How businesses focus on safety
At a time when progress on safety has reached a plateau in many industries, Dr. Dekker has argued, “it seems that doing more of the same is simply going to get us more of the same – not something different.” The new concept provides people with the opportunity to encounter safety as an ethical responsibility rather than a bureaucratic obligation.
The “New-View” Criticism
Challenging this new approach, a position paper by Dr. Dominic Cooper, a pioneer of behavioural safety and award-winning author, sparked discussions on a Safety I versus Safety II debate, arguing that there has been no peer-reviewed empirical evidence demonstrating whether any aspect of New-View’s propositions are valid and whether the New-View actually increases safety or reduces accidents. After being reviewed for over 15 months, the paper sparked controversy and nurtured the safety I vs Safety II debate. The challenges regarding New-View, according to Dr. Cooper, surround the following areas:
How safety is defined
While the dipole “Safety I = working safety” – “Safety II = working safely” is an appealing way to approach conventional thinking on safety, Dr. Cooper argues that focusing on what goes right also presupposes a corresponding understanding of what goes wrong.
New-View writers and advocates have not defined a set of practical processes, tools, activities or combinations thereof, by which to improve safety per se. They rely on existing Safety 1 methodologies while persuading companies to adopt their ideas, he noted.
The role of people in safety
While Safety 1 sees people as “problems to be controlled”, New-View sees people as responsible contributors to solutions. However, the paper argues, the new concept misses the link of employee engagement, considering that engaged employees are less likely than non-engaged employees to experience safety incidents. According to Dr. Cooper, New-View advocates do not appear to offer new employee engagement practices, different than Safety 1 practices.
“The New-View writers’ need to explicitly call for companies to cede all decision-making power for safety to employees could be seen as a risky proposition: not least because it may blur boundaries between managerial and employee job roles that could cause relationship problems and may also require much more effort be put into safety communications to ensure everyone has necessary safety information at the right time and the right place.”
However, New-View advocates do not specify exactly what safety, as an ethical responsibility, actually means, says Dr. Cooper. An issue with increased safety bureaucracy is that some regulators use one-size-fits-all action-level goals for every business, either small or big, but this does not mean that SMSs are not vital in every organization. For instance, a major issue identified on the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon disaster was the lack of efficient SMS, strongly supporting that an SMS is vital for low-frequency events.
What does this mean for the future of safety?
Amid the complex nature of safety, it is probable that Safety II serves as progress rather than a replacement of Safety I, making the two concepts complementary. Indeed, from the very start of Safety-II emergence, Dr. Hollnagel underlined that “Safety II is not a new discipline or a new practice but rather a new perspective on what happens and how it happens.”
Additionally, in an industry where human error is attributed to the majority of casualties, the view of humans as a safeguard and not a liability will be the foremost challenge. A starting point for organizations interested in a more progressed way of thinking is to emphasize on enhancing their employees’ resilience, as the ability to monitor things and handle situations, but the role of standards and regulations cannot be underestimated.
Both Safety 1 and New-View use exactly the same Safety 1 methodologies to tackle safety problems, albeit they might be used in different configurations. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and that ideology and emotion has triumphed over science and practice, concludes Dr. Cooper.
The Report • June 2022 • Issue 100 | 113
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
