• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Psychosocial Safety
    • Resiliencing
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Mental health / Psychosocial Safety / You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

May 12, 2023 by Dr Rob Long 16 Comments

One of the favourite pastimes of Safety is parading ignorance as expertise. We see this constantly with engineers writing on culture and psychosocial health. We even get Safety running programs on learning that have nothing to do with learning nor education. Ah, this is the Safety Way.

I was talking to a safety person the other day about one of these fraudulent writers who claims a recent book on culture written by an engineer was ‘great writing’. I then asked them if they would go to an electrician if they had an eye problem? Or would they seek a plumber if their child had learning difficulties? Of course not, so why does safety constantly seek out people with no expertise in what they are spruiking? Because it confirms the safety worldview!

None of this is learning. Just more confirmation bias and indoctrination.

Recently Safety published more of this fraudulence as it normally does: IOSH Magazine under the guise of ‘the value of safety’. The title of the piece was ‘Putting a Price on Safety’ and this should have already been a dead giveaway. Why do the alarm bells not ring when Safety puts out this goop?

So, the framing of the article is economic not values-based. Of course, written by engineers with no understanding of ethics, moral philosophy or values.

A value is NOT something one values!

  • I can love my car but the car is not a value, love is the value!
  • I can appreciate my home but my home is not a value!
  • I can care about my reputation but reputation is NOT a value!
  • How amusing to see safety write about ethics with no expertise, knowledge or experience in ethics. Never mind, lets write a chapter on it and claim it is knowledge in a Body of Knowledge.

Hey, but what would any of this matter. We now have a pyramid/triangle with a hierarchy of values that are non-values, as if some of this has credibility and competence.

If you want to fool people in safety just couple whatever you do to a pyramid and you are on a winner.

It doesn’t matter that none of this is true or real, such is the myth of pyramids and curves in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-curves-and-pyramids/; https://safetyrisk.net/sexy-curves-and-the-paradox-of-risk/; https://safetyrisk.net/nonsense-curves-and-pyramids/).

Why learn about reality when a good myth will do?

Everything about this article on values can be sourced in an agency of no expertise in values.

This is how Safety comes up with the absurd idea that safety is a value, when it is not. Safety is an outcome NOT a value! Just because I value something doesn’t mean it is a value. The real value of safety can NOT be measured because it is founded in the care and help of persons. Things safety never speaks about.

Just look at the focus of this article, it’s all about a ‘sound return on investment’. This article is about an economic and political focus on safety. Of course, safety is so bogged down in the nonsense belief in measurement that it doesn’t know how to tackle anything abstract. This is admitted in the article (pp. 32-33).

The moment any conversation in safety moves into the unmeasurables of persons, ethics and moral philosophy it doesn’t want to know about it.

This is why this article doesn’t define values. This is why the article doesn’t discuss the complexities of ethics, persons or the value of safety – the care and helping of persons.

The trouble is, all this entry of Safety into areas beyond its expertise (eg. psychosocial health, mental health, values, education etc) is dangerous. That’s’ how we end up with projections that say the best rule in learning something is not to talk about it!

How typical that Safety is so noisy about things in which it has no competence.

So, let’s have a quick look at the pyramid thrown forward by this article/report: Figure 1. Hierarchy of Environment, Health and Safety

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Environment, Health and Safety

image

The first thing to note is, be careful of all hierarchies. Life is not structured in hierarchies. Values are messy, ethics is a wicked problem. Ah, but not so Safety, all is linear, neat and controllable – and a myth.

It’s hard to know where to start with such incompetence and fraudulence, especially when such things as ethics have been historically of no interest to the industry. Then to have reputation as the pinnacle of the pyramid is simply sickening. This is the measure of this article, this is what Safety thinks is at the top. Oh yes, there is an ethic right there. There is your example of what Safety thinks ethics is. And even when it describes ethics its NOT about ethics but ‘the perception of justice and fairness in safety activities’ and NOT about ethics. You couldn’t make this s&*t up.

This is what you get when you visit the plumber for an eye problem or consult a chemical engineer about culture.

This is how Safety can discuss mental health as an economic problem (p.34) as ‘human capital’. By the way, there is no mention in this article on morality, personhood, power, caring or helping – the foundations of ethics.

However, all is well, you now have a pyramid where health is on the bottom!

The article recommends: ‘that employers implement a values-based safety management system’ from an article that doesn’t discuss what it is to be ‘values-based’. Economics is NOT a value and to be values-based in anything requires expertise, knowledge and experience in understanding moral philosophy as the basis of values.

This article is all about ‘measuring’ the value of safety NOT the values of Safety!

This is what you get when you let the engineers loose in the culture playground to an audience with only safety equipment (and no expertise in critical thinking skills to analyse what is being served up) to judge something as intelligent or competent.

This is how Safety ends up with rubbish definitions of culture like ‘what we DO around here’.

Didn’t you know, mental health is all about ‘return on investment’? Didn’t you know that psychosocial ‘hazards’ can be fined with the ‘hierarchy of controls’?

Didn’t you know that safety is valued by the ‘data you capture’? (p. 36).

This is all dangerous and unethical stuff. All packaged as some kind of expert approach to values-based safety when it is not. Once again, this is what Safety is expert in, fraudulence.

And the recommendations of this is that this Hierarchy of ‘safety values’ be integrated into safety interventions to deliver ‘maximum value’.

I think it might be of value here to remind your children not to go to the toilet to find a drink of water.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Rob
Dr Rob Long

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Dr Rob Long

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’! - May 24, 2023
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process - May 23, 2023
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble - May 21, 2023
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video - May 21, 2023
  • Safetie - May 21, 2023
Dr Rob Long
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.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Psychosocial Safety, Robert Long Tagged With: hierachy of control, IOSH, values

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Simon Cassin says

    May 13, 2023 at 9:19 AM

    Cheers Rob.

    I think my argument against the ethicalith of ZH is different than others I have read. It is unashamedly philosophical and may never be read by anyone other than my prof.

    But that doesn’t really matter, as my motivation is the development and exploration of wisdom rather than followers or reward.

    Cheers Rob

    Reply
  2. Simon Cassin says

    May 13, 2023 at 9:04 AM

    Hi Rob

    Thanks for your response. Irrespective of whether the h&s industry (as represented by self proclamaed guardians or thought leaders) are open to approaches we must continue to make our arguments in favour of other approaches.

    When I have the chance to meet and chat with those who actually practice H&S I am encouraged by their openness to explore new sources of wisdom.

    Those interested in the practise of h&s rather than the perpetuation of status or privilege are your audience Rob.

    Cheers Rob

    Reply
  3. Rob Long says

    May 13, 2023 at 8:45 AM

    Simon, I write these blogs very quickly, and conversationally in a few minutes. I simply apply my worldview to what is being presented and question from that view. Even from simple discourse analysis, this is a worrying approach to safety.
    Yes, I understand your point of charity, that also needs to be held in tension with dialectic, learning, cognitve dissonance and critical thinking. Charity doesn’t stand alone, we live in a faith-love-hope-justice dialectic.
    To approach this dialectic one needs movement, movement towards but this cannot be found in zero. Zero is the embodiment of non-movement and non-learning and so regardless of the many times I have made moves to meet with safety, it has had no interest to reciprocate. It has no interest in critical dialogue so we are left with an adversarial framework where some listen and move and others bunker down. That is the choice of the compliance engineering industry and its insecurity with its mono-disciplinary worldview.
    As you know I have never offered hollow or naive criticism with no alternative. I have never sought to use safety as some kind of cash cow. Indeed, anyone who wants to engage and listen will learn very quickly that SPoR offers constructive, positive and comprehensive methods to improve safety. and many do take that journey of unlearning and discovering a better way of tackling risk. It is for those I have all the time in the world. I don’t waste a second on the engineering worldview that wishes to tell me all it knows about culture, ethics and linguistics.
    I think I have given much time to the semiotics of zero that very few understand, and they have very little interest in understanding such a worldview. Similarly, to a view that understands safety as profoundly religious.
    Happy to chat anytime about the ethical implications of zero-harm, just email me.
    But let me say, any denial of fallibility is on a trajectory of myth making and has no option but to be unethical. The foundation of ethics is understanding personhood and power and, Zero=Safety has no interest in approaching the issue. Instead, it builds a barrier to learning through a deontological ethic that anchors well to its religious dynamic.
    It also depends how you understand zero as both an archetype, ideology and semiotic and again, few have any interest in understanding how such discourse works.

    Reply
  4. simon p cassin says

    May 13, 2023 at 3:49 AM

    Hi Rob

    I think we need to acknowledge that economic arguments for or against something can also be ethical. The article is correct to recognise that there are problems with current comprehensions of the value of safety but it does seem that the article fails to consider the issues from the proper perspective. If we reinterpret harm to encompass more than physical injury and harmful psychological impact and view business activities and H&S from a position of providing a service to society, it would enable a more useful comprehension of the prudential and ethical impact of H&S interventions.

    One approach might be to begin considering harm from a broader perspective and also acknowledge businesses and the professions have duties associated with beneficence. A perception of harm based on a morally informed (MI) approach to stakeholder management would acknowledge financial harm but not necessarily result in the prioritisation of this harm above other harms or duties of beneficence.

    Management of harm from a MI stakeholder perspective would align with descriptions of harm with contemporary philosophers such as Fiona Woollard and Michael Sandel amongst others. Woollard rightly describes the difficulties associated with creation of a universally associated definition of harm. But her proposed notion of harm (‘a person suffers harm when a state of affairs occurs that involves harm to him’) (Woollard, 2019, p.18) would seem to expand the notion of harm as generally considered by businesses and H&S practitioners alike.

    If we tentatively accept Woollard’s assertion, it would seem that this broader notion of harm could plausibly open the door to descriptions of harm to also encompass areas including; financial, spiritual, cultural, relationship, and epistemic harm. Viewing harm from this perspective would acknowledge that ROI is an ethically relevant issue but not one worthy of the elevated position the article seems to suggest.

    When I’ve finished my current studies I hope to explore whether a different comprehension of harm and beneficence that utilises a morally informed approach to stakeholder management could provide a useful framework for society and business to appropriately consider the role of the H&S industry.

    Perhaps one of the problems with Warburton’s article is that he approaches the discussion from the perspective of business rather than the society it serves.

    I agree that many fail to recognise the distinction between something we value and a value. But this is not a surprise distinctions such as this are not intuitively obvious. Without knowledge of this distinction and an ability to reason both critically and ethically then it is no surprise that many may fail into the trap of ignorance.

    I constantly find myself falling into these traps but hopefully I’ve become more open to being helped out by the wisdom of others.

    Cheerio Rob

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      May 13, 2023 at 8:27 AM

      Simon, thanks for your thoughtful reflections.
      When we look at this article framed from the first line around ‘interventions’, ‘accidents’ and ‘measuring’, we already know that the old favourites are in play. This is nothing new.
      Any expertise in discourse analysis will reveal the agenda in this piece.
      Then the next line is framed around business and ‘good safety culture’ again linked to prevention of injuries and fatalities. The the classic ‘positive return on investment’ and the cost of prosecutions.
      This is the reality of how this article is framed. This is NOT how I think of either safety or risk and I am glad I don’t share this engineering and behaviourist view of safety. Indeed, there are other valid worldviews than these, but apparently I’m not allowed to have such. Indeed, any criticism of safety is to ‘denigrate’ safety apparently rather than to improve it! What an astounding projection.
      Yes, I acknowledge the economic and political arguments for safety but this is where this article is deceptive because it also mixes this with the language of ‘greater values’ and then proposes that an inability to measure these relegates these to the background.
      The moment Safety gets out of its comfort zone it usually engages in such fraudulence or projection.
      You valid points about harm and related research are well beyond the culture of safety. and now that safety has entered the wicked world of psychosocial harm it is so far out of its depth what it is doing is simply dangerous.
      Sadly, if other competent disciplines articulate the world differently in a Transdisciplinary sense, safety has no interest. The answer to any problem is the engineering behaviourist view. and that’s what this article offers as if it is presenting something of value and on ‘values’.

      Reply
  5. simon p cassin says

    May 12, 2023 at 10:37 PM

    Hi Rob
    Thank you for your interesting article.

    Having read the article several times and considering the key points (as I understood them), I think your central assertion is correct.

    Central assertion: ‘Key players in the H&S industry portray themselves as experts in fields with little evidence of expertise’.

    Focusing primarily on the discipline of ethics. I believe a significant amount of evidence suggests that current narratives and approaches to ethics are, at least to some degree, ignorant, amoral and in some cases unethical.

    Notwithstanding the issues highlighted above, I think we need to consider the most appropriate way to respond to the H&S industry’s lack of intellectual humility (Doxastic) regarding important and relevant issues, such as ethics, culture and semiotics, amongst others.

    As you know, we cannot control the lack of intellectual humility demonstrated across the industry. But I believe that if we can apply the principle of charity to evaluating the current narratives/positions/approaches, we can positively contribute to developing the industry’s understanding and application of ethics.

    Suppose we begin from a position that views the current (apparent) increased dialogue and discussion of ethics as indicative of the industry’s desire to highlight the importance and understanding of ethics in H&S. In that case, we can consider the current standards of knowledge etc., as a point on an evolutionary spectrum as opposed to a final destination.

    I would argue that adopting this perspective may help all interested parties approach important issues from a position of curiosity rather than conflict. I hope many would agree only by adopting a position of curiosity can we support the consistent and progressive development of the H&S industry.

    If we consider essential issues, such as semiotics and culture. In recent years, there has been an increasing (albeit small) number of H&S practitioners who have invested significant amounts of time, money, and effort into deep learning and academically recognised expertise in these areas. This learning process takes time, but it can only benefit the industry’s desire for a professional and meaningful contribution to society in the long run.

    In my opinion we need the same investment and patience for disciplines such as critical thinking, moral philosophy and applied ethics. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if some H&S practitioners were able to contribute genuine expertise in these areas. Furthermore, until our industry can stand on its own two-feet, we must promote open and positive dialogue that encourages industry leaders to reach out and access help from genuine experts rather than pronounce expertise where it does not exist.

    As a footnote, I wholeheartedly believe that you have positively contributed to the development of the H&S industry’s depth and breadth of knowledge. That said, I must also say that I sometimes disagree with your arguments and the way you express them.

    If you ever have time, it would be good to chat about the ethical implications of Zero-harm approaches to H&S, as this forms the central question behind my dissertation. (Masters in applied and professional ethics). I think it is fair to say that you have a better depth of knowledge of the history and application of this approach than I do.

    Cheers Rob

    Reply
  6. BRENT R CHARLTON says

    May 12, 2023 at 9:18 PM

    I often wonder where this idea that everything in life can be boiled down to a linear model comes from. Is it a need to simplify? Is it laziness? There are some of use out here who realized a long time ago that things are much more messy than a leads to be leads to c. Safety does it and Quality does it too (5-why, anyone?)

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      May 13, 2023 at 8:46 AM

      Brent, the safety world would much prefer a tidy ordered myth that a messy reality.

      Reply
  7. BRENT R CHARLTON says

    May 12, 2023 at 9:12 PM

    Great question!

    Reply
  8. Tom Beegan says

    May 12, 2023 at 6:12 PM

    Dr. Rob Long. For a person who insists on evidence you are making some wild and biased comments on Health and Safety professionals. For one I do have safety as a value for me. It defines what I do and how I do it. It transcends work and personal life choices and actions. It is grounded in the realities of the places I work and the life I live. It is about making sure I demonstrate that I care not just for myself but for those I work with, live with and love.
    Safety does not the preserve of any one professional or any one qualification. Safety is most certainly is not helped by disparaging comments without any suggested better ways to make the much needed improvements.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      May 12, 2023 at 6:48 PM

      Safety is not a value. Try doing some research in moral philosophy or the ethics of psychology: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/782/docs/ISB2_24030.pdf; https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/91009/91009.pdf
      Valuing something doesn’t make it a value: https://safetyrisk.net/we-can-value-safety-but-safety-is-not-a-value/
      I am not seeking to ‘help safety’. Critical thinking about safety is not ‘disparaging’ but rather seeks its improvement and maturity. Sadly, Safety reacts to critical thinking because it defines critical thought as un-safety. Moreso, Safety (not a profession) has traditionally shown no interest in critical theory, cultural theory or similar in any safety qualification.
      BTW, there are many methods and resources I provide for free, that are helpful, constructive, positive and improve safety. Many better ways indeed.
      You obviously know little about my work or what I do as is demonstrated by your comments.
      As for wild and biased comments, evidence please, demonstrate where anything I claimed in the blog is not real.
      Read the article, it’s an economic apologetic for safety.

      Reply
  9. Rob Long says

    May 12, 2023 at 6:01 PM

    Why anonymous?

    Reply
    • Admin says

      May 13, 2023 at 8:06 AM

      somebody has discovered AI

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        May 13, 2023 at 8:48 AM

        Of course AI never can and never will understand the nuances of sarcasm and such a projection says more about the programmer than the reality.

        Reply
  10. Anonymous says

    May 12, 2023 at 4:27 PM

    Ignorance masquerading as expertise: The passage suggests that safety professionals often display a lack of expertise when discussing topics outside their field, such as culture, psychosocial health, or ethics. This is seen as a way to confirm their preconceived notions rather than engaging in genuine learning or education.

    Lack of expertise in values and ethics: The author criticizes safety professionals for writing about ethics without having a proper understanding of moral philosophy, values, or ethical complexities. The article argues that safety should focus on caring for and helping individuals rather than adopting an economic or political approach.

    Criticism of the pyramid hierarchy: The passage dismisses the use of hierarchical models, such as the pyramid, in safety discussions. The author suggests that life is not structured in hierarchies and values are messy and complex, contrary to the simplistic and controllable portrayal of safety in such models.

    Dismissal of economic and measurement-focused approaches: The passage expresses disapproval of safety discussions that prioritize economic aspects, return on investment, and measurement, while neglecting the unmeasurable aspects of human experience, ethics, and morality. The author argues that safety should be values-based and require expertise in moral philosophy.

    Critique of safety professionals’ involvement in unrelated fields: The passage criticizes safety professionals for venturing into areas beyond their expertise, such as psychosocial health, mental health, education, and values. This is seen as dangerous and potentially misleading, as the professionals lack the necessary competence and understanding of these domains.

    Sarcasm and frustration: The tone of the passage is highly critical and sarcastic, expressing frustration with what the author perceives as incompetence, fraudulence, and lack of critical thinking skills within the safety industry. The author suggests that safety professionals’ misguided practices and beliefs can lead to negative outcomes.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      May 12, 2023 at 4:58 PM

      Safety was never renowned for its ability to think critically. Now we have AI there’s no need for Safety to think at all…….

      Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

Recent Comments

  • Rob Long on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Chris. on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Pierre Joubert on Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • James on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Admin on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe

The KISS of Death in Safety

Is Your Safety World Too Small?

You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

When Safety (Zero) is Abusive

Hands Up the Best Safety Fraud!

Communicating Professionally in Risk

How NOT to be Professional in Safety

How NOT to do Anything About Culture in Building and Construction

Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • Safety Acronyms
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS

Recent Posts

  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • My Story is Better than Yours
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process
  • The Unconscious and the Soap Dispenser
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video
  • Safetie
  • You are NOT the Sum of Safety
  • Update on SPoR in India, Brazil and Europe
  • It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Safety at the Margins
  • Research Basics for Safety
  • We Need Communities and They Need Us
  • Researching Within The Safety Echo Chamber
  • Confirmation Bias, Risk and Being Offensive
  • Lemmings for Lemmings in Leadership and Risk
  • Expertise by Regurgitation and Re-Badging
  • Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • Can There Be Other Valid Worldviews Than Safety?
  • Evaluating Value by the Value of What You Don’t Know
  • Reality vs Theory, The Binary Divide
  • No Paradigm Shift with BBS
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Is Your Safety World Too Small?
  • What Does Safety Achieve?
  • In Praise of Balance in Risk and the Threat of Extremism
  • We are all equal
  • You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • What in the (Risk & Safety) World is Imagination?
  • iCue Engagement Process
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • For the Monarchists of Safety
  • The Sully Effect
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk
  • Scapegoating and Safety
  • Understanding Habit, Habituation and Change
  • Don’t Mention the War
  • Safety in Design for Who by Who?
  • Beyond ‘What We Do Around Here’
  • Asking the Wrong Questions
  • When Safety (Zero) is Abusive
  • Mandala as a Method for Tackling an Ethic of Risk (a Video)
  • Safety Cosmetics
  • Visualising the EHS Role
  • Towards Dumb
  • Workshops with Dr Long – Vienna, Austria 26-30 June 2023
  • Visual, Verbal and Relational Mapping in Risk Assessment
  • Abduction in Risk and Safety
  • Creating Myths and Rituals in Safety
  • The Safe Christmas Psychosis

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

Safety is not Just a Choice

Tentative at Tooleybuc

Off to a Flying Start in Learning with CLLR

Cultivating Resilience

Turning Neuroscience into Behaviourism

The Intelligence of the Emotions

Psychology and safety

A Masters Degree in ‘Tick and Flick’

Psychology of Risk Post Graduate Program Suspended ‘til 2017

Thinking About Harm

Regulation Madness

TRIFR Safety Zombies

The Illusion Of Opposites

Safety Isn’t Sexy, and it Shouldn’t Be!

Introduction to SPoR – Free

Does Safety Have A Soul?

Accidents Happen Because You Don’t Put Safety First

Keep Discovering

‘False Consciousness’ and Perception in Risk and Safety

Risky Conversations – Free Download

Safety as Faith Healing

The Village Effect

So, You Want Culture Change

EGO is not a dirty word

The Convenience of Complacency

Leadership, Risk and the Zone of Reciprocal Relationship

ADVENTURES IN RISK AND SAFETY–KING ZERO

Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts

Sanctimonious Safety

Spin, Nonsense Language and Propaganda in Safety

The Repression of Uncertainty

Numerology and Psychic Numbing

Understanding Just Culture

Why Resilience Cannot be Engineered

How Groupthink Works

Safety Holistically a Case for Change

The Mythic Symbology of Safety

Why Some People Never Achieve

Humanising Safety Free Virtual Conference

Safety for True Believers

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY

x
x