Robert Long Safety Slogans

Your Normal is NOT My Normal, Just Another Slogan in Safety

ByProf. Robert Long

In the continuous discourse of Safety, we get constant sloganizing and naΓ―ve language from various groups. It seems the more Safety feels irrelevant, the more bizarre language it develops and accepts.

We already know that absurd and extremist slogan like β€˜blame fixes nothing’ hides a principle of non-accountability. And, we know how such discourse will sound in court, should something go wrong (https://safetyrisk.net/you-will-be-held-accountable-to-the-language-you-use-in-safety/).

It’s similar to the metaphor of β€˜chronic’ being applied to situational awareness (https://safetyrisk.net/situational-awareness-what-are-your-filters/). The language of β€˜chronic’ is situated in the language of ongoing and persistent illness. Is this the meaning we wish to foster unconsciously?

The trouble is, we get slogans from so called β€˜gurus’ with no expertise in legal matters, linguistics or culture. It may be entertaining, it may be cute, and it may even be constructed in a club to make sense, but outside the club it doesn’t.

Another one of these naΓ―ve slogans is the idea of β€˜learning from normal work’. Another slogan clearly emerging from the influence of positive psychology and fear of blame. You can even go to a website called β€˜learning from normal work’ (https://learningfromnormalwork.com/). The trouble is, when you speak gobbledygook to people, you may con a group into a myth or a cult, but it won’t wash in real life and, it certainly won’t wash in court.

Just ask any group to define β€˜normal work’ and you won’t get any agreement. This is because there is no such thing as β€˜normal work’. The use of such language hides so many unquestioned assumptions and is dangerous.

The reason why organisations work so hard on risk assessments is because there is no such thing as β€˜normal’ or predictable work. Indeed, most incidents occur because work doesn’t match acquired and unconscious heuristics.

Unfortunately, a good risk assessment requires astounding imagination, something in short supply in safety. The most effective killer of imagination is a compliance culture and compliance discourse.

Much of the fear of blame and how it is managed, is founded in naivety about risk. We even get other associated language about β€˜prediction’ anchored to the myth of β€˜normal work’. I wonder where fallibility and mortality fit into such projections of prediction?

Like all fads in safety, much of this stuff will seduce those looking for the latest fad, but if something goes wrong it will be used against you in court (https://safetyrisk.net/you-will-be-held-accountable-to-the-language-you-use-in-safety/). I remember being part of a fatality investigation and on the second day twelve lawyers arrived on site to chaperone all executives for a month. The presence of these chaperones was all about monitoring what one could and couldn’t say, especially to the media.

What were you doing at the time Mr Jones? I was in a β€˜pre-accident’ condition your honour learning from β€˜normal work’. I wonder what that sounds like?

My wife asked me the other day β€˜where are you going’? I replied, β€˜I’m on a β€˜pre-accident drive’. β€˜Hey kids what game are you playing?’, β€˜Oh, we’re playing the pre-accident game’.

All the language of β€˜pre-accident’ does is, unconsciously drive anxiety and negativity about living and being.

The idea that there is a shared β€˜normal’ is like the absurd idea that there is β€˜common sense’.

Every induction, every toolbox talk and every risk assessment proves that no-one believes in common sense.

We learned from the excellent book by Gabor Mate (The Myth of Normal) that the language of β€˜normal’ in psychosocial health is dangerous (https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-seekers-forum/202201/the-myth-normal-speaking-gabor-mat ).

Having worked in community and not-for-profit organisations for years in the areas of addiction, drug and alcohol issues, suicide prevention, at-risk families and trauma, I can affirm that talking about β€˜normal’ is extremely unhelpful. Indeed, the language of β€˜normal’ and β€˜common sense’ in psychosocial health is delusional.

For every new person or family who walked through the door for help and counselling, you learn that their story and situation are unique and different. Maintaining the myth of normal simply inhibits listening, empathy and helping.

In the discourse of β€˜learning from normal work’ what do you actually do? What do you observe? And how does that create learning? You may like to speak the club language but it would be good to know what it actually means and what method it encourages?

Strange thing about new safety slogans is that none of them define what learning is. Most often what is projected is β€˜schooling’ or training’. Traditional safety.

When does Safety stop for a second and consider the implications of its discourse, Discourse and language used?

A classic was the slogan thought up by Dekker β€˜People are not a problem to control but a resource to harness’. The slogan says the same thing. People are NOT resources to β€˜harness’ (https://medium.com/notbinary/people-are-not-resources-13ac7a380f95). Such language is about controlling people indeed, some aspects of the semiotic of harnessing simply amplify the nature of control! Put a harness on something is about control. So, what the slogans says is, ’people are not problems to control but resources to control’. No-one wants to be β€˜harnessed’ by anyone, its simply micro-management. But the club repeats the slogan rather than question it.

Shouldn’t Safety be asking questions about the kind of linguistics being circulated in safety fads? Shouldn’t language make sense inside and outside the safety club?

We need to think more often about how safety language will be used in court should something go wrong. This is where skills in critical thinking come in. This is why in SPoR, we teach the use of the iThink Clock MethodΒ© to evaluate discourse and Discourse.

If you want to watch the presentations of the Critical Thinking workshops or learn how to use the iThink Clock, you can email here: admin@spor.com.au

If you want to learn about the power of linguistics and semiotic messaging in risk you can study here:

 

Prof. Robert Long

Prof. Robert Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Prof. Robert 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.

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below