From Safety to Survival: Why 'Stuff That Kills You' Falls Short in High-Risk Environments

The Stuff That Kills You (STKY) approach has become increasingly popular in high-risk environments, and it’s easy to see why. It provides a clear, straightforward path: Identify the most immediate and obvious hazards, and eliminate or control them. In theory, if you can neutralize the stuff that kills you, you’re safe. But in practice, this approach provides only a narrow, fleeting sense of control, focusing on short-term risk mitigation rather than long-term survival.

On the surface, STKY and survival may seem synonymous, but they are anything but. STKY focuses on isolated, identifiable hazards, while survival requires an understanding of the broader context in which those hazards exist and evolve. In this article, we’ll differentiate between these two approaches, using the insights of social psychologists such as Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch, and Cialdini to explore how compliance, conformity, consistency, and commitment have shaped modern safety practices?—?and why Survival First takes a fundamentally different approach by emphasizing psychological safety, contextual awareness, and the recognition of human complexity and variability.

Compliance and Conformity: The Influence of Milgram, Zimbardo, and?Asch

In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram revealed just how deeply ingrained our tendency for compliance is, especially when authority figures are involved. Participants in his experiments were willing to administer what they believed to be harmful shocks to others, simply because they were told to do so by someone in a position of authority. Similarly, Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment illustrated how quickly people conform to roles of power and submission, with participants internalizing and acting out these roles to dangerous extremes.

In high-risk environments, the emphasis on compliance and conformity manifests in rigid safety systems where workers are often expected to follow procedures without question. STKY safety systems rely heavily on this compliance, assuming that adherence to rules will mitigate risks. In many cases, this works?—?when hazards are clear-cut and decisions are straightforward. But compliance and conformity carry a hidden danger: They often suppress individual judgment, adaptation, and critical thinking, especially when situations evolve unpredictably.

Solomon Asch’s research on conformity showed that individuals are likely to conform to group opinions, even when they know those opinions are wrong. In safety systems dominated by conformity, dissenting voices?—?those who might notice emerging threats or point out flaws in the system?—?are often silenced. Workers may follow the crowd or the established norms, even when those norms no longer apply to the situation at hand.

In a Survival First approach, compliance and conformity take a back seat to contextual awareness and psychological safety. Survival requires an environment where individuals are not only permitted but encouraged to question procedures, adapt to new information, and resist conformity when it conflicts with emerging realities. By fostering psychological safety, organizations create a space where individuals can voice concerns, challenge authority when necessary, and take initiative to address complex, unforeseen hazards.

Consistency and Commitment: Cialdini’s Influence on?Safety

Robert Cialdini’s principles of consistency and commitment are powerful tools in influencing behavior. Once someone has made a commitment?—?whether to a decision, an action, or an identity?—?they are more likely to remain consistent with that commitment, even when it no longer makes sense to do so. In safety systems, this is often seen in the form of rigid adherence to safety protocols, even when the context demands flexibility.

The STKY approach tends to thrive on consistency. Procedures are established, commitments are made, and the expectation is that workers will continue to follow these procedures no matter the situation. This approach assumes that consistency leads to safety. However, it often leads to inflexibility, where workers become trapped in their initial decisions, unable or unwilling to adapt as the environment changes.

In a Survival First approach, the emphasis shifts from blind consistency to adaptive decision-making. Survival doesn’t demand rigid adherence to past decisions?—?it demands the ability to reassess and course-correct when necessary. Workers are encouraged to make real-time adjustments based on context, recognizing that what worked yesterday may not work today, and that staying consistent with a previous commitment can sometimes lead to disaster.

Rationality in Decision-Making: The Impact on STKY vs. Survival?First

The role of rationality in decision-making becomes crucial when considering these different approaches. While the STKY approach relies on the assumption that workers will make rational decisions based on clear-cut information and set procedures, this ignores the different forms of rationality that actually govern human decision-making in real-world, high-risk environments.

1. Bounded Rationality: Herbert Simon’s concept of bounded rationality suggests that individuals make decisions with limited information, time, and cognitive capacity. In high-risk environments, workers often have to make decisions under intense pressure, with incomplete data, and in complex situations where no one person can grasp the full picture. The STKY approach falters here, as it assumes that decision-makers have all the necessary information and that sticking to protocol will ensure safety. In reality, bounded rationality means that workers must be able to make good enough decisions quickly, rather than perfect ones, and adapt as more information becomes available.
2. The Survival First approach, on the other hand, embraces bounded rationality by fostering situational awareness and encouraging real-time learning. Workers are trained to assess their environment dynamically and make decisions that, while not always aligned with rigid procedures, enhance survival in the moment. It acknowledges that no one has all the answers, and that effective survival strategies involve constant learning and adaptation.
3. Contextual Rationality: Decision-making is often highly dependent on the context in which decisions are made. Contextual rationality means that what might be a rational decision in one scenario could be completely irrational in another. STKY systems, however, often overlook this, imposing the same procedures and safety controls across different environments, assuming that what works in one context will work everywhere.
4. In contrast, Survival First is built on the understanding that context is everything. In complex environments, the ability to assess and respond to context is paramount. Workers must be able to evaluate the specific threats and variables of their environment, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. This flexibility leads to better decision-making because it takes into account the unique challenges of each moment, allowing workers to navigate complexity effectively.
5. Emotional and Social Rationality: Human decision-making is also deeply influenced by emotions and social pressures. In the STKY framework, these influences are often ignored, assuming that workers will act purely out of logical self-preservation. But as Milgram, Zimbardo, and Asch demonstrated, people are far more likely to be influenced by authority, peer pressure, and their own emotional states than by a purely rational assessment of risk.
6. The Survival First approach recognizes the complexity of human emotions and social dynamics. It encourages teams to build psychological safety, where individuals can express concerns or hesitation without fear of social backlash. It also trains workers to recognize the role emotions play in their decision-making processes, allowing for more self-awareness and better judgment in high-stress situations.

Conclusion: Survival Through Complexity and Human Variability

The growing popularity of the Stuff That Kills You approach is understandable?—?it offers a sense of control and clear, measurable actions that feel like progress in high-risk environments. But STKY is limited by its rigid structure, reliance on compliance, and assumption of uniform rationality in decision-making.

Survival First, by contrast, accepts that high-risk environments are inherently complex and unpredictable. It emphasizes adaptability, flexibility, and the development of psychological safety and contextual awareness. Rather than enforcing rigid compliance, it fosters an environment where real-time decision-making and human variability are seen as assets rather than liabilities.

Ultimately, the differentiation between STKY and Survival First lies in recognizing that humans are not machines. They don’t always operate under pure logic, and their decisions are influenced by a web of social, emotional, and contextual factors. In environments where survival depends on quickly navigating unforeseen hazards, it’s the ability to coexist with complexity, rather than control it, that ensures both individual and organizational survival.