Dr Rob Long’s New Book “For the Love of Zero” is hot off the the Press and I cannot wait to read it. It seems that, finally, the thinkers amongst us are realising the danger and absurdity of using impossible and negative terminology in programs and slogans aimed at motivating human behaviour, improving workplace culture and providing a safer work environment. The real worry is that these ridiculous safety slogans dominate high risk industries such as mining and construction! Nowhere else in society would you see such negative marketing campaigns – imagine how many customers QANTAS would lose if they had “ZERO CRASH” emblazoned on all their aircraft. The Zero Harm Zealots accuse people like Rob and I of advocating harm!! HUH??? Does Toyota advocate road fatalities because they don’t aim to make all their cars CRASH PROOF? They can aim to make all their vehicles as safe as practically and cost effectively possible and continuously improve those safety features, except for one critical component, they cannot redesign the NUT THAT HOLDS THE STEERING WHEEL!!!!!
Anyway………. the book is out and is being officially launched at the Wayside Chapel (one of Australia’s largest Community Crisis Centres), Kings Cross, Sydney on Friday 14 December at 3pm, a great place to launch a book on risk. Rob’s brother Graham, the CEO of Wayside Chapel, is going to launch the book. If people want to attend the launch they can rsvp to celia@humandymensions.com. Graham wrote the forward to the book and of course shows how the language of zero in Kings Cross is an absolute nonsense, positioned as they are in the midst of “harm central” in Australia. So if they don’t advocate zero, do they want people to be harmed?
Oh BTW, for those who reckon I only support Rob’s work for personal or financial gain – sorry, but NUH!!!!!
If you would like to buy a copy now just click on the image of the cover below.
More about the book:
For the Love of Zero, Human Fallibility and Risk
In a perfect world things don’t go bump and wheels don’t fall off, humans don’t make mistakes and people don’t suffer – but we don’t live in a perfect world. No amount of denial of human fallibility makes it so. We have hospitals, morgues and cemeteries that remind us that human life is not only finite but that suffering and risk test your attitude to learning. In the midst of human reality there are proponents claiming that ‘all accidents are preventable’ and advocating ‘zero harm’. Some organisations even reward employees for meeting ‘zero’ goals and thereby ‘prime’ workers to hide, deny and under-report harm.
This book is an extension of the previous book Risk Makes Sense: Human Judgement and Risk. There is no sense in total risk aversion or risk elimination. There is no learning without risk.
The absolute of ‘zero’ is actually not possible. There is no nothing. This is despite the fact that the word ‘zero’ dominates our culture, giving its name to everything from drinks, motorbikes and shops. There is no void and any effort to try and measure zero is affected by the efforts to measure it. Scientists can’t get to absolute zero (Zero Kelvin −273.15°). Yet there are many organisations and CEOs who set ‘zero’ goals for their organisations in the management of risk .
What do perfectionist goals do to humans? Do perfectionist goals motivate humans to learn? Do perfectionist goals set people up to fail? Why are absolute goals for perfection absent from all walks of life except mining and construction companies? Why do academics, teachers and sport coaches know that absolutes and perfection are de-motivating yet these organisations don’t? Why do psychologists associate perfectionism with mental health disorders yet some CEOs see perfectionism as healthy? Are such perfectionist goals applicable for themselves or only for others?
Much of the quest for zero is based on binary opposition thinking. This is black and white fundamentalist thinking. Binary opposition thinking can only imagine two options: if it’s not white, it must be black. You are either a good citizen or a terrorist. There are no ‘50 shades of grey’ in the ‘zero’ mind-set. One either sets a goal for harm or one must only have goals for ‘zero’. Such simplistic thinking is endorsed by language of entrapment to prove its own assumption. There are more sophisticated ways of thinking and speaking that make better sense of the real world and enable motivation and learning.
This book seeks to contribute to the debate about the value of zero harm as a goal and motivational tool to stimulate ownership in risk. The ever expanding-popularity of the mantra of zero harm across mining, building and construction and related industries has spread like an epidemic in the last 10 years. But is the concept all it’s claimed to be? Has the adoption of zero harm language been well thought through? Does the concept of zero harm inspire and motivate leadership, ownership and better practice? Does the discourse of zero harm promote the right outcome, or are there hidden dynamics associated with its promotion? What is the logic of zero harm? Is the ideology of zero harm ethical or helpful? Is the binary oppositional mindset that accompanies zero helping lead people to thinking, learning and dialogue about risk? Does the language of ‘zero’ perpetuate adversarialism? Could it be that the discourse of zero harm counter-intuitively stimulates the opposite of what it seeks to achieve? These and many more questions are answered by the discussion of this book.
Everywhere you look in the mining, building and construction industry you can see the advocacy for zero harm. The Queensland Government offer a Zero Harm at Work Leadership Program as part of their ‘zero harm strategy’, with more than 300 hundred members made up of nearly every company of significance in the state (http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/zeroharm/partners/index.htm ). You can find companies called Zero Harm and positions advertised as ‘Manager of Zero Harm’. There are advertisements for ‘zero harm auditing services’, ‘zero harm training’, ‘zero harm directors’ and ‘zero harm charters’. As you fly about Australia and walk through airport lounges the badging for zero harm is everywhere, on shirts, cups, drink bottles and every imaginable marketing trinket, but not on the airline marketing. The language of zero harm seems to be everywhere. Companies give out ‘zero harm safety awards’, speak about ‘designing zero harm’, ‘towards zero harm’ and ‘think zero harm’. Some even go to the absurd use of language, espousing such meaningless language as ‘beyond zero harm’.
So, in writing this book I may not be winning lots of friends and certainly am running against the tide. It would be easy to endorse the status quo and tell everyone what they want to hear, the language of simplicity seems so attractive and certainly a source of income in safety, security and risk consulting. If you want business in training in risk it seems you conform to and espouse zero harm or you don’t get the work. However, that would be counter to the evidence that shows that the ‘zero’ concept and ‘zero’ language are far from harmless or motivational.
This book seeks to show that the zero harm concept, zero harm discourse and zero harm ideology undermine a culture of learning in organisations. The book discusses issues to do with culture, language, motivation, goal setting, binary opposition, unconscious priming, cognitive dissonance, counter-intuitive dynamics and survey evidence on zero harm believability and ownership.
Whilst this book is primarily focused on risk and safety it is important to realise that any discussion of zero extends way beyond such interests. As the issues of zero and risk are discussed it is important to remember how other areas of business such as quality, sustainability, environment, management, leadership and health might also be influenced by this ideology.
This is a book for the fallible, the human and those committed to learning.
Rob has given me quite a few copies of his book to give away to supporters so if you would like a free copy CLICK HERE to find out how.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Hmmm…Why do we start our profession accepting the the phenomenon of ”ALARP”and now confusing ourselves that ”ZERO” target is achievable.. we are denying our selves of being realistic..What HSE managment…and why do we even use the managment????
I am a proud Influencer and that is being realistic with the intearctions between humans,envionment,equipment,materials etc is respected..
I whole heartledly agree about the “Impossiblity” of attaining the goal of “Zero Accidents” over a long sustained period of time anyway, especially a global company with 100,000 plus employees all over the world across many different safety cultures and idealogies and types of business units. How can “Zero Accidents” be a real goal in a world where reality rules? How can employees take such an “impractical” goal of “Zero Accidents” seriously and anyone who pushes or shoves such an idealogy down their throats for that matter? It’s a goal that can only be attained within minds and not in the real working world. To make matters even worse we’re told the company WILL be at “Zero Accidents” by 2015! I think a more realistic and honorable goal to strive for would be “Zero Deaths” first!
Knew there was issues with the concept of Zero harm being bantered around as a logo by management when it all first started. Upper management in mines have set themselves up for failure. “We are going to have zero incidents!” then they once one occurs, again get up on their soap box and gut the guys on the ground with their rubbish how this is unacceptable and everyone is someway to blame. Without the evidence to back it up I would consider it likely that many middle management and upper mangement types have used a strong personality along with the Zero Harm Football to gain prestige and Browny Points in there climb up the corperate ladder. The more intelligent, rational and orignial managers of organisations would not use the Zero Harm Football and have it plastered everywhere as a logo for their comany.
Sure, all our safety goals are to have no injuries and incidents (definately agree). This is only achieved by the development and continued maintenance of a robust site SHMS. A robust SHMS is very hard to achieve, takes good management and good individuals busting their gut and working as a team continually. Not throwing a poster up Zero! on the wall or a patch on a work shirt. Whats wrong with “Safely Working Together”
Hello Brian – thankyou very much for being inspired enough by my opening forward, as negative as it is, to take the time to comment. My name is Dave Collins, my email is admin@safetyrisk.com.au I will even give you my phone number if you would like it and you may call and speak with me anytime you wish. I work for myself as I am severely disillusioned by corporate thinking and the YES MEN that fuel it. We have lost our ability to think outside the square, to speak our minds and stand up for what we believe in. I have been doing this blog for a while and have a daily audience of 10′s of 1000′s (so you are now famous!). I have learned that the only way to get people to think properly and for themselves is to poke them with a stick, to challenge them, to get them fired up. You really think I would have got you or anyone else to read the article let alone make a comment with a forward like “Hey um, excuse me, if you have the time, you should think about reading this book – it is really quite good” – NUH!!!! Tripe is really quite nourishing once you know how to prepare it properly so that it is a little more tasty and get over the thought of where it comes from
Have a great day and I hope that I have encouraged you to think a little differently – commenting on my blog and having a go at me is really quite exhilarating isnt it? 
I hope to hear from you again soon.
Although I don’t have an opinion either way on whether a ‘zero harm’ safety mantra is effective or not, I wonder about those who are so militant in their opposition to it.
The author of the blog above (I can’t see who it is stated anywhere on the blog) uses extremely negative language in the opening forward. Terms like ‘the thinkers amongst us’ ‘zealots’ and ‘ridiculous slogans’ do nothing to debate the topic and only insult those who may have a different perspective.
I’ll enjoy reading your book Dr Long, but will enjoy more not reading the tripe on this blog.
There has long been a disconnect between the well meaning aspirations of health and safety personnel and the knowledge of risk personnel that zero risk does not exist.
The dilemma is more evident when you cover both areas.
Well said Gary and workers know it. When leaders talk such nonsense they simply disconnect themselves with the workforce and disengage with reality. What’s more the workforce know that the espoused words of the so called leadership don’t apply to them, the zero mantra only applies to workers not to leaders who make mistakes.
Unlike some other well known posters, I have always said that there can be no “zero” when dealing with the unpredictable nuances of the human mind and the human body, let alone environmental issues such as weather.
All we can reasonably do is to reduce risk to as low as possible. If there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of something occuring, then there will still be that “1″ to deal with at some point. Only absolute elimination is capable of reducing the risk to zero, all other mechanisms at our diposal carry some sort of implied level of risk.
{ 2 trackbacks }