Over the last few decades, occupational health and safety (OHS) thinking has emphasised that the tangible hazards and risks at work are primarily created by unsafe systems of work or by poor organisational culture or maturity.
I am not sure that “organisational” is the most appropriate adjective. There are better alternatives: terms that re-humanise the decision-making process and acknowledge that culture comprises people.
One of the most interesting discussions about morality I have had was with Professor Sidney Dekker in 2017. Following my article on the morality of US President Donald Trump, below is a summary of Dekker’s thoughts on occupational health and safety and morality.
The President of the United States has always been recognised as a major leader. The morality they display spreads to global corporate leaders, especially those in the United States, and is promoted by these leaders, business institutions and management publications to business leaders and senior executives in Australia. That is why some of President Donald Trump‘s recent comments are so concerning.
Another nightclub fire due to pyrotechnics resulted in many deaths and injuries. Investigations have started, and there is a scramble about who was responsible for not reducing the risks of this type of incident.
The Australian Financial Review reported (via the New York Times and paywalled) on the lack of regulatory enforcement by local authorities.
Last month, the Sunday Times published an article with a concerning headline: “Resilience training for Gen Z is booming — and that’s no bad thing” (paywalled). Resilience training for psychological safety at work has not been discredited, but there is plenty of evidence showing it is insufficient and inappropriate as a primary strategy for preventing psychological harm. This evidence is being reflected in Australia’s Codes and guidance for managing psychological safety.
[This is an attempt at satire]
In today’s rapidly evolving operational landscape, Australian organisations are increasingly aligning their strategic posture with the emerging consensus that psychosocial risk is, in fact, a WHS issue.
A bold stance, only 20 years behind schedule.
Most of you will have been able to determine some of my values from the thousands of articles I have written here, but sometimes it is worth stopping, reviewing and clarifying. I met a friend in Zurich of a different political leaning from mine last week who, in a simple way, confirmed some of my thoughts.
He said that we need to respect each other. This is not difficult, but it can create enormous conflict and anxiety, especially as we continue to learn how traditional categorisations and approaches are no longer valid and may never have been.
