No-one is safety. Any personal identification as a representation of the system is a psychosis.
We don’t get this in any profession. If you criticise schools or education systems (eg Ken Robinson), teachers don’t think they are being attacked personally. Indeed, none of the professions act in this way, which is why Safety is not a profession. It is yet to take an ethic of professionalism seriously. In the professions, critical thinking is considered essential for the growth and maturity of the system.
So, when you criticise the Archetype of Safety, this has no relationship to the persons in the system.
Systems have their own life force and power unto themselves, way beyond the persons who work in that sector.
Last night I watched the Four Corners Program that was an interrogation of corruption in Australian Universities (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-30/campus-chaos/106513874).
I wonder how many lecturers and staff take this personally? I wonder how many think, I don’t just work in university, I am a University! Yet, without this interrogation how are things going to improve? Without this interrogation how much more harm will be caused? I wonder how many lecturers and staff say, how dare you criticise me?
Yet, this is the discourse I see constantly in safety. It is as if the curriculum and post curriculum culture of the industry cultivates this.
You criticised Safety, so you criticised me! I’m offended by such criticism.
Such is the culture of the industry and is even fostered deeply by such silly safety campaigns such as ‘make safety personal’. No, make safety professional.
In order to do so, Safety needs to unlearn much of this indoctrination and re-learn some of the basics of ethics required for professionalism. You can read more about this in our free book: The Ethics of Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/)
If Safety is ever going to be professional, it has to step away from this psychosis of identifying as safety.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- What Can Weick Offer Safety - April 12, 2026
- All Injuries are Preventable and Other Silly Safety Sayings - April 10, 2026
- Social Psychology of Risk – Body of Knowledge - April 10, 2026
- Free Workshops June – Weick and HROing - April 10, 2026
- What Are Moral Hazards? - April 8, 2026
Rob Sams says
I want to pick up on the use of psychosis in the title, because it raises a similar concern to the one I mentioned in the previous post that used OCD as a metaphor.
I appreciate the intention to provoke thought, but wonder whether using mental health terms in this way might unintentionally add to the stigma that people living with these conditions already face?
For many people, psychosis isn’t an abstract idea; it’s part of their lived experience, often misunderstood and already burdened with judgment. So when these words are used rhetorically, even creatively, they can land in ways we may not intend.
I’m curious about a few things:
– Could the same point be made without using mental health language?
– What happens to the conversation when we use mental health terms metaphorically — does it open things up, or close things down?
– How do we balance the desire to challenge the safety industry while avoiding the reinforcement of stigma for people who aren’t part of that debate?
I’m not questioning the argument being made, rather the framing of it. There are many ways to critique the excesses of “Safety” without drawing on labels that people in our communities live with every day.
Maybe the bigger question is – What kind of language helps us have the most humane, generous, and constructive conversations about safety and culture?