I have written before on motivation and do so again because so much of what people do hinges on how one understands: the nature of persons, the psychology of goals, moral triggers, ethical focus, worldview, methodology, the psychology of perception and psychology of learning.
Most importantly, there is no objective sense or understanding of motivation.
Most often, how one defines all of the things listed above is hidden when motivation is discussed in risk and safety. A good example is the publication Something to Think About – Motivations, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills in Work Health and Safety (2011) (https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/something_to_think_about.pdf)
In no place in this publication is there a declaration of ethic or methodology. Indeed, the regulatory focus of the paper hides the bias to all things focused on simplistic definitions, brain-centrism and behaviourist assumptions. One could easily read this paper as some kind of objective comment on the fundamentals of: the nature of persons, the psychology of goals, moral triggers, ethical focus, worldview, methodology, the psychology of perception and psychology of learning. But, none of these are even countenanced in the paper.
First of all, if motivation is a socio-psychological matter (p5), why are so many critical socio-psychological factors omitted from discussion? (https://spor.com.au/downloads/posters/ )
Indeed, the paper has no comprehension of Socialitie (Durt,C., Fuchs, T., and Tews, C., (eds.) Embodiment, Enaction, and Culture. Investigating the Constitution of a Shared World. MIT Press. London.) nor, the wealth of research in neuro-psychology, Semiotics and Phenomenology associated with ‘being’ embodied in the world.
It is quite clear; Safety has no interest in such a view because it doesn’t suit their ends: policing regulation.
Unfortunately, when Safety wants to know something, it turns to an Engineer or Behaviourist to confirm its own assumption. Then declares such a view objective, when it is not.
Safety people who want to think in a sophisticated and mature way ought to learn how to interrogate the source of what is being fed to them. Such critical thinking skills are foundational to SPoR. SPoR has produced a tool to help you do this:
If you use this tool, you will quickly see whom the paper or presentation serves.
Most often what is being peddled as ‘objective’ is simply safety indoctrination and propaganda. This is the case of so much in the AIHS BoK, where authors never declare their ethic and worldview.
Safety keeps silent on what it doesn’t want to hear. And this is easy to maintain just on the basis of who is selected as a researcher. Safety, has no interest in a Transdisciplinary approach to knowing.
When it comes to motivation, most of what is being peddled is completely detached from reality but served the ends of Safety. Most often the Behaviourism and the Brain-centrism of the presentation is hidden. Most often, all the topics listed in the opening of this blog are absent. If you want to know more about safety silences, look here: https://safetyrisk.net/category/safety-culture-silences/
The real problem with this is that such a view projected by Safety is not just simplistic but simply doesn’t tackle the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA) of the real world (https://safetyrisk.net/kiss-safety-in-a-vuca-world/ ).
This is why so many strategies in Safety don’t work.
This is why so many investigations methods on the market don’t work – but sell well. It’s so easy to sell KISS to dumb down safety and make heaps of money (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-naivety-and-the-delusions-of-kiss/ ).
The reality is – causation is not linear, people are NOT predictable, fallibility is real and zero is delusional (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/).
If you are up for a sophisticated sense of knowing about: the nature of persons, the psychology of goals, moral triggers, ethical focus, worldview, methodology, the psychology of perception and psychology of learning then, perhaps start reading non-safety books, non-engineering/behaviourist sources and tackle Real Risk. Here is place to start: