Of course, the reality is that blame fixes things, this is the foundation of the justice system. The court decides where the blame lies and what needs to be done in response. This is the nature of accountability. This is the nature of restitution. The statement is clearly false.
Playing games with linguistics and language is what safety does well. In the safety world zero doesn’t mean zero, it means ‘1% safer’, ‘beyond zero’ and ‘zero vision’. This is what Safety does. When it doesn’t like something that doesn’t suit its undeclared philosophy, it invents new spin like ‘pre-accident’ to describe normal life. It puts together slogans like ‘work as imagined’ versus ‘work as done’ or concocts ‘resilience engineering’ to describe the manufacture of systems. It uses the language of ‘performance’ to attribute difference to the way safety is undertaken. All of this is just code (https://safetyrisk.net/deciphering-safety-code/) for more of the same, traditional safety. The slogans change but the methodology doesn’t move.
In all of this HOP discourse, there is no articulation of methodology or method.
Reciting the mantra of ‘no blame’ creates a dangerous discourse. Then switching the rhetoric to substitute with ‘just culture’ plays games with the psychology of blame. What happens in reality is that the discourse of ‘just culture’ simply becomes the new substitute for blame. When workers on the front line hear the language of ‘just culture’ they recognise spin when they see it.
None of this rhetoric or sloganeering ever mentions the nature of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/) or what to do about it. None of this collection of slogans discusses an ethic of risk or the nature of human personhood. Why develop a mature approach to persons when a simplistic slogan will do?
The dynamic of blame in itself is not a moral evil (https://safetyrisk.net/the-problem-of-blame-for-fallible-people/). Living with blame is like living with fallibility. Self-blame fixes things. This is the foundation for repentance.
Confession and seeking forgiveness are the natural outworking of acknowledgement of fallibility. Seeking forgiveness in grace is one of the greatest healing experiences of fallibility.
If there’s no blame, then there’s no-one to forgive.
Demonising blame as evil creates the delusion that blame is somehow morally wrong. Similarly, the e-motion of shame is neither morally bad. Blame and shame are coupled together and can lead to good outcomes just as they can lead to stigma and punishment. One need not experience blame and shame as the cause for retaliation. There is a dialectic and balance in all this if one seeks it. Speaking the nonsense slogan of ‘blame fixes nothing’ is just another delusion of the cult of positive psychology that the SD, S2, NV, RE and HOP group are addicted to.
A way forward is to hold shame and blame in dialectic with care and forgiveness.
Playing games with slogans and manipulating safety discourse doesn’t change the fact, that if something goes terribly wrong, the justice system, regulator and affected stakeholders will seek blame and accountability through the court system. This is how those systems seek to fix things. It’s not perfect but it works as best as it can – legislation and regulation gets changed and modified, people are held accountable, restitution is made, insurance is paid and change is invoked.
The slogan ‘blame fixes nothing’ is clearly false.
But this is what Safety does so well, it speaks nonsense to people (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-experts-in-speaking-nonsense-to-people/).
Declaring your own HOP reality (https://www.thehopnerd.com/post/human-and-organizational-performance-blame) doesn’t make it so.
This is just more simplistic safety, traditional safety, that seeks to create its own simplistic alternate reality through false slogans. Then, runs back to its discourse on ‘human and organisational performance’ that puts everyone in the traditional safety quest for measurable behavioural outcomes.
All of this is just the switching of one discourse for another. How is ‘human and organisational performance’ better than blame? They both are embedded in the same philosophical value. Changing slogans doesn’t change psychological reality. Changing slogans doesn’t change systems and methods. What it really does is create a new safety delusion as if something new is happening, when its not.
The real focus should not push the attention to the negativity of blame but rather the lack of skill in leadership to forgive. Without an ethic of fallibility, the slogans may change but the reality stays the same.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- How to Make Ensure That People Don’t Speak Up - January 13, 2025
- It’s Not a Secret, We Just Don’t Talk About It - January 11, 2025
- Myth, Objectivity and the Subjectivity of Language in Safety - January 11, 2025
- There’s Nothing Better than a Blitz - January 11, 2025
- Linguistic Non-Intelligence with Safety Non-Experts - January 11, 2025
Skeptical thinker says
Hi Rob. I would suggest that the real issue is the impartiality (or lack thereof) of those investigating/ascribing blame in the workplace following safety incidents. At least in a criminal court individuals have the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Even then the innocent are still convicted and punished for crimes they didn’t commit. In a workplace those with a potentially vested interest (e.g. Management, HR, Safety, etc) are generally judge, jury and executioner. If an impartial jury can make mistakes, how can the workplace system outlined above be relied upon for fair and unbiased outcomes?
Rob Long says
Yes, you are right about bias across all systems, such is the fallibility of humans attempting justice for other fallible humans in fallible systems. It is however, the best we do, given the nature of sacrificing. Greg Smith will tell you the system is not about Justice.
Learning to deal with this is something the safety industry denies and so invents this crazy idea of objectivity as if Safety is somehow exempt from tackling the challenges of subjectivity.
Regardless of the system, there is something therapeutic in blame that HOP denies as well as a host of other positives such sloganeering ignores. I wouldn’t expect much from Conklin etc because there is no methodology or ethic that underpins this populist movement.
We have to work within the justice system we have, just as we do within the regulatory system we have and make the best of it as we can. However, it make no sense to deny reality or create mythology to suit the assumptions of Safety.
Skeptical thinker says
Thank you for your response Rob. I have been reading both your posts and books with keen interest for some time now, and have noted your recurring theme of fallibility. Your point above re the justice system has crystallised in my mind what you have been saying all along about both this and zero harm.
I feel the concept of reasonably practicable within OHS legislation reflects this understanding of fallibility. Where organisations perhaps start to run into trouble is when they make statements such as “compliance with legislation is the bare minimum”. With legislation written with the fallibility of humans and the systems we create in mind, organisations who make such statements appear to be making a claim that they will transcend these limitations. Quite the position to take!
P.S. I have read Greg Smith”s books “Paper Safe” and “Proving Safety”. I can only hope he continues to write, as his books have certainly helped me come to grips with many of the contradictions and challenges I have experienced within the safety profession (even though I know you’re not a fan of that term) as well as reinforced some of my own observations in this space.
Rob Long says
Yes, Greg’s work brings lots of the nonsense practiced by Safety down to reality. So much of what is done in the name of ‘safety’ is demonstrated as nonsense in a court. Yet, safety keeps doing it, giving it new names and slogans so that nothing changes, except the bank account of the makers of spin.
The nature of fallibility/mortality is not a ‘theme’ but rather the reality of being human. The doctrine/ideology of zero is the denial of this reality.
There is no greater absurdity than the global mantra of the safety industry that suggest that perfection for humans is possible. The stupidity and ignorance in mind-boggling.
So, in the face of the reality of fallibility/mortality Safety doesn’t know what to do except make up more slogans like ‘1% safer’ or ‘blame fixes nothing’. All of this stuff would be blown away in a courtroom full of intelligent lawyers and experts in language.
ALARP and Due Diligence both accept the reality of fallibility/mortality. Yet, the belief in objectivity in safety is insane. This is why safety is NOT a profession and is yet to articulate an ethic of risk.
Rosa Carrillo says
I have to admit i resonate with “blame fixes nothing,” having seen all the damage caused by blame. I see your point Rob. Perhaps they need a new slogan? “Scapegoating fixes nothing!”
Rob Long says
Hi Rosa, it’s a shame that the HOP group don’t study Linguistics or Semiotics. I observe in most of their discourse just more traditional safety with different rhetoric. Even the study of slogans and memes would help them but alas they don’t asks questions or seek learning. Everything remains in the bubble or back slapping and the adoration of a few academics focused on all the same old stuff: failure, performance, systems, performance, hazards, performance, injury counting, performance, deficit mindset, performance and still no clearly articulated philosophy or method.
Unfortunately, the appeal of HOP to traditional safety means that a lack of critical thinking comes with it. In this way people are sucked in by such nonsense as ‘drift into failure’ and people need to be ‘harnessed’.
When you look at the HOP Discourse, the real colours shine through. There is nothing new.