Occupational health and safety (OHS) continues to have a credibility problem and a poor social profile. Some of this is due to OHS peddling nonsense, but probably no more than any other discipline. Some of it is due to employers and other corporate leaders using OHS as camouflage for inaction or as a distraction from a different workplace issue. Some of it is due to ignorance.
It is up to all of us to strengthen the discipline’s credibility. To help with this, here are three words commonly used by leaders that we need to question and challenge whenever they are used.
”Accident”
There is no such thing as an accident. There is always a cause and a suite of social, cultural, and organisational factors that lead to an injury or incident. Many factors are deeply uncomfortable, embarrassing, and shameful; some can be expensive to fix.
Jessie Singer says “accident”:
“… is an easy shorthand for saying: “Everything’s okay. Nothing is fundamentally systemically wrong. We can all feel better and move on.” So the fundamental systemic problems, which are these dangerous conditions in our environment, remain.”
In broader terms, “accident” serves the status quo, the people in power, and the employers. Whenever the term is used, we impede inquisition, progress, and continuous improvement. In the OHS context, we also deny grieving or deeply affected relatives the answers they feel they deserve.
In 2021, Martin Lindstrom, author of the book, The Ministry of Common Sense, wrote:
“Today, it’s safe to say we all confront one example after another that attests to the extreme want of common sense in our world. I certainly do. As a global consultant, I am ostensibly hired by organizations to create or fix brands. But nine times out of ten, I find myself serving as an organizational change agent, bringing to light and resolving corporate blindness and miscommunication, terrible customer service, products that make no sense or don’t even work, packaging that sends us into a rage, and a general lack of intuitiveness both off – and online. I can confirm that the disappearance of common sense is at epidemic levels in companies not just in the United States but everywhere.”
This January, Donald Trump will impose his own understanding of common sense on the people of the United States of America, so common sense may be making a comeback. Many of us already struggle to understand the country’s political decisions. What may seem common sense to President Trump may seem like lunacy to others—tariffs, Greenland, Musk?
Common Sense seems to be whatever the people in power say it is. But it also implies that to make changes is the job of someone else, someone to whom the issue is important because, to most of us, the situation does not need changing. “Accidents happen; surely it’s just common sense not to get hurt. He/she must be an idiot”.
Every time your boss uses “common sense”, urges a “common sense solution”, or proffers a “common sense policy”, challenge them politely to explain what they mean, saying, “I don’t understand what you mean”. Feigning innocence or ignorance is a basic tool of the OHS adviser and consultant. Usually, everyone will realise that the advocates of common sense do not understand what they mean or don’t want to say what they really mean because they would reveal themselves to be uncaring and/or greedy and immoral.
Anyone using “common sense” at work needs to be approached at the appropriate time for a chat about worker health and safety.
Leaders who say that the safety of their workers is their number one priority are almost always lying. The statement is usually made after a work-related fatality, serious injury, or major incident to the public or customers. At these times, corporate executives feel that they cannot tell the truth for fear of being ostracised, but they often panic and say nonsense like safety is our number one priority.
It may be their number one duty, but their priority is always to their business partners and shareholders who invest in them to maximise the return on that investment, usually without concern about how the profits are maximised or who is hurt in the generation. Some shareholders may express regret over an incident, but they rarely accept the expenditure or reduction in profitability required to provide a safe and healthy workplace.
It seems that no company has OHS as its top priority. Some would struggle to include OHS in their top 5 business concerns. If that is the reality, if that is the place of OHS, then we can work with that. Still, executives, employers and even politicians need to stop promoting a fantasy because the workers can see that it is bullshit and leaders are doing themselves no favours by saying it.
Leaders will gain more respect from workers if they say that OHS is a top priority for the company. We know that priorities change, and we know that companies need to be flexible and agile; in fact, we expect it. But be honest.
I have mentioned in previous responses to Kevin’s posts that I have found Dr Rob Long’s explanation of “common sense” to have value, and certainly changed my view on how to address “common sense” comments in OHS (see Dr Long’s book: Risk makes sense – Human judgement and risk [2012] Scotoma Press). The problem I have encountered over the 15 years that I have acted as an Expert witness for OHS/WHS and public liability maters (both civil and criminal) is that the Courts still use the term “Common sense” within the context of an individual’s ability to recognise risk. Common sense can only exist if the individual had some sort of prior knowledge or experience brought about by the individual’s social/educational/political upbringing.
The term “accident” is till used in some of the world’s largest companies. I assume that these companies use the term due to the fact that most people have an understanding what an “accident” is. I am also assuming that “accident” is able to be translated into most of the worlds many languages. However, I am of the opinion that it should not form any part of a Health/Safety/practitioner vocabulary. The term “accident” also includes the “act of god” causation element. Therefore the term “incident” should always be used when evaluating hazards where a risk to humans/plant and equipment can exist.
Finally, I have worked in a number of small and large businesses where the CEO/Managing Director has openly used the phrase “Safety is our No.1 priority”, this is no more evident than in the mining industry, especially after a significant incident involving the loss of life. I have had many off the record conversations with company executives about changing the language to “our no.1 priority is ‘safe production’ ” where the company can produce the greatest number of widgets with the highest level of safety/risk management available within the limits of reasonably practicable. The conversation always turns on the issue of the general publics ability to understand the difference between “safety being No.1” and “safe production”. Workers understand that if the company does not make profit, or even break even then the company will not be viable and will cease to exist with the loss of jobs being the ultimate impact. It has been my professional experience that workers understand the notion of “safe production”, however it is also my professional experience that many workers are jack of the hollow words used by company executives preaching the “safety is our no.1 priority” especially after significant incidents.
Lots of truths in this article Kevin.
A few years back, I provided some advice to a HR leader who picked up HS responsibilities in a new role.
The HR person was uncomfortable with the traditional safety noise / terms like those above and wanted a fresh approach.
In essence we decided that HS inspections would only report on the positives at each processing plant – ie identify no faults / hazards only the good things in place for HS. These then went on a register for sharing across plants.
The HR person obviously needed help from a HS person to do this and we created a hazards implemented register.
The first inspection was very interesting – the plant staff (all of them) were surprised to say the least at the report back when only positives were mentioned – it also became clear to them they were responsible for identifying and fixing their HS issues at the site – no-one else and only then would the fix be added to the positives register.
The power came when registers from different plants were shared and analysed – it was easy to identify where hazards weren’t being addressed or were being addressed inadequately and rectify over time – a lot of common sense approach in this!