There’s no doubt about it, Safety loves the language of ‘hazards’ and ‘controls’. It loves those hazard registers with thousands of listed hazards. And why does Safety love this language so much, because it creates the mystique of certainty. There is no certainty but the process creates a feeling of certainty. This is the power of ‘set and forget’.

Unfortunately, even in the psychosocial world Safety continues to adore the language of ‘hazards’. Again, because it creates the illusion of control and the feeling that things are managed. Nothing could be less certain. When persons are involved, any language of ‘hazards’ is anathema to how we should understand risk. The idea of a ‘psychosocial hazard’ is pure nonsense.

The world’s leading neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, wrote a great book on The Feeling of What Happens and should be standard reading for anyone in safety.

One of the most dangerous feelings to have in risk and safety is overconfidence. Collectively this is known as hubris. This is often created when things are going well and people slowly and unconsciously move to feeling that all is under control particularly, if there have been only several minor injuries. Afterall, the absence of injuries is mistaken by Safety as confirmation of safety. Similarly, criticism of safety is confused as being anti-safety.

This is also a problem from the mythology of the not-so-differently group that focuses on ‘learning from what goes right’. This too is a recipe for longitudinal hubris. A balance in focus on what goes right and wrong is essential for learning. No surprises here because again, there is no expertise in this group in learning.

Hubris can also lead to arrogance, and nothing is more dangerous than ‘safety arrogance’. Arrogance creates a blindness to arrogance and can only be compensated by critical and trusted associates who make unconscious arrogance, conscious. The trouble is, most people in this state also surround themselves with ‘yes’ people so that no-one gives them the ‘bad news’. And, giving bad news is essential for safety (Weick).

Only focusing on what goes well is a delusion that fosters ‘risk blindness’. Shutting out critical thinking, debate and criticism is a recipe for cultural blindness. Negativity in itself is not bad just as positivity is not good. These are attributions that simply create a lack of risk intelligence.

So too, does the constant talk about ‘hazards’ rather than a constant discourse of risk, create a sense/feeling of being in control.

It was Hudson who used the term ‘chronic unease’, Weick who used the term ‘sensitivity to failure’ and in SPoR we use the language of ‘entertain doubt’. All three phrases put the focus back on risk. Talking about risk always keeps in Mind the importance of uncertainty and not-knowing. Using the language of ‘risk’ is much more critical than using the language of ‘hazards’.

Hazards are static, risk is continuously moving and unknown. Keeping in Mind the language of uncertainty is essential for safety.

Understanding all the variables that influence risk is essential for safety (https://safetyrisk.net/how-is-risk-amplified-or-attenuated/).

Nothing is more dangerous for safety than FIGJAM safety (https://safetyrisk.net/figjam-safety/). This is also why the language of ‘zero’ is so dangerous because it creates a feeling of control when it is achieved for some period of time. The presence of harm is not a measure of unsafety.

So, we return full circle back to overconfidence, hubris and ‘safety arrogance’. These are much more dangerous than any hazard indeed, these unseen emotions are the hazard.

The presence of injury, harm and failure are your wake-up call to fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/).

Fixating on the positive and what is under control should NOT be the focus of safety rather, focusing on risk and imagining what could go wrong, is the key to risk intelligence.