Snake Oil Going Cheap Again in Safety
I saw a promotion today by one of the associations marketing the ‘quantitative measurement of safety mindfulness’. Are people that dumb that they buy this stuff? Surely not. This is one quote from the promotion ‘… x considers a quantitative approach to the measurement of the Safety Mindset, by examining both empirical studies and evidence-based diagnostic tools that can be leveraged as indicators of safety thinking processes’.
When you delve deeper of course up pops ‘zero harm’, that special language to help you part with your money. The best part is none of this comes from any expertise in psychology. Little did I know that Engineering was what you needed to ‘measure’ psychological disposition, attitude, motivation, mindfulness and the nature of the human embodied Mind.
Also, good to know that with this measurement of ‘safety mindfulness’ there is no definition of what that is. Indeed, culture (probably behaviours) is not defined but rest assured the language of ‘performance’ is everywhere.
Of course, none of this is possible.
There is no measure or psychometrics for safety, culture or mindfulness and any such claim is delusional. None of this exists. Hey, but why should that stop you from parting with your money. I came across a similar claim years ago with a group claiming to measure ‘safety DNA’ with similar qualifications in Engineering and not a clue about psychology or culture. There’s alsways snake oil to sell to someone who can’t think critically (https://safetyrisk.net/critical-theory-critical-thinking-and-safety/ ).
You often wonder what happens to these organisations that waste their money on safety snake oil (https://safetyrisk.net/risk-psychometrics-spin-and-snake-oil/ ) on fictitious claims and promises that don’t work. There is no psychometrics or measure to any of this stuff. But if you’re looking for a silver bullet (https://safetyrisk.net/the-silver-bullet/ ) someone will sell it to you.
The reality is, the whole concept of Mind, Mindfulness, Consciousness, the Unconscious, Social Psychology and human judgment and decision making is foreign to any studies in Engineering. None of these are part of any Engineering curriculum. There is no secret diagnostics or knowledge in Engineering that has a clue about: Neuropsychology, Unconsciousness, The Embodied Mind, Interaffectivity, Intercorporeality, Pyscholinguistics, Neuroscience or the nature of Learning. Hey, but don’t worry, safety engineering to the rescue.
If by chance you have done some research into any of the above you will know you have entered a wicked problem. Little is known about the nature of the human Mind that it remains one of the great puzzles of Science.
The reality is: there is no measure of mindfulness, there is no measure of culture, there is no measure of high performance thinking, there is no measure of ‘mindful safety’. All such claims are not just delusional but unethical and dangerous.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- An Advanced Understanding of Culture – A Video - January 31, 2023
- The KISS of Death in Safety - January 31, 2023
- SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand - January 31, 2023
- Behavioural Safety is NOT a Foundation for Tackling Psychosocial and Mental Health - January 31, 2023
- The Worst Approach to Psychosocial Problems is an Attitude of ‘Fixing’ - January 31, 2023
Steve B says
Great article, good comments and I also agree that all of this cultural mindset psychometric garb is just that. Let’s stick to consistent and strong leadership, well written procedures based on how we work, engineering calculations for temporary and permanent works designs that ensure safe construction, crane lifts that are based on the law of gravity, and sound and logical conversations on how to stay in one piece, day after day.
Rob Long says
and add to that: build relationship, engage others with less judgment, learn about people and why thy do what they do, focus on learning and resilience, get away from yo-yos n behaviourist fads, learn how to listen and ask open questions. Move away from bureaucracy, paper-systems, power-centrism, policing, bullying, brutalism and zero. Start thinking critically, do your homework, think critically of sources, ethics, motives, power, competence and agenda. Unlearn most of what you have been fed by Safety and start a new journey that takes safety seriously.
Brent Charlton says
I got beat up on social media again for stating “there is no such thing as ‘safety culture.'” Like you stated, what they mean is behaviors. Every few years the snake oil salesmen change the name of what they’re selling. Rattlesnake oil and cobra oil are still snake oil. Why does the industry keep falling for this? Besides lack of education that you cite, or maybe because of it, most are at a loss as to what to do to reduce injuries. If you can’t afford gasoline, a gizmo promising to inject water into your engine to save gas sounds pretty good. There’s also the problem of sunk cost – once a business has signed up and spent thousands of dollars, nobody wants to admit it isn’t working. CEO won’t admit it, safety people certainly won’t admit it. Nobody will say out loud THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
Rob Long says
Yep, that’s why I left Linkedin years ago, very few on these platforms want to learn and their questions are never open but loaded, especially in safety.
There are many reasons why snake oil is easy to sell to Safety. Partly because of training and the nature of regulation, compliance itself. But, also the history from engineering/science and the associations and a curriculum that doesn’t help people learn how to think critically.
You will find the best reading and education outside of the safety bubble on the nature of risk and human judgment and decision making. Safety is simply not interested in any of it.
simon cassin says
Hi Rob, Thanks for your post. I agree that there are many unfounded claims made about the effectiveness of products which measure and/or fix health and safety culture etc. But I would argue that it is not just assertions from those with an engineering background we should be wary of.
One of the reasons I spent 3 years studying psychology and a further 3 studying philosophy was so I could better evaluate the claims of those selling their wares to a generally ignorant and gullible industry. Before embarking on my program of study I was completely unaware of concepts such as ‘ecological validity’, and the differences between ‘deductive and inductive reasoning’. Whilst acknowledging my current lack of expertise in both fields, I now feel more able to evaluate some of the less valid/cogent arguments originating from those fields.
From an early age many of us are taught to respect and revere the expertise of those who hold PHD’s or similar qualifications. But if we believe that a qualified psychologist is unlikely to understand complex engineering processes, we must also acknowledge that an engineer may be ill-equipped to separate the wheat from the chaff when evaluating the merits of arguments arising from psychological, philosophical or other such academic or technical disciplines.
I appreciate the the main tenet of your blog concerns those from an engineering background selling inappropriate tools to the safety industry. But I would also argue that this is a much wider and pervasive problem. I can think of numerous examples of those who have expertise in one field inappropriately asserting wisdom in another.
This lack of intellectual humility, is deeply problematic, and in some cases downright unethical. Being ignorant is fine, we are all to some degree ignorant. The problem occurs when those who are in a position of influence or responsibility not recognising their ignorance. I believe when something is important we should invest a commensurate amount of time and effort into seeking the best source knowledge available.
Sorry for the long response to your post.
regards.
Simon
Rob Long says
Of course Simon you are spot on. If anything it confirms the status of an industry not prepared to think critically. My highlighting of these two examples in the blog was really just to highlight the fraudulent claims of safety science and safety engineering in areas that amount to nothing more than dangerous delusions.
You are right of course, there are many other versions of snake oil finding easy prey in an industry unable to discern much at all. When money is easy to be made on people who can’t think critically, in come the vultures. The trouble is, the associations contribute to the ignorance and indeed encourage it.