No Safety in Numbers
I was asked to present recently to a group in the USA on the fixation/psychosis of Safety with numbers. I started with the title of this blog making two points: that you are no safer in a crowd/group, dispelling the myth ‘there is always safety in numbers’ and then spoke on the history of the safety industry and why it has developed ‘numerics psychosis’.
The Bystander Effect
There is plenty of evidence in Social Psychology to dispel the myth that one is safe the more people are about. The ‘Genovese Effect’ or ‘Bystander Effect’ (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html ) demonstrates that perception of risk changes when ‘Groupthink’ is present (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink ). Indeed, Groupthink in itself plays a strong role in shaping the decision making of individuals in groups. The powerful dynamics of group pressure can be simply dangerous. We see this often in mass movements and trends in politics where people can be so easily swayed by Propaganda. You can have a look at experiments in Groupthink here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac
Understanding the shaping of decision making is a principle interest for the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR). This is why we have developed a map of social influence dynamics that you can download for free here: https://spor.com.au/downloads/posters/
Whilst it is one thing to know there are hundreds of social influencing forces in groups, it’s quite another to understand how they work and in combinations to shape decision making. What this shows is that the simplistic claims of behaviorist nonsense like Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) is completely concocted BS. Most parents already know about Peer Pressure (Groupthink) when their children demand something in order to conform to their group (not the norms their parent expects). But these are only a few of the dynamics at work. One would need to understand much more of Social Psychology to understand how many of these forces affect decision making at work. Then more work would be needed and research to understand how these pressures affect judgments about risk. Of course, the mono-disciplinary WHS curriculum and AIHS BoK have shown no interest in this research for the past 20 years and so maintain a nonsense behaviourist ethic that simply doesn’t work. Poor olds safety busy counting apples in an orange grove.
Numerics Psychosis
In the second half of the presentation I put forward many slide shots of safety websites that demonstrates that all safety knows is numbers and counting. Furthermore, most of what counts in life, living and being is not counted in Safety. Safety only counts what can be counted. The things that are essential in organisations and groups like: love, helping, trust, respect, relationship, care, helping and ethics are of no interest to this industry. Safety only shows an interest in the counting of objects and objects for counting.
The very essentials of what makes for: effective relationships, communication effectiveness, sustainable organizing, political harmony, stability in institutions and envisioning risk is nowhere to be found in any curriculum anywhere in safety.
I asked the group who had all studied a degree in safety if any had received any skill development or curriculum in: observations, listening, conversation, helping skills and social psychology – not one.
Yet, all had been swamped with regulation, legislation (that they will never use) and endless bureaucracy focused on counting injury statistics, that have no relation to the presence of safety.
Of course, then came from the group that old aphorism ‘you can’t manage what you can’t measure’ a wonderful excuse for a sad industry deluded by the idea that a number can be attributed to a value. This silly aphorism is completely false. All of the things that matter most in life cannot be measured neither counted. The most important things required in organisations that help people be safe cannot be measured nor counted.
There is no relationship between injury numbers and the creation of safety!
We then travelled back in time to realize that all of this concocted nonsense and creating belief in numbers started with the Heinrich delusion (https://safetyrisk.net/ration-delusions-and-heinrichs-hoax/ ) and nonsense ideas that were made up by insurance salesmen and engineers who had no cognizance of how their models would fix this industry to injury rates. Now this industry has evolved to this psychosis of counting and the delusions of zero that create a fixation of petty risk.
All in the group acknowledged that the industry was now broken and wasn’t focused on what they had enter safety for, helping persons tackle risk.
Sadly, the conference ended with people feeling powerless to change things. Most decried their association and other associations for making no change to the delusions of the WHS curriculum or a body of knowledge that simply deepens the false consciousness on objects and numbers.
What a sad indictment when so much is available that works: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Methodology and an Ethic of Risk - June 15, 2021
- A Semiotic Map for Safety - June 15, 2021
- Congruence in Messaging in Safety - June 13, 2021
- When There is no Fix? - June 12, 2021
- Poetics of the Self - June 11, 2021
Brian Edwin Darlington says
Great Blog as always Rob
Rob Long says
Thanks Brian, I just discuss what I see from my worldview.
simon cassin says
Hi Rob, thank you for your blog. As always the content was both interesting and informative. I was wondering if you felt the philosophical principle of charity could be beneficial and help us consider claims and counterclaims in a more productive manner? I realise that this approach can be more time consuming and often requires a more nuanced approach to debate. Perhaps it’s the nature of common communication platforms which make this approach hard to adopt?
There appears to be a broad approach to debate and disagreement which fails to recognise the importance and benefits of this principle. I believe you quite rightly acknowledge the important contribution disciplines such as social psychology make to our understanding and development of appropriate H&S paradigms and approaches. But as you know the ecological validity and generalisation of research findings from the social sciences can be problematic.
Is it also possible that other disciplines such as philosophy and art may also have a part to play in our search for a wider and more comprehensive understanding of human existence? Having a particular interest in philosophy, I am always alert to assertions about political philosophy, ethics, epistemology, rights and obligations, linguistics etc. On many occasions I would argue that people tend to approach philosophical concepts with a non-philosophical mindset. But I could be wrong.
Thanks again Rob.
All the best Simon
Rob Long says
Thanks for the questions Simon. The language of ‘charity’ in some ways is quite antiquated and not used much these days. In some circles it is even given a pejorative tone. However, the language of helping and helping professions seems more common. Unfortunately, the ideology of zero allows no space for ‘charity’ and understands charity as weakness leading to harm. There is no tolerance in zero, no adjustment or debate in zero, its zero or nothing. That is what safety has become. This is one of the principle reasons why safety stopped learning some years ago and refuses or countenances discussion or debate. The principle of zero is anti-charity and anti-learning.
The problematising of social science is no different from any other discipline such is the nature of subjectivity and the way in which H&S has anchored itself to a worldview that assumes scientific objectivity, even safety objectivity.
Unfortunately, Safety also shows no interest in philosophy, critical thinking, debate or transdisciplinarity so, until there is movement away from zero not much is likely to change, leaving safety as an unprofessional back water.
Caring-for-people-in-fear says
Rob, the “…fixation/psychosis of Safety with numbers” WILL not stop. Not in the USA. You can present direct evidence that this leads to MORE injury and MORE deaths and it will not matter, the cult of Zero and cognitive dissonance runs so deep.I do not believe almost anything can be presented that would change the mindset. Now this is not meant to be cute or funny but maybe if you could successfully tie Heinrich to racism (after all he did believe in eugenics) you would get people’s attention. But honestly, I think the Safety trade is so embedded in binary logic, I do not believe is hope, there is too much money and power tied to the status quo.
Rob LOng says
Thanks for your post and you may be right. Until there is fundamental reform in curriculum, ethic and body of knowledge in movement away from zero not much can change. Then of course there are the vested interests who gain politically from keeping everything as it is.
However, I don’t give up hope and perhaps one day Safety will move away from zero and grow up. Some people are listening and many are unhappy with their associations and zero ideology, but those in power simply don’t know what to do, there is no vision.
Nicholas says
Rob, I have begun to wonder if the hard realities of business are what forces safety to numbers, not an ideological failure of the safety world. I agree we only manage what we measure but I am ill equipped as a traditionally trained safety manager to explain how trust or ethics could be reasonably measured and demonstrated to improve the safety conditions of the workplace. I believe this is true but I have only personal bias and whatever qualitative measures I can stick against the wall to back up my argument.
I think part of the truth is that BBS is fundamentally much easier and cleaner to manage and present to higher-ups. It naturally drives more manager – associate engagement which I believe is the only part of BBS approaching a value add or secret sauce. I can easily measure if someone is maintaining good posture, but I don’t have a scalable data-driven method to measure how much peer pressure they are feeling to work faster or more efficiently which they are willing (knowingly or unknowingly) to accept more personal risk to achieve.
Rob Long says
Nicholas, I think you underestimate the power of ideology. The ideology/semiotics of zero is far more powerful than the mechanics of business. Business moves mostly by pragmatics and could be easily shifted as its core business is dominated by economics/profit. Just look how business is shifting now on climate change.
You are right however, Safety has no need for ethics or critical thinking when it can be anchored to zero and measurement. So, most people who undertake a safety qualification are ill equipped to do much more than count. The engineering assumptions of Safety simply apply attributions to the validity of quantitative measures, that is not how we live in the real world where most things that matter cannot be measured.
Again, the acceptance of behaviourism and scientism are attributions accepted by the mono-disciplinary view of safety. There are plenty of other valid views, but they are never countenanced by the ideology of compliance, politicized by compliance. Zero only accepts one view and assumes that the only reality is a number.
The only reason BBS is attributed as working is a strange attribution that behaviours can be measured, which they can’t. You actually can’t ‘measure’ good posture without context, there is no neutral or objective ‘rule’ or ‘measure’ for posture. This is just one way in which the ideology of behaviourist thought has captured the safety industry into false consciousness. Measures are only thought of as objective and measureable if you accept and don’t challenge the delusions of behaviourism and the many accepted models of safety that are all concocted rubbish. Take any of this mumbo jumbo to the courts and you will be laughed at by a proper profession.