When we look at so much of what circulates in safety about ‘safety as a priority’ and togetherness in safety, it’s always just the same old stuff – golden rules, behaviourism and zero. The following is a typical example: https://togetherinsafety.info/
Having just completed the MiProfile Survey with one of the largest maritime organisations in the world, the incongruence between survey findings and this approach is extraordinary.
Of course, the old favourites are present:
- Improve performance
- Bucket loads of numerics, metrics
- Injury rates interpreted as the presence of safety
- The good olde ‘golden rules’
- Promises of ‘dramatic improvement’
- ‘Proven’ resources
- ‘Ensuring zero incidents at work!’
BTW, the word ensure means to ‘make certain’.
All of this is spin/propaganda that sells well but is meaningless. Then following such language, the word ‘improvement;’ is used. Such deceptive and unethical language.
But this is the stuff CEOs love to hear. A guarantee of no incidents, whacko and pass the stock reports. Are CEOs this stupid? Are seafarers fallible persons? Why is it that people buy this meaningless goop? When we know such claims are not only untrue but impossible and dangerous,
When we look at these golden rules, like all golden rules, the focus is on objects. They are also individualistic. Well done Safety, more individualism and behaviourism, hoping safety will improve (https://safetyrisk.net/dumb-safety-slogans-and-myths/). Just more slogans searching for a methodology. More data presented as significant and, more behaviourism that blames the seafarer. The framing of all of this stuff is a disaster for safety!
And the same old cherries. Any worker can speak up and stop the job! This is the stuff of fairy tales and naivety. OF course, none of this applies to senior leaders or managers. None of this is connected to how Insurers work in the industry. None of this has anything to do with the culture of shipping. And then of course unsubstantiated lies as propaganda, a great selling strategy eg:
‘Other industries that have used similar Rules have experienced outstanding results. One company recorded a reduction in fatalities of 75% and serious injuries by nearly 50% over a 5-year period.’
None of this is true. Golden rules or life-saving rules don’t work!
- https://safetyrisk.net/auditing-the-7-golden-rules-of-zero-a-miserable-fail/
- https://safetyrisk.net/7-golden-rules-that-are-not-golden/
- https://safetyrisk.net/the-non-golden-rules-for-leadership-in-zero/
- https://safetyrisk.net/safety-golden-rules-leadership-and-ethics/
- https://safetyrisk.net/golden-safety-rules/
One of the projections of all of this approach is to ensure that these rules never apply to leadership or management.
All of this stuff that floats about in safety doesn’t even come close to all the research in SPoR into the real challenges of safety in the maritime industry. Setting a bunch of rules is much like the 10 Commandments in the Bible, where the whole purpose is to prove that no human can keep them. Yet again, poor old safety never wants to mention that naughty word ‘fallibility’ (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/).
And if a rule is broken, what is the consequence?
The we get this:
‘Most of the rules are not new and for most, will be well known’
Horray, more of the same of what people already know. More preaching and telling, hoping that this will cause change. If you’re telling people stuff they already know, why not ask why it’s not working? But don’t worry, the document then renames them ‘life changing rules’ then ‘life saving rules’. Then this gem:
‘Consequence management – it will be up to individual companies to consider application and enforcement’
Then some more safe start stuff followed by all the rules. All individualist, all behaviourist and all the same old stuff. And under the acronym SHARK. Really?
Poor old safety, punking up safety (https://safetyrisk.net/punking-safety-when-its-not/) because it has no methodology and doesn’t know what to do, other than more of the same, more slogans and repetition. As if rebranding (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeSzxgNnZ8QE0bdZRIxf8eA) will somehow shift the dial on a lack of methodology and method. And don’t forget the punching fist on a brick wall that suits so well what safety does.
That’s why the first semiotic on the golden rules is STOP!
Wouldn’t it be interesting if executives understood they were part of the problem? Wouldn’t it be fascinating if executives actually understood culture? Wouldn’t it be good if Safety finally got rid of behaviourism and tackled the real issues in risk? Of course, the word ‘together’ doesn’t mean together in safety, these are rules for the low-life seafarer, not us!
There are alternatives to all of this stuff and they work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/). And these alternatives have a clear methodology and method (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) that are positive, constructive and practical that actually focus on culture. Not culture dreamed up by a chemical engineer but what culture really is.
Access to all of this is free. SPoR is not selling a product but rather offers a method and methodology that actually work, based on extensive research (MiProfile) and changes in organisational culture. Or, if you like, you could have more of the same and just re-brand it as ‘different’. Then in a few years when the last flyer and pamphlet campaign is forgotten you can do it again and call it ‘rock n roll safety’.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Understanding the Nature of Performance and HOP - October 5, 2024
- If You Want to Know About Mental Health, Don’t Ask Safety - September 30, 2024
- Its all About Behaviours - September 20, 2024
- I Wasn’t Thinking Mr Spock - September 20, 2024
- The Seduction of Drift in Safety - September 20, 2024
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below