The Shaping of SPoR Intelligence, Skills and Competence in Risk

The Shaping of SPoR Intelligence, Skills and Competence in Risk

The next free module in SPoR will be run in September, you can register your interest here: https://safetyrisk.net/free-online-module-introduction-to-the-social-psychology-of-risk/

You can’t access knowledge you don’t have and neither can you enact skills you don’t have. Even the enactment of skills without understanding is possible but without understanding such acts lacks ownership and any capability to adapt and move in learning.

The purpose of education is to experience new knowledge, understanding and skills making all three accessible, enactable, adjustable and doable.

Education is not training and learning is not rote repetition. In training it is possible to enact something without understanding/knowledge, the focus is on the skill behaviour and competence. In this way, a monkey can be trained or parrot can be trained to do things that seem human, but lack understanding and embodied relevance. This is not intended as a ethical judgement on non-human life rather to make the point that human personhood is not animalhood, particularly when it comes to linguistics and embodied knowing.

Embodied knowing is the key to Education (https://safetyrisk.net/the-disembodied-human-and-persons-in-safety/ ). Brain cognition is very limited learning. Unless learning and education is holistic, it has very little chance of making much difference. Unfortunately, most of what passes for training in safety is little more than cognitivism. Education and learning is lost when brain-centrism is the foundation.

Every time we conduct the Introduction to the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) (https://safetyrisk.net/free-online-module-introduction-to-the-social-psychology-of-risk/) not one participant knows how to observe, listen and converse/exchange about risk. Many with more than 30 years experience in safety simply don’t know how to ask open questions, listen or what to observe. None have any clue about semiotic signals, linguistic cues or psychological indicators of risk. Whilst many know how to ‘tell’ others about hazards noone knows what to observe, how to listen for or how to recognise vital psychological indicators in a conversation. This has been a consistent finding with thousands of safety people who come to do SPoR. Similarly, when we conduct a SPoR HSE iCue Audit most fail due to lack of knowledge in fundamentals in human engagement, listening, relational knowledge, observation and learning. None have a single clue about ethics or what ideology drives what they do.

One of the most encouraging things about those who sign up to SPoR education is that they are ready to learn. They at least acknowledge what they don’t know and come thirsty to extend their knowledge, skills and understanding. There is no help in the AIHS BoK or the WHS Curriculum with any of this vital development in skills, knowledge and understanding. What a strange thing that safety people have to step outside of safety orthodoxy to learn how to be a help to others in tackling risk. The whole introductory module focuses on the embodiment of skills in engagement. People are so surprised at what they can do just after a few weeks and it changes the whole way they approach safety.

Whenever we conduct the Introductory Module in SPoR without exception everyone states ‘why have I not been shown this before’, ‘why do I not know this’. By the conclusion of the 8 session module everyone realizes what they need to know and how much more practice is required to become competent in safety. It then takes at least a few years until such skills can be enacted intuitively and smoothly on a day to day basis. It can be done and the evidence that it works is overwhelming (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/).

The next free module in SPoR will be run in September, you can register your interest here: https://safetyrisk.net/free-online-module-introduction-to-the-social-psychology-of-risk/

Here are just a few testimonies from past participants.

I used to follow your publications and posts (safetyrisk.net) and they express in a didactic way what in caused me discomfort in the Safety área … But i could not express it in words.

My background is in engineering but I have always enjoyed reading and when we read… More we make correlations of the most varied themes (holistic view) and “more humble we become… Socratic paradox… I know that I know nothing”

And the problem, in my opinion, in the safety industry are the “certainties” as well as the understanding that legal obligations are written on a sacred stone.

Thank you very much for having had the opportunity to attend the introductory SPoR course.

Gustavo Saralegui

Specialist Engineer in Health and Safety in Duratex

Sau Paulo

Brazil

What I learned from the Introductory Social Psychology of Risk class is a lot what you cover in many of your blog posts related to the toxicity and cult-like beliefs held by those in the safety and risk industry in the achievement of zero and focus on numerics (equating low injury counts as success or a measure of safety performance); the denial of human fallibility, the unconscious, and no comprehension of the a-rational; the obsession of safety and health professionals crusaders with the small stuff (how everything has to be measured/quantified) and reported upwards to show someone how good safety is; it’s all about unsafe acts and changing one’s behavior; blame and control culture (trajectory->) resulting in simplistic thinking “anything that goes wrong needs a root cause and corrective action because we can fix everything”. The zoom sessions, the homework, videos and discussions really open your senses to a whole new way of thinking about safety and risk. If you really want to mature in risk and safety, the safety and risk industry needs to understand that we are social beings and connecting with people (Socialitie) is what’s sorely needed, e.g. the importance of language/dialogue, semiotics and how social arrangements affect decision making and judgements, having better conversations with people, building better relationships through listening, being a helping profession, focus on LEARNING and UNLEARNING, understanding why?, questioning why? (discernment), understanding and recognizing cognitive biases in people and organizations, focus on the things you can’t measure (trust, getting know each other, happiness); a lot of new words; and understanding how to “tackle” complex wicked problems. I now have a better (realizing only a fraction of Social Psychology of Risk) understanding of the concepts covered in the numerous books you’ve written on (risk, fallibility, leading , effective conversations) and recommended (not safety and health books) social psychology books to learn more, the videos you offer for free viewing and blog posts. I plan use what I’ve learned to improve the role we play in the organization and convince others (who really want to learn) to take you up on your free introductory course so others can understand what it takes to get to the next level of maturity in safety, health and risk culture improvement, that is taking a leap of faith.  THANKS for giving us this opportunity!

Lee Anderson, CIH CSP

Staff Industrial Hygienist

New York

Wow, what a learning experience! In these short but intense on-line sessions I have learnt about many concepts and tools that I feel will help me to be a wiser professional. Some sessions have clarified what I had partially known before and had trouble properly applying. One example of this relates to the concept of ‘Drift to Failure’. I have in the past used this concept to explain how an organization’s risk management effectiveness decreased over time but my understanding of why this occurred was not complete. Now with the concepts that all humans are fallible, that we are always in a state of some failure, and that individuals are constantly emerging, I feel I better understand how an organization of people can learn from each other to fulfill their goals. Also, impactful for me was the clarification that people are always in a state of tension trying to balance their experiential dialectics. They act with faith and hope clearly not knowing what the current uncertainties may bring. In the incident analysis method I use, the principles described in Robert Long’s Telos model combined with the idea of dialectic tension are hugely valuable in understanding an individual’s perceptions, beliefs, and psychological preconditions when they are deciding how to do or not do something. Thank you so much Robert!

John Sherban, P.Eng., FS Eng (TÜV Rheinland)

Systemic Risk Management Inc.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

• Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference? - July 21, 2021
• Speak Up, Reporting and Trust in Safety - July 19, 2021
• Are Safety People Lie-Detectors? - July 18, 2021
• When Seeing is NOT Believing - July 13, 2021
• Giving and Receiving Advice in Safety - July 12, 2021

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.