Challenging the myth of individual safety responsibility

?

The phrases "accidents are the result of human error" and "safety is a personal responsibility" stem from an individualistic worldview. In this reductionist framework, people are seen as solely responsible for their actions, and accidents are attributed to individual failings like carelessness or a refusal to follow rules. This perspective, while prevalent in individualistic cultures like the United States, ignores the powerful influence of social systems on behavior.

The Bhopal disaster serves as a stark example of this misconception. It's easy to point fingers at the individuals working at the plant, who were seemingly oblivious to the dangers around them. Reports indicate they had stopped paying attention to the equipment and were working under the mistaken assumption that when the power was turned off, the chemical processes were also inactive. While the individuals working at the plant were undoubtedly involved in the events leading up to the disaster, they were also operating within a complex social system—a web of interconnected structures, relationships, and norms that shaped their actions and decisions. It's important to remember that these individuals were embedded within a larger organizational context, where decisions made at higher levels, such as the decision to defer maintenance and cut costs, created the conditions for the disaster to occur.

Furthermore, the legal aftermath of the disaster highlights the tendency to focus on individual culpability rather than systemic accountability. While there are ongoing legal battles seeking justice for the victims, the penalties exacted on the corporation itself were minimal. This focus on individual blame obscures the role of the larger social system in contributing to the tragedy.

Social systems, such as families, schools, corporations, and even intangible systems like white supremacy or patriarchy, exert a powerful influence on our behavior. These systems include sets of rules or social norms, often referred to as the "path of least resistance." While individuals can choose to step off this path, they often face pressure to conform. Sociologist Allan G. Johnson illustrates this concept with the game of Monopoly. The rules of the game create a social system that encourages ruthless and greedy behavior, even in individuals who wouldn't normally act that way in other contexts. This demonstrates how social systems can guide behavior, often unconsciously, making it difficult to deviate from established norms.

It is important to note that the idea of being on the path of least resistance insinuates that we can choose to step from it at any time. However, this path is largely unconscious, woven into the fabric of our social systems, so we are often unaware of its influence. When we do step off, perhaps by speaking up against unsafe practices or challenging the status quo, there will likely be pressure from others to fall back in line. This pressure can manifest in various ways, from subtle disapproval to outright ostracization, making it difficult to deviate from established norms.

The myth of safety as a personal responsibility further reinforces this path of least resistance. It places the onus solely on individuals, blinding us to the powerful influence of social systems on behavior. This misguided focus can lead to tragic consequences, as illustrated by the shooting of the UnitedHealthcare CEO. The shooter, driven by frustration with a flawed healthcare system, targeted an individual rather than addressing the systemic issues at play. This act of violence, while misguided, highlights the danger of oversimplifying complex problems and seeking individual solutions within a system that perpetuates those problems.

When we follow the sociological view to its logical conclusion, we are forced to question whether organizational systems are truly designed with employee well-being as a primary intention. If the results we see—high stress levels, burnout, and persistent safety issues—derive from the way the system is designed, then we must acknowledge that other agendas may be at play.

Despite well-intentioned efforts to improve worker well-being, the dominant rules and norms within many organizations often drive behavior in the opposite direction. Metrics that prioritize production, efficiency, and cost-cutting can overshadow concerns for people’s well-being. This is not to say that progress hasn't been made or that there aren't organizations genuinely committed to employee well-being. However, these organizations often operate within a different set of values and norms that challenge the dominant forces in our current economic and social landscape.

The OHS Advisor—the path less traveled

To become aware of the path we are on requires inner work.

“If we know exactly where we're going, exactly how to get there, and exactly what we'll see along the way, we won't learn anything. ” ―?Scott Peck

While OHS advisors may not be able to single-handedly change organizational systems, they can take proactive steps to increase their influence and advocate for worker well-being. Here are some strategies to consider:

???? Don’t stay on a job where you are not respected and valued:

???? Build Relationships: Develop strong relationships with key stakeholders, including managers, supervisors, and employees. This can help create a network of support and increase their influence within the organization.

???? Communicate Effectively: Develop strong communication skills, including active listening, empathy, and assertiveness. This can help them effectively convey their concerns and advocate for change.

???? Educate and Advocate: Educate leaders and managers about the importance of addressing the benefits of a human-centered approach to safety. Advocate for policies and practices that support worker well-being.

???? Develop Expertise: Continuously develop knowledge and skills in areas related to social psychology, culture and interpersonal communication. This will enhance their credibility and enable them to provide valuable insights and recommendations.

???? Self-Reflection and Seeking Support: Build a strong support network of colleagues, mentors, and other professionals to share experiences, gain advice, and navigate challenges.

???? Practice Self-Care: Prioritize your own well-being by practicing self-care strategies, such as mindfulness, stress management techniques, and seeking support when needed.

These strategies can provide support for advocates of human-centered H&S. However, it's crucial to recognize that these efforts often require navigating a complex social landscape where loneliness or rejection are common. If that is the case you may decide to seek a different position.

Figure 1. Health and Safety Advisor Paths

Consider the risk map developed in collaboration with OHS advisors (Figure 1). This map visually represents the various challenges and pressures they face, including production demands, organizational politics, and the limitations of their own authority. The 'path of least resistance' on this map might be characterized by compliance with existing norms, avoiding conflict, and prioritizing short-term solutions over long-term change. The yellow highlights signify the most perceived aspects of an advisor’s responsibilities. The others are what place the emphasis on Human Centered H&S.

However, by understanding the dynamics of this social landscape and developing the skills and strategies outlined above, OHS advisors can chart a different course. They can become skilled navigators, guiding their organizations towards a safer harbor where worker well-being is valued and prioritized. This requires courage, ethical awareness, and a commitment to challenging the status quo, even when it means stepping off the path of least resistance.

?