Evidence shows that we can be influenced profoundly by the smallest of things and all of this happens unconsciously (Colourful price tags at Australian chemists may trick shoppers into buying full-price items)

People in marketing and advertising know this yet, not Safety. The images, graphics and signs we make connect most powerfully to the human unconscious.

Most of the semiotics I see used in safety contradict the message that is sought. More on this later. The semiotics often used in safety actually unconsciously undo the intended message and we know that unconscious messaging is far more powerful that conscious messaging. I also see this in many podcasts in safety too. Everything from the use of metaphor, graphics, sound, language, egoism and messaging in these are contradictory, and ineffective.

If you want to understand the power of unconscious semiotic messaging perhaps watch these on supermarket psychology (https://youtu.be/RjgkQ6bq7aE?si=IMjjcgfZqYLnm9r4; https://youtu.be/RmEI3_NhZj4?si=biJ38rtDYsSdPxtU ). McDonalds and other fast-food stores also know this and more. Indeed, just do your own research and look at the layout of your local supermarket, its colours, placement, messaging, graphics and symbols – all of it influences people to spend more and purchase unconsciously. The shopping industry know the power of semiotics, not Safety.

And yet, here we are in risk and safety, frustrated that people don’t do what is expected, then curse those same people for being non-compliant! Then rather than learn about semiotics, the unconscious, ethics or many other key factors that influence decision making, don’t question ineffectiveness but rather more deeply bury themselves in things that don’t work and don’t understand. We see this all the time when organisations persist in zero messaging and then wonder why their culture is toxic. But Zero must not be questioned, traditional safety methodology must not be questioned. This is the safety way.

On a number of occasions, I have offered critical analysis to Safety that contradicts its own message semiotically but rather than accept advice, demonise the messenger and hold on more tightly to their contradiction. This is the safety way, Safety knows best, Safety without any expertise in semiotics knows the way. One of the most important cultural values in Safety is to keep everything inside the fortress, change a few slogans but above all else engage in no paradigm shift (https://safetyrisk.net/without-change-in-paradigm-there-will-be-no-sustainable-change-in-safety/).

The mismatch of semiotics to message in traditional safety is endless. I have commented many times about the messaging in semiotics by Heinrich and Reason but let’s look at a few examples in more contemporary semiotics in traditional safety.

Drift into Failure

This is the graphic on the cover of Dekker’s book Drift into Failure. Of course, there is no ‘drift into failure’. This is just a seductive meme that entices organisations into an image of fear that all is ‘going down the gurgler’. Such a negative message from a focus that claims to be all about positives and offers no reconstruction in method, once the work of deconstruction is done. The hidden questions ghat need to be asked of this meme are: what is drifted from? Non-failure? Infallibility? Perfection? Of course, humans and their systems are not infallible but always in failure. It’s just often such failure cannot be seen or counted. It’s easy to sell such a meme when one never talks about mortality, fallibility and an ethic of imperfection. Nothing is more damaging to the message of safety than selective perception about success.

HOP

The HOP group anchor their identity to ball of rubber bands all held tightly together. In this semiotic there is no focus on persons or organising indeed, nothing on performance. The image conveys the idea of being all wrapped up in tension and the focus is on an object.

Another image of the HOP group is the logo for ‘learning teams’ that is not about learning or teams but is centralised on a brain as a light bulb. The focus on the brain represents a rationalist view and ethic that understands humans as bodies carrying brains. This endorses the mythology of the body-mind dualism and has no connection to the reality of persons as embodied or anything about relations between people in teams.

Another HOP Image is the Jenga blocks on the cover of a book called Better Questions that is not about better questions or skills in effective questioning. This is what Safety does so well, stating what is by what it isn’t. The Jenga image shares much in common with the idea of things falling apart or ‘going down the gurgler’. Take one piece out and it fall falls down. Again, the semiotics is not about human persons, relationships or social meaning but blocks.

S2 – FRAM

 

Emerging out of the S2 discourse and the work of Hollnagel we see more focus on objects, interconnected but nothing on persons. Indeed, all of the critical language one would like to see about persons, care, helping and social meaning is missing. Like all semiotics in the S2, SD, RE, HOP, NV traditional safety discourse, there is no focus on persons or an ethic of personhood. The semiotic focus is always on objects, mechanics and systems.

This is from the cover of the book Safety 2 in Practice and like all S2 semiotics is about mechanistic, object-centric thinking. Just because the word ‘learn’ is used, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with learning. Objects don’t learn. Systems don’t learn.

Resilience Engineering

When we look at the cover of Resilience Engineering once again it’s all about objects. As we see in all approaches to traditional safety there is nothing on an ethic of persons, relationships, social meaning or resilience of persons but rather the resilience of systems.

New View

The semiotics of NV traditional safety continues the focus on objects for example, on the cover of the book Discovering the New View of Safety is the image of swirling lines not dis-similar from Dekker’s lines going down the gurgler. Again, no image of human persons, teams, learning or social meaning. It’s the same old view with new spin. There is no paradigm shift.

The Semiotics of Traditional Safety

The semiotics of all these traditional safety groups is on objects. This is the evidence of their graphical models. Apart from a change in a few slogans, there is no change in paradigm, ethic or principles from traditional safety. Then armed with the discourse of ‘performance’ everything falls in line with traditional safety that has always been concerned about safety performance. Indeed, the focus is often on data not persons.

The focus on objects has always been the semiotic of choice for Safety. It doesn’t matter whether it’s hard hats, gloves, glasses or gloves, a punching fist on a brick wall or a stiletto, the semiotic message is not on persons but objects. In the case of the stiletto, nothing could be more demeaning to women than this icon. This is the safety way.

Indeed, just do a search in Google images using only the word ‘safety’ and see what comes up: objects, ‘safety first’ posters and objects.

So little of the semiotics of safety concern helping, relationships, social meaning, care or ethical practice in tackling risk.

So much of the safety podcasts on the market are the same: traditional safety selling the same old controls, hazards, objects, egos, indoctrination, training, systems, brain-centrism and safety.

Our world is s semiotic world. Our lives are infused with signs, icons, symbols, graphics and images that all penetrate our unconscious. These are where we find the real messages and focus of what is presented.

There is a positive alternative to all of this, that involves a positive paradigm shift towards persons, care, helping, humanising safety and an ethical approach to tackling risk. If you want to know more about this alternative:

You can download free books here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/

You can do the free Introduction to SPoR here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/4233556

You can email for coaching here: admin@spor.com.au

You can watch free videos here: https://vimeo.com/cllr

Or you can come to the SPoR Convention in September: https://spor.com.au/spor-convention-2025/