Skip to main content

Dobbing, Culture and Risk

 

Dobbing, Culture and Risk

It’s such a laugh, watching people launch a ‘dob in line’ in Australia. We saw this recently with the Government’s ‘dobseeker’ hotline . And we see this approach with regulators and others in Safety , with some weird idea that ‘blowing the whistle’ to un-safety ‘works’. This is kindergarten culture stuff? Unfortunately, this kindergarten approach to culture is common in risk and safety (https://www.nscafoundation.org.au/eventdetails/8759/webinar-making-sense-of-safety-culture; https://www.ohsbok.org.au/chapter-10-2-organisational-culture/). Any exploration of culture that omits semiotics is certainly not a holistic approach.

I fall on the floor laughing when I see these naïve approaches to culture displayed in this ‘dobbing discourse’. We also see this evident in the discussion on whistleblowing in the deontological AIHS BoK on Ethics. The notion of dobbing in Australia is anathema to the mythology and symbolism of mateship. One of the first things kids learn in school is the ethic of not dobbing. If you want to be isolated from the class, marginalized with no friends and become a ‘loser’, just dob in someone in Year 2 Primary School and you will learn a hard lesson.

This is why the confusion of ethics, morality and Ethics in the AIHS BoK on Ethics is so dangerous. Unless we understand the nature of an ethic, compared to a code of ethics, and morality, we will never get to the heart of the mythology/symbolism and social code of, ‘don’t dob’.

Now, I don’t care if you come out with a ‘you beaut’ dobbing app, it doesn’t matter about anonymity either. Asking workers to dob on each other as if safety is paramount demonstrates little idea about the nature of culture, morality or ethics. This is why the deontological ethic of: duty, compliance, ‘do the right thing’ and ‘check your gut’ is so pathetic and misleading. It is naïve in the extreme to expect a person who has been brought up for 25 years of ‘don’t dob’ to then be told, ‘dob in your mate’. Perhaps do some reading on the nature of social contract ethics (https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory).

‘Dob in lines’ and whistleblower lines leave a trail of injured people whenever they are used. If you want to psychologically harm people, that’s the way to go about it. This is also why ‘zero vision’ ideology is dangerous. Zero ideology promotes such simplistic ideas of how people organize and how culture is embedded. In the end, zero ideology harms people, ha! Zero harm.

One thing for sure, you won’t find anyone in safety discussing ‘the collective unconscious’ as a critical characteristic of culture. When culture is ‘what we do around here’ you dumb it down to kindergarten level, when culture is a wicked problem (https://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf ).

Every time we do the MIProfile survey in organisations (https://www.humandymensions.com/services-and-programs/miprofile/) we find under-reporting as one of the major concerns. This is exponentially worse in zero vision organisations. When you set up a culture of: brutalism, duty, ‘do the right thing’ and ‘check you gut’ you: fragment culture, set people against each other and create a culture of hiding. Well done Zero, you’ve done it again.

The by-product of anything zero makes fallible organizations: more fragile, persons more fallible and, psychological harm spirals out of control. This explodes when zero is combined with ‘dob in a mate’. Of course, the elephant in the room with anything in safety is: blame , shame and inflame.

Here is a bit of reading on dobbing and Australian mythology:

· https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-ramifications-of-dobbing-for-australians-20070121-ge41b7.html

· https://dynamicbusiness.com.au/topics/news/dobbing-culture-workplace-bullying-1412.html

· https://aaref.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/15-4.pdf

· https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/australian-culture/australian-culture-do-s-and-don-ts

Unfortunately, none of this is a laughing matter, but it is laughable when I see safety crusaders come out with si
mplistic black and white notions of actions and culture, that actually make safety worse. One thing is for sure, if you are concerned about under-reporting and risk, you will find no help in zero or a ‘dob in line’.

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