The Whole Person and Safety

I came across an organisation on Linkedin that was called ‘whole person safety’ and, like most things in safety, you market what you say you are, by what you are not. In this case there is no exception to this rule.

If you really want to address the whole person in safety, you need to have a very sophisticated and mature idea of what personhood is. I have never seen a methodology of personhood anywhere in safety and certainly with no connection to moral meaning or ethics. You certainly won’t find any of this in the so called ‘differently’ group in HOP. S2, RE etc. or in any discussion of ethics in the sector.

If you want to attend to the whole person in safety you have to understand personhood as:

1. Intercorporeal
2. Interaffected
3. Intersocial
4. Intersubjective
5. Interconnected
6. Moral
7. Collectively Unconscious
8. Metaphysical
9. Ecological and,
10. Phenomenal

These are a minimum for consideration if one wants to talk about ‘the whole person’. (Of course, if you are in safety, the moment you see a word over 5 letters you must switch off).

In SPoR, when we talk about Holistic Ergonomics (https://cllr.com.au/product/holistic-ergonomics-unit-6/) we bring such an understanding to the nature of work. These 10 characteristics of personhood are essential if one wants to talk about safety and the whole person.

Even when one looks at the factors considered by a ‘human factors’ approach, there is no attention given to the whole person. Indeed, humans in ‘human factors’ are viewed as ‘factors’ in a system. The approach is generally mechanistic and technicist in discourse. Have a look at any of the semiotics anchored to human factors, and its often about cogs and machines.

If you want to see what issues are not considered in human factors the graphic below may help.

If one is interested in Holistic Ergonomics where there is no silence about all aspects of human personhood, then you can study this here: https://cllr.com.au/product/holistic-ergonomics-unit-6/

I find it amusing that some talk about a concocted distinction between ‘safety work’ and ‘safety of work’ as if the nature of work (ergon) is understood. Such an approach concocts a false binary narrative that is so common to HOP, S1/S2 mythology and the idea that a few slogans (eg. about ‘normal work’ or ‘blame fixes nothing’) create a ‘new view’. A new view of what? Work? Persons? Ethics? I don’t think so. None of this language is found anywhere in any associated discourse with this group that is apparently on the ’cutting edge’ of safety. It certainly is on the cutting edge of marketing. Indeed, the discourse of this group is focused on traditional safety: measurement, performance and systems.

If you are interested in something that is different in approach to safety and the whole person, you can write here: admin@spor.com.au for more information.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Prof. Robert Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)

• Adversarialism and the Politicisation of Safety - March 9, 2026
• AI Standards and No Ethical Standards for AI - March 9, 2026
• Safety Superhero Academy! - March 9, 2026
• Faith in AI and AI Safety - March 8, 2026
• Say Something that Makes Sense - March 7, 2026

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.