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-culturehttps://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

Popular posts from this blog

Curriculum and Bodies of Knowledge as Instructional Affordances

  Curriculum and Bodies of Knowledge as Instructional Affordances An affordance is created by design eg. a chair affords ‘sitting’ by design, a cup affords ‘drinking’ by design, a ball afford ‘kicking’ by design and water is designed for drinking and swimming. Understanding affordance is foundational to safety in design, usability and ethics. If one was talking about document usability and didn’t investigate affordances, I wouldn’t waste my time in its study. It is quite odd that Safety expects people to ‘speak up’ about un-safety when the culture of blaming common in safety suppresses it. Blaming and shame create psychological affordances. Slogans create affordances like; ‘safety is a choice you make’, ‘all accidents are preventable’ create a belief state that confirms and affirms safety myths about determinism and power. Such slogans hide beliefs that shape thoughts and actions. If you want to understand the nature of affordance, the following are helpful: · Letiche, H., ...

Zero to HRO (High Reliability Organisation)

Despite all the latest trendy  spin about safety disruption  the language in this paper was considered to be too “inflammatory” for publication in a mainstream traditional Safety Journal (download it and you will see why) – so it gives me great pleasure to publish it here: Zero to HRO (High Reliability Organisation) Abandoning antediluvian accident theory DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER HERE:   Zero-to-HRO.docx (33 downloads) Abstract The recent resources boom in Australia saw a commensurate focus on occupational health and safety management. It also presented a unique opportunity to generate transformational change using a process and evidence based approach. However, direct observation of activities and anecdotal evidence from colleagues on various projects, indicates there has been a significant resurgence of traditional accident theory. This has been supplemented with an array of nebulous soft systems change management processes, which includes the ubiquitous co...

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...