Have you ever felt that somebody is manipulating you for their own gain? That your vulnerabilities are being exploited, leaving you helpless? We have all been targets to this kind of behaviour, and I’m sure many of us have inflicted it upon others. Some may even say, “that’s life”, even if it is painful and demoralising. But if nobody wishes to be treated in this way, why is it so prevalent?

When the pursuit of money and power is unquestionably worshipped as virtuous (as it is in our modern society), the dehumanisation and exploitation of others is justified and normalised; we are stripped of our “humanness” and reduced to “objects”. Only then can we be controlled and manipulated. At this point, “community” and “fellowship” ceases to exist. We effectively become a collective of objects in competition and conflict - a mass of emptiness and loneliness. Our world becomes a battlefield - or a metaphorical chessboard - where the “Pawn” is at the mercy of the “Queen”, and where everyone is manoeuvring to become the Queen.

Recently I read an article from a small-town newspaper, it was a disturbing example of peoples vulnerabilities being exploited in the name of money and power. The article contained a letter to Council - authored by local property developers - who were anxious of Council’s ability to process development applications.

The troubling nature of this letter emerged in the first paragraph. These property developers had listed the names and positions of Council employees who had been on “indefinite leave due to stress”. They go on to complain of the incompetence of Council; that these employee absences are creating inefficiencies in the system, delaying their projects, and ultimately taking money out of their own pockets. Nothing within this letter addressed - or even acknowledged - the physical, psychological, or cultural issues at play within a potentially toxic workplace. There was no concern for these employees struggling with the pressures of modern society; money and power was the sole concern here.

The property developers had effectively dehumanised the employees by relating to them as “resources”, as objects whose value corresponds to their utility. Since their usefulness to assist these developers in accumulating money and power - as Council employees - had been compromised due to stress leave, these employees were to be sacrificed in the developers’ pitched battle against Council; like Pawns on a chessboard. The crusade for money and power has justified and normalised the exploitation of these vulnerable employees. There is no sense of community or humanism within this letter, only objectification, competition, and conflict.

Although this article - and its use of humans as chess pieces - disturbed me, I was not shocked. The dehumanisation and subsequent exploitation of vulnerable workers has also become normalised in the Safety and Return to Work industry. Being in the “game” for 13 years, I have unfortunately experienced many similar situations. You may be asking yourself “but surely an industry comprised of “professionals” espousing “Cultures of Care” and “Zero Harm” wouldn’t engage in the dehumanisation and exploitation of their workmates? Does this really happen?”

Once I worked with a guy (I’ll call him Ed) who suffered horrific injuries after a workplace incident and was basically told he wouldn’t work again. Ed had been off work for over 12 months, and was on a downward spiral of relationship breakdowns, addiction to painkillers, and major depression. Not only was he dealing with life changing injuries; social isolation and a feeling of worthlessness had begun to manifest. He desperately missed working, mostly for the social aspects, like shooting the breeze with his mates. A few of us had arranged to hang out at Ed’s for a long lunch; no “agendas”, no “updates”, and no “fixing”, just a casual meal where we could just "Be" with him. Sounds perfectly reasonable right? We had worked alongside each other for years, hung out at family gatherings, and drank our fair share of beer together after a rough day. It just felt like the right thing to do. Out of courtesy we let Ed’s caseworker from the insurer know our plan, that’s when things got bizarre...

On the end of the phone was a torrent of panic, frustration, and anger. I was bombarded with comments like: “That’s not in the plan”, “This could affect the premium”, and “I do not authorise this activity”. I was dumbfounded! It was apparent that the insurer didn’t appreciate Ed the same way we did; as a friend, a member of our community, and a human being who deserved our care, support, and respect. The insurer saw Ed as an object; he was a case number with a cost code, a shelf life, and a fancy spreadsheet that tracked his journey to becoming “productive” and “useful” again. There was no care, support, or respect on their behalf; their concern was money, power, and control. As much as this dehumanising attitude didn’t make sense to us, our request to treat Ed as a friend made just as little sense to the insurer. It was a battle of ideologies, and the “Queen” (insurer) was pulling rank on us “Pawns”.

I will always remember this experience as one that helped open my eyes to the reality of Safety and Return to Work. I asked myself “how can an industry that is charged with supporting the vulnerable end up treating them with such contempt and cruelty”? This paradox can be made sense of when we deconstruct the guidance material used within the industry.

The language and discourse within the Workers Compensation legislation and guidance material is no different to that of this letter to Council, with a heavy bias towards “efficiency in returning to work”, “controlling costs”, and “obedience to authority”. The lack of language relating to “support”, “care”, and “community” clearly indicates to any discerning reader that money and power is the trajectory of these bodies of work (The Semiotics of the RTW Industry).

The consequences of this language is a view that injured employees are the enemy - a threat to the organisation’s bottom line - due to increased premiums, retraining costs, and lost production. They become objectified and dehumanised; reduced to “Resources” - or “Injured Workers” - whose usefulness and value is attached to their capacity to be “productive”, rather than being valued as a unique human being, or an essential member of the community that deserves our love, care, and support as much as any other individual. In a world of ever increasing financial volatility, with shareholders and executives to keep happy, and bonuses and promotions on the line, it is not difficult to comprehend that the most vulnerable in a group will ultimately become a Pawn for those in power. I have seen it play out countless times (Ed is just one example). Laptops taken to hospital in order to escape the dreaded LTI, unnecessary surveillance activities (borderline stalking) conducted with the sole aim of terminating claims, and vigorous disputing and stalling of recommended medical procedures due to “excessive costs”. Recovery and rehabilitation is not the aim of the Return to Work process, it’s all about penny pinching, power struggles, and arse covering.

So what can be done? We cannot hope that dehumanisation and exploitation will altogether disappear - the lust for money and power is deeply embedded in our society - but we also cannot succumb to Fatalism; our submission equals approval. There may be no silver bullets to this wicked problem, however we all have a responsibility to tackle it and attempt to manage it as best we can. An understanding of Critical Theory enables us to identify the harmful discourse of dehumanisation hidden within the regulations, procedures, and correspondence we take for granted as “righteous” every day. If we can name what is happening, we may be able to neutralise it by advocating the virtue of empathy - or “loving our neighbour as ourselves”. The systems we work within may not be able to understand or express love, care, or support, but the humans that administer these systems can. Before enacting anything we should ask, “How would I view this situation?” “How would this make me feel?” and “What would I like to see happen?” The antidote to power and dehumanisation is love, community, and fellowship. It is our responsibility as community members to apply this antidote to a system that can only see humans as chess pieces. It is our responsibility to stop playing this game.

Anyone else sick of being told they can’t do something “due to health and safety reasons”?

I was at the local pub with a mate recently and stopped to check out the entry to the beer cellar - with its rusted iron rails and well-worn steps. I couldn’t help but think about all the characters that must’ve trodden this path before me, and the stories these steps could recall (if they could speak). I was even curious to understand how the bartenders brought the kegs in, with all the tricks and heuristics learned and passed down over time; but then I put my “expert” hat on and took the situation “seriously”, “realistically”, and “objectively”. All the ingredients for a Crusader’s dream were there; the heavy kegs, unprotected ledge, steep and slippery steps. Code violations, non-conformances, and breaches of duty. The risk was at least a “7” on the matrix - we’re talking about the enactment of engineering controls or above here - paperwork, refresher training, and PPE just wont cut the mustard. This was a dangerous environment and we needed to be saved. No need for humility, conversation, and sense making; shut it down, there would be no more beer today...

You can just imagine the justifications - and consequent gruesome stories - for this act of “protection” (something we’ve all heard, said, and accepted before). “I’m doing this because I care about you. It’s the right thing to do. Your safety is our priority”; anyone who spends even a moderate amount of time in airport terminals has been witness to the absurdity of risk aversion on steroids. (https://safetyrisk.net/its-a-safety-requirement/).

Why is it that we allow others - without question - to control in the name of “Safety”? To dictate what is “right”, “good”, and “for our protection”? By accommodating this worldview of risk aversion and control, what are we surrendering? Could we be inadvertently increasing our exposure to risk? What can we do to break our worship of and bondage to “Safety” and start making decisions based on Risk Intelligence? Now I’m not suggesting that our precious “Amber Nectar” is in jeopardy of becoming eradicated in our increasingly risk averse society - that could be a bit extreme - and I can envision the riots that would ensue following such a proposal; but it has been tried before. In a black and white world, where grey is intolerable, and where Zero and elimination is the ultimate goal, anything is possible.

Living in Melbourne, I am privileged to experience some magnificent artefacts of the Temperance Movement. The Temperance Movement was a social and political movement, whose purpose was the creation of a “sober and pure” world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_Australia). It consisted of groups (mostly religious) critical of alcohol consumption; which promoted Prohibition and “Teetotalism” (the complete abstinence of alcohol). The movement started in Australia in the 1830’s and remained a significant political force until World War 2. Their main enterprise was to “protect” and “purify” the working classes from a life of domestic violence, crime and poverty; due to (in their opinion) the devils drink. Rather than understand the dynamic nature of a social class - that many of their members were not part of - the temperance movement were confident that a life of abstinence (Zero) would provide the solution (Can you see the similarities to today’s righteous safety crusaders?)

Coffee Palaces - where alcohol was not served - and Water Fountains were established in areas with perceived drinking problems as a substitute for alcohol. The first and most ornate drinking fountain in Melbourne is still in its original location in Williamstown, then Melbourne’s primary shipping and railway hub. Friendly societies that provided health benefits to those who stayed on the wagon were also founded; many of which have become the private health insurers of today.

Though many positives have been attributed to the movement (the right for women to vote was probably their most significant achievement), several of the laws and practices enacted through their crusade had unintentional and devastating byproducts and tradeoffs. The introduction of Six O’clock closing times for pubs (pushed by the movement) resulted in an increase of dangerous binge drinking (the Six O’clock Swill), and a surge in underworld activity, due to the illegal “Sly Grog” trade. So the movement actually helped to create a world of debauchery, violence, and sin, all in the name of “Safety” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/ross-fitzgerald/running-battle-spawned-the-6-oclock-swill-and-illicit-empire/). The risk averse legacy of the Temperance Movement is most recognisable today in Sydney’s controversial “Lock-out-Laws”.

When we accept risk aversion as “good”, “righteous”, and “necessary”, we justify the associated myths (and their byproducts), and consent to “live” in an anti-human, anti-learning, and anti-living world of dumb-down, control and fear. We trade off our humanness for servitude (https://safetyrisk.net/the-risk-aversion-delusion/). The UK’s Health and Safety Executive has busted over 400 of these “in the name of safety” myths since 2012 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/). Paradoxically, risk aversion and the obsession with zero actually create a more fragile, less resilient, and less intelligent environment, where failure becomes more catastrophic and more frequent (https://safetyrisk.net/the-quandary-of-risk-aversion/).

So what can be done to break from the bondage of “Safety”? What can be learned from the Temperance Movement’s Zero Tolerance approach, and applied to todays risk adverse society? How can we bust the myths preached “in the name of safety”?

1. The first thing we can do is start questioning these “myths”. Next time somebody tells you “it’s due to safety reasons” ask them why? There may be a valid reason, or it may be completely absurd. Asking “why” is the first step to freedom.

2. Discourse analysis will also help in busting safety myths. Through discourse analysis we can understand the transmission of power hidden within language. We conduct language audits for organisations that reveal their underlying discourse, through looking for language that is absent as well as present. The language of “Zero Tolerance” may proclaim “Virtue”, “Care” and “Protection”, but the discourse is “anti-human”, “anti-learning”, and “anti-living”.

3. Another key element in moving towards a more risk intelligent approach is the ability for those in the risk industry to identify myths before they are propagated. An understanding of critical theory, social politics, and ethics is essential for the risk and safety professional; something that is sadly absent from the curriculum (https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/).

4. The delusion of the ability to “control” and “eliminate” risk, creates unexpected, and potentially unseen or unknown risks. Through practicing the entertaining of doubt we can better identify these risk byproducts and tradeoffs, allowing for a mature and holistic approach to tackling risk (https://vimeo.com/156930356).

5. Critical thinking and discourse analysis certainly helps us uncover the discourse of these myths, appreciate their absurdity, and identify potential tradeoffs and byproducts. In order to break away from the bondage to risk aversion and the subsequent safety mythology, we must enact meaningful change. This requires praxis, which can be summarised as an infinite cycle of learning and liberation through critical thinking, action, and reflection (more on praxis in future blogs).

So next time you are told something is no longer possible “due to health and safety reasons”, instead of accepting it and perpetuating the cycle of risk aversion, control and fear; ask a few questions, interrogate the source rather than taking the requirement at face value, try understanding where the power is hidden within the discourse. By refusing to accept these myths as a “necessity for the good”, we are becoming risk intelligent and making our world a little bit more humanised. And that is truly “good”.

"Deconstructing Risk" - a Tract, and the latest project from Risk Intelligent - is now available as a free download here; and will soon be distributed among work sites, public transport routes, and conference centres nationally.

So what exactly is a 'Tract'?

Tractsare small pamphlets that are historically used to advocate a religious or political position. Since before the invention of the printing press, tracts have been used by reformists, radicals, and revolutionaries to spread their message, and have been an integral element for many ideological struggles throughout history.

“Deconstructing Risk” is a project of passion; spawned from a community eager for freedom. Freedom from the oppressive and dehumanising ideology of a risk adverse society. Freedom to live and learn in a world of risk intelligence. Where risk is embraced. Where risk makes sense.

This project is a collection of articles, poetry and art that aims to interrogate the archetype of “Safety”; in order to reveal its hidden agenda of fear and control, buried within it’s method and methodology. It will challenge the expectation of unthinking compliance, and champion skepticism and questioning.

It isn’t an argument against systems, efficiency and measurement - they have their place in the world and in organisations - rather, its a caution against the “worship-as-necessity” of these things, and the byproducts that are created as a result of this unthinking idolatry. What are we missing - in our understanding of risk - when all we see is rationality and objectivity? How does a fallible, unpredictable and subjective human fit in this worldview? Are they friend or foe? Can risk make sense?

Our intention is to promote an approach of critical thinking, action and reflection (Praxis) in order to identify oppression, enact meaningful change, and re-humanise our community.

“Deconstructing Risk” is a grassroots, publication that is intended to be distributed organically. If you enjoy it? Great! Send it to your friends and colleagues. Feel free to also use your employers’ printer and spread the word! We hope you get value from our thoughts and look forward to you joining us on our adventure of discovery, learning and ‘risking’

Don’t you just love ‘fact sheets’? Especially when they don’t contain ‘facts’. (Sound like something you may have heard recently?) I recently picked up a ‘fact sheet’ from the NSW Department of Industry on ‘Mine Safety’ that was packed with contradictions about the fundamentals of risk and safety, proposed as ‘fact’. The two-page flyer is loaded with the favourites of the Regulator and Safety – ‘obligations’, ‘elimination’, ‘control’ and ‘assessment’.

The stated concern of the flyer is about managing fatigue; but the real (and covert) agenda is centred on fear, risk aversion, the manipulation of the meaning of the WHS Act to suit a hidden agenda. Why would the Regulator - the supposed ‘Guardian of the Act’ do this?

The flyer is entitled ‘Managing Fatigue in the Workplace’ but the document is not at all about the process of ‘management’. The concept of management denotes the juggling of complexity yet embodies as a process ‘no absolute solutions’. When we manage a household, we do our best to tackle the problems, juggle competing activities and numerous multi-layered issues. We know there is no perfect outcome, that things change and we do our best to ‘manage’ that change. So, the management of fatigue is not about the elimination of fatigue; because it cannot be eliminated for real humans in a real world. Fatigue is everywhere; cars get fatigued and need servicing, my body gets fatigued and needs a rest, and the stressors even on metal create weakness. Managing fatigue in humans is about managing volatility, fallibility and the nature of the human body, mind and spirit.

What is interesting in the ‘fact’ sheet is that it commences with a discussion of ALARP (As Low As Is Reasonably Practicable). ALARP is the go to guide for how to manage risk (https://safetyrisk.net/alarp-what-is-reasonably-practicable/). ALARP acknowledges that risk cannot be eliminated, it can only be ‘managed’ through Risk Intelligence. ALARP anchors the Act and Regulation to the reality of subjectivity. ALARP disowns the nonsense of objectivity, the nonsense of elimination of risk, and the nonsense of Zero. ALARP recognizes the fallibility of humans and that humans are not a problem to be fixed (Dekker). If you want to know what ALARP is really about then maybe have a look at the newly released video from the series Risky Conversations - The Law Social Psychology and Risk. Long, Smith and Ashhurst dispel the absolute nonsense in the safety sector about what ALARP means (https://vimeo.com/162637292). Isn’t it refreshing to hear a lawyer put the utter nonsense of this ‘fact’ sheet in its place?

Here we have a ‘fact’ sheet that acknowledges ALARP and then immediately follows up that presentation with the nonsense of ‘elimination’. In the same paragraph the Regulator then talks about minimization as if it is the same concept as elimination. How do people possibly read this stuff and think that it makes sense? This is not a ‘fact’ sheet but a propaganda tool for the crusade of fear, risk aversion and ‘dumb down’ safety. Misinformation such as this ‘fact’ sheet shows just how the regulator contributes to the mis-education of the safety industry. Maybe the Regulator doesn’t understand the regulation?

When your thesis is fear and risk aversion, then your message must be ‘subjective humans are the enemy’. I saw this this week in a safety campaign for a tier one organization that described the challenge of safety as a ‘battle against humans’. The concept of ‘humans as the enemy’ through the philosophy of Zero Harm is also illustrated through the bullying and dehumanizing action carried out by this large organization in the utilities industry that advocates “Triple Zero”; or Zero Incident, Zero Harm and Zero Compromise (http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/unfair-dismissal-health-safety-grounds-of-long-serving-employee/).

When fallibility and uncertainty cannot be tolerated, humans are the ultimate adversaries.

So, here we have a non-fact sheet from the Regulator providing confusion and contradiction; where is the guidance and leadership? What can people and organisations do about ALARP? There are a number of things that can be done to provide leadership and support on this issue (fatigue and ALARP).

The first thing that is needed is greater consistency with the Act and Regulation, not some made up agenda based upon an ideology of control and binary opposition.There is the need to ‘unlearn’ some of the nonsense that floats about the industry as projected truth, regardless of the source. Unquestioning compliance is dangerous.There is also a need for critical thinking to deconstruct the pervasiveness of nonsense in the sector. (The video series by Smith, Long and Ashhurst are a good start in this). The work of Richard Paul may also be helpful here: http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf, http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM_Analytic_Think2007b.pdf. Safety people should be the experts at discerning alt-facts from facts, sadly this is not the case. Snake oil finds a ready market in the safety industry.What really levels the reality from the nonsense is grassroots engagement at the coal face (something I do in my on-site culture audits). The process of ‘praxis’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process) is key to uncovering hidden agendas and challenging safety nonsense and has been an integral tool introduced and used in organisations which I have worked with.One of the best tools for deconstructing nonsense from the truth is the balance of experience and curiosity (in my case 13 years as a safety manager within tier 1 organisations). It is important to have a good foundational base of knowledge and experience but this must always be balanced with a desire to learn, unlearn and explore possibilities.Another important challenge is understanding the ‘spin’ of safety and the reality of safety. If fatigue is the issue, then understanding social politics, human judgment and decision making is the key; humans are not the enemy.One of this things I have picked up over the years is a radar for regulator ‘double speak’. This has come though experience but also through my studies in critical thinking.We also need to move beyond the tokenism of wellness’ and well being discourse to being ‘fair dinkum’ about people in our business. I worked once for a tier 1 mob that bragged about a ‘culture of care’ yet it was a culture of systemized dehumanizing. Wearing a ‘fit bit’ and placing a bowl of fruit in the lunchroom doesn’t constitute ‘care’ (https://safetyrisk.net/care-ology-in-the-work-place/)The foundation for managing fatigue is not more rules but better community. Understanding people, the nature of decisions and the realities of the wear and tear of work, is the beginning of fatigue management.Unfortunately, the power of the regulator packs quite an intimidatory punch. It takes a lot of guts to challenge the auditor, measurement heroes or a safety crusader. This is where a ‘learning’ community is helpful, for example with people on the Social Psychology of Risk leadership group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/152071534818549/ (not for those afraid to play in the mud)

So, there you go. Not all ‘fact’ sheets are fact and don’t buy safety nonsense projected as fact. Go to the source or consult a thinker like Greg Smith who understands risk, and keep away from ‘Professionals’ peddling fear and contradiction.

I walked into McDonalds this week for a coffee and noticed that their latest placemat on their tray is a promotion for Scouts Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouts_Australia). As I looked at this promotion and its ‘frame’ of reference, I saw young people in the messy puddle of adventure, play and fun. What captivated my interest was the tagline ‘and experience reality’.

The picture on the placemat tells a fascinating story if one knows the history of the Scouting Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scout_Association). Here we have a tradition founded in adventure, military discipline and creativity defined in the motto ‘be prepared’. The interesting thing about this history is that preparation for life was achieved through the experience of risk. The founder of Scouts was Baden Powell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell) On the placemat we read that Scouts ‘take young people into the outdoors to meet nature, have adventures and build relationships’. In this way the Scouts continue their tradition of building leadership through experiencing risk.

The foundation of Scouts is based in the philosophy of ‘Service Learning’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-learning). Service learning is a philosophy of learning that understands experience, community and relationship as a teaching dynamic. Rather than attaching to the dynamic of ‘schooling’, the Scouts know that experiencing reality is best developed though ‘camping, the bush, abseiling and service to the community’.

What I love about the Scouts (was never a member) is how adaptable they have been and still remained true to their vision and philosophy in recent history. There are many things that the Scouts have given up in order to remain relevant to 2017. Yet, as a movement they have been in decline and are now in a hiatus. I wonder if this is because our society has become so attuned to risk aversion through the excesses of Safety, that adventure doesn’t make sense? Dr. Long wrote about this in his third book Real Risk, Human Discerning and Risk (http://www.humandymensions.com/product/real-risk/) including a profile of Dick Smith as a Scout and promoter of the link between innovation, adventure and risk (p.57). The fear of risk is the fear of learning.

So when we look at the placemat, we are looking at some boys and girls (Scouts was never mixed sex) learning. When your frame on life is adaptive and innovative, its no wonder that even the organization (Scouts) can learn and give up dearly held principles (single sex) that block relevance. What a shame that safety (entrapped in fear and aversion) cannot give up many crazy symbols and activities that are absolutely irrelevant to risk (https://safetyrisk.net/nonsense-curves-and-pyramids/). When your frame on life is aversion and fear, then adaptive learning is beyond reach. It’s no wonder that Safety doesn’t know how to give up on paperwork and silly practices like counting TRIFR rates (https://safetyrisk.net/trifr-safety-zombies/).

So where will we find leadership in safety? Not in a conference where we hear ‘more of the same’ safety mythology. Not in a boardroom where ‘measurement’ is king. Not in a in a social media pool where risk doesn’t make sense. The key to safety leadership is maybe taking a leaf out of the Scouting experience and coming into Risk Reality.

Summary of the Collective Mindfulness Principle

Collective Mindfulness is a construct of Professor Karl Weick - an expert in organisational decision-making and risk - and was borne from decades of research with highly reliable organisations operating in high-risk environments (aircraft carriers, air traffic control, bush fire fighting).

Collective Mindfulness is an acceptance of equivocality; understanding that all possible outcomes cannot be known and that the environment is continually changing. This creates a mindset of active wariness and attentiveness through continual questioning and revision of previously held assumptions, plans, and expectations. Organisations are prone to failure when their attention is unfocused or distracted. Attention deficit can lead to misunderstanding, simplifying, and normalising - or underestimating - the challenges they face, increasing the likelihood of error.

The characteristics of Collective Mindfulness are summarised below:

"Small failures have to be noticed (preoccupation with failure) and their distinctiveness retained rather than lost in a category (reluctance to simplify). People need to remain aware of ongoing operations if they want to notice nuances that portend failure (sensitivity to operations). Attention also is crucial for locating pathways to recovery (commitment to resilience) and the expertise to implement those pathways (deference to expertise)."[1]

These characteristics can be split into two categories, principles of anticipation (Preoccupation With Failure, Reluctance to Simplify, Sensitivity to Operations), and principles of containment (Commitment to Resilience, Deference to Expertise). Anticipation involves identifying and halting weak signals of failure before they are able to become damaging events. Containment focuses on how a damaging event is handled after it has occurred. When organisations fail to practice Collective Mindfulness they are unable to understand and manage risk and will be prone to catastrophic unexpected events.

It is important to note that the characteristics of an organisations systems and processes of operation will influence their capacity for Collective Mindfulness. When multiple systems are highly interdependent they are tightly coupled and bound by rigid protocols, routines and hierarchy, making them more vulnerable to fail, a single event can disrupt the entire system. Loosely coupled systems – those with weaker dependencies – are more resilient to unexpected events and are therefore able to manage risk more effectively as the disruptions will be contained within small sections of the larger system. Loosely coupled organising provides the conditions of adaptability, flexibility and stability. These conditions allow for Collective Mindfulness and the understanding and management of risk.

Principles of Anticipation

1. Preoccupation with Failure

Preoccupation with failure is an attitude that allows small failures to be identified and managed before they become larger, damaging failures. These failures are not seen as isolated events, rather as a sign that something may be wrong with the entire system and could result in widespread consequences.

Failure must be embraced before it can be avoided. It is important to identify areas of operation where failure is undesirable, and enact strong responses to weak signals of failure in these areas. Employees need to be comfortable reporting incidents and near misses. If people feel uncomfortable, these events will get ignored or covered up. Honest discussion around making mistakes provides learning opportunities and reinforces the fact that humans are fallible by nature, encourages a reporting culture, and reduces overconfidence.

When organisations are preoccupied with failure they will dwell less on their successes and even search for failure in their success. Humans tend to connect success to skill and disregard luck. This can breed carelessness and overconfidence in ability, leadership, and procedures, increasing likelihood of failure.

2. Reluctance to Simplify

To resist simplification is to see the world as complex, unstable, unknowable and unpredictable. It takes a complex system to make sense of a complex environment. Expectations, assumptions, and generic categorising - such as risk matrices - simplify systems, limiting the identification of undesirable failures, and the precautions taken to minimise these failures.

Organisations that are reluctant to simplify take nothing for granted, question their assumptions, and introduce complexity and diversity into their operations. Job rotation and employee retraining is essential to ensure variety is distributed throughout the organisation. Encouraging scepticism and differing world-views during decision-making events allows for a richer and more varied picture of the situation and the potential outcomes and consequences.

Diversity allows for more information to be shared and creates a more complex map to be used when making sense of situations. As sharing of information is by nature social, interpersonal skills such as conflict resolution, mutual respect for differing opinions, and humility must be held in high regard.

3. Sensitivity to Operations

Sensitivity to operations is being attentive to where the work gets done. It’s about seeing what is happening, regardless of what was planned to happen. Management must have continuous contact with the front line and be readily available should any situations develop. When focus is on the situational ‘here-and-now’ on the front line rather than the strategy of the boardroom, it’s possible to make continuous changes to the system in order to prevent small errors accumulating and becoming major failures.

Constant interaction and information sharing about what is actually happening in the workplace is critical. Face-to face communication between management and operators allows for the rich and timely exchange of key information and also builds the trust that is required to develop a comprehensive ‘big picture’ of the operation. Practicing ‘Humble Inquiry’ allows managers to understand the nuances of operations, and can also help neutralise threats to sensitivity, namely automatic pilot, a focus on quantitative data, and overload through production pressure.

Principles of Containment

4. Commitment to Resilience

Humans are fallible, they will make mistakes, and the systems that are designed by these fallible humans are also prone to fail. Resilience is about bouncing back from unexpected change, absorbing and learning from the changes and moving forward. When the inevitability of unexpected failure is accepted, organisations can shift their attention from prevention to the more realistic goal of containment. This includes expanding employees’ capacity to respond to failure through training, learning from past mistakes, and encouraging improvisation.

If you can see what you can handle, it is critical that employees expand their knowledge of operations through training that includes how failure may occur and how to cope with failure. Detailed training plus learning from experience enlarges capabilities and allows for more small errors to be noticed before they can accumulate and combine.

Resilience requires flexibility. Improvisation plays a large role in maintaining an organisations capacity for resilience. When people have an expanded repertoire of highly developed skills and experiences, they are able to recombine them into novel combinations to apply to unexpected events. Even in the most challenging and complex environments, organisations encouraging improvisation should be able to identify and deal with any threatening situation.

5. Deference to Expertise

Experience and hierarchical rank in an organisation does not necessarily equal expertise. In a traditional hierarchical structure, those at the top of the organisation make most of the important decisions. In an organisation that defers to expertise, the hierarchy is loosened, allowing for employees in the best position to tackle the problem make the required decision. Having this flexibility to match problems with decision makers based on expertise rather than rank results in problems being promptly addressed.

Deferring to expertise is a social rather than individual concept. Expertise refers to an ad-hoc network of expert problem solvers that can gather at short notice for the purpose of dealing with a particular problem. This pooling of knowledge increases the available experience and skill that can be drawn upon during a crisis situation.

Perceived expertise can have negative by-products. Experts are prone to assume that if something serious was occurring, they would know about it, since they are not aware of a situation, it must not be happening. Also, if you are seen as all knowing, people will be less likely to inform you, as you are assumed to already know of the situation. This is known as the fallacy of centrality and can raise overconfidence in experts while simultaneously diminishing their curiosity, both of which decrease the likelihood of understanding and managing risk.

Journey Toward Change: Methodology or Method?

As Collective Mindfulness and highly reliable organising is built upon a mindset that enables organisations to a) anticipate failures, and then b) effectively respond to and contain failure when it occurs, the shift required for an a organisation to become mindful is not founded in systems and processes- it is a change in the methodology (philosophy) in their understanding of risk that is necessary rather than an introduction of new methods. Without a shift in philosophy, any new methods or processes will likely be ineffective towards an organisations desire to become more reliable. If you would like to further explore the concept of Collective Mindfulness and learn how it can be introduced into your organisation, contact us at hayden.collins@riskintelligent.com.au.

[1] Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention, Organization Science, Vol. 17, No. 4, July-August 2006, p. 516.

The current approach to rehabilitation and return to work is based on the reductionist medical model where the human body is symbolic of a machine comprised of divided parts. Wellness is then considered to be the absence of physical - and occasionally mental - symptoms, and treatment for illness involves the systematic elimination or management of these symptoms based on a predetermined treatment plan. This reductionist model does not recognise the individual as a whole person who is part of a family, community and culture, rather as a set of symptoms[1].

Recovering from injury and illness and returning to work is multifaceted. Effective rehabilitation requires a holistic perspective towards health and wellbeing, taking into consideration the physical, psychological, spiritual and social factors of the individual. The individual must be understood in their entirety, and as all factors are inextricably linked, if one is not being attended to, the others will certainly be affected[2].

This paper will argue that labels used in return to work Guidance[3] - in particular ‘injured worker’ - and the failure to acknowledge the importance of social connectedness, frames the return to work process as a reductionist and mechanical system that does not recognise the complexity of human beings or the significance of a holistic approach towards successful rehabilitation. I will also show how this same language creates a discourse of control, power and dehumanisation, that essentially alienates and isolates the recovering individual, damages effectiveness of relationships and return to work outcomes, and increases the likelihood that the recovering individual will experience secondary psychological conditions such as depression and anxiety.

Labels or stereotypes shape how we see the world. They unconsciously affect our perception of objects, nature, individuals - including ourselves - social communities and cultures, and subsequently influence our relationships and behaviour. Labels simplify the complexity of the world through categorisation. Once a label is in place it is extremely difficult to remove[4]. When a label is applied to an individual, they are seen as an object - something to be used, possessed, fixed or controlled[5]. The uniqueness and humanness of the individual is lost - along with it the opportunity for building relationships based on care, trust and respect - and enables the exploitation and exclusion of the individual that has been labelled[6]. Labelling affects everyone; even physicians who have taken the ‘Hippocratic Oath’ unconsciously treat their patients differently depending on the label and stereotype that has been applied. With kind and friendly personal treatment provided to those who are perceived as having no responsibility for the injury and impersonal treatment to those seen as negligent with no excuse[7]. I will now deconstruct the label ‘Injured Worker’ and explore how it can influence the return to work process and the potential social and psychological implications of its use.

When the label of ‘Injured’ is applied to an individual, it positions them in a class of society with certain obligations and prescriptions for how they are to behave and how they are to be treated by other members of society[8]. Individuals labelled injured are to be provided with care and discharged from their social obligations, including those duties normally performed at work and home when considered healthy. The trade-off from these rights afforded them is that they must exclude themselves from the privileges and situations enjoyed by the healthy. Being labelled as injured is stigmatising. Society perceives the injured as an inconvenience and a burden, as they are dependant on the healthy and disrupt the smooth running of everyday activities[9]. This label can cause individuals to become withdrawn, self-conscious, anxious, frustrated, angry and depressed, as their isolation from society causes them to question their usefulness, purpose and identity[10].

The symbolism of the label ‘worker’ connotes the individuals’ incorporation into an economic system[11]. The worker has lost their uniqueness and humanness and has instead become an impersonal cog in the machine, a commodity to be used in the pursuit of profit. This system is stratified and hierarchical, with the powerful owner - or capitalist - at the top, and the worker - or proletariat - at the bottom. The value of the worker is in their ability to create goods and services for the owner, to be sold at a profit on the market. If they are no longer profitable, they are no longer valuable, and can be easily replaced like spare parts in a machine[12]. The working relationship becomes one of money and power rather than that of community, care and respect[13].

This dehumanisation of the worker creates a discourse of reductionism, and efficiency. The worker becomes something to be used, possessed, controlled, fixed and exploited. The most important goal is returning the worker to their place in the system as efficiently as possible. How this goal is pursued will be influenced by the discourse, resulting in the disregard for a holistic approach to recovery - that incorporates the individual’s social, psychological and spiritual needs - in preference for a reductionist approach that will focus solely on the systematic elimination of the worker’s physical symptoms, as determined by the return to work plan.

When an individual is treated impersonally and as an object, there is no opportunity for establishing a human connection or relationship, depriving them of their fundamental need to belong[14]. This deprivation creates feelings of distrust, anxiety, loneliness, depression and frustration, and can have an impact on the successful recovery of the individual. Rather than fixing the individual, a reductionist approach to return to work can create additional complications through the absence of effective relationships and the secondary psychological conditions that may develop as a result of this alienation.

The social and psychological implications of being labelled an ‘injured worker’ are not as visible as the physical symptoms of an injury, but are just as damaging to the individual and their relationships at work and home. The extensive use of this dehumanising and isolating label in the Guidance[15] is propagating a discourse of power and control for employers and the healthy, and alienation and marginalisation for the recovering individual, which in turn is hampering the effectiveness of the return to work system. Creating and sustaining health and wellbeing is dependant on society’s capacity to create connections and relationships rather than isolating and dehumanising. Humans’ fundamental need is that of belonging, as long as individuals are perceived as objects or things that require fixing, human connection is unattainable[16]. Labelling is not the only method in which recovering individuals can be alienated by the return to work system. The lack of recognition of the importance of remaining connected to communities - the work community in particular - can also hinder effective rehabilitation.

In many instances work has become the primary source of social interaction and community for an individual. A substantial proportion of Australians are spending 50 hours or more per week at work[17]. There has been a decrease in religious group affiliation and participation in organised sporting and cultural activities is on the decline[18]. The traditional family unit is also changing, with significant increases of both single occupancy households and single parent families projected over the next 20 years[19].

The workplace is not just a source of income; it is a source of wellbeing. Humans are social by nature; community membership is necessary for health and wellbeing, and a sense of identity and security[20]. With so much time spent in the workplace and a decline in traditional community affiliations, any time away from work can increase the risk of social isolation and psychological conditions such as depression, anxiety and paranoia[21]. Behavioural research on motivation has also indicated that support from significant others - including family members, friends, employers and work colleagues - has been shown to be more influential on an individual’s motivation towards an effective recovery than the support of a health practitioner[22].

The Guidance has largely overlooked the influence social interaction and community has on wellbeing, in fact only one publication emphasised the importance of seeking family support and maintaining connections with work colleagues[23]. When guidance is principally framed by language that primes for control and process, a discourse of dehumanisation and objectivity will develop that disregards the significance of humanising elements such as support, community and relationships. This mechanistic and impersonal approach to return to work is ineffective, can alienate the injured individual, and increases the risk of secondary psychological illnesses developing.

The language used in the Guidance materials is biased towards a return to work system based on objectivity, systematicity and reductionism. This is evidenced by the use of dehumanising and process centred words such as ‘injured worker’ and ‘compliance’ being collectively referenced over one thousand times. In contrast, humanising and people centred words such as ‘trust’, ‘care’, ‘relationship’, ‘community’, ‘support’ and ‘person’, are only collectively referenced one hundred and fifty times.

The use of these words prime the participants into a mindset of reductionist systems and process thinking, where the recovering individual is not seen in their entire humanness - as a unique person - rather they are seen as a set of symptoms that are to be systematically eliminated or managed by a predetermined process. They are viewed as an object to be fixed, not a human to be connected with and related to. This treatment and perception of the individual cannot lead to the building of genuine relationships fostered by trust and care. The individual is left alienated, isolated, angry and powerless, leading to the development of psychological conditions such as anxiety and depression.

Discounting the importance of the maintenance of social interaction and relationships for health and wellbeing hampers the effective recovery of the individual. Feeling disconnected and outcast, they are less likely to actively participate in the return to work process. This can prolong their rehabilitation, amplifying society’s resentment towards the ‘injured worker’, fuelling their feelings of frustration, hopelessness, self-consciousness and anger, ultimately leading to more serious psychological conditions.

In order to shift from the current reductionist methods towards a holistic approach to return to work, it is imperative that leaders replace dehumanising and process centred language with humanising and people centred language[24]. The unconscious influence language has on behaviour and decision-making should not be underestimated. Only with a humanising discourse is acknowledgement of an individual’s uniqueness and complexity, and understanding of the influence family, community and culture has on effective rehabilitation possible. Without this, we will always be trying to finish the jigsaw puzzle with only half the pieces.

[1] Aghadiuno, M., Soul Matters: The Spiritual Dimension Within Healthcare, Oxford, Radcliffe, 2010. pp. 2-14.

[2] Ibid., pp. 5-14.

[3] Unless specified otherwise, ‘Guidance’ collectively refers to the following publications;

Victorian Workcover Authority., Compliance Code 1 of 4: Providing employment, planning and consulting about return to work, Melbourne, VWA, 2014.Victorian Workcover Authority., Compliance Code 2 of 4: Return to Work Coordinators, Melbourne, VWA, 2014.Victorian Workcover Authority., Compliance Code 3 of 4: Return to Work Information, Melbourne, VWA, 2014.Victorian Workcover Authority., Compliance Code 4 of 4: Cooperating With Labour Hire Employers About Return to Work, Melbourne, VWA, 2014.WorkSafe Victoria, Return to Work Coordination: The Basics You Need to Know, Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria, 2013.WorkSafe Victoria, Returning to Work: A Guide for Injured Workers, Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria, 2011.

[4] Alter, A., Drunk Tank Pink, New York, Penguin Books, 2014, p. 29.

[5] Buber, M., I and Thou, London, Continuum, 2004, p. 14.

[6] Ibid., p. 30

[7] Radley, A., Making Sense of Illness, London, Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 103-104

[8] Ibid., p. 65.

[9] Ibid., pp. 75-82.

[10] Alter., op.cit., p. 42.

[11] Although many economic systems exist, for the purposes of this paper capitalism has been chosen to use as an example. This is due to the fact that capitalism is currently the system adopted in Australia - where the return to work guidance materials were developed for use.

[12] Marx, K., & Engels, F., The Communist Manifesto, New York, Pathfinder, 2008, p. 39.

[13] Ibid., pp. 33-34

[14] Long, G., Love Over Hate, Richmond, The Slattery Media Group, 2013,

[15] Injured Worker is referenced 820 times in the Guidance materials.

[16] Op. Cit., Long, G., pp. 154-176.

[17] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Better Life Index - Edition 2015, http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/australia/, 2015, Accessed 17th August 2015.

[18] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4102.0, Australian Social Trends, Other areas of social concern, National Summary, 1998–2011, http://www.abs.gov.au, 2012, Accessed 17th August 2015.

[19] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3236.0 - Household and Family Projections, Australia, 2011 to 2036, http://www.abs.gov.au, 2015, Accessed 17th August 2015.

[20] Op. Cit., Radley, p. 2

[21] Alter, A., Drunk Tank Pink, New York, Penguin Books, 2014, pp. 80-81.

[22] Gorin, A., Powers, T., Koestner, R., & Wing, R., Autonomy Support, Self-Regulation, and Weight Loss, Health Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2014, p. 333.

[23] WorkSafe Victoria, Returning to Work: A Guide for Injured Workers, Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria, 2011, p. 2.

[24] Long, R., For the Love of Zero: Human Fallibility and Risk, Kambah, Scotoma Press, 2012, p. 103.

It’s a misconception that consciousness initiates action. Norretranders supports this when he says “Man is not primarily conscious. Man is primarily non-conscious. The idea of a conscious I as housekeeper of everything that comes in and goes out of one is an illusion”.[1]

In this paper I will explain the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness in decision making, how priming and semiotics influence unconscious decision making processes, the role of consciousness and unconsciousness in automaticity, and how a failure to understand these concepts will result in a limited capacity to understand and manage risk.

Experiments show that consciousness’ capacity is smaller than that of unconsciousness. Unconsciousness processes 11 million bits of information per second. In contrast, consciousness processes 40 bits per second. Consciousness is limited to the amount of information it can process, meaning actions are determined by information of which we have not been consciously aware. The decision is made before we can consciously rationalise it.[2] Without unconscious processing, swift decision making would be difficult. If consciousness initiated action, it would take approximately 4 years to process information that unconsciousness could process in 10 minutes.[3]

By accepting that decision making is primarily unconscious, it’s accepted that actions and decisions can be subliminally influenced by environmental stimuli.[4] The role of priming and semiotics is critical when understanding and managing risk.

Moskowitz and Gusundheit define priming as “…the passive, subtle, and unobtrusive activation of relevant mental representations by external, environmental stimuli, such that people are not and do not become aware of the influence exerted by those stimuli”.[5] Priming occurs when stimuli is strong enough to be processed unconsciously but is too subtle to be processed consciously. The stimuli affect decision making without the individual being aware of its influence.[6]

Anything that can be picked up by the senses can potentially prime an individual and influence decision making. This includes the sights we see, the odours we smell, and the sounds we hear.[7] How we relate to the stimuli will affect the action we take. Experiments on priming have shown that the faint odour of cleaning fluid will prime subjects to perform cleaning activities[8]. In another study, college students who were primed with stereotypes of the elderly were found to walk more slowly and have a reduced memory.[9]

‘Zero harm’ and ‘safety is a choice’ primes intolerance and absolutism, diminishing the learning opportunities from risk. This can lead to a culture of underreporting of incidents, and blame and punishment for those who do get injured. Language such as ‘get the job done’ and ‘can do’ encourages shortcuts, rushing, and deviation from standard process. Organisations that understand the role of priming in decision making use language that will positively prime individuals. Words such as ‘learning’ and ‘respect’ humanise safety and stimulate a richer understanding of risk, an understanding that would be lost should the illusion of conscious and rational control over decision making be accepted.

Unconscious decision making means that everything has significance. Not only is it critical that words are carefully chosen to minimise unwanted priming, It is equally important that misinterpretations are mitigated through consideration of the target audience and method of communication. An understanding of semiotics supports the communication of risk.

Semiotics is how we give meaning to signs. We live in a world of signs and interpretations vary between individuals. Meanings are not rudimentary; we create codes and conventions to ascribe meaning. This process occurs without conscious awareness.[10] People can react to the same sign differently, depending on their culture or past experiences.[11] The word ‘apple’ could represent food, health, knowledge or technology. The way signs are presented to an individual can also influence how that sign is interpreted.

Colours unconsciously impact emotions and perceptions. Reactions can be influenced by gender, age, and ethnicity. White is attributed to weddings in western culture and to funerals in the east.[12] Selection of font can also have unconscious influence on the creation of meaning. A study found that subjects asked to follow a recipe printed with a mentally challenging font were more likely to find the task time consuming and requiring a high level of skill than those reading the less challenging font.[13]

Failure to acknowledge the role of the unconscious in communication will limit the capacity to understand and manage risk. If decision making is primarily unconscious, how does consciousness assist the decision making process?

The conscious mind is rational, logical and systematic. These attributes allow consciousness to play the role of teacher or trainer when learning how to undertake complex activities. The best way to demonstrate this is learning to drive a vehicle. When first learning to drive, we are consciously thinking about the sequence of actions that must take place. The activity is awkward, confusing and difficult. Once the learning period has concluded, the skills required to drive a vehicle become automatic, consciousness is no longer needed and unconsciousness takes control. In fact, once automaticity has been achieved, consciously thinking about an activity results in a reduction of performance and mistakes are more likely to be made.[14]

The human decision making process is primarily unconscious. The illusion of consciousness being the initiator of action is an illusion. Failure to acknowledge this can result in the belief that all risk taking is rational and only rational responses to risk will be applied, such as underreporting, punishment and control. There is no room for understanding automaticity and the influence of priming and semiotics, as these concepts do not fit into rational models of thinking. Blame and punishment are by-products of a rational approach to risk. Accepting that decision making is non rational and unconscious results in a richer understanding of risk and allows for humanising methods of risk management.

[1] Norretranders, T., The User Illusion, New York, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 259

[2] Ibid., p. 208

[3] Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., and Smith, P., The Power of the Subliminal: On Subliminal Persuasion and Other Potential Applications, in Hassin, R., Uleman, J., and Bargh, J., (eds.), The New Unconscious, New York, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 83

[4] Ibid., p. 83

[5] Moskowitz, G., and Gusundheit, Y., Goal Priming, in Moskowitz, G., and Grant, H., (eds.), The Psychology of Goals, New York, The Guilford Press, 2009, p. 128

[6] Dijksterhuis, op.cit., p. 80

[7] Long, R., Risk Makes Sense: Human Judgement and Risk, Kambah, Scotoma Press, 2012, p. 98

[8] Moskowitz, op.cit., p. 212

[9] Bargh, J., Bypassing the Will: Toward Demystifying the Nonconscious Control of Social Behaviour, in Hassin, R., Uleman, J., and Bargh, J., (eds.), The New Unconscious, New York, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 39

[10] Chandler, D., Semiotics: The Basics, Abingdon, Routledge, 2007, p. 11

[11] Newberg, A., and Waldman, M., Words Can Change Your Brain, New York, Penguin Books, 2012, p. 58

[12] Singh, N., and Srivastava, S., Impact of Colors on the Psychology of Marketing: A comprehensive Overview, Management and Labour Studies, No. 36, May 2011, p. 199

[13] Song, H., and Schwarz, N., If It’s Hard to Read, It’s Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation, Psychological Science, Vol. 19, No. 10, October 2008, p. 988

[14] Norretranders, op.cit., p. 172