The language of ‘proof’ is interesting when applied to risk and safety. Similarly, the language of what ‘works’. The black and yellow semiotic of the cover is suitable semiotic for what this book is about and, it’s not black and white!
Risk and safety by its nature is a ‘wicked problem’ as Greg Smith acknowledges, and any discourse about proof, evidence, effectiveness and what ‘works’ needs to be situated in that context. As Smith acknowledges wicked problems cannot be ‘tamed’ and at best can only be ‘tackled’. I have written about wicked problems before:
Risk and safety by its nature is also a subjective process. There is no ‘fixing’ or perfect ‘controls’ for fallible people, working in fallible systems in a random world. Zero is a delusion (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). And, the more Safety pursues its myths and delusions the further it moves away from any chance of ‘tackling’ risk effectively.
As usual in Smith’s books there are countless case studies, legal precedent and court evidence to demonstrate the core argument of the book.
This book follows on nicely from the previous book Paper Safe, The Triumph of Bureaucracy in Safety Management.
Both books provide definitive argument that much of what is currently being done in the name of safety, doesn’t ‘work’. This is what Smith calls ‘the illusion of safety’.
You can also see Dr Long, Dr Ashhurst and Greg Smith in conversation about the many myths of safety here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199 The book Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations/) for free download, provides transcripts of the video series.
The collective thrust of these books and videos, is a ‘clarion call’ to an industry numbed by staring into its own reflection. Dali captures the nature of the narcissism of safety well (See Figure 1. Metamorphosis of Narcissus.)
Figure 1. Metamorphosis of Narcissus.
We see this constantly in Safety as it turns to itself to try to understand what it doesn’t know. This is the mono-disciplinary nature of this industry on full show. This is how we end up with chemical engineers writing books on culture and lecturing on Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/), then telling us not to talk about it.
Unless Safety explores Transdisciplinary approaches to risk (perhaps starting with a legal perspective as presented in Smith’s work), it is not likely that much will improve in safety. Indeed, the more Safety identifies as Zero (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress) the less it can improve. There it is folks, ‘Zero takes centre stage at world congress’ says it all. And, just look at all the sponsors (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/), the lovers of Zero who hold back change and any hope of innovation in safety! (See Figure 2. The Lovers of Zero)
Figure 2. The Lovers of Zero
Smith acknowledges the bleeding obvious that Safety is a house divided against itself (p. 20). The foundation for all this division is the Archetype of Zero. And goodness me, we even have academics from the so called ‘Safety Science Innovation Lab’ providing a moral apology for this ideology (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/)! How interesting coming from a source with no expertise in Ethics and moral philosophy, that is not about science or innovation.
Smith’s book also shows that the so called S2, New View, safety differently and HOP groups have no method (p.87). Particularly when it comes to what ‘works’. A collection of slogans or rhetoric about intention is neither a methodology or method. Without a clearly articulated philosophy (methodology) one can never demonstrate what ‘works’. As Smith acknowledges unless one can operationalise a discourse (eg. safety differently), it can’t ‘work’ (p.87). Being entertained at a conference by academics and ‘punk rock safety’ is not a demonstration of proving much at all. Similarly, Smith shows clearly, that flipping to positivity or lead indicators makes no difference to the effectiveness of safety.
Proving Safety provides some keen critical thinking about such matters as ‘reasonably practicable’, the purpose of safety, obligations to workers, Due Diligence and a ‘framework’ for consideration to make safety effective. Effectiveness about what works is of course subjective. One needs to ask the questions works for who? Works for what? We discuss this in our book: It Works, A New Approach to Risk and Safety (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
I don’t care how efficient one’s systems are, or what controls are in place, if those things dehumanise persons then they don’t ‘work’ because they are unethical. There can be no discussion about what ‘works’ in safety unless it includes an ethic of risk.
Whilst there is no discussion of Ethics or Zero in this book one can easily see in the discussion on ‘wicked problems’ that Safety has a moral problem. However, please note as part of the legal profession, a study of Ethics is considered foundational to the profession, similarly, Teaching, Social Work, Medicine and Nursing. In these professions a study of Ethics is considered the foundation for professionalism and practice, not so safety. Safety loves to claim the word ‘profession’ but remains an amateur process.
If one wants to learn about ‘wicked problems’ then the go to expert in this area is Dr Craig Ashhurst (https://vimeo.com/162931759; https://vimeo.com/163205135). Dr Ashhurst is a long time associate of SPoR and the Registrar for the Centre for Leadership and Learning in Risk (CLLR). (https://cllr.com.au/).
Part 5 of Smith’s book Proving Safety provides a brief but clear coverage of the challenge of ‘wicked problems’. Once one acknowledges that safety is a ‘wicked problem’ (https://www.peterwagner.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Safety-A-Wicked-Problem2.pdf) then one’s whole approach to risk and safety changes. One should immediately step outside of one’s comfort zone and include other disciplines as one explores the best way to tackle risk. Without a Transdisciplinary approach, Safety continues to stay in its echo chamber and nothing improves.
Part 6 on metrics is excellent. I have been writing for years about this psychosis in safety on measurement (https://safetyrisk.net/the-measurement-mindset-in-safety/) and this obsession with qanta, is also common in S2. Both S1 and S2, HOP etc adore the language and discourse of measurement. This obsession with measures, performance, metrics and numerics comes from the ideologies of engineering and behaviourism that dominates safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-tyranny-of-metrics/) and, none of it ‘works’. Data does not speak for itself; it is interpreted yet in no place does Safety articulate an ontology or hermeneutic!
Instead, the myth of objectivity in safety prevails (https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-the-myths-and-metaphors-of-safety/) and much is assumed because the club determines who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’.
Without a professional approach to exchange, debate and critical thinking, Safety remains in its narcissist state looking on itself trying to find make-up to improve its image. Most of the asinine safety podcasts on the airwaves demonstrate this. So much of this noise is just more narcissist safety looking at itself.
Part 7 of Proving Safety explores a framework for proving safety, however, safety cannot be proven. This section of the book provides some great questions (p. 141 and 142) that every Executive and Manager in safety should consider.
The book closes with some thoughts to consider premised on the argument that what is currently done in safety is ‘not fit for purpose’ (p.155). Smith doesn’t provide answers because there are no ‘answers’ to a ‘wicked problem’. Instead, there are better ways of ‘tackling’ the problem and so he suggests that safety ought to be considered like a ‘research project’. In SPoR, we suggest that visual and verbal systems can complement and balance safety orthodoxy for improvement and effectiveness. None of these are a panacea but certainly a step in a better direction.
Proving Safety doesn’t really need to offer much by way of radical conclusion, there is so much that Smith demonstrates about the basics that would keep any organisation concerned about safety busy for the next 5 years.
Smith’s suggestions for a framework on page 156 and 157 simply involve an openness to changes in focus and a new disposition towards risk and don’t provide a system, method or methodology or ‘proof’ for what ‘works’. But this is the point of seeking the illusion of proof. Such a focus is just one more of the many safety myths (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-myths/) that dominate the industry absorbed in the delusion of Zero. There is no evidence that one can present that proves safety.
I would recommend this wonderful book to anyone in safety who wants to think critically about what they and their organisations do in safety. What a shame that and ethic of risk and critical thinking is in no curriculum in safety across the globe.
However, if you are interested in what works (for the humanisation of persons in risk) then we are happy at SPoR to help. Or if you would like access any of the free resources we offer, links are here:
Free books on SPoR: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
Free videos: https://vimeo.com/cllr
Free courses: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3949916; https://vimeo.com/showcase/4883640
Or Free conversations on risk: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
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.
Related
