Skip to main content

It’s Always a Number

It’s Always a Number

I was on a conference today and the first question set to the panel was about a number. 
I didn’t respond to the question but rather asked the conference, why is safety so good at asking dumb questions? It doesn’t matter whether its injury rates, percentages, zero or TRIFR etc, its always a number.
It took 50 minutes for the conference of safety people to ask the panel session a question about care, humanising and helping people tackle risk. 

I saw some safety propaganda recently about some big safety innovation, the next thing, the global way forward, a global collaboration, the number one idea and one would think with such language there would be some sense of vision attached to the announcement. Nup, the way forward was yet again another number. What is this industry that doesn’t know how to talk about people, personhood and helping? 

What is it about this industry that so lacks trust in others it multiplies systems and bureaucracy every time it spews more propaganda about yet another number. As long as Safety frames its world around numbers it will never have vision. As long as Safety deludes itself that numerics and metrics determine safety it will play the same merry-go-round and then wonder in 10 years why people have no interest in safety.

If a number is all you can see and talk about then you have no vision, you simply have a counting disorder. It’s so strange, when speaking to helping professions they never talk about numbers. Helping professions talk about their concerns to serve others, to help people be their best, to improve and develop quality services so that people can better live. People in helping professions recognize that a priority on numbers dehumanizes people, this is what the Nazis understood so well in World War 2. 

I once met an ex-prisoner of war from Dachau when I was 12 years of age and he showed me his number tattooed on his tongue. He explained how the Nazis dehumanized everyone by using numbers. If one ever mentioned a persons name the punishment was severe or one could be shot. The Nazis knew more than anyone that the best way to dehumanize people is to frame all discourse on numbers. We see this also in the workers compensations system. 

How insulting to call a company iCare that has no focus at all on caring. Ah yes, but they are great at numbers, particularly those that build their on bank accounts. How soul destroying to think that all that matters is a number or to be considered as a number. Just imagine if you child’s teacher didn’t call your child by name but changed their name to 13. 

I wonder how long you would keep your child in that school. Numbers are about efficiency (What Ellul called Technique) not about humans, community or helping. This is the tyranny that consumes Safety, it is so addicted to numbers it doesn’t know it. So, just have a look at any safety book title and see how it frames its message. If the title is framed around a number, the book will have no vision so don’t buy it. Anything framed around numbers will most likely be unhelpful, dehumanizing and unprofessional.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Safety Works in Mysterious Ways….

Signs On a Church Refurbishment Site Spotted these signs on the fence of a Church refurbishment project today. When I saw the irony (is that what you would call it?), I laughed until I stopped……
Post a Comment
Read more

Systems as Imagined v Systems in Practice

Systems as Imagined v Systems in Practice The recent NSW Supreme Court decision,  Attorney General of New South Wales v Tho Services Limited (in liquidation) (ACN 000 263 678) [2016] NSWCCA 221  is another in a long line of decisions that highlight the disconnect between safety management systems as they are documented, and what occurs in practice. Documented safety processes are important.  They provide guidance on how safety is managed and evidence that an organisation is meeting its obligations.  However, where an accident reveals long-term, systemic non-compliance with obvious safety expectations documented safety processes do not provide a defence, often they do not provide mitigation, and in cases such as this they are an aggravating circumstance.  As the Court noted: The vast range of induction and supervising protocols adopted by the respondent or in force at its premises serves not to relieve the respondent of its responsibility for safety but on...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Critique of Pure Reason

I was doing some research on incident investigation tools today and recalled this VERY popular post from last year. The SCM nicely allows us to take our pick of endless causes and to assign blame to not only the worker but management, the system and objects as well – no wonder it and ICAMembert are so popular: A Critique of Pure Reason –  (With Apologies to Immanuel Kant) There is not a week goes by without someone suggesting I should read James Reason or that I haven’t read James Reason. I am also advised that I don’t read James Reason properly because somehow all worldviews must be in agreement, particularly in safety. In the short history of safety, the works of Reason particularly, the Swiss Cheese metaphor (causation theory) and Human Error theory have become attributed as fact. Should one disagree with Reason’s theories one obviously can’t read or hasn’t read Reason’s work properly. It is interesting to note the way that Reason is used to invoke reductionist ...
Post a Comment
Read more