We all know that Safety is fixated with hazards (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-psychosocial-safety/). We also know that the AIHS believes humans are a hazard (https://safetyrisk.net/the-enemy-of-safety-humans/). So obviously this marketing is for a Con. So suitably named.
This is why the event has a good spread of safety advisors with no expertise in psychosocial health. Amazing how a diploma in safety makes one a psychologist and expert on mental health! This is similar to Safety making chemical engineers experts in culture.
None of the marketing for this event can take away the primary belief by Safety that humans are a hazard and that psychosocial health is a ‘hazard’.
What is fascinating about this event is that the word ‘hazard’ appears nowhere (except in the ‘extras’) and yet every jurisdiction and safety regulator has endless codes of practice about how to control psychosocial ‘hazards’ (https://safetyrisk.net/not-just-another-hazard/). This is also ably matched by the safety curriculum that has no component that has a focus on mental health, psychosocial health or social-psychological being.
If ever there was an industry less capable of tackling the challenges of mental health it is Safety.
How fascinating that the marketing focuses on ISO 45003 and avoids the language of ‘hazards’. Of course, no professional in the profession of mental health would ever use the word ‘hazard’ associated with the issue. This is why Safety is an amateur activity with little idea of what to do about psychosocial and social psychological issues. Any analysis of any safety qualification demonstrates this.
The AIHS Body of Knowledge clearly affirms that psychosocial is a ‘hazard’ (https://www.ohsbok.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/19-Psychosocial-hazards.pdf).
Standards Australia also help with the confusion (https://www.standards.org.au/news/new-standards-document-to-help-manage-workplace-psychosocial-risk) making sure the nature of ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’ are interchangeable. Sorry folks, language has to make sense and neither word is interchangeable. Despite all the marketing, Safety remains an industry focused on hazards.
All of this helps fuel the great Con, that Safety has a focus on persons. It doesn’t. Safety is an industry with a focus on objects. 85% of the AIHS BoK is focused on the control of hazards (objects). The same applies for the safety curriculum.
You won’t find anywhere in the risk and safety world a focus on personhood and ethics.
Even the AIHS Chapter on Ethics is about a duty to safety not persons (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/).
It doesn’t matter what marketing is generated, or what the Con, the primary reality for the average safety advisor is counting injury rates (god bless Heinrich), police PPE, paperwork and controlling hazards (https://safetyrisk.net/making-objects-safe-or-people-safe/). There is nothing in the WHS curriculum that focuses on persons.
It is also fascinating that there is nothing on the PHS Con that mentions resilience (https://psychhealthandsafetyconference.com/wp-content/uploads/phscon-pdf-flyer.pdf). Amazing that this program is so selective in its omissions and strategy. Obviously, you don’t need to discuss resilience if your mantra is zero!
When zero and perfection are your primary goals (look at the sponsors of the great zero event in 2023 – https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/) there is no need to talk about resilience. Just look at the sponsors of zero: AIHS, Regulators, NSCA, Forgeworks, Sentis, ICAM. No wonder, they all confuse the meaning of the word ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’. No wonder they are all so selective about their silences (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/). Just have a look how zero can fix your mental health problems (https://safetyrisk.net/why-zero-vision-can-never-tackle-mental-health/).
Obviously, when you reject the fallibility of humans, there is no need to talk about resilience.
When one’s primary purpose is the control of objects, there’s no need to talk about persons.
This is what one gets from the love of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/; https://www.humandymensions.com/product/for-the-love-of-zero-free-download/). You can’t be a sponsor of zero and at the same time claim some idea of professionalism about mental health.
When you dip into the ‘extras’ for this Con (https://psychhealthandsafetyconference.com/extras/) you find it’s all about ‘hazards’. This is what you get in your ‘masterclass’ in ‘hazards’. Here is what you get at the ‘extras’ for this Con:
- What is psychological health and safety? (and how is this different to ‘psychological safety’)
- What is a psychosocial hazard?
- How do psychosocial hazards cause harm?
- The level of harm caused by psychosocial hazards
- What is a psychosocial risk assessment?
- How to apply risk management principles to prevent harm from psychosocial hazards
- How to apply the hierarchy of controls to address hazards at organisational and team levels
- How to continuously monitor and improve psychosocial risk controls
Here is the real agenda. All traditional safety, about controlling hazards.
Underneath all of this Con is the myth that psychosocial health can be ‘made simple’ (https://flourishdx.com/). Of course, this is nonsense. The real message should be that psychosocial health is a ‘wicked problem’ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024896/; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168851010003325; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207411.2019.1706702). Only those with no expertise in mental health would want to claim that mental health is ‘simple’ and controllable.
Nothing about mental health can be ‘fixed’ or ‘controlled’. There is nothing simple about mental health (https://safetyrisk.net/effective-strategies-in-mental-health-at-work/). The message that mental health in safety is ‘simple’ is nonsense. It sends the wrong message and is dangerous (https://safetyrisk.net/playing-with-mental-health-in-safety-is-dangerous/).
No wonder there is no language of ‘resilience’ at this Con. There is also no language about ‘ethics’ or ethical practice in respect of persons. I wonder how persons get respected when the mantra of the industry is zero and it never speaks of the ethical care and helping of persons? And surprise surprise, you can get an ‘app’ to make it simple.
Any message that declares that mental health can be made ‘simple’ should be avoided at all costs.
When we understand mental health and psychosocial health as a ‘wicked problem’ we quickly stop all this nonsense language about ‘hazards’ and ‘controls’ (https://safetyrisk.net/mental-health-risk-and-safety-part-2/). Acknowledging mental health as a ‘wicked problem’ creates better strategies of tackling the issue. Any suggestion that mental health can be made simple, is a Con.
If you do want to know about personhood, ethics and resilience and the complexities of tackling risk, you can register for study here: https://cllr.com.au/ or, you can download our recent free book on Everyday Social Resilience (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/everyday-social-resilience-being-in-risk/)
You won’t find any nonsense about keeping things simple or easy fixes in SPoR. There are no apps to sell or money being made out of the mental health of others. Just straight and positive education in how best to tackle this wicked problem and how to treat persons in mental health ethically.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- More Nonsense from the EHS Insight – Zero Injury Cultures??? - December 8, 2024
- Safety is an Art - December 7, 2024
- When Risk Doesn’t Make Sense - December 7, 2024
- How to Enable Unethical Practice in Safety - December 7, 2024
- Mapping an Ethic of Risk - December 6, 2024
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below