Zero Harm–The Maintenance of a Dangerous Idea
Rob Long and Gabrielle Carlton discuss the issues associated with zero harm language and its effects on organisational culture. This extended video tackles many of the questions and ideas put forward by proponents of zero language and ideology. Gab and Rob hope you find this discussion helpful.
Rob and Gab dedicate this video to the life of Max Geyer, a colleague, partner, dad, grandad and great friend and support of many. Max knew that the language of ‘zero’ creates a dehumanising ethic. The ideology of zero offers no hope for humans and Max was a man who knew that zero fosters intolerance not love, and love was all Max lived for.
I highly recommend Rob’s Book: For the Love of Zero, Human Fallibility and Risk
This dangerous idea is still being espoused by Leaders and Regulators more than ever. They only demonstrate they have no idea of culture or leadership when they espouse this nonsense and show they have no sophistication in thinking in leadership or culture. When one decides to define culture and leadership by a number, it contradicts all we know about culture and leadership.
MORE ON ZERO HARM:
This video discusses one of the many arguments against the zero harm concept, zero language and discourse. The language of zero as an absolute and the framing of risk and safety in perfectionism is deeply problematic for establishing a culture of openness, reporting, respect, relationship, trust and learning. The focus on zero creates a culture that sets it sights on risk and safety through numbers, creating a calculative culture. In this mindset safety is determined by the absence of injury data and this promotes hiding and ‘games’ with data. Zero discourse promotes deficit language and definition gymnastics in counting harm, reporting goes underground, trust is jeopardized and safety becomes a loss obsession. You can read more in For the Love of Zero, Human Fallibility and Risk humandymensions.com/about-us/for-the-love-of-zero