The risk and safety industry loves to use the language of ‘mindset’, but its meaning is assumed and rarely defined. Indeed, if you are going to use language like ‘mindset’ or mindfulness, it might be helpful to first anchor these to an ethic of personhood.

The place to start in defining what a ‘mind’ set is with a theory and practice of mind. In SPoR, we make it very clear that we use a capitalised word of Mind to denote the whole person.

If you ask the question ‘what is mindset?’ the answer online is: ‘people’s lay beliefs about the nature of human. attributes, such as intelligence or personality’.

One of the things traditional safety does well is use language in such a way as to make it meaningless. We see this in HOP where slogans are declared principle and where HOP is called a ‘safety mindset’ (https://www.procore.com/library/voices/hop-safety).

However, if you engage in just the slightest critical discourse analysis (CDA) you find out that the HOP safety mindset is: ‘more productive alternative to traditional safety thinking’. No wonder HOP’s key word is ‘performance’.

Then dig a bit deeper and just ask what is this productivity? And the response is, to fix systems to prevent incidents. In other words, traditional safety. So, the HOP safety mindset is to practice traditional safety. The only variation is that that nasty pesky word ‘blame’ shifts from individuals to systems. But if ‘blame fixes nothing’ then HOP can’t fix systems either.

The we have this: ‘Think of HOP like child-proofing a house.’ Then read on and the HOP safety mindset becomes pure behaviourism. When you get to the end of this article you still have no idea what a HOP mindset is.

When you read any of this stuff about mindsets, philosophy or principles in HOP, it is never anchored to an ethic or a well-articulated philosophy, even though the word ‘philosophy’ is used often (https://www.imca-int.com/resources/technical-library/in-1709-human-and-organisational-performance-hop/ ). And, when you go looking for this ‘philosophy’ or ‘principles’, all you find is a collection of slogans and marketing. And you are certainly none the wiser about what a mindset is.

If however, you observe the semiotics used in HOP, you will see that mindfulness is obviously ‘brain-fulness’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-safety-problem-with-mindlessness/). So, in HOP, the focus can only be 5% of the human person and the use of the brain. Even if one allows some latitude in interpretation at best it simply means ‘attitude’.

It is so easy to find discourse on HOP as a ‘philosophy and mindset (https://safety4sea.com/cm-improving-human-organizational-performance-blame-fixes-nothing/) that say nothing about philosophy and mindfulness. This use of language in safety is common and renders most language used in the sector as meaningless.

Of course, the reason why all this is attractive to traditional safety is that it can claim ‘difference’ without making any change to practice. Indeed, without a methodology there can be no change in method (https://safetyrisk.net/methodology-philosophy-drives-your-safety-method/).

If however, you are interested in learning about the human Mind and Mindfulness then ditch those safety books and articles and start with some study of those with expertise in the matter, eg:

• Strecker, E., and Appel, K., (1962) Discovering Ourselves, A View of the Human Mind and How it Works.
• Dweck, C., (2017)  mindset, Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential.
• Weick, K., (2014) https://www.academia.edu/24611432/An_exploration_of_mindfulness_theories_in_Eastern_and_Western_philosophies
• Mukherji, M., (2022) The Human Mind Through the Lens of Language.
• Shaller, M., et.al., (2010) Evolution, Culture and the Human Mind.
• Kabat-Zinn, J., (2018) The Healing Power of Mindfulness, A New Way of Being.
• Robinson, K., (2011). Out of Our Minds, Learning to be Creative.
• Claxton, G., (2005). The Wayward Mind, An Intimate History of the Unconscious.(https://archive.org/details/waywardmindintim0000clax)

All of this just scratches the surface regarding the human Mind and none understand the mind as brain. Indeed, many experts agree that consciousness is both in and outside the human person, ecology and the environment.

So perhaps, before we start throwing about the language of a ‘safety mindset’ (https://www.safetymindsetgroup.com.au/; https://info.mavtechglobal.com/the-5-keys-to-a-safety-mindset-561) it might be helpful to work out what is meant by the word ‘mind’ or Mind.

Perhaps it might also be useful to work out if the body has anything to do with the Mind. Maybe before you start talking about a ‘safety-first mindset’ (https://www.ehsinsight.com/blog/cultivating-a-safety-first-mindset) it might be helpful to better understand Mindfulness. Indeed, and when this is also coupled to culture, perhaps it might be good to consult some expertise in culture (https://sayfr.com/safemind) instead of a safety engineer.

Maybe it might even be wise to not speak gobbledygook to people (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/).