Is there such a thing as too much safety? Absolutely.

We have learned over many years from the work of: Weick (https://safetyrisk.net/weick-collection/), Amalberti (https://qi.elft.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/safer-healthcare-charles-vincent-and-rene-amalberti.pdf), Taleb (http://kgt.bme.hu/files/BMEGT30M400/Taleb_Antifragile__2012.pdf) and many on the dysfunctionality of anything ‘hyper’, that we don’t want hyper anything.

We learn from these scholars that hyper-safety is not just dangerous but unachievable.

The word ‘hyper’ derives from the Greek ‘hyper’ meaning excessive and over. This should not be confused with the prefix of hypo which means ‘under’.

We know what happens in relationships when people are hyper-sensitive, hyper-active and hyper-tensive. Indeed, the last thing people want in relationships is any party going ‘over the top’.

When I started the Galilee School (https://www.commsatwork.org/services/community/galilee-school/) nearly every young person was diagnosed with some form of hyper-activity disorder. Indeed, it was delightful to be recognised recently by the school as its founder (https://region.com.au/galilee-school-unveils-garden-to-recognise-collective-effort-behind-25-year-journey/1003147/).

One of the reasons I started the Galilee School was because there was no place for ‘high-risk’ and ‘at-risk’ young people to find a place to learn. I wrote about the founding of this school in my first book Risk Makes Sense (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risk-makes-sense/) pp. 27ff.

If you want to learn about risk, there is no place to start like working with ‘high-risk’ young people. These are young people between the ages of 12 and 24 who have already experienced: homelessness, violence, incarceration, sexual, substance and physical abuse, engagement in systemic welfare and ‘at-risk’ of suicide.

The word ‘hyper’ meaning ‘excessive, explains everything about these young people and how this hyper-activity put many ‘at-risk’ of danger, even death.

One of the key things we had a focus on in Galilee was bringing balance into the lives of these young people. This was done by providing a stable and positive education experience for them on a daily basis and working with all of the support service and the Courts to keep them safe.

I used to be in the ACT Children’s Court each month working with the ACT Chief Magistrate on keeping these young people out of the youth detention system and building wrap around services (much more than just schooling) to reduce the risks they were exposed to. The school continues to function well 25 years later with an amazing leadership team of diverse and Transdisciplinary services (youth workers, teachers, social workers, counsellors, occupational trainers and employment services). Later I became the Director of ACT Youth Services for the ACT Government.

The reason why Galilee performs so well is because it knows how to manage hyper. The orthodox approach to schooling does not. Indeed, the history of all these young people is one of being rejected by Traditional schooling than cannot cope with how hyper works.

Hyper in itself is NOT a good thing. It is an aberration of being balanced in life.

The same should be applied to safety.

There is no great advantage to being hyper in safety.

Excessive safety that seeks perfect systems, perfect compliance and perfect risk aversion creates risk fragility (Taleb).

When organisations and people seek balance in risk, they are able to manage the volatility, messiness, diversity and disorder of real life. Seeking balance in safety requires ditching the nonsense linear models of James Reason and hierarchical models of Jenga blocks (https://safetyrisk.net/the-jenga-blocks-are-swiss-cheese/) that propose an order that doesn’t exist in real life. There is no such linear or hierarchical order in real living and being.

Models like swiss-cheese and Jenga blocks that propose a false order on the reality of disorder, simply promote a hyper-approach to safety. Real life is messy, disorderly and ‘wicked’ (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-investigations-are-they-vuca-bani-or-wicked/).

The absolute worst language to use in safety is ‘zero’ or ‘1% safer’. This hyper language, is over the top language, and is dangerous. The more safety talks in hyper language, the greater fragility it creates.

What should be fostered in safety is the promotion of Everyday Social Resilience (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/everyday-social-resilience-being-in-risk/).

The more Safety seeks anything hyper, the more it makes organisations and persons fragile. The creation of fragility in risk and a focus on the minutia of risk, diminishes capability to tackle the unexpected risks of daily living.

Yet, there are those who promote hyper productivity as a good thing (https://dn720002.ca.archive.org/0/items/hyperfocus-the-new-science-of-attention-productivity-and-creativity-pdfdrive/Hyperfocus%20The%20New%20Science%20of%20Attention,%20Productivity,%20and%20Creativity%20(%20PDFDrive%20).pdf. I would strongly recommend NOT to read this book.

This is also why the promotion of the language of ‘performance’ is not a good thing when it comes to developing the ethic resilience in people. Yet, we see Safety so attracted to this language of ‘performance’ (eg. HOP) rather than the language of ‘resilience’.

Join the SPoR Book Club, Reading Taleb

If you are interested in learning more about the importance of being robust, resilient and adaptable in safety, then perhaps join the next SPoR book club reading group that is discussing Taleb’s excellent book Antifragility. You can see datils here:

https://safetyrisk.net/social-psychology-of-risk-book-club-antifragile/