Advertise on podcast: The Safety of Work

Drew and David discuss how falling injury rates can hide rising severity, why one country's data showed serious injuries but almost no minor ones, and how different reporting practices can make aggregate numbers meaningless. Most importantly, they describe what happened in the boardroom: with a single number, leaders speculated about causes, but with a second metric, conversations slowed down and became curious and data-driven. As Drew Rae puts it, "I can't give you a better metric. I can give you a metric that will give you a different type of conversation." The episode closes with four practical takeaways, including the case for continuous severity measures over categories. Discussion Points: (00:00) Why injury reporting conversations matter and past metrics episodes(03:44) Introducing the Geddert Dekker and Rae paper on injury rates(07:24) What safety can learn from financial reporting(10:00) Research design and three ways to measure injuries(14:48) Case study one where falling injury rates hid rising severity(20:14) Case study two and why the combined rate stays stable(22:16) Case study three and inconsistent reporting across countries(27:23) How a second metric changes executive conversations(30:33) Practical takeaways including continuous severity metrics(37:14) The answer to our question is to add one more metricLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: Drew Rae: "If you've got one number, that number can only do two things. It can go up, it can go down." David Provan: "Once you've got one metric with nothing else to have the conversation around, you can tell any story you want about that metric." David Provan: "Multiple metrics will result in better conversations than any one metric." Drew Rae: "I can't give you a better metric. I can give you a metric that will give you a different type of conversation." Drew Rae: "When I'm lying in hospital, the last conversation I want two senior managers in my organization to be having is should they classify me as a moderate injury or as a high potential event." Resources: Injury rates tell an incomplete story, but a more complete measurement narrative may be possible - Kevin Geddert, Sidney Dekker, Drew Rae. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 98, 2026 (open access) Paper:  Signs of safety: An investigation of how OHS professionals interpret injury metrics. James Pomeroy and Colin Pilbeam, Journal of Safety Research, 2025. Organization: Construction Safety Research Alliance.  Previous episodes referenced: Ep. 136: What is the symbolic purpose of injury rates? Ep. 133: How do policies and metrics shape the outcome of investigations? Ep. 109: Do safety performance indicators mean the same thing to different stakeholders? Ep. 104: How can we get better at using measurement? Ep. 97: Should we link safety performance to bonus pay? Ep. 85: Why does safety get harder as systems get safer? Ep. 74: Is a capacity index a good replacement for incident-count safety metrics? The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

The discussion traces how bonus structures, unrealistic targets, and "green" dashboards (99.4% on-time closure, later revealed as closer to 60%) pushed the lie from front-line workers up through management, with middle managers who once flagged the problem later normalizing it once promoted. As David Provan puts it, quoting the paper: "If you put workers in a position where it's very difficult, if not impossible, to meet the target, then organizations cannot be surprised if this results in gaming." The episode closes with five practical takeaways for auditing your own organization's incentive structures. Discussion Points: (00:00) The paper – a case of collective lying(05:06) Pge and the dial before you dig background(08:16) The whistleblower and 110 million dollars in fines(12:44) Four types of lies and why organizations breed lying(24:19) The gas leak bonus scandal(28:09) When 99 percent on time hides the real number(33:59) How middle managers become senior managers and keep lying(40:34) You cannot blame workers for impossible targets(47:15) Practical takeaways for safety leadersLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: Drew Rae: "Organizations are not made up of robots. If everyone is doing the same bad behaviour, this has got to be coming from somewhere other than individuals wanting to do the wrong thing." David Provan (quoting the paper): "If you put workers in a position where it's very difficult, if not impossible, to meet the target, then organizations cannot be surprised if this results in gaming." Drew Rae: "We're not lying. We're just turning off the alarm while we finish getting the order." David Provan: "A safety culture, a good safety culture, is one that lets the boss hear bad news." Drew Rae: "Yes, 100% we are lying about our safety performance."  Resources: "A Case of Collective Lying: How Deceit Becomes Entrenched in Organisational Safety Behaviour" — Jan Hayes, Sarah Maslen, Paul Schulman, Safety Science, Vol. 176, 106554 (2024) Open access: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106554 Diane Vaughan — introduced by Drew for her concept of "normalization of deviance," developed from her analysis of the Challenger launch decision. Her book: The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (University of Chicago Press). https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo23528040.html  The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

David and Drew unpack six organizational uses of injury metrics — from controlling work and motivating the workforce to self-promotion and risk signaling — before distilling these into four broad symbolic meanings: management control, image management, risk management, and trust in leadership. The episode reveals that injury rates are unstable signs whose meaning shifts depending on context, observer, and organizational culture. Understanding the emotional and symbolic dimensions of these metrics is shown to be essential for any safety professional seeking to challenge, replace, or engage more honestly with the measurement systems that shape how safety is understood and acted upon in their organization. Discussion Points: (00:00) The intersection of safety measurement and social safety research (03:26) The paper — Interpreting injury metrics (06:57) Known limitations and critiques of injury rate metrics (09:03) The puzzle of why injury rates persist despite their well-documented flaws (10:46) Semiotics as an analytical lens for understanding safety indicators as symbols (14:00) Research methodology — 20 interviews with experienced OHS professionals (16:18) Six organizational uses of injury metrics (26:40) Four broad symbolic meanings of injury metrics (36:45) Safety activities as anxiety reduction and the central role of emotion (38:56) Practical takeaways for safety professionals and researchers Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!   Quotes: Drew Rae: "People are not dumb. These criticisms are fairly easy to understand, and there are so many of them from so many different directions that people know these criticisms and believe some of them. But injury rates still happen. That puzzle needs to be understood." Drew Rae: "Something could be a bad measure of whether you're actually safe, but a good measure of how your injuries are affecting these other types of risks that you're facing." Drew Rae: "Safety activities are driven by affect — emotion matters. We do things in safety because we are afraid, or because we are uncertain, because we are anxious. And our safety activities change those emotions." Drew Rae: "We've now got both pieces of the puzzle. We know that they don't work objectively, and we know that people keep using them because of these symbolic meanings. That's pretty much the full story about injury rates." David Provan: "Be curious about the meaning that's being ascribed to the injury rates in your own organization." Resources: Primary paper discussed: Pomeroy, J. & Pilbeam, C. (2025). Signs of safety: An investigation of how OHS professionals interpret injury metrics. Journal of Safety Research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437525001410 Related papers referenced in the episode: Rae, A., Provan, D., Weber, D. & Dekker, S. (2018). Safety clutter: the accumulation and persistence of 'safety' work that does not contribute to operational safety. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Safety-clutter:-the-accumulation-and-persistence-of-Rae-Provan/5bef7afb671b32977f688afbffe328407cf48039 Hayes, J., Slotsvik, T.N., Macrae, C. & Pettersen Gould, K.A. (2023). Tracking the right path: Safety performance indicators as boundary objects in air ambulance services. Safety Science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753523000814 The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

Drawing on Edmondson's extensive psychological safety research, the episode provides practical guidance for safety leaders seeking to improve workplace conversations. The framework reveals that effective safety communication requires more than encouraging people to speak up—it demands deliberate leadership to create environments where contributions are productive, silence is reflective rather than fearful, and meeting goals are clearly articulated. The findings offer significant implications for safety professionals working to enhance organizational communication and change management capabilities. Discussion Points: (00:00) Background on psychological safety and employee voice (04:05) Introducing Amy Edmondson's reflections paper (08:00) Why workplace meetings are often unproductive (11:13) The four-quadrant model of workplace conversations (16:44) Withholding when productive silence becomes problematic (19:49) Disrupting and the challenge of unproductive voice (26:33) Contributing through productive voice and disagreement (30:05) Processing the importance of reflective silence (35:53) Practical takeaways for leading better meetings Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics! Quotes: "The employee voice and silence literature is a lot more precise because it's looking at a specific question: what do people speak up about, when do they speak up, who do they speak up to, what do they say?" - Drew Rae "A good meeting is when all participants are either contributing or processing with minimal withholding or disrupting." - Drew Rae "It's not just that disruptive people take up time and space, they raise the threshold for others to speak up." - Drew Rae "Where there's diversity in the room, race or gender, it can make this a little bit more difficult because people might feel personally vulnerable." - David Provan "We want an environment that promotes productive conversations, and that environment is more about when and how we speak up ourselves." - Drew Rae   Resources: Resource Link: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6451 The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

The conversation explores how humor serves psychological purposes beyond entertainment, often functioning to establish power hierarchies and devalue professional contributions. Through survey data and qualitative interviews, the research demonstrates that passive coping strategies prevent organizations from understanding the true extent of harm. David and Drew argue that the "just joking" defense creates ambiguity that makes harassment difficult to report, particularly when supervisors are the perpetrators, emphasizing that effective psychosocial safety policies must explicitly address humor-based discrimination.   Discussion Points: (00:00) Defining psychosocial safety versus psychological safety(03:07) Introduction to workplace humor research in construction(06:44) Research aims and the construction industry gender gap(11:31) Research methodology using surveys and interviews(15:07) Theoretical framework on humor as communication(20:10) Survey findings on sexual harassment experiences(26:24) How humor is weaponized as cover for harassment(35:36) Conclusions on devaluing professional contributions(40:08) Key takeaways and practical implications for organizationsLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: "The harms are real. When we talk about expanding safety into the psychosocial space, however you might feel about that framing and whether safety people are the right people to be managing it, when we're talking about people getting hurt at work, gender based humour is a hazard." - Drew Rae "I think this is the ultimate, you know, safety is not the absence of incident reports. This is clearly something that's happening to 50, 60, 70% of participants in this study and obviously representative of the broader population. If you're getting no insight into this through any of your systems, then you need to go looking." - David Provan "The fact that something's a joke is being used almost like weaponised to mask or shield what's actually going on, we need to just like get totally away from the idea that humour is an excuse. The question isn't, is this a joke or not a joke? Question is, what was the underlying purpose of that joke?" - Drew Rae "If no one's complaining, get worried. We know it's happening. We know that people don't complain. If you're not getting any complaints in your work site, that's not an indication that there's no problem or no harm. That's an indication that people are not feeling safe to complain." - Drew Rae "Jokes are fine, but not these jokes. And I think this paper really helps us understand where we might be able to draw a less fuzzy boundary around what people can and can't joke about in the workplace." - David Provan Resources: Resource Link: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-7109 The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

The discussion explores three critical constraint categories: structural elements like mandatory timelines, organizational factors including resource capacity, and relational dynamics affecting investigator access to information. Drawing parallels beyond healthcare, they challenge listeners to reconsider their investigation frameworks, suggesting that organizations inadvertently create systems where investigators focus on meeting procedural requirements rather than generating genuine insights. The discussion emphasizes that effective investigations require adequate capacity, flexible timelines that accommodate complexity, and environments fostering open relationships that enable thorough inquiry and organizational learning. Discussion Points: (00:00) Background on NHS patient safety system and 2 million annual incidents(09:11) Research method and the seven investigation principles(16:24) Investigation framework with three levels and timeline requirements(24:56) Finding one structural constraints and how timelines became the focus(32:41) Finding two organizational capacity and resource mismatches(37:07) Finding three roles relationships and the independence dilemma(42:37) Summary deadlines over diagnosis compliance over comprehension procedures over participation(45:36) Practical takeaways on timelines capacity and relationshipsLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!Quotes: David Provan: "The more hoops and hurdles and constraints and requirements that you put into the investigation process, the more that those things become the focus of the investigator, as opposed to the learning and improvement outcome that we're trying to achieve." Drew Rae: "If you wanted to improve investigations in your organization, one simple leadership practice you could take is when someone gives you the investigation report, basically just say, no, there's nothing here that surprises me. Go away, come back and learn something." David Provan: "These are the outcomes we're trying to achieve and the investigation takes as long as it takes. And if it's being held up for any reason, this is the process to check in on progress. As long as it's being worked on." Drew Rae: "Investigations are way more about relationships than I think people realise when they're planning them. And so we've got to create an environment in which investigators can build and use relationships." David Provan: "There's no reason that if you learn something during an investigation that you need to wait till the report signed off and finished before you do something about it... as soon as we learn something that we become curious or concerned about, we should act on it." Resources: Resource Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525002243 The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

The findings reveal that invasiveness drives negative reactions more than the stated purpose of monitoring, with participants showing skepticism about AI's ability to accurately measure teamwork quality. The hosts emphasize that even well-intentioned monitoring systems introduce psychosocial hazards and stress, requiring organizations to carefully balance potential benefits against worker well-being impacts when implementing AI-powered team support systems.   Discussion Points: (00:00) AI team monitoring invasiveness, AI workplace surveillance(03:16) Research paper introduction and authors from Germany(04:48) Previous research on electronic monitoring and employee reactions(08:49) Study one methodology with invasiveness levels and video scenarios(12:12) Study two simulation with teams designing fitness trackers(17:46) Study one findings on invasiveness and fairness perceptions(24:07) Study two results and participant skepticism about monitoring accuracy(32:48) Practical takeaways on invasiveness levels and stakeholder management(40:42) Final recommendations on balancing benefits and invasivenessLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: Drew Rae: "The moment you divide it up and you just try to analyze the human behavior or analyze the automation, you lose the understanding of where the safety is coming from and what's necessary for it to be safe." David Provan: "We actually don't think about that automation in the context of the overall system and all of the interfaces and everything like that. So we, we look at AI as AI and, you know, deploying. Introducing ai, but we don't do any kind of comprehensive analysis of, you know, what's gonna be all of the flow on implications and interfaces and potentially unintended consequences or the system, not necessarily just the technology or automation itself." Drew Rae: People are going to have reactions. And those reactions are gonna have a big impact on their willingness for you to do this in the first place...You can't just force it onto them… All the things that you're trying to improve might actually get worse because of the monitoring. David Provan: "But I think this paper makes a really good argument, which is actually our automated system should be far more flexible than that. So I might be able to adjust, you know, it's functioning. If I know, if I, if I know enough about how it's functioning and why it's functioning, and I realize that the automation can't understand context and situation, then I should be able to make adjustments." Drew Rae: Most people don't mind if their car is giving them feedback on their driving, but most people don't like it if their car is phoning home to your boss, giving information about your driving.   Resources: Intelligent automated systems to support human teamwork: perceived invasiveness impacts team members’ psychological reactions negatively

The discussion centers on two key design principles: observability, which ensures humans can understand what automated systems are doing and why, and direct ability, which allows humans to steer automation rather than simply turning it on or off. Using examples from aviation incidents like Boeing's MCAS system and emerging AI technologies, the episode demonstrates how these 25-year-old principles remain relevant for contemporary automation challenges in safety-critical systems.   Discussion Points: (00:00) Background on automation and natural experiments in safety(04:58) Hard vs soft skills debate and limitations of binary thinking(08:12) Two common approaches to automation problems and their flaws(12:20) The substitution myth and why simple replacement doesn't work(17:25) Design principles for coordination, observability, and direct ability(24:33) Observability challenges with AI and machine learning systems(26:25) Direct ability and the problem of binary control options(30:47) Design implications and avoiding simplistic solutions(33:27) Practical takeaways for human automation coordinationLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: Drew Rae: "The moment you divide it up and you just try to analyze the human behavior or analyze the automation, you lose the understanding of where the safety is coming from and what's necessary for it to be safe." David Provan: "We actually don't think about that automation in the context of the overall system and all of the interfaces and everything like that. So we, we look at AI as AI and, you know, deploying. Introducing ai, but we don't do any kind of comprehensive analysis of, you know, what's gonna be all of the flow on implications and interfaces and potentially unintended consequences or the system, not necessarily just the technology or automation itself." Drew Rae: "It's not enough for an expert system to just like constantly tell you all of the underlying rules that it's applying, that that doesn't really give you the right level of visibility as understanding what it thinks the current state is." David Provan: "But I think this paper makes a really good argument, which is actually our automated system should be far more flexible than that. So I might be able to adjust, you know, it's functioning. If I know, if I, if I know enough about how it's functioning and why it's functioning, and I realize that the automation can't understand context and situation, then I should be able to make adjustments." Drew Rae: "There's, there's gotta be ways of allowing all the animation to keep working, but to be able to. Retain control, and that's a really difficult design problem." Resources: Link to the Paper The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

You'll hear about BP's attempt to create a fairer process using eight new questions that focus more on system factors like management influence, procedural clarity, and organizational goal conflicts. They discuss how even this thoughtfully redesigned framework still resulted in predominantly individual-focused interventions, with 80% of actions targeting people rather than systems, despite classifying most incidents as system-induced errors. The episode provides critical insights for safety professionals questioning whether just culture processes add value or represent organizational clutter that should be eliminated entirely.   Discussion Points: (00:00) Introduction to just culture models and their problems(03:00) Historical context of Jim Reason's culpability framework and industry adoption(07:37) Introduction to the BP case study research paper and methodology(15:19) Existing BP just culture process and its implementation problems(21:27) Literature review findings on just culture model weaknesses(29:20) The eight question redesigned BP just culture framework(43:25) Evaluation of the new process and classification outcomes(53:25) Practical takeaways and system versus individual focusLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: David Provan: "I think the problem with the just culture model is that we have a just culture model."  Drew Rae: "If your system problem is, we are not leaning hard enough onto individuals to behave correctly, then you are not really doing system thinking."  David Provan: "Even though we are saying that, you know, this is great because 79% of these cases have now been classified as system-induced errors, over 80% of the actions as a result of those system-induced errors are at the individual leve.l"  Drew Rae: "Every single outcome from the process is some sort of statement about disciplining a person, even when it's not disciplining a person. That's still the focus."  David Provan: "Any process that you put in place in your organization that doesn't have these quality management aspects is likely to be something that drifts away from its intended purpose."    Resources: Link to the Paper The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

You’ll hear six key principles for effective behavioral substitution, drawing parallels between healthcare and safety contexts. They discuss how these principles can guide both the removal of ineffective practices and the implementation of new ones, emphasizing the importance of considering practical needs, existing skills, and organizational resources when making such changes. The episode provides valuable insights for safety professionals looking to improve their organization's safety practices through evidence-based substitution strategies.   Discussion Points: ((00:00) Introduction and episode overview on swapping as a decluttering strategy(00:59) Background discussion on behavioral science and de-implementation(02:27) Understanding decluttering and de-implementation in healthcare context(05:08) Example of de-implementation in clinical practice and patient care(06:55) Introduction to the paper and authors' background(16:32) First principle: Evidence and rationale for substitute behaviors(19:49) Second principle: Meeting both clinical and practical objectives(24:51) Third principle: Clear explanability of new practices(26:29) Fourth principle: Time considerations for substitute behaviors(28:30) Fifth principle: Alignment with existing skills(31:40) Sixth principle: Cost implications of substitute behaviors(34:39) Three practical takeaways and implementation strategies, the answer to this episode’s questionLike and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: "You can't swap out something that people believe works for something that they don't believe works." - Drew Rae "A lot of the safety, if not all the safety work we do in organisations is about anxiety reduction, not necessarily about improving safety.” - David Provan "Rather than thinking about decluttering as just what we can reduce or take away, it may be more useful to think about it as a process of gradually swapping out each thing that's not working well." - Drew Rae "If you can't explain the substitute behavior with the same ease which you can explain the behavior that you want to be implemented, then people have to work a bit harder and they might go. Why are we making this all so complex?" - David Provan “That's the point they're making here, is like maybe the patient doesn't need care, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't acknowledge their need for care and their need to be taken seriously.” - Drew Rae Resources: The Big Six: key principles for effective use of Behavior substitution in interventions to de-implement low-value care The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

The discussion challenges traditional views of supervision by emphasizing the importance of psychological safety and predictable relationships between supervisors and workers. Through analysis of interviews with both supervisors and supervisees, the research highlights how effective supervision requires balancing organizational needs with worker support while maintaining clear boundaries and expectations. The findings suggest that organizations should focus on developing explicit supervision models that promote both technical expertise and relationship skills.   Discussion Points: (00:00) Introduction - what makes an effective supervisor?(02:29) Narrowing research focus, specific industry context(06:07) Introduction to the research paper and authors' backgrounds(09:46) The literature review's structure and key findings(22:12) Research methodology, interview approach, eight core themes, Theme 1: Safety and establishing predictable relationships(26:00) Theme 2-3: Emotional impact of work and learning/growth(35:45) Theme 4-5: Leadership behaviors and integrity/justice(42:12) Theme 6-7: Balancing supervision functions and organizational processes(51:14) Key takeaways and practical implications for organizations(55:00) The answer to our question: What are the attributes of an effective supervisor? The answer is, everything you expect, but with a new emphasis on the safety and predictability of that relationship.Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions for future show topics!  Quotes: "There is a ton of safety research which says that frontline supervision - that direct relationship between a team leader and the people they're supervising - is really, really important for safety." - Drew Rae "Supervision is a really important aspect of safety and safety management." - David Provan "Power is inherent in these relationships... Supervisors don't have a lot of formal power, so the supervisor themselves often won't feel that they have power at all." - Drew Rae "This is not an exploratory study. This is a properly conducted piece of high quality, qualitative research, and I think it does draw novel insights." - Drew Rae   Resources: Safety as a Fifth Dimension in Supervision: Stories from the Frontline The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

Drawing on insights from business leaders and contemporary educational theory, we propose that effective safety professionals require both technical expertise and sophisticated narrative capabilities. The findings suggest significant implications for safety education and professional development, challenging institutions to reconsider how they prepare safety practitioners for increasingly complex organizational environments. Rather than perpetuating false dichotomies between hard and soft skills, we argue for an educational approach that develops both technical and narrative capabilities in an integrated manner, particularly crucial for safety change management where success depends on both procedural competence and compelling storytelling.   Discussion Points: (00:00) Introduction - Should safety education focus on hard or soft skills?(01:04) Background - Safety Science Innovation Lab and higher education context(02:27) Hard vs Soft Skills - Discussing the limitations of this categorization(05:08) Storycraft Report - Overview and methodology of the Oxford study(15:00) Understanding Narrative - Definitions and importance in business(18:15) Three Core Business Purposes of Narrative: Communicating business values, persuasion and influence, driving and managing change(26:06) Five Essential Narrative Skills Framework: Narrative communication, empathy and perspective taking, critical analysis, creativity and imagination, digital skills(36:00) Who Needs Narrative Skills - Integration of STEM and humanities in education(40:35) Three Key Takeaways - Value of tertiary education, importance of narrative skills in safety, managing changeThe answer to our question: Should safety education focus on hard skills or soft skills? If you didn’t like the question, I think you will like the answer, which is: We should stop dividing the world into hard skills and soft skills, or into STEM and into humanities. Just teach everyone both.Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!  Quotes: “There are different skill categories, but they’re mostly about specific skills versus transferable skills.” - Drew “One of the things that Griffith [University] was specifically set up for is based on the idea that education is important for social mobility.” - Drew “A narrative in business is the communication of a business activity or idea…it’s the ability to tell your story or your direction.”- David “if a business can convey some narrative or strategic vision about who they are and what they’re doing, they’re going to get much more useful work out of their employees.” - Drew Resources: Storycraft: the importance of narrative and narrative skills in business The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

In this discussion, we dissect various models of safety culture, scrutinizing how organizations perceive, measure, and manage these concepts. From artifacts like management systems to individual attitudes and behaviors, we delve into the inconsistencies and challenges of these models. We also revisit historical perspectives, such as Dov Zohar's work, to understand their influence on contemporary safety paradigms. Our conversation critically examines the missteps of industries like nuclear and aviation, which have mandated the management of ambiguous concepts without solid scientific grounding. We advocate for a shift from vague cultural mandates to actionable strategies, offering insights into enhancing clarity and effectiveness in both regulatory practices and organizational improvements. This episode aims to inspire a reevaluation of safety culture, pushing for a more scientifically grounded and practical approach to safety science.   Some highlights from the paper: Safety culture as a concept is examined from scientific and pragmatic perspectives.The case is made for the removal of safety culture from the safety science lexicon.Much safety culture research is vulnerable to a fallacy of logic – we should not take a selection of parts to equal the whole.Robust research of the various individual ‘elements’ of safety culture, in methodologically appropriate ways, will enhance the field of safety science and better support improvements in practice.  Discussion Points: (00:00) Introduction: Rethinking Safety Culture - An overview of the conversation around safety culture and its evolving significance(07:04) Challenges in Defining Safety Culture - Exploring the difficulties in pinning down a clear and universal definition of safety culture(10:00) Safety Culture Research Models & Philosophies - different research models in safety culture, and the philosophy behind them, issues with lumping all safety-related terms together(17:00) Three Definitions of Safety Culture - Is it social, individual, or organizational? Each perspective offers a unique research approach(21:00) Perceptions of Safety Culture - The way we understand safety culture might differ greatly from someone else’s interpretation(22:00) Buckets of Safety Culture: Young vs. Mature Organizations(24:23) The Importance of Specificity Over Vagueness, difference between safety climate and safety culture(29:11) The One-Question Survey: Industry Perspectives and Practical Insights - Examining the one-question survey methodology, participant responses, and the insights gathered from industry perspectives.(36:00) Safety Performance vs. Safety Culture Discussing the distinction between safety performance and the broader concept of safety culture.(39:52) Clarifying Definitions: Drew and David’s Papers(40:25) Meta Takeaway: Defining 'Culture' Specifically - ask yourself what you actually mean and define it specificallyConclusions and TakeawaysThe final question: Is it time to stop talking about safety culture? The answer: "Yep."Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!  Quotes: “The paper itself is very very stylish and self -aware and that's important not just for readability but for the state that this conversation is in...it's got all of these references that show that they're very aware of the landmines that people keep stepping on, in just even trying to write and untangle safety culture.” - Drew “When someone uses the term ‘safety culture’, it's very common for them to be thinking about everything from commitment of people, compliance with procedures, level of resources, the balancing of goals, safety communication, leadership. All of these individual things just get lumped together into this term ‘safety culture.” - David “The moment you start trying to turn it into practical actions, that's when everything starts to crumble - when there aren't good, agreed definitions.”- Drew “You can't just wander into a company and say, ‘I want to study company culture.’ That's like a marine biologist going into the ocean and saying, ‘I want to look at things that live in the ocean’...Be precise, be narrow, be specific about what it is that you actually want to look at.” - Drew   Resources: Seeking a scientific and pragmatic approach to safety culture in the North American construction industry Ep.44 What do we mean when we talk about safety culture? Dov Zohar’s Published Research The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

From discussing mobile phone use while driving to the challenges of giving advice to older adults at risk of falls, this episode covers ChatGPT’s responses to a wide range of safety topics - identifying biases, inconsistencies, and areas where ChatGPT aligns or falls short of expert advice. The broader implications of relying on ChatGPT for safety advice are examined carefully, especially in workplace settings. While ChatGPT often mirrors general lay understanding, it can overlook critical organizational responsibilities, potentially leading to oversimplified or erroneous advice. This episode underscores the importance of using AI-generated content cautiously, particularly in crafting workplace policies or addressing complex safety topics. By engaging with multiple evidence-based sources and consulting experts, organizations can better navigate the limitations of AI tools.   Discussion Points: Drew and David discuss their own recent experience with generative AIThe multiple 15 authors are all experts, discussing the methods usedExamining the nine different question scenarios‘Mobile phone use while driving’ resultsCrowd/crush safety adviceAdvice for preventing falls in older adultsAnalyzing ChatGPT response formatsExercising outdoors near traffic with asthmaQuestioning ChatGPT about how to engage a distressed person who may commit suicideSafety working ‘under high pressure’ and job demands, burnout preventionLack of nuance in ChatGPTThe safety of sharing personal data on fitness apps, how can it be shared safely?Is it safe to operate heavy machinery when fatigued? Testing several ways to ask this question - sleepy, tired, fatiguedConclusions and takeawaysThe answer to our episode’s question: “AI is not currently a suitable source for writing safety guidelines or advice”Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!  Quotes: “This is one of the first papers that I've seen that actually gives us sort of fair test of ChatGPT for a realistic safety application.” - Drew “I quite like the idea that they chose questions which may be something that a lay person or even a generalist safety practitioner might ask ChatGPT, and then they had an expert in that area to analyze the quality of the answer that was given.” - David “I really liked the way that this paper published the transcripts of all of those interactions  with ChatGPT. So exactly what question the expert asked it, and exactly the transcript of what ChatGPT provided.”- David “In case anyone is wondering about the evidence based advice, if you think there is a nearby terrorist attack, chat GPT's answer is consistent with the latest empirical evidence, which is run. There they go on to say that the rest of the items are essentially the standard advice that police and emergency services give.” - Drew “[ChatGPT] seems to prioritize based on how frequently something appears rather than some sort of logical ordering or consideration of what would make sense.” - Drew “As a supplement to an expert, it's a good way of maybe finding things that you might not have considered. But as a sole source of advice or a sole source of hazard identification or a sole position on safety, it's not where it needs to be…” - David Resources: The Article - The Risks Of Using ChatGPT to Obtain Common Safety-Related Information and Advice DisasterCast Episode 54: Stadium Disasters The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork

We challenge the notion that high injury rates are punished by market forces, as we dig into this article that posits the opposite: that safety should be a performance driver. Our analysis dives deep into the credibility and methodologies of the article, emphasizing the critical role of peer review and the broader body of knowledge. We'll also scrutinize the use of data as rhetoric versus evidence, focusing on the transparency and rigor of research methods when interviewing executives about safety practices. Is safety merely seen as a compliance issue or a strategic investment? We dissect the methodologies, including participant selection and question framing, to uncover potential biases. Finally, we critique a proposed five-step process aimed at transforming safety into a competitive advantage. From aligning on the meaning of safety to incentivizing employees, we expose significant gaps in academic rigor and alignment with established safety literature.  This conversation serves as a powerful critique of superficial analyses by those outside the safety science domain, offering listeners critical insights into the complexity of safety management and its potential alignment with organizational goals.    Discussion Points: Re-examining the role of safety as a value driver for businessComparing contrasting research findings and cautioning about evaluating researchData as rhetoric in safetyTransparency and methodology are crucial in research, especially when interviewing executives about workplace safetyExecutives' perspectives on safety are questioned, research methods are critiquedClarifying claims and performance in business The five-step process for competitive advantage A study on the effectiveness of safety training methods Safety management is complex and requires evidence-based strategies, not superficial analysis or reliance on compliance trainingStrategic value of workplace safetySafety's impact on business success is uncertain, but exploring its alignment with organizational goals is importantTakeaways The answer to our episode’s question: “the short answer is we still don't know!” Like and follow, send us your comments and suggestions!  Quotes: “The trouble is, then we don't know whether what they're referring to is published research that might be somewhere else that we can look for for the details, or work that they did specifically for this article, or other work that they've done that was just never published.” - Drew “We've got to be really careful…this is using data as rhetoric, not using data as data.” - Drew “I wouldn't be surprised that most people see safety as both a cost and as an outcome.”- Drew “So you've got two-thirds of these companies that don't even have any safety metric, like not even an injury metric or anything that they monitor.” - David “So we kind of assume business performance means financial performance, but that in itself is never clarified.” - David Resources: The Article: Safety Should Be a Performance Driver Episode 121: Is Safety Good for Business? The Safety of Work Podcast The Safety of Work on LinkedIn Feedback@safetyofwork