jettisoned and still maintain compliance with the law and regulation. This is the message of Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations/), in audiobook (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations-audio-book/) and video (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations-audio-book/). This topic clearly connects with Safety with over 200,000 downloads.
One of the foundational models of SPoR is the Risk Maturity Matirx. If you observe the model you will see that the foundational steps of traditional safety are at the base of the model. Indeed, traditional safety comprises 50% of the model. This has been presented many times in books and blogs and indicates clearly a balance in a SPoR approach to safety. The model names each one of the foundational steps anchored in traditional safety but are then added to with the orange and green steps that show that there is more to safety than just the red steps. Indeed, once one steps up into the orange and green steps, these condition what aspects of traditional safety are no longer needed or useful. See Figure 1. Risk and Safety Maturity Matrix.
Figure 1. Risk and Safety Maturity Matrix.
We also have an animation of the maturity process (https://vimeo.com/377161192) that shows a one step forward, two steps back of how we experience and develop knowledge in risk reality. The video shows how we start in the red steps and move up and down various aspects of risk like riding and escalator. Whenever I do workshops with organisations and leaders, they tell me every time that most of what they do in risk and safety is ‘’stuck in the red steps. Many say at least 95%. They never tell me they want to hear more about the red steps rather, they want to hear about what they don’t know, what was never in their curriculum.
In SPoR we call the red steps Workspace, orange steps Headspace and the green steps Groupspace.
We use three icons to represent these three spaces, see Figure 2. Workspace, Headspace, Groupspace (WS, HS, GS).
Figure 2. Workspace, Headspace, Groupspace.
At no time in any of the models of SPoR is Workspace excluded rather, what we say is that when we give due balance to Headspace and Groupspace then safety will improve. AS you can see in the model Workspace holds 33% in balance with the other 2 spaces.
What this means is that the current focus in safety with a 85-95% on Workspace needs to reduce some of its focus to strike a disciplinary balance. We see this typical imbalance in the AIHS Body of Knowledge. Indeed, there are many critical aspects concerning risk that receive no attention at all in the BoK.
When we do our Risky Conversations workshops we always show our model that conversations are often about speaking and listening across these three spaces: Workspace, Headspace and Groupspace. See Figure 3. Balancing Conversations in Risk.
Figure 3. Balancing Conversations in Risk.
Indeed, when our conversations venture into the territory of Headspace and Groupspace, it changes the way we see Workspace (traditional safety). Again in this model we see that a focus on Workspace occupies 50% of conversational space.
Then when we introduce the model of One Brain Three Minds (1B3M) we also keep a balance between the three ‘minds’ of rational, emotional and unconscious decision making.
In this model we show that our decisions work like a speedometer. Some decisions are slow and methodical, some are developing through heuristics and others are automatic. Again, the balance is holding all three approaches in tension with each other. This balance also forms the centre of how any Risky Conversation should operate (See Figure 3 and Figure 4. 1B3M and Figure 5. One Brain, Three Centres of Decision Making)
Figure 4. 1B3M
Figure 5. One Brain, Three Centres of Decision Making.
We combine with this model the idea that we ‘think’ and make decisions with our head, heart and gut. This moves away from the idea that decision making and judgement is always rational and contained in the brain, common to rationalist modes of thinking in Engineering etc. So, the SPoR model balances how decision making really works. We move away from brain-centrism to embodied thinking.
Then when we combine these two models, we use a quadrant we call iCue to ‘map’ visual and verbal responses to conversations and discussions about risk. In this model 50% of the space is devoted to Workspace issues (traditional safety). This is complemented by the semiotic of the human person showing a balance of decision-making using head, heart and gut. See Figure 6. iCue Engagement
Figure 6. iCue Engagement
When we focus on Workspace in workshops, we concentrate on what works and what doesn’t work for people as they tackle risk. We focus on what is legally defendable and on the many myths of safety as demonstrated in our Risky Conversations series.
In our workshops many complain of: the burden of paperwork, the excesses of safety systems, policing, the burden of measurement, technical issues and ‘double speak’. Yet, when we offer a suggested balance of reducing traditional safety from 95% to 50%, the response is that it’s too hard or, that some other demand requires it.
When I did my Master’s degree in safety it was 100% focused on Traditional Safety, technical STEM content with no focus at all on any humanities or person-centric thinking.
If you look at a typical iCue ‘mapping’ exercises (eg. Figure 7. iCue Engagement Map) that discussed three fatalities concerning enclosed space in shipping, you can see a discussion of in Workspace, Headspace and Groupspace as contributing factors to the fatalities.
Figure 7. iCue Engagement Map
This is one of the methods in SPoR we use to map causality and relationships in a balanced way, using iCue visual-verbal mapping in SEEK.
You can see from the map that traditional Workspace factors (traditional safety) were considered but the majority of conversation discovered that there were multiple causes in Headspace and Groupspace. We find this proportionality in cause in most investigations we conduct.
In our swiss-cheese model we also show a balanced focus on Workspace, Headspace and Groupspace. The model is not linear but rather shows the reality of how life and activity unfold. Again. the balance is there in traditional safety, and also Headspace and Groupspace. See Figure 8. SPoR Swiss Cheese.
Figure 8. SPoR Swiss Cheese.
In the SPoR Learning-Risk dynamic we suggest the same balance, showing that that risk aversion makes the industry fragile. We suggest that when Risk Makes Sense, organisations and persons can become anti-fragile (Taleb). Again, there is a balance to be discovered in the dialectic between all three spaces. See Figure. 9. The Learning Risk Dynamic.
Figure. 9. The Learning Risk Dynamic.
Most SPoR models are triarchic advocating a balance/dialectic in the middle.
We do the same in understanding followership-leadership in the i-thou model.
The balance is in the hyphen, in the dialectic between followers and leaders where there is ‘real meeting’ (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/real-meeting-a-book-on-being-in-leadership/). This is where Transdisciplinarity is best experienced, in the hyphen dialectic, between i-thou. To get to this middle requires for the current imbalance in safety on technical/engineering to move somewhat.
When we focus on culture, we include traditional safety aspects on culture in our Culture Cloud model but also add critical elements ignored by Safety. Again, the balance is in the mix, offering traditional safety more to consider in areas in which it is silent. Figure 10. Culture Cloud.
Figure 10. Culture Cloud.
What we observe in the Culture Cloud is a clear focus on Transdisciplinarity, where symbols, mythology, theology, poetics, heuristics, politics and linguistics are considered. These are all absent in traditional approaches to safety and culture. The Culture Cloud thus symbolises where a balance could be found but this would again demand a shift in weighting in terms of a traditional safety focus.
The same applies in The Ethics of Risk. In the SPoR model many schools of ethics are recognised showing the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Figure 11. Schools of Ethics in Risk
Figure 11. Schools of Ethics in Risk
Again, the hope is that a balance can be struck between these rather than just putting all eggs in the one deontological basket which is currently weighted at 95% of all discourse in ethics in risk.
This is discussed in our book The Ethics of Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/).
Indeed, when we discuss ethics, we propose a Transdisciplinary approach that explores a dialectic between these schools of thought (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinary-thinking-in-risk-and-safety/). The same is suggested in an approach to safety. On the many occasions where SPoR discusses Transdisciplinarity (https://safetyrisk.net/?s=Transdisciplinarity) it is always about balancing the disciplines in dialectic.
In this model it is suggested that the focus on behaviourism, deontology and engineering that dominates 95% of the safety curriculum and Bogy of Knowledge need to accommodate different views on risk, perhaps to 50%.
When we discuss causation in SPoR we show that the majority of incidents and accidents are not caused by failures in systems, performance or regulation. These only really account for 15% of cause yet, the focus of the industry is 85% anchored to these factors. In reality, most incidents are caused by cultural and social psychological factors. Our suggestion is to turn the tables, change the focus and get the balance right. Figure 12. Incidents and Accidents.
Figure 12. Incidents and Accidents.
Striking a balance in Transdisciplinarity
As in all our books, models and publications the idea of exploring the nature of SPoR is understood as ‘icing on the cake’. There has never been an idea that we get rid of the cake and just eat the icing.
However, in Transdisciplinarity, a shift is required in order to strike a balance.
That is the challenge, and the space and movement required remains with what dominates the traditional safety paradigm.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Poetics and Risk Workshop, From Language to Doing - December 12, 2025
- Divergent Thinking About Risk - December 7, 2025
- Stop the Train I Want to Get Off - December 7, 2025
- Safety Leadership - December 7, 2025
- Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use in Safety - December 7, 2025
Brian Darlington says
Great blog Rob, easy to understand the explanations of the focus in SPoR.
Rob long says
Thanks Brian. I don’t think many get the way in which SPoR balances with traditional safety.