One of the slogans of HOP is: ‘when nothing happens, a lot is happening’. Of course, the language of this discourse doesn’t make sense unless one is initiated in the discourse of HOP. But when nothing happens, nothing happens, that’s the sense of the language. This kind of language is just HOP code and spin for a preoccupation with accidents, incidents, prevention, safety as ‘capacity’, mistakes, blame and injury rates, masked in positive psychology speak.
Yep, there it is: traditional safety
This language is also coupled with the language of ‘fail safely’, now described by HOP as a ‘movement’ within its ‘movement’. Soon we will be able to add this ‘movement’ to the S2, SD, RE, NV, LT and HOP group. An ever-expanding collection of a slogan-focused movements in search of a methodology and method.
Here’s some ‘fail-safety’ language for you:
‘Failing Safely means taking into account that one day things will inevitably go wrong, we must plan for this to ensure we prevent harm to people. There may already be a system or process which usually ensures tasks are performed safely, but sometimes things can change, and the outcome is not what we expect. As such, we need to do more, we need to be prepared for these situations and do what we can to make errors and mistakes less likely.’
Yep, there it is: traditional safety. And some more:
‘To ensure “Fail Safely” is achieved, there needs to be:
- Multiple layers of controls / barriers;
- Checks to confirm controls / barriers are in place; and
- Checks to confirm controls / barriers are effective.’
Yep, there it is: traditional safety
All of this language is focused on conditions and systems. Any reference to resilience is not focused on persons but the system. This is the meaning of so called ‘resilience engineering’.
This from Conklin:
‘When an incident happens, start your investigation by looking at the system.
Then if you need to, look at the worker.
But I promise you, when you look at the system your need to look at the worker almost always goes away.’ – Dr Todd Conklin
Yep, there it is: traditional safety
Another HOP slogan is ‘learning from normal work’. Again, positive psycho-babble for not speaking about mistakes and accidents but observing work before an accident happens. This is the same focus as traditional safety. All organisations focus on normal work before an accident, that’s what systems are created for, normal work. Again, the focus is on a preoccupation with accidents, incidents, mistakes, prevention, safety as ‘capacity’, blame and injury rates, masked in positive psychology speak. Except in HOP, we don’t talk about ‘hazards’ we now call them ‘error traps’. Such is the spin of HOP dressed in different language.
But it’s just traditional safety.
Interestingly, none of this collection of discourse and slogans explains a paradigm, methodology, ethic or worldview. Learning is not defined but is accompanied by brain-centric metaphors and semiotics eg. Practical Guide to HOP (https://www.norskindustri.no/siteassets/dokumenter/hms/hop/hop-veileder-engelsk-2024-3005.pdf). In this guide (p. 10) you can see that HOP believes cogs in the brain equate to learning, with each cog a slogan of HOP. The semiotics of ‘learning teams’ uses the same brain-centric semiotics. None of this represents the real nature of learning nor is there any notion of the embodied person connected to a theory of learning. There is no theory of learning articulated in Learning Teams.
In this ‘practical guide to HOP’ document it’s all just the same: risk assessments, JSAs, Hierarchy of Controls, pyramids, checklists, PPE, procedures, safety mechanistic processes.
Yep, there it is: traditional safety
All dressed up in new spin and no articulation of a method.
Even when this document uses the language of ‘skills’, there is nothing about listening, observation, care or method. It’s all just traditional safety. The document also invents tables of before and after HOP of binary comparisons of word salad as if HOP is somehow not traditional safety. And, all packaged through slogans, not principles.
If we want to understand what a principle is we need to first articulate an ethic (not declared in HOP) from which principles emerge. HOP does have a hidden philosophy, it’s just not articulated by anyone, including Conklin. Principles are anchored in moral values (philosophy), so that one knows what fits into the declared ethic/worldview and what doesn’t. (https://www.mvf-knowledge-base.com/2011/12/whats-difference-between-values-ethics.html). Slogans are not principles without a clearly articulated ethic and this is why traditional safety can so easily adopt HOP (https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-the-nature-of-performance-and-hop/).
It is clear with the 5 HOP slogans that any traditional safety view can fit. This is because slogans are not principles.
When one articulates an ethic, this defines what moral philosophy is being established. If one views humans as a factor in a system/organisation then, the underlying philosophy is behaviourist. What guides the system that follows is the organisation of objects (including humans) in a system. Yep, there it is, traditional safety.
Behaviourism is the common philosophy that dominates safety and HOP, regardless of a change in language and discourse. Indeed, we see that safety understands BBS and HOP as complementary (https://safestart.com/news/bbs-vs-hop-the-fight-that-doesnt-need-to-be-fought/). Furthermore, didn’t you know that the combo of BBS and HOP makes for ‘predictive-based safety’ (https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2018/12/01/BBS-HOP.aspx/).
Yep, there it is, the marriage made in heaven, HOP and BBS. This is what you get when you have no articulated ethic and a bunch of slogans without principles.
When nothing happens in safety, there’s always new slogans.
In SPoR, we have no interest in the discourse of traditional safety in performance or the ideology or Technique (Ellul) embedded in it. The Existentialist philosophy of SPoR has no interest in defining the life of persons through the lens of systems. This is why none of the projections of Behaviourism sit well with SPoR. An ethic of persons is not served well by a discourse focused on a traditional safety view of performance. Post-industrial notions of performance always lead to the dehumanisations of persons. Similarly, understanding work through the lens of systems.
If you are interested in an ethic of risk, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/
If you want to understand what a philosophy is, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/philosophy-and-spor-module-23/
If you want to understand a different methodology and method from traditional safety then you can connect here: admin@spor.com.au
- If you want to get some practical, positive and effective methods for tackling risk that are actually different and work, you can read here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/
- https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below