Good Grief

Good Grief…

Max Geyer was a gentleman, an archetypal family guy, a real giver and a lover. After commencing formal post-graduate studies at the age of 59, Max would often joke that he needed to live until the age of 200, just to read all of the books that he had accumulated. Sadly, this wish didn’t come true and we bid farewell to Max in August 2017.

As I stood alongside so many others at his funeral and watched as his coffin departed, never to be seen again, I welled up inside with pain. A pain that was so deep that words aren’t able to adequately describe it. When we experience such a loss, what is it that wells up inside us?

Later that night, while sitting alone and reflecting on the day and on my friendship with Max, I experienced both an intense feeling of heartache and also found myself chuckling and smiling (as I recalled some of Max’s quirky ways). What was that about? Our bodies often physically react when we feel this type of emotional pain, why is this? Is it a lack of control? Could it be the mystery of our unconscious telling our bodies; “you need this”?

Many questions emerge following the loss of a loved one and the associated grief; how do we make sense of this?

Perhaps such ‘sense’ can only be made paradoxically and with faith? Is it only when we accept a way of living that is capable of holding thoughts of ‘both-and’, that we can begin to make sense of grief? Without faith[i], how can we cope with the challenge of this paradox? We can have no ‘knowledge’ of what happens when we die, it is a mystery? Feasibly then, faith is a way of dealing with such a mystery? Faith (not answers) helped me make sense of Max’s death, otherwise how could I make sense of such a loving human being taken from this world?

So, what of this paradox of grief?

Firstly, we know grief hurts. It’s the type of pain you may feel in your heart, chest and gut, often simultaneously. Yet as Tournier (1981) suggests, intriguingly grief may also “create an occasion or potential for growth, learning and creativity”; although this is not guaranteed, nor is it necessarily causal[ii]. With such contradictory potentials, of both pain and growth, making sense of the paradoxical nature grief is challenging. How so?

Not surprisingly, grief caused by the passing of a loved one is considered one of the most stressful events in life. In fact, according to the well-respected Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, two of the top five most stressful things we can experience involve the loss of another person. So, if we follow Tournier’s suggestion, two of life’s most stressful events could lead to growth and learning; it sounds incongruous? Perhaps also incongruously, yet at the same time understandably, is that we spend much of our time striving to prevent, avoid or deny grief. Is this because we don’t acknowledge the idea of dialectic[iii] in our sensemaking. Why do we seek to prevent the pain in living?

The initial period after a loss may bring with it an assortment of seemingly uncontrollable and unrelenting emotions and feelings; of sorrow, sadness, isolation and of loneliness. There may also be fear; of our own mortality, of the unknown and of the uncertainty in how life will now play out. All of these feelings seem to come naturally and, although they are not necessarily welcomed, they are mostly expected. Knowing that these are feelings we are likely to experience after a loss, why do we still find it challenging to make sense of them?

Could it be that because as a (western) society we have become so attuned to making sense of things predominately through the lens of logical, reductionist and cogent thought? Does this cloud our sensemaking? How can something such as grief, so permeated with emotion and feeling, be understood (only) in this way? There is no ‘both-and’, when the answer we seek is black or white. What might it mean for ‘sensemaking’ if we were to consider an understanding of grief, where both black and white coexisted?

As we begin to explore this, let’s take a deeper look at what we mean by grief.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross is one of the pioneering authors on the topic of grief and loss and her contemplations on the topic are helpful. In On Grief and Grieving (2014), Kubler-Ross and co-author David Kessler describe grief as:

“It’s the opening up to the exquisite pain of absence. It’s the moment when you stop trying to move on or change how much it hurts and just let it out.” (p.xiii)

Kubler Ross’ first book on the subject was On Death and Dying (1969), it was the pre-curser to On Grief and Grieving. It included the ‘five stages of grief’ which are; Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. I will look at just one of these, depression, in order to explore the paradoxical nature of grief.

However, before I do, I want to highlight that while the five stages are both plausible and useful, a word of caution for those who are easily tempted into standardised approaches for such challenges in life; these stages are not (necessarily) linier, nor predictable, and they are certainly not guaranteed. Kubler-Ross suggests that they are much messier than that, however at the same time, they can provide a useful way for us to understand and explore what is happening when either we, or others are experiencing grief. For example, she notes about depression associated with grief:

“As tough as it is, depression can be dealt in a paradoxical way. See it as a visitor, perhaps an unwelcome one, but one who is visiting whether you like it or not. Make a place for your guest. Invite your depression to pull up a chair with you in front of the fire, and sit with it, without looking for a way to escape. Allow the sadness and emptiness to cleanse you and help you explore your loss in its entirety. When you allow yourself to experience depression, it will leave you as soon as it has served its purpose in your loss. As you grow stronger, it may return from time to time, but that is how grief works” (p.22)

Could it be that depression from grief, understood paradoxically, is something that, while it may ‘cleanse us’ and create the potential for growth (Tournier), is something we would likely reject if presented with such an offer?

If we can move forward with this paradoxical idea of grief and its potential in mind, what ought we do if our aim is to support others who experience grief and hence create their own potential for growth, learning and creativity?

Firstly, I’ve written previously about the need to be cautious when ‘helping’ so to avoid the pitfalls of ‘fixing’ people. This sounds like such simplistic advice; not to fix and instead to listen to & ‘meet’ others, however it’s much harder said than done, especially in western societies. Yet, it remains fundamental if our aim is to support others. How may this play out?

I recently read this story about a man whose wife had experienced severe depression for some time and she regularly had thoughts of suicide. He was honest in explaining the challenges he experienced as he aimed to help and support his wife, admitting that it;

“Doing something” meant reminding her of all the reasons it was worth staying alive – how good we had it, how much our families loved us, how much there was to look forward to. It almost became a script, a choreographed dance: she told me she felt suicidal; I tried to overwhelm her feelings with why she shouldn’t feel that way. It never convinced her of anything. But on that afternoon, exhaustion had beaten me down into shutting up. I sat quietly and held her hand.”

This exhaustion meant that;

I hadn’t said a word. It dawned on me how little I had been listening to her, without judgment or rush to action. She didn’t need me to tell her that everything was going to be OK. That didn’t help. She needed me to hear her pain. Being heard somehow made it more manageable.

On that afternoon, I finally learned that when any of us is in pain, the greatest gift you can give is to listen, patiently and purely.

What a telling insight into how to support others experiencing depression. An insight gained by way of experience and reflection. I wonder, why it feels so counter intuitive to many of us to just sit and listen? Also, why are we so quick to leap into action, rather than allowing people to ‘wrestle in the mud’ as they experience pain? Perhaps there is much we can all learn from reflecting on this story?

So, what else can we do if our aim is to support others through grief, even if it may feel uncomfortable and counter intuitive? McKissock and McKissock (2012) in their book Coping With Grief suggest that:

“It is important for support people to understand the benefit of crying, and not only allow it, but on occasions facilitate tears by asking the right kinds of question – those that most others avoid for fear of upsetting bereaved people” (p.25)

How common is it for us to reach for a tissue when sitting with someone experiencing grief, with the aim solely (and quickly), of stopping the flow of tears? What is our aim in interrupting this experience of grief?

As McKissock and McKissock further note:

“In conjunction with emotional responses to grief there are a host of physical responses, all of them designed to reduce pain to a manageable degree. When someone we love dies, our body produces a number of narcotic-like chemicals similar to heroin and morphine. These pain-killing chemicals help to produce the numbing experience most of us feel at the beginning. For those who cry, these chemicals are released in tears, which is why it is important for others not to try to prevent crying” (p.24)

Beyond trying to stop tears, we are often also compelled to ‘help’ in order to relieve others from the pain associated with grief. This may for example, see us quickly stepping in to take on chores with the aim of providing reprieve from mundane activities. However, this is where we need to further remind ourselves of the paradoxical nature of grief, and as McKissock and McKissock posit:

“Gardening, housework, bathing the dog, mowing the lawn, washing the car are all activities that can help. However, these are usually the things that family, friends and neighbours tend to do as their way of saying ‘I care’. It would probably be more helpful if they did these things with us, instead of for us.” (p.27)

It would seem that if we are to support others in grief, we need to surrender our own needs or desires and instead envisage the needs from the perspective of others, as tricky and contradictory (‘both-and’) as this may be.

Experiencing grief, particularly after the loss of someone close, can be one of the most painful and stressful experiences in our lives, yet may also lead to growth. This is not a thought that is easily grasped nor embraced. Our western society is dominated and entrapped by messages of ‘prevention’, of ‘no or zero harm’ and of a ‘never-ending search for happiness’. While it is not plausible to me to conjure up the thought where I actively seek pain and grief, what I recognise is that when grief does come to visit, it brings with it a gift, that if accepted, just may “create an occasion or potential for growth, learning and creativity”.

Good grief, what a conundrum.

How do you make sense of grief?


Robert Sams

[i] As described by Ellul in his exert Belief and Faith: “Faith constrains me above all to measure how much I don’t live by faith; how seldom faith fills up my life. Faith puts to the test every element of my life and society; it spares nothing. It leads me ineluctably to question all my certitudes, all my moralities, beliefs, and policies. It forbids me to attach ultimate significance to any expression of human activity. It detaches and delivers me from money and the family, from my job and my knowledge. It is the surest road to realizing that “the only thing I know is that I don’t know anything.” Faith leaves nothing intact. The only thing faith can bring me to recognize is my impotence, in incapacity, my inadequacy, my incompleteness, and consequently my incredulity (naturally faith is the most unerring and lethal weapon against all beliefs).”Source: J. Ellul, Belief and Faith. You can download the paper this quote was noted in HERE (accessed 28/09/2017).

[ii] As Tournier, in Creative Suffering (1981, p.18) notes when referring to the work of Dr Haynal: “There is a relationship between the processes of bereavement, loss, deprivation, and creativity. He carefully refrains from saying that it is a relationship of cause and effect. The person matures, develops, becomes more creative, not because of the deprivation in itself, but through his own active response to misfortune, through the struggle to come to terms with it and morally to overcome it – even in spite of everything there is no cure.

[iii] “Dialectic, then is not just a way of reasoning by question and answer. It is an intellectual way of grasping reality, which embraces the positive and the negative, white and black… It includes contradictory things that do not exclude one another but coexist. Hence a system of vigorous thought ought to take account of both the yes and the no without ruling out either, without choosing between, since every choice excludes on part of reality.” Source: J. Ellul, What I Believe, trans. G. W. Bromiley (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott Publications, 1989), 31. You can download the paper this quote was noted in HERE (accessed 28/09/2017).




Reflections of a Great Mate – Max Geyer

Finding the Right Words

Our dear friend Max Geyer passed away peacefully during the morning of 2nd August 2017 after a short period of illness. His passing, while no real shock when considered from a medical perspective, was certainly something that shook the people who loved Max. He was the kind of guy who attracted friends easily; it wasn’t hard to love Max.

He shared his time with so many people, he was understanding, curious and welcoming. Most would describe him as a lover; of life, of family and of ‘living’.

This is a short tribute to a dear friend. A friend that has had a positive impact on the life of so many people, least of all De’s and mine. As I try to find words that fit such a decent man, I know that I will fall short. As Polanyi suggests; ‘we know more than we can say‘, however, I will do my best to remember the life of a lovable character, of a friend and of a true family man. That is, the life of Max Geyer.

Max, Sylvia and a Special Family

There was nothing Max valued more than his special family, that included at its nucleus his dear wife Sylvia (or as Max affectionately called her, ‘Sylvie’), his daughters Brooke and Nicole, and their husbands Sven and Leighton. A real joy too were his five little grandchildren who he affectionately referred to as ‘life’s little vitamins‘; thus the energy that Max received when in their presence.

Max was; a husband, a father, a ‘Grampy’ and to many, a dear friend.

It is Max’s special ‘Sylvie’ though that really stole and held his heart for most of his life. When you are in the presence of these two caring people, you know that you in the midst of a loving bond that is as strong as any other. When I think of Max and Sylvie together, I’m reminded of the words of a special bloke from Kings Cross (see below) who once wrote; “when two people get married, they don’t become ‘one’, they become ‘us’.” Max and Sylvie were the epitome of this.

Max pictured here with his dear ‘Slyvie’ at a charity dinner for Fiji Kids. Fiji holds a special place in both Max and Sylvie’s heart as they have many friends in the area.

A Love of Learning, Reading…. and Playing!

I don’t know too many people who, in their late 50’s, decide to embark on a formal course of study and commence post-graduate studies at University – enter Max Geyer!

Max had a lifelong passion for learning, mostly done through the many and varied experiences of ‘living’. Max was not afraid to embrace risk when it came to learning, however commencing formal University studies at a time when most people are thinking toward retirement, now that was ‘risk in action’!

Max completed the Post-Graduate Diploma in the Social Psychology of Risk, studying under Dr Rob Long. I was fortunate to share in many of the formal learning experiences with Max; attending classes, writing essays, reading so many books and of course sharing in much conversation. I was also fortunate to be there on the day Max graduated. Max was delighted that we graduated at one of his most special places, The Wayside Chapel in Sydney’s Kings Cross.

It was a proud day for Max and ‘Sylvie’, but it would also have been for Max’s Dad, who only a few years earlier, and before he died, encouraged Max to go onto more formal studies. I remember Max telling us that he really only decided the day before he commenced this course, that he was going to do it, talk about risk! But what a risk it was; it would not be an understatement to describe it as a life changing course of study and for those of us fortunate enough to share in the learning with Max, it will be remembered forever!

Max pictured here on Graduation Day with Dr Rob Long, a proud moment for many people.

Max was also a cheeky bugger, always seeking to have fun and share in that fun with others. There are countless stories that could be shared, and I’m sure in time they will be; about how Max could really lift the mood of any gathering,  with his cool (well in his mind anyway…) ‘Dad Jokes’, through a story about his many experiences (there were no shortage!) or just his infectious smile. Max loved to ‘play’ and always encouraged others to join in the fun.

Max, GabStar, James and I presented at a Social Psychology Conference in Newcastle in 2015. This photo is typical of these three fun loving people, always looking to have a laugh and share in the fun of life.

Max’s Work and Writing

Max worked in a wide range of roles including front line worker, overseer, work group leader/manager, senior manager and senior consultant. He had experience across diversified fields covering livestock management, mining, training and business process improvement, plus WH&S, HR and Quality systems auditing, design, implementation and management. He worked all across Australia with so many different people. Max was one of those who I think you could affectionately call a ‘Jack of All Trades‘.

It is in his later years of work, both during and after the study noted above, that I was able to regularly enjoy working alongside Max. As a consultant, Max was passionate about serving clients, and he made a real effort in getting to know people personally, developing relationships; not just doing a job, but helping people with their needs.

Through his study and work, Max became an avid reader and then writer, often sharing his thoughts on the Blog site of our great mate Dave Collins. There is a section of the website dedicated to Max’s writings which you can access by clicking on the image below.

Max also enjoyed a chat! It seems that there were very few people who Max would not be able to engage in conversation with. He was never short of a yarn about this (or that), his life was so full of experiences and stories. I had the privilege of sharing in many, many conversations with Max. One particularly cool one was during a video we call ‘Conversations on the Couch‘. We did this back in 2015 during the thick of our studies. You can enjoy our chat by clicking on the image below.

Sharing the Love – With Those by ‘The Wayside’

One of the great experiences of the study described above is the experiential component of the learning. For Max, I’d suggest his favourite, and certainly most memorable experiential learning, was a visit to The Wayside Chapel, which had a special place in Max’s heart.

The visit to The Wayside came early on in the ‘learning adventure‘ for Max and as part of this he was introduced to a man that would take an incredible hold of Max’s heart and provide it with much pleasure. That man is the Pastor and CEO of The Wayside, Graham Long (Rob’s brother).

We were fortunate during our study to hear Graham share some of his thoughts on life and ‘living’. Graham is a gently spoken man with a cheeky chuckle and infectious laugh. He spent around an hour with our cohort of keen students, sharing wisdom about life and The Wayside. This would be one hour that would impact Max for the rest of his life, and even into death (Graham will reside over proceedings at Max’s funeral).

You can hear for yourself this chat with Graham in this video ( If you listen closely enough, toward the end, you will hear some questions from Max. He learnt a thing or two from Graham and so many others at The Wayside over the past few years.

One of the things I loved, and will miss about Max, is his contemplation and then sharing of Graham’s weekly letter to his ‘Inner Circle‘. Each week Graham writes a short letter to supporters of The Wayside and distributes it by email and on Facebook. Every week Max would wait, keen in anticipation of the letter, and look forward to firstly reading it (usually he said, with a tear in his eye), and then thinking about a way to sum up what Graham said in a sentence or two of his own and then ‘paying it forward’. Max was such a sharing person, and each week he couldn’t wait to share Graham’s words with those he loved. Such was Max.

Max pictured here ‘getting his wings’ at Sydney’s The Wayside Chapel.

Max Geyer was a true ‘giver’ too, always thinking of others. In this picture, he is presenting a special book to Dr Rob Long that Max arranged to have signed by the US based author Karl Weick, one of Rob’s favourites. Rob was touched by the gift, I know it means so much to him and Max was just as thrilled in the giving as Rob was in the receiving.

Editor in Chief

In early 2016, I had this idea to write a book. I’d been writing Blog articles for quite a while and had amassed quite a few, so thought it would be a good idea to put these together, along with stories shared by some friends (including Max) into a book. Well, writing the articles seemed the easy task, putting a book together in a way that was at least partly comprehensible was a much bigger task.

Well established Authors have the luxury of a professional Editor. I had on the other hand, someone with the passion, the love and importantly the time of Max Geyer; Editor in Chief of Social Sensemaking. I could never repay Max for the time he spent helping me put the book together, and I know that I don’t need to. However, it goes without saying that the book would not have been created without the support, encouragement and hard work of Max.

Max and I spent months pouring over content for the book, discussing, debating and deliberating. Max was so patient and enthusiastic and his attention to detail was a great compliment to my eagerness to ‘get on with the job’. Goodness knows how many spelling (and other) mistakes would have been included if it were not for Max’s persistence and hard work. I will be forever grateful for Max’s friendship and support during this period.

It was a proud day that Max and I launched our book to the world. I remember him being excited at many steps along the way, even minor moments  when we finally got our Dewey Number!

A Poem for Max

On the day that Max died, I took some time out and drove to a local beach where I sat and reflected for a little while. I’d been encouraged recently in such moments to write down words that come to mind, so I did. The result was a short poem, the words to which are included below as a final tribute to such a special bloke and friend.

A friend, a learner, a lover
Forever thinking of the other.
You now have your ‘wings’ and you are free
Max Geyer, our dear friend, in peace you will be.

A bridge you said, bought people together,
When others were in need, you’d never say never.
So many memories in which we share,
You taught us so much about how to care.

RIP our dear friend. You’ll be forever missed, but the memories we hold dear.

We Love You.

End of Financial Year Sale & Supporting Lifeline

All Purchases Will be Donated to Lifeline

To coincide with my new role at Lifeline, we are offering visitors to the Dolphyn website a 30% discount on Social Sensemaking. More importantly, all money from all sales of Social Sensemaking during June and July 2017 will be donated to Lifeline Hunter Central Coast (see –

What is the Book About?

After a lifetime of working in Risk, Safety and Human Resources, the Contributors to this book take time out to reflect on these fields. They ponder why there is such a fixation on control and power; this ultimately restricts people’s thinking, autonomy and hence motivation and innovation. It seems that the seduction to want to reign in and control people, is difficult to resist in many organisations.

This book, and the idea itself of Social Sensemaking©, was born from a search for a more humanistic approach and methodology to supporting people to deal with risk. That is because in order to make sense of risk, we need to converse with others and more communality; ‘sensemaking’ is a social activity.

The book is written in the form of a ‘reflective journal’; it is not a text or a report on formal research. Instead, it is a collaboration of stories and experiences in how we make sense of decisions and judgments; particularly about risk. It questions the traditional controlling and dictating methods that can be too easily adopted by the Risk, Safety and HR fields, and offers ideas that are more ‘humanising’.

We invite you to join in the ‘learning adventure’ shared in the book while at the same time supporting the important work of Lifeline in our local community.

What are People Saying About the Book?

You can read a review of the book by Dr Robert Long HERE.

Humanising Workers Compensation

A Humanising Approach

James Ellis from Framework Group and I recently had the privilege of meeting a new group of people and sharing in a learning experience where our focus was on a more humanising approach to workers compensation and injury management.

The Workshop was held at Sydney’s iconic The Wayside Chapel, a place where ‘humanising‘ is lived and experienced, not just spoken about. It is an ideal venue to see first hand how treating people with dignity, and encouraging autonomy in decisions can make a significant impact on people’s lives; this is what we aim to provoke in these workshops. So how did it play out?

Day one started with introductions, to both each other and to The Wayside. We then quickly moved into our first experiential learning activity, a Wayside Walk, lead by the infamous Rob Holt who showed us through ‘The Cross’, sharing some of ‘his story’ of living on the streets in and around The Cross for around three years. Rob was formerly a senior corporate manager with one of Australia’s most well know organisations, and his story from the heights of the corporate world to living rough on the streets is one that is likely impact on most of us.

Rob got into some pretty bad ways, mixing with drug dealers, Bikies and violent people. He decided he wanted a change though, and it was The Wayside’s mission of ‘creating community with no us and them‘ that provided the space and the opportunity for Rob to do this. As Rob says:

“When I came to Wayside, Graham and I sat down in the old Chapel and it was here I poured my heart out to him. I wanted to end it all; end the drinking and pot smoking; end the rut I had been living for the last couple of months. I was living a life I could no longer accept. I had hit rock bottom. I’m not sure what I was expecting from Graham or how he and Wayside could help me. I remember clearly Graham assuring me that I had made the first and most difficult move by admitting where I was at and that I needed to make a change”. (

Rob’s is a story of acceptance and of change. He no longer wanted to live a life that was heading in only one direction, and it wasn’t upwards. It wasn’t The Wayside who changed Rob though, he had to do that hard work himself. However it was the environment created and the community spirit that is lived by those who visit and work there that provided Rob with the perfect setting to create a new life for himself. And what a life that is; one that is now focused on supporting others who may want to do the same thing. Rob’s a special bloke.

After the tour, we had lunch in The Wayside Cafe sitting with the many other people who visit each day. Someone asked us; “can you tell the difference between people who are paid to be here, those who volunteer their time and those who are visitors?”. It was hard to distinguish between the different people.

The next day and a half were spent sharing our experiences, our learning and some different methods for how we can take the ‘humanising’ approach adopted by The Wayside and put these into practice in the areas of workers compensation and injury management. Further details of our approach and the workshop are outlined below.

So what is our program about?

Our Approach

We have a a unique model of injury management that allows our employer clients to maintain and enhance their relationships with their workers which, in turn, has positive organisational implications. We believe that injury management provides employers with a portal through which they can demonstrate how much they care about their team. We understand that mistakes and injuries are inevitable, because people are fallible, but this same fallibility provides opportunities for learning and enrichment of relationships.

What is Covered in the Workshop

During this Workshop, we share our ideas and experiences including:

  • An understanding of human motivation
  • The impact that our social environment (including culture) can have on Return to Work
  • A better understanding of decision making including from the perspective of people who are injured, doctors and other people involved in the process

Our approach is to value people and relationships more than (simply) process. Our goal is to facilitate recovery and prevention, in the context of learning. In fact, we have learnt that by humanising injury management, we can impact an organisation in a powerful way that can permeate and enhance the culture. We share Case Studies of how we have gone about it.

We know that workers compensation presents many challenges, some predictable however many that are not. We don’t promise predictability but we can help you to enhance your organisation’s resilience with respect to injuries. We believe it is possible to look after your staff before and after an injury in a way that improves morale, gives you back time in your day and also saves you money.

If you’d like to learn more about our approach or the Workshop, you can contact James on or me at

Finally, if this story has sparked some interest for in The Wayside and you would like to support the work done by the great group of people there, you can learn more about this HERE.

Robert Sams

Dolphyn Newsletter – May 2017

A Focus on Mental Health

A Change in Direction for Dolphyn’s Rob Sams – Working More Closely With Lifeline

Some of you may know of my association with Lifeline Hunter Central Coast (LLHCC) where I have been working as a volunteer Director since November 2012. From next month, I will be working more closely with LLHCC after agreeing to a secondment as Chief Executive Officer (CEO). I am looking forward to continuing to support Lifeline in this more hands on leadership role. It co-insides with my commencement as a volunteer Face-to-Face Counselor with Lifeline. It is a privilege to work in an organisation alongside so many other ‘helping’ people who follow such an important cause.

There are energising times ahead for Lifeline in Australia and it is with much pride that I continue my association with an organisation that exists for people and in community with them; especially at a time when they may need it the most. Lifeline is a ‘helping’ organisation, something that resonates well with our approach at Dolphyn. You’ll learn more about this as you read through this Newsletter.

What Does This Mean for Dolphyn?

The work of Dolphyn will continue as usual through members of our ‘Community in Practice’ including:

  • Hayden Collins from Risk Intelligence in Victoria
  • James Ellis from Framework Group in NSW
  • Gab Carlton from Resilyence in the ACT
  • Roy Fitzgerald from Meta Dymensions in WA

We will also continue with our new series of ‘Humainsing Workers Compensation’ Workshops (see below) that are being co-facilitated with James Ellis. Our next Workshop is being held at the iconic Wayside Chapel in Sydney’s Kings Cross. You can secure your place at this Workshop by clicking HERE.

On a personal level, I will continue to work with a few select long term clients including Harris Farm Markets, along with some exciting new work we are doing with the team at Bluescope Stee. l will also be continuing my role in supporting the Centre for Leadership and Learning in Risk.

It’s bound to be a busy and exciting twelve months ahead. The ‘adventure’ continues, thanks for being a part of it.

Rob Sams

You can read the Full Newsletter HERE


Celebrating Social Sensemaking

A Special Celebratory 30% Discount

To celebrate the one year anniversary of the Social Sensemaking script being sent to the editor, we are offering visitors to the Dolphyn website a 30% discount on your copy of Social Sensemaking.


What is the Book About?

After a lifetime of working in Risk and Human Resources, the Contributors to this book take time out to reflect on these fields. They ponder why there is such a fixation on control and power; this ultimately restricts people’s thinking, autonomy and hence motivation and innovation. It seems that the seduction to want to reign in and control people, is difficult to resist in many organisations.

This book, and the idea itself of Social Sensemaking©, was born from a search for a more humanistic approach and methodology to supporting people to deal with risk. That is because in order to make sense of risk, we need to commune and converse with others; it is a social activity.

The book is written in the form of a ‘reflective journal’; it is not a text or a report on formal research. Instead, it is a collaboration of stories and experiences in how we make sense of decisions and judgments; particularly about risk. It questions the traditional controlling and dictating methods that can be too easily adopted by the Risk and HR fields, and offers ideas that are more ‘humanising’.

We invite you to join in the ‘learning adventure’ shared in the book.


Safety Cries Wolf!

Why is Safety so easily sucked into the practice of creating fear? It must be challenging to constantly talk of ‘care’ while at the same time acting in a way that induces anxiety. How does Safety manage this contradiction? How does it cope with the tension? Does Safety understand what this is doing to people?

There are many challenging questions, they become even more challenging when Safety Cries Wolf!

We’ve all heard the children’s parables and cautionary tales that feature the fictional Big Bad Wolf. These are stories where the ‘Wolf’ seeks out either; a young girl in red, three sweet and innocent little pigs or seven young kids. In these stories the Wolf has just one simple goal; to in some way or another manipulate their victim, and then terrorize them. In some cases, this even involves eating their Grandmother!

Safety so often portrays itself as a ‘Big Bad Wolf’; targeting the helpless, the fragile and vulnerable, all in the name of ‘care’ of course. The Safety Wolf hunts for those; who are not expecting them, who seem not capable of understanding the complexities of the Wolf’s warped view of the world, and who are just trying to do their job. The Safety Wolf also has little ability to understand, nor does it have consideration for, how people live in ‘the real world’. For them, it’s Safety at all costs, strangely even if that means harming people along the way. It can be challenging to understand this absurdity in Safety.

The Big Bad Wolf of Safety pretends life isn’t grey and messy, they have eyes that can see only black and white. The ‘choice’ we have, is to be either the Safety Wolf’s enemy (e.g. ‘you don’t care about safety’ or ‘you choose against safety’), or be obedient to what the Safety Wolf expects. Anything in between these two clear options is simply too challenging for the Safety Wolf to understand. This would require an appreciation and acceptance of helplessness, vulnerability and of faith. The Safety Wolf has no time for, nor understanding of, such complexities, diversions and inefficiencies in life. They instead believe in process, rule and method; things that are considerably easier to ‘administer’, ‘enforce’ and ‘dictate’.

There is a problem though….

Click HERE to read the full article and learn more about the problem.


Advanced Return to Work Training – a humanising approach (Sydney)

Key Questions:

  • Are you frustrated by the workers compensation system and looking for more innovative and ‘humanising’ ways to navigate through it?
  • Are you interested in learning about motivation and how this can better support people with injuries?
  • Do you want to learn more about decision making by people involved with Return to Work including; people with injuries, doctors, insurers and the many others impacted by injuries?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, this Workshop may be for you.

The Workshop is being held at the iconic Wayside Chapel in Sydney which provides the perfect setting for a better understanding of people and a humanising approach.

Workshop Facilitators

This Workshop will be facilitated by James Ellis from Framework Group and Rob Sams from Dolphyn.

James and Rob provide a unique mix of both hands on experience and study in the fields injury management, physiotherapy, social psychology along with health, safety and well-being. The focus of their work is to develop a more humanising approach to Return to Work which seeks to benefit people who are injured at work along with their employer.

Looking for a Taste of What You Might Experience?

James and Rob prepared this short video a little while ago and they will give you an introduction to their approach.

James and Rob - Video Part 1

A Unique Approach to Injury Management and RTW

We have a a unique model of injury management that allows our employer clients to maintain and enhance their relationships with their workers which, in turn, has positive organisational implications. We believe that injury management provides employers with a portal through which they can demonstrate how much they care about their team. We understand that mistakes and injuries are inevitable, because people are fallible, but this same fallibility provides opportunities for learning and enrichment of relationships.

During this Workshop, you will learn more about our approach including:

  • An understanding of human motivation
  • The impact that our social environment (including culture) can have on RTW
  • A better understanding of decision making including from the perspective of people who are injured, doctors and other people involved in the process

Our approach is to value people and relationships more than process. Our goal is to facilitate recovery and prevention, in the context of learning. In fact, we have learnt that by humanising injury management, we can impact an organisation in a powerful way that can permeate and enhance the culture. We’ll share Case Studies of how we have gone about it.

We know that workers compensation presents many challenges, some predictable and many that are not. We don’t promise predictability but we can help you to enhance your organisation’s resilience with respect to injuries. We believe it is possible to look after your staff before and after an injury in a way that improves morale, gives you back time in your day and also saves you money

Who Would Benefit From Attending?

Anyone who has an interest in or works in the field of injury management and RTW will benefit from this Workshop. Specifically though, this would include:

  • Injury Managers
  • RTW Coordinators
  • HR Managers and Coordinators
  • Case Managers and other working in the insurance industry
  • Injury Treatment Providers and other medical practitioners
  • Rehabilitation Consultants
  • Health and Safety Personnel

What do you Receive?

All participants will receive:

  • Course material including notes and tools to support implementation
  • A copy of Robert Sams’ book Social Sensemaking in  which James has written a number of Chapters
  • Morning Tea, Lunch and Afternoon Tea on both days
  • Access to ongoing learning portals and material

The Pathway of Loneliness

It must be one of the great absurdities of our modern world; that in a time where our ability to ‘connect’ is so abundant, that we are perhaps lonelier, more isolated and insecure than ever. It’s a puzzling irony that while we can ‘connect’ to so many people, in so many ways, that this ‘connection’ may create loneliness.

Our lives are in danger of becoming divorced from any idea of community that is meaningful. In so many areas of our (modern) lives, the idea of community and ‘communing’ have given way to ‘likes’, ‘shares’ and ‘the privitisation of self’. Our (western) society, addicted to utility, entraps people into a world of efficiency, efficacy and ultimately loneliness. Let’s explore.

I had a chance catch up with Carol today, we hadn’t spoken for quite a while. There was no special reason for the catch up, yet it was special. She was bursting with pride and love, telling me about little Geraldine, her nearly three-year-old daughter. Carol is a single mum who works full time and she is feeling exhausted; yet at the same time energised. She talked of both the challenges as well as the joys of work, and of motherhood; both things providing (often simultaneously) enjoyment and struggle. Life is full of competing tensions,

Carol has little ‘down time’, yet still, she took the time to be with me. During our chat, I was concerned about nothing but Carol and it felt to me that Carol was the same. Perhaps this was a (risky) moment of ‘meeting’; a short time where it was just ‘us’? This ‘meeting’ required no agenda, minutes, or records; rather it required presence, trust and risk. Such moments of ‘us’ are rare, but when they arrive they feel like real ‘living’; I love them. I wish (and long) for more of them.

Maybe it is their rarity that make them so special? Perhaps too it is the faith in friendship and the risk of sharing our vulnerabilities with others that contributes to their specialness? To ‘meet’ with another requires a level of intimacy and openness that can leave you feeling exposed and weak. Faith is the only way that we can deal with this as there is no assurance nor certainty that others will not abuse us in moments where we reveal ourselves to them. Likewise, we don’t know how we will respond to others. Sounds risky.

We don’t talk of faith in risk and safety though, it’s as if they the industry is blindsided instead by belief: in systems, process and method. To change would require a ‘leap of faith‘, and that’s unlikely to occur anytime soon, as Safety continues to perpetuate an ideology of control, security and obedience. Safety won’t even move close to the edge of the cliff, let alone leap into the world of absurdity that is risk.

Yesterday, I was at a ‘gathering’ of another kind. While it was called a meeting, there was no ‘us’; instead countless moments of ‘I’ and ‘you’; assembled together in an appearance of us. The purpose of this type of gathering is to ‘produce’; measured by outcomes. This (so-called) meeting with its clear (and packed) agenda, started with the requisite pleasantries, creating an illusion of us. However, it moved quickly (and solely) to talk of productivity and actions. People like to leave ‘gatherings’ with a sense that risks are taken care of and controlled. When you leave a ‘meeting’, no such feeling is required.

Such gatherings often leave me feeling lonely and used (utility). Nevertheless, I still attend; I must. What’s more, I often find myself seeking them out. How strange?

I’ve come to realise that such gatherings are a necessity[1]; however, they also suck us of much life and ‘living’. They are not about people coming together as ‘beings’, rather they are an assembly of parts combining to ‘produce’. Yet, despite these gatherings often causing an empty feeling of utility, they can equally lead to a feeling of achievement. It’s strange how some reject the idea that life is interwoven with paradox…

These gatherings are an unescapable part of our existence, yet are the reason many choose no longer to exist. A meeting where there is no us, is no real ‘meeting’[2]; and despite the harmful feelings that such gatherings leave us with, we must continue to attend, it is part of living. We must also continue to take the risk and ‘meet’, in faith that others will not abuse such a gift. It is not easy.

We must also continue to wrestle with the challenges of being an ‘I’, in a world where true living requires ‘us’. Gatherings where the focus is on ‘I’ and ‘You’ naturally lead to loneliness, yet perplexingly, and at the same time, may also leave us with a feeling of accomplishment and safety.

Why are moments of ‘meeting’ so rare in our modern world?

Meetings of ‘us’ are not efficient, nor safe. Sure, they produce connection, but not ‘results’. Perhaps this is the reason we are so easily tempted toward ‘gatherings’, and further why there is so much talk of human performance and proficiency in our modern world; because we need to feel free of risk?

It is as if there is a deep force at play compelling us to feel productive in everything we do. Is it this force that steers us away from ‘meetings’? Are we enticed toward ‘gatherings’ because they (can) provide us with an illusion of ‘purpose’ and achievement? Perhaps ‘meeting’ is too costly? Maybe we want ‘cheap’ meeting, where it costs very little? There are so many questions.

Strangely (and paradoxically), despite being social beings, we seem to tolerate the lonely nature of ‘gatherings’, as we strive for a feeling of belonging and of security; a feeling that can be created when we ‘produce’ together. This is not the same type of belonging though that occurs when in moments of ‘us’. Perhaps both types of belonging are required, despite being so different?

In the face of the obvious answer to such a question, and regardless of the anxiety we may feel when we utilise each other to ‘produce’, we continue to expect proficiency, worth and safety in all areas of our lives. Feasibly, it is the tension that such expectations create, when compared with our lived experiences of; mistakes, fallibility, and hurt, that we must learn to co-exist with, as we desperately await the next (rare) moment of us (living)?

Can there be any true living without ‘us’ moments? Can we produce living? Perhaps real living is something that (only occasionally) emerges as we connect and bond with others?

When Carol and I ‘met’, there was no consideration of, or need for an outcome. Our ‘meeting’ wasn’t planned, nor was it expected. Challengingly, our next encounter may be different as we revert to the more commonly experienced moments of I/You; that’s life. Such moments are hard to escape in a world of necessity that is preoccupied with ‘producing’ and security. Loneliness though, is so often the unintended by-product; it must be.

This loneliness is an unavoidable part of what it means to be human, we are surrounded by it. Despite the social nature of our ‘being,’ we can easily spend much of our time on a pathway of loneliness and disconnectedness. Could this be an addiction?

Plausibly we are addicted to ‘producing’, thus leading to loneliness; all the while we crave connection and togetherness. Perhaps in a strange way, we are simultaneously both social and self-interested beings. Is it one of life’s great challenges that we must learn to live as an ‘I’ while seeking out special moments of ‘us’?

Life seems full of questions, here are just some that we can further ponder:

·       How do we resist the addiction of the pathway of loneliness?

·       Is the pathway of loneliness also a way of risk aversion?

·       What are the unconscious forces that drive us toward the pathway of loneliness?

·       What can we do when we see others being seduced by the pathway of loneliness?

·       What fears may you need to overcome to ‘meet’ rather than ‘gather’.

What challenging questions to grapple with. I guess that’s living?

Robert Sams



Book:               Social Sensemaking – Click HERE to Order

[1] Ellul, J. (1976)  The Ethics of Freedom. Eerdmans Publishing Company
[2] Long, G. (2013)  Love Over Hate. Finding Life by the Wayside  The Slattery Media Group

Chapter 21 – Are You Creating an ‘Obeyience Culture’

*A Free Chapter from Social Sensemaking by: Robert Sams and Max Geyer

“Culture as a collective programming of the mind thus plays an obvious role in motivation. Culture influences not only our behaviours, but also the explanations we give for our behaviours.”

Geert Hofstede in:
Culture and Organisations; Software of the Mind (2010, p. 327)

Are we compliant?

When I started consulting in risk and safety, people would regularly contact me and ask “are we meeting our legal requirements?” or “are we doing all we need to do, ‘under the law’”. Consulting in risk and safety seems to attract these questions, and people expect that this is an area I am interested in. After all, if you’re into safety, you must be focused on legislation, right?

When an organisation focuses only on legislation and rules, people are often treated as objects within a system. This is because the focus often becomes about the system and perfection and there is little understanding of how people make decisions and judgments. This may actually increase risk in an organisation because people work out of fear rather than understanding; follow process rather than thinking creatively; and are more concerned with perfectionism than learning.

This is why I’m not that into Safety anymore.

Some organisations are so fixated on meeting their legal requirements (and obeying ‘the system’) that they become blinded to the impact that this has on culture. Companies that focus their attention solely on a ‘system’ create a culture that demands obedience, in what I refer to as an ‘Obeyience Culture’ – obedience in the name of compliance.

This type of culture fosters fear, silence and blame; all of which lead to organisations where surprises are the norm, and unusual events appear from nowhere because people in those organisations do not reports mistakes, near misses or ‘oh dear’ moments. This is because this type of reporting is not how things are done in an ‘Obeyience Culture’ for fear of reprisal (blame, loss of bonuses, safety awards etc). So why do these organisations require obedience?

The reason is that leaders in such organisations believe that obeying instructions, following directions and adhering to rules is what the law requires. You will hear such leaders say things like “we just need clear guidelines, standards and processes, and people who will follow them”. Such leaders are treating people like robots expecting that they should do everything that is asked of them, without question. Rules are there to be followed.

In one recent organisation that I heard of, they developed ‘Sensible Standards’ that had to be followed, and they expected ‘uncompromising compliance’ (which meant a first and final warning if you didn’t follow the standards) from everyone. They told their front line supervisors (that to make it easy for them), that the supervisors had no discretion when it came to their people ‘breaking’ the standards. They were expected to punish people, no questions asked. The site leader added, ‘we are doing this to save lives; that’s what we are about’. I’ve become attuned to words like this, and I now listen for the discourse of these words. Words like this are a sure sign that this was an ‘Obeyience Culture’.

The irony is that organisations with an ‘Obeyience Culture’, do not deal with risk as we well as organisations with ‘learning cultures’. ‘Obeyience’ creates an environment that is structured, fixed and difficult to change (see Chapter 23). ‘Obeyience’ cannot entertain critical thinking because it cannot entertain being wrong. ‘Learning cultures’ instead provide an environment that is full of critical thinking and of challenging ideas and practices. They are nimble, creative and resilient. So organisations that strive to meet legal requirements and deal with risk through obedience, may well just be doing the opposite, because in those organisations people cannot learn and when they make mistakes, they must be punished.

So why are organisations and leaders seduced into thinking that an ‘Obeyience Culture’ will help them meet their legal requirements?

The seduction comes from the belief that employees obeying rules means that they, as leaders, are doing what the law requires them to do. This is often what is portrayed in various legal briefings and advice that is distributed to organisations and managers. We are constantly being advised that we must have and review policies, procedures and standards and we must create a culture where people follow them – ‘Obeyience’.

I understand why it is tempting for some leaders to focus on developing an ‘Obeyience Culture’, however I wonder though whether they stop to consider the by-products and trade-offs that are created by fostering such a culture?

The by-products and trade-offs include silence and under-reporting; no one wants to bring bad news or to highlight mistakes (breaches of ‘the rules’). However, there is a greater concern that leaders should be aware of, which is the power that they have over people and their behaviour when their focus is on obedience.

Milgram (2009) highlighted this in his social psychological studies in 1962 in which 40 people, all males, participated in an experiment that demonstrated what ‘ordinary’ people will do to each other when they are operating under the authority of another.

In his experiments, Milgram had actors, who were dressed in white coats to demonstrate authority, issue instructions to some of the participants to administer electric shocks to other participants when they answered incorrectly to questions they were asked. As people continued through the test they received increasingly higher doses of electric shock each time they answered incorrectly ( accessed 5th July 2016).

The people, who were receiving the supposed shocks, were not really strapped up to the electricity, but those who were administering the shocks believed that they were. They were told ‘they will learn more, because they get punished when they make a mistake’.

Of course, this was not the case at all; there was no learning for the participants who were receiving the supposed electric shock; the real learning related to how far people will go, and what they will do, when a person who is perceived to be in a position of authority, administers a command.

Milgram’s experiment provides a fascinating insight into the power of authority, and demonstrates just how obedient people will be, even when they feel uncomfortable, and don’t want to do what is asked of them.

So what can we learn in risk and safety from Milgram’s experiments, and what do they mean for organisations with an ‘Obeyience Culture’?

There are two key lessons for leaders to consider. Firstly, leaders should be aware and reflect on how their own authority and style may impact on the people they are leading. This can often be a difficult thing to detect. After all, if their style is to issue instructions and people always seem to follow these instructions, they may think everything is going fine.

Of course, if this is done in the social context of an ‘Obeyience Culture’, they will not hear from their team when things go wrong, because this is not the way things are done in an ‘Obeyience culture’. A lack of honest feedback is another by-product of an ‘Obeyience Culture’. If you are a leader and you rarely hear of problems, mistakes or errors from your team, you should be concerned that you may have created an ‘Obeyience Culture’.

Secondly, leaders need to be aware of and reflect on the overall culture of their organisation. Leaders in an ‘Obeyience Culture’ may themselves be fearful of the ramifications of not meeting their legal, head office, regulator or other imposed requirements (their due diligence). The irony is that the leaders themselves may be blinded or at least mislead by Obeyience.

What does it mean to be diligent?

In the ‘Obeyience Culture’ we will hear reference to ‘due diligence’. We hear people saying (and rightly so) that we have to demonstrate due diligence. But when we hear this we are usually drawn to a six-point checklist, which someone has extrapolated from The Act, and we hear them say that by checking off the points on this list you will be able to demonstrate due diligence.

That approach is challenged by some. Greg Smith (in his “Risky Conversations” collaboration with Dr. Rob Long and Craig Ashhurst has this to say:

Due diligence, has got a lot of noise lately in the safety space… I’m absolutely convinced that the way it’s being flogged around the safety industry fundamentally misrepresents what due diligence is about. I think it also represents the real lack of critical thinking that we see in the safety industry.

(Long, Smith & Ashhurst, 2016, p. 20)

So what does this mean?

The point is that being able to demonstrate ‘due diligence’ is not about having a thing (a policy or a system) it is about doing a thing. Demonstrating due diligence is about being diligent. And diligent is defined as “showing persistent and hard-working effort in doing something” (Encarta Dictionary: English (UK) viewed 6th July 2016). That is, those who have responsibility for making decisions across the majority of an organisation (as defined in Australian Health and
Safety legislation. So, demonstrating due diligence is focused on doing; it is an activity thing.

So what does demonstrating due diligence really mean?

Being diligent requires ‘Officers’93 to go and look, question and understand what is going on in their business. It requires ‘Officers’ to enter the workplace and actively interact with the people conducting the work. It also requires ‘Officers’ to understand about (not just be aware of) the risks that they (actively) know are present in the business and that people are engaging with. The ‘Officers’ understand about the risks because they are diligent (persistent and hard working) in their risk understanding activities. They are diligent in their active pursuit of these activities which include: active questioning, active listening and active understanding.

Further, demonstrating due diligence is also about being able to (actively) confirm that ‘what is going on’, is actually what they agree is ‘what ought to be going on’. It is actively confirming that what the human, fallible, error prone people conducting the work, understand the policies and procedures are saying is what they (the Officers) deem are the most appropriate ways to manage the risks that they (actively) know are present in the business. And they know this because they are active in finding out from these same people what those most appropriate methods might be; including actively ensuring ‘as best they can’ that these same people have the necessary resources (skills, knowledge, well-being, support, equipment, etc.) to discern and manage the risks.

But wait…. there’s more: demonstrating due diligence is also about being active in knowing when the unexpected happens (what Weick and Sutcliffe (2007, p. 12) call having a “sensitivity to operations”). Again this means that ‘Officers’ actively engage with people to learn about what is ‘really’ happening, as opposed to what they ‘hope’ is happening. And most importantly it is about: stopping, reflecting (as individuals and collectively) on what has happened (good and not so) and paying active heed to experiences and learning from them.

I’m reminded of Dewey’s philosophy on learning “… education’s purpose is to prepare us to survive and, hopefully, flourish in a future that is by nature uncertain.” (Dewey, cited in Hildebrand, 2008, p. 125).

If you are in an organisation that focuses mainly on LTI’s, risk assessment scores, completing checklists, counting ‘safety observations’ and ‘zero harm’ and little focus on understanding people and motivation, and no acceptance of mistakes; and you think that demonstrating due diligence is about ticking off boxes on a checklist; it is likely that you have an ‘Obeyience Culture’, or you are on the path to developing one.

So what do leaders need to be aware of in order to avoid an ‘Obeyience Culture’?

Further growing and developing the ideas in this Chapter

Leaders who are keen to understand whether their culture may be based on ‘Obeyience’, may want consider these questions as a starting point:

  • What words are used by leaders across the organisation and what is their discourse (or trajectory)? Words like ‘uncompromising’, ‘must do’, ‘no discretion’, ‘zero tolerance’, ‘absolute expectation’, ‘we are serious’ and ‘no room to move’ can all be signs that the organisation is focused on ‘Obeyience’.
  • What language is used in organisational policies and procedures? Is it focused on words like ‘compliance’, and ‘adherence’, or instead on learning, acceptance of error, and an open culture of listening and ‘humble inquiry’?
  • How are people rewarded and recognised? Is the focus on injury numbers (lag indicators), or effective conversations (lead indicators, or preferably, not measured at all)?
  • How are incidents dealt with? Is an incident, near miss or hazard report seen as a failure, or an opportunity to learn?
  • When the unexpected happens, what is the first question asked? If it is “who did it?” instead of “how can we learn from it?” – then you may have an ‘Obeyience Culture’.
  • How is the demonstration of due diligence seen? Is it an ‘activity’ as in a “persistent and hard-working effort” to understand that ‘what is going on’, is actually ‘what ought to be going on’ in order to discern and manage risk? Or is it a desk top audit process governed by a 6-point checklist?

Segue to the Next Chapter

Of course, understanding organisational culture is a far more complex task than simply considering these few questions, but they are a good starting point in understanding whether your organisation has, or is on the journey to an ‘Obeyience Culture’. So, how may you go about impacting on your organisational culture to make it more focused on supporting people to discern risk, rather than on trying to control behaviours?


*This is a free Chapter from the book Social Sensemaking by Robert Sams which can be ordered by clicking HERE.