What can Safety Learn from Law and Politics??

Being someone who isn't motivated (primarily) by perceived 'power' or 'status' I have never truly engaged with the concepts of Law or Politics. They always seemed, to me at least, to be 'tools' that are used to attain desired outcomes, be that cultural/societal rules (as with law), or individual control and power over society, thereby directly influencing aforementioned rules. My thoughts around politics, and therefore politicians, were borrowed from Billy Connelly (I believe it was him), when he said, "Don't vote, it only encourages them!" I'm not sure if the basic premise around politicians being untrustworthy and corrupt has changed so much over time!

However, as I get older my interest in concepts of 'law', 'rules' and meta-narratives around how societies (groups of individuals) function is being piqued. Working as I do in Safety Management and Leadership, adherence to rules, regulations and orders is axiomatic, however, it’s ‘how’ these rules, regulations and orders are brought about that I find fascinating. I’m still developing my thoughts and opinions around these concepts, however, my predisposition for more ‘human-centred’ safety approaches such as New View and HOP appears to align quite nicely. Let me try to explain – please bear with me here!

As I understand it, the ‘Western World’ adopted and is built upon English Common Law, the underlying (meta) concept being one of Individual Sovereignty and Freedom; the Law of the Land is bound inextricably to the respect of and for the individual/s, regardless of their inherent weaknesses and error proneness (I will come back to this at some point in reference to HOP). Democratic systems are (hopefully!) put in place to mediate absolute dominance of one person or political party over the many; these ‘rules’ take into account the fallibility and ‘error proneness’ of people in positions of power/influence i.e. politicians, heads of state etc. Opposition parties, freedom of speech, and voting processes; these can all be seen as artifacts of Individual Sovereignty and democracy.

It is my limited understanding that without such meta ideas such as Individual Sovereignty, people and by association states and countries, can begin to place the importance of the group (insert political ideology here) above the needs and responsibilities of the individuals. My understanding is that this sacrifice is made under the banner of group identity and improvement towards ‘order’; in whatever form that may take. The suffering of individuals is therefore ‘tolerated’ and possibly even rationalised for the greater good of the group identity. The 20th century has many cases that demonstrate this in all its brutal efficacy, Hitler, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot are a few of the prominent figures associated with totalitarianism. Essentially, it asserts control over the lives of citizens with strong central rule and dictates all aspects of the individual’s life via methods such as coercion and repression.

This is where I come to the crux of my post. And if you have made it this far, firstly congratulations, and secondly, this is where I ask for your assistance.

I am fortunate in my career to see how organisations interpret and implement control over the people that work for them; predominantly from the perspective of safety, however, this function can be seen as an extension of the broader management ‘culture’ within an organisation. And I have to say, there can be an uncanny resemblance to totalitarianism, obviously minus the associated atrocities as witnessed in the 20th century, but there can be a prevalence of some of the indicators:

- Methods of enforcement that include terror (losing one’s job) and persecution (lack of psychological safety via retribution, bullying, ‘in-group’ favouritism etc)

- Single mass party, typically led by a dictator (unempathetic blame focussed management only concerned with the ‘bottom line’)

- Monopoly on communications (corporate speak and ‘official’ communications)

It ‘appears’ to me, maybe naively, that the “safety” management of old (centrally controlled and highly compliance-based, and even more recently the ‘messiah’ style of leaders) bears a resemblance to these hall markers.

This is the longbow I am contemplating.

Is there anything companies can learn from the larger legal and socio-political landscape in relation to how the ‘people’ are treated? And if so, what might that look like? People may not be getting killed when they dare to err (make errors), however, my proposition is that the ‘corporate’ modern equivalent can be damaging also; segregation, ostracization, and ultimately removal from that organisation’s world (sacking).

I already stated my preference for safety management earlier, in relation to emerging safety science methodologies there is much to be said for Human and Organisational Performance, Safety Differently and other such enlightened ‘philosophies’. They ‘appear’ to be far more aligned with mentioned Individual Sovereignty as evidenced in the following ways:

- Acceptance of error (deviation from expected outcomes)

- Ability to learn to from that error, collectively benefiting the individual and group

- Acknowledgement of how context and systems affect/drive behaviour

- Acceptance of change and the continual need to learn (deference to individual expertise)

- How the reaction to undesired outcomes (mistakes/errors) has such a profound impact on whether you can continue to learn and improve.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, these thoughts are not particularly well articulated or executed in writing; also, my initial research into any correlation has been limited with little result to report. However, if anyone knows of any research that connects these concepts or wants to write a ‘Post’ with me in relation to this, then please get in contact. I am keen to explore this in more detail if possible.