I read the latest pop-psych instalment from Edmonston on the ‘science’ of failing well. It’s amazing how gullible people are when someone throws in the word ‘science’, when what follows has nothing to do with science. Heinrich used this strategy (https://safetyrisk.net/hoodwinked-by-heinrich/) years ago to dupe people into thinking safety was scientific. In reality, Heinrich’s book (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-the-myth-of-heinrich/) is just a collection of vague speculations, concocted mythology and utter nonsense that plays into the Archetype of Safety and has little to do with safety.

So, what about all this discourse on ‘failing well’? Also popularised by the so-called differently crew that peddles positive psychology as some kind of panacea for the paradox, ambiguity and wickedity of risk.

Back in the real world where Insurance companies and courts seek to attribute blame for compensation, fluffy aspirations don’t mean much. The same applies for the safety preoccupation with ‘just culture’ that has little understanding of justice or culture.

Even the silly idea that a lead indicator is better than a lag indicator is framed in the mythology that safety can be measured (https://safetyrisk.net/the-seduction-of-measurement-in-risk-and-safety/). The same discourse on measurement is present in the preoccupation with performance by the HOP group.

Similarly, the positive psychology stuff that assumes some higher moral ground is little more than an aspiration of being kind and gentle to people in their fallibility. Except in all of this, there is never any discussion on what fallibility means (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/).

In this book on the so-called ‘science of failing well’, we see all the same old positive psychology stuff (http://transformationalchange.pbworks.com/f/critique%2Bof%2Bpositive%2Bpsych.pdf ) , masked as science. A good example is Edmonston’s complete failure to understand the quote from Alexander Pope ‘to err is human, to forgive divine’ (p. 114). We see the same in safety with the likes of Copper (https://safetyrisk.net/to-err-is-human-you-better-believe-it/) and Dekker (https://safetyrisk.net/to-err-is-human-to-forgive-divine/#google_vignette) who clearly have no theological understanding of the poetics of Pope. I doubt if any of these people have ever studied Pope (https://www.eighteenthcenturypoetry.org/works/o3675-w0010.shtml). It doesn’t seem to matter to those fixated with science or safety to get context right! Even though Edmonston talks about the criticality of context.

In the case of pop-psych, selling books and appearance fees, saying nothing well attracts lots of ‘likes’, followers and people prepared to empty their bank account so that nothing changes. The same old formula applies: re-tell corporate stories, project a simplistic thesis and never disclose methodology or method.

Interesting that in all the publications by Edmonston there is no discussion of wicked problems, ethics and the dynamics of social organising (Weick).

In the business and safety sectors where behaviourism and brain-centrism are attractive, it’s easy to sell a myth, simplistic stories and assumptions about human personhood that suit that assumption. Similarly, in the only place where Edmonston quotes Weick (p.138), she completely misunderstands Weick and HROing. Weick never advocated for a static idea of organising or an organisation that was a HRO. So much for science. She refers to Weick as a ‘colleague’ yet has clearly not consulted Weick.

It’s interesting that Edmonston talks about ‘how we are wired’ (p.154) and even uses the word ‘fallibility’ but doesn’t discuss its implications for personhood, ethics or systems. The book ends in the adoration of systems and, that systems can be a panacea for fallibility and failure! We learn on page 245 that the use of the word ‘science’ is not about science thus showing its use as a hook to sell a book. Also, Edmonston clearly doesn’t know about the ideology of zero in the safety industry. Similarly, there is no discussion of the mythology of the scientific method (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-and-the-myth-of-scientific-method/ ).

In the end the book concludes with a collection of aspirations and no method. We end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about psychological safety, pop-psych and positive psychology (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247933233_The_Negative_Side_of_Positive_Psychology) with no method to enable its development. The same is part of the so called ‘differently’ discourse: collect together slogans, tell stories, entertain, share aspirations, collect the appearance fee and make no difference. Without a clear methodology, there can be no method.

If you are interested in not emptying your bank account and about learning what works, you can start by downloading one of our free books  (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).