What drives your safety method? Of course, it’s what you believe and value?
If you believe persons are objects in a system, then your methods will reflect that. This will be evidenced by a priority on counting, measurement, systems and the language of ‘performance’. These are often masked by slogans and linguistic gymnastics but when you dig below the surface the philosophy is just behaviourism, measurement and the actions end up being dehumanising. This is despite all the spin about ‘no blame’, ‘just culture’ and ‘difference’. Don’t listen to the spin, follow the money trail, who gets the money?
I noted a week ago that Hollnagel posted ‘RIP for Resilience Engineering’. What an amusing post. How long does it take to realise one is living in a delusion?
I find it so amusing and sad, those who concoct such silly discourse as ‘pre-accident investigations’, ‘safety 2’, ‘1% safer’ and ‘safety differently’ and have no declared methodology or method and yet, people fall for the con. It’s so easy to con this industry with a few slogans and meaningless spin. Then throngs of lemmings run around madly trying to work out how to operationalise spin and hype.
Of course, if you criticise any of this stuff, you’re greeted with emotive territory protection not critical thought. Similarly, there’s no engagement, questioning or intelligent enquiry.
If you want to know what all of this is about just chase the money.
After the conference entertainment has died down and the spin and reframing of discourse has gone, in the end there is no new method. Back to the same old systems, performance, measurement and slogans. But, where did the money go? Who benefits by it?
The trouble about all of this sloganistic discourse in safety is that it is misleading and dangerous for an industry that is yet to learn how to think critically.
When you finally declare the demise of silly language like ‘resilience engineering’, think of all who have been misled by such discourse. Resilience can never be ‘engineered’ (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/everyday-social-resilience-being-in-risk/). I get dumbfounded just how easily it is to con Safety to follow such nonsense. Then once committed to the con, create more conferences parading some ‘passion’ for trying to operationalise a slogan or locate some substance for a myth.
All it takes to expose any of this stuff as delusional is a few critical questions and Critical Discourse Analysis.
- Where is the substance?
- Where is the method?
- What ethic drives the discourse?
- Where is the money?
- Who holds the power?
- What are the beliefs?
These are the kinds of questions one learns to ask from a simple study of philosophy (https://safetyrisk.net/philosophy-for-risk-and-safety-free-workshops/). If you want to improve your critical thinking skills you can register here for free: admin@spor.com.au
No wonder ‘resilience engineering’ was declared dead, it was a nonsense idea from the beginning.
Why is it that Safety would rather expend all its energy on a delusion or some slogan rather than give any attention to a simple method that works? (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
We know why. Deep down Safety doesn’t want change. Safety would rather keep to its systems, behaviourism, performance, duty, traditions, myths and concepts where everything is comfortable and nothing has to be ‘unlearned’.
Safety would rather be entertained than move from what it knows, anchored securely to its traditional values, beliefs, the security of compliance and its myths (https://safetyrisk.net/rejecting-what-we-dont-understand-in-risk/). And don’t be critical, just comply, just follow, this is the message.
Follow the money and you will find out quickly what this is all about.
If however, you want to learn how to tackle risk, away from the noise of these slogans and hype, you can start by registering for the free workshop on philosophy and safety: https://safetyrisk.net/philosophy-for-risk-and-safety-free-workshops/ or register here: admin@spor.com.au
Or if you are unsure then download any of the free resources here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
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
There’s a lot in this piece that invites reflection, both in the post itself and in reading through the comments to date.
I can see the argument about values and the influence of money, but I’m also wondering whether I’m missing something in the post’s tone and language.
At times, it feels like the focus shifts from exploring the idea to critiquing the person, and I’m not sure that helps us understand the complexity of what’s going on in organisations and in the social environment in which they exist.
Perhaps that’s not the intention (or perhaps it is?), that’s just how it lands for me.
It prompts me to wonder:
– Are we talking about a pattern in the social structure that it is created, or are we talking about particular individuals?
– If it’s the former, how do we explore that without slipping into language that feels personal or accusatory*?
*I note both in the comments from this post and in a post that has subsequently been published after this one, the usual rhetoric about “Safety” and its critique not being personalised or about the person. Unfortunately, I’ve heard too many things first-hand to buy into that.
– And if it’s the latter, what does that do to the conversation? Does it open things up or close them down?
I keep coming back to the question of how people make sense of risk and pressure in real workplaces. Is “chasing the money” the whole story, or is it one (easy) thread to chase in a much more tangled web of expectations, relationships, identities, and cultural cues?
What else might be shaping the choices people make?
Sherralynne says
Darling Ron,
Your response to my most recent response, is lengthy and will take some time for me to digest, analyse and respond to, please bear with me while this process is underway.
I have worked in the Health and Safety industry since 2015 and have been fortunate to listen (the most important factor), learn and form my own opinions from a wide cross section of practitioners in the Health, Safety, Risk, Injury Management, Emergency Preparedness/Response (I am CIMS4 trained) disciplines.
I “met” Rob online in 2021 along with several others. Rob introduced a number of different concepts which I had never been introduced to. To be honest, I was frightened of Rob (he knows this) as the concepts were so different from Conklin, Decker, Hollanagel, but with time and patience, after subscribing to this blog, downloading/reading the free books that Rob (and others) have written and attending workshops presented by Rob (and others) introducing me to SPoR concepts, I discovered that the skills/knowledge I was gaining, was having a positive impact on my practice. In one of my roles I became known as “the Safety chick who listens and doesn’t blame”, that was really humbling, given that I was working for an American company with operations in New Zealand. The workforce was 80 percent male and they didn’t put up with Safety crap which didn’t make sense to them or the work they were doing. None of them were interested in Safety theorists, they just wanted to get on with the job at hand and not be hassled with Safety crap/fluff, which they had been shovelled fed for many years by people who thought they knew best, who weren’t interested in opening their minds to different ways of approaching things and were always looking for someone to blame. If a mistake was made, we owned it, talked about it, dealt with it and moved on. Simple and effective, but not seen as such by Safety people who were always telling people on the ground what to do, despite the fact they had no clue about the work that was being carried out and had no interest in learning. One of my “habits” was to walk around the workplace, just for the hell of it to see what I could learn. Opening one’s mind and being prepared to make the effort to learn something new was a huge challenge and I was incredibly uncomfortable/scared for some months, before I accepted that “unlearning” was an important part of development, both as a person and a Safety practitioner. The use of the word professional is uncomfortable, as I haven’t been formally trained in ethics so cannot be classified in this manner. If I had trained as a Healthcare Professional, which included studies in ethics and requiring me to take an oath (think Hippocratic Oath for Doctors), then it would sit more comfortably.
For me, my role is to build effective and trusting working relationships with the people I work alongside. It’s not my role to blame, but instead to listen and learn from others. I never quote people like Dekker etc, as how I choose to learn behind the scenes stuff is my business and how I put those learnings into practice is up to me. However, I respect Rob and I’m grateful for the opportunities that he (and others) have given me. The person I am today has been shaped by Rob (and others) which I am deeply grateful for.
Risk and Safety is my passion and I am incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunities I have.
I will leave my thoughts with you Ron
Nga mihi nui,
Sherralynne
Ron Gantt says
Thank you for sharing your experience Sherralynne. It sounds like you care a lot and have done some great things.
Your experience of your practice sounds like mine. I won’t bore you with the details. But I have had a similar experience except I don’t have to impugn the motives of the people who are out there trying to make sense of safety from different perspectives. I can appreciate their contributions, acknowledge where we differ, and point out where I believe they have fallen short without calling them a scam or implying that they are doing it for the money. Some of the people Rob has impugned are my dear friends. I may not always agree with them but I love and respect them. To see their motives questioned without evidence is unnecessarily hurtful.
What’s more, it hurts Rob’s cause. Rob is intelligent and he has much to teach us. But his intolerance of differing opinions and perspectives blunts the effectiveness of his message. I get it, he did a lot for you. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t hurting other people. And if we take his message seriously, his actions deserve to be called out.
Rob Long says
Hmmm, I wonder what is my cause? You don’t know me and have never engaged with me. We have never conversed nor do you know my philosophy. Questioning ideas is not an attack on a person, that is an attribution. Questioning politics, ethics and moral meaning is always important particularly when many are hurt by the delusions of scams and poorly considered ideas. Please show me where I have impugned someone personally.
I have always been open for discussion, am always available for debate and learning and easily contactable off line.
Ron Gantt says
We have engaged before Rob. But I understand if you don’t remember as it was ten years or more ago.
The fact is that you made a claim that either explicitly or implicitly impugns the people you’re talking about and you have produced no evidence to support that claim after multiple requests. You’re allowed to do that. As you pointed out with my country, it’s popular these days to make claims about people you disagree with that vilify them without evidence. But you’re smarter than that and, I suspect, deep down a better person than that.
We aren’t enemies. No one is trying to get a leg up on anyone else. We are all just people trying to do the best we can in a messed up world. You don’t have to demonize people who don’t agree with you. Try and have some empathy.
If you want to talk more you or anyone else can reach me at my email at any time. rongantt@hotmail.com
Ron Gantt says
What evidence do you have that Erik is making a lot of or any money off of this? Have you ‘followed the money’? If so, how much money was it and where did it go?
Rob long says
The assertion is general not specific. You tell me. Where does the money go from any of these scams?
Ron Gantt says
You’re telling people that if they want to know what’s reallly “what it’s about” (your words) they should follow the money but you actually haven’t followed the money and don’t know specifically anything about it?
Rob Long says
I know exactly what these people earn and what they charge because it has been offered to me.
Ron Gantt says
So you then know what ‘these people’ make then relative to speaking at a conference (which is not the same as knowing “exactly what these people earn”). How much money are we talking about? And where does the money go?
And what evidence do you have that any amount they are paid is related in any way to their beliefs (ie they developed a belief in order to get paid as opposed to them developing a belief because they believe that’s true and coincidentally being paid for that belief)?
Rob Long says
It’s a question that we should all be asking, especially when the outcome of a scam delivers no change, no method and no outcome other than entertainment. Similarly, the questioning of beliefs and their ethical/political value. I wonder if there is any connection between the beliefs of MAGA, the corruption of Trump and the engorgement of billionaires involved in US politics? You may not like the question but it is a valid one.
Ron Gantt says
Re: your MAGA comment – says the guy who is posting on the website that has the US Border Patrol ad on it…
Re: the rest – how do you define the word “scam” and what evidence do you have that what Erik is doing is a scam?
Sherralynne says
Darling Ron
I am intrigued about your comment regarding the US Border Patrol advertisement running on Rob’s website. Can you please enlighten me on how website owners can select the advertisements they allow to run on their website?
Anxiously awaiting your response.
Nga mihi nui (thank you very much)
Sherralynne
Ron Gantt says
Darling Sherralynne,
I have no idea. Not a website owner. But I do know that if I ran a website that had ads and the US Border Partrol ran an ad on it I would do everything in my power to stop that from happening or I would stop having ads to avoid supporting organizations I vehemently oppose.
What would you do? Anxiously awaiting your response.
Ron
Sherralynne says
Darling Ron,
I appreciate your prompt response to my question and before I answered your message, I paid particular attention to the advertisement running at the top of this website, and noticed that the advertisement running was selling a pleasure craft from a company in New Zealand. I didn’t find it offensive and wonder if advertisements are selected on a location? It’s entirely possible that Rob was completely unaware of the US Border Patrol advertisement and seeing another advertisement which was appropriate for his location.
So my deduction is that is that website owner has no control over what appears on their website. That’s scary don’t you think? If I was a website owner, and noticed an offensive advertisement, I would complain too. But, would that work?
Nga mihi nui,
Sherralynne
Ron Gantt says
Hi Sherralynne,
I appreciate your response and your charitable view of Rob’s ability to know about and influence the ads on his website. I do hope you’re right (although I suspect that people have more control over the ads on their website than you’re describing ♂️). Of course Rob can now, at a minimum, denounce the ads that were on his website if he chooses to.
It’s a bit a ironic because that’s sort of the point of my line of questioning and even the comment about the ad to Rob – sometimes stuff seems nefarious when in fact it’s perfectly innocent, coincidental, just bad luck, etc. Questioning the motives of people who are just trying to do the best they can seems counter productive, especially from someone who is advocating for a more human-centered approach. Dehumanizing people in the name of a humanistic approach doesn’t make sense to me without a good reason.
So I was questioning what was the basis of Rob’s claims about Erik and others, which he has provided no evidence to support them.
Which leads to another curious point – you chose to question me about my comment about an ad but not about any of Rob’s claims, which are equally, if not more, spurious and not backed by logic or evidence (unless it happened elsewhere that I didn’t see). So do you support him making unfounded accusations about people, putting them down to make a point?
Note that I’m not asking if you support his point or not. I personally agree with a lot of what Rob says. But if we dehumanize in the process of trying to humanize can we really claim the moral high ground?
Admin says
The Google powered ads do not even cover the cost of hosting this site. We have very little control over the ads and google will chose from 1000s of advertisers based both contextually from the content of the post and targeted using and algorythm which monitors your personal cookies and search history (like any social media platform) – Ive certainly never seen an advert for border patrol but Google must think it might be of interest to you??
Rob Long says
Ive never seen any ads for border patrol, google seems to give me education ads is all I see.
Ron Gantt says
Yeah, a sad state of affairs and as someone who used to own a website like this, I can sympathize. I can also say that if someone made a claim like I did and I were in your shoes I would at least try to do something to remove the ads in question or I’d seriously consider going ad-less so as to not support certain organizations. I know that there’s not a lot one can do in these situations, but I would at least not just shrug my shoulders and do nothing. Even saying something like “oh man I don’t see that but I can see how that would happen and we certainly don’t support that here. Let me look into it” might go a long way.
Brian Darlington says
Hi Rob, enjoyed this post and so true.