Archive for category: Blogs

I’m 100% Certain About That….

I’ve just arrived home after being away for work all week. For almost all of the two hour drive home, I was tracking parallel to storm clouds all around me, and on the radio, the broadcast was regularly interrupted with ‘weather alerts’ warning of severe storms in my area.

When I arrived home I checked out the weather radar application on my phone and sure enough it seems that storms are tracking my way. I then checked my weather forecasting application, and not surprisingly, it is predicting storms over the next few hours. Not only is it predicting storms to happen, it is suggesting that there is 100% chance of them occurring (check out the photo with this story).

This got me thinking about what 100% ‘chance’ actually means? Do this mean that rain will definitely fall in all of areas in which I live during all of the times that it is predicted?

I wonder whether we really understand the numbers that we use so regularly in prediction, particularly in risk? Could it be that everyone may not understand these numbers in the same way? If we don’t all have the same understanding of the references that we use when communicating about risk, what does this mean when we agree on a risk score? What impact may this have on how we deal with, and understand risk?

This reminded me of a story shared by Gerd Gigerenzer in his book Risk Savvy:

“The probability that it will rain on Saturday is 50 percent. The chance that it will rain on Sunday is also 50 percent. Therefore, the probability that it will rain on the weekend is 100 percent.” (Gigerenzer, 2014, p.4)

Gigerenzer then goes on to note about this story:

“Most of us will smile at this. But do you know what it means when the weather report announces a 30 percent chance of rain tomorrow? 30 percent of what? I live in Berlin. Most Berliners believe that it will rain tomorrow 30 percent of the time, that is for seven to eight hours. Others think that it will rain in 30 percent of the region; that is most likely not where they live. Most New Yorkers think both are nonsense. They believe that it will rain on 30 percent of the days for which this announcement is made; that is, there will most likely be no rain at all tomorrow” (Gigerenzer, 2014, p.4)

I remember when I first read this story that it resonated with me. I considered how relevant this is in risk and safety. We use numbers and percentages all the time to evaluate, assess, analyse and to attempt to understand risk all the time. But do we have a common understanding of what these numbers and percentages mean? Gigerenzer further notes that:

“Left on their own, people intuitively fill in a reference class that makes sense to them, such as how many hours, where, or how heavily it rains. More imaginative minds will come up with others” (Gigerenzer, 2014, p.4)

I wonder how this may play out in risk and safety?

I refer finally to Gigerenzer when he sums this up nicely when referring to the latest weather forecasting technology, by suggesting:

“But greater precision has not lead to greater understanding of what the message really is. The confusion over probability of rain has persisted in fact since the very first time there were broadcast to the public in 1965 in the US. The confusion is not just limited to rain, but occurs whenever a probability is attached to a single event.” (Gigerenzer, 2014, p.4)

Gigerenzer’s advice to readers is “Always ask for the reference class. Percent of what?”

I wonder whether Gigerenzer can help all of us in risk and safety to become more risk savvy. The question is, are we prepared to explore these questions or are we stuck in blissful ignorance believing that everyone is thinking in the same way about risk? Do we need better and more meaningful conversations with each other in order to better understand what we mean when talking about risk?

Update; its just hit 5.25pm and it isn’t raining yet. I guess that means that 100% does not mean it will rain during 100% of the time that it was predicted. I wonder what it does mean though?

There’s a chance we might get rain tonight……

We’d love to hear your thoughts, experiences and comments.

Author:        Robert Sams

Phone:            0424 037 112

Email:             robert@dolphyn.com.au

Web:               www.dolphyn.com.au

Facebook:      Follow Dolphyn on Facebook

 FIRST PUBLISHED ON http://www.safetyrisk.net

What Safety and Risk Could Learn from Patch Adams

Last night I watched the movie Patch Adams starring the late, and amazingly talented, Robin Williams. The story for those who don’t know it is broadly based around the work and life of the real life medical doctor called Patch Adams. The real Patch is the founder of the Gesundheit Institute, an alternative style healthcare facility that describes itself as:

The Gesundheit Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit healthcare organization whose mission is to reframe and reclaim the concept of ‘hospital’. We are a model of holistic medical care based on the belief that the health of the individual cannot be separated from the health of the family, the community, the society and the world.

(Source – http://www.patchadams.org/gesundheit/)

While I don’t pretend to know a lot about Gesundheit beyond what I have read today on their website, if they go anywhere near practicing their mission, I suspect that they are making impacts on lives in a much more meaningful way than our traditional reductionist approach to healthcare.

If we subscribe to the theory that wellness, healthcare and medical systems should have as their focus physical and biological health, and subsequently pay little attention to psychological and spiritual health, we are lead to a path that sees patients (I’d prefer to call them people or more preferably by their name) as objects and parts of a system

READ THE FULL ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED HERE

How does adopting a ‘reductionist’ approach impact on mental health at work?

If organisations are to better support the mental health of their employees, adopting a more holistic approach, to firstly better understand, and then deal with mental health at work, is required.

A holistic approach to dealing with mental health includes understanding biological factors relating to mental health as well as considering psychological factors. However, in addition to the current approach, a holistic approach also recognises the importance of social psychological factors such as social inclusion and spiritual factors such as beliefs of individual workers. It is focused on understanding and exploring, over fixing and solving.

It recognises the ‘wickidity’ of mental health and that organisations that focus on ‘tackling’, ‘accepting’ and ‘dealing with’ mental health are more likely to be better positioned to supported improved mental health.

Organisations who wish to better deal with the mental health of their workers, firstly need to understand and recognise the how they may be adopting ‘reductionist’ approaches and consider whether these are limiting their ability to dealing with mental health. They would further be advised to consider how adopting a more ‘holistic’ approach, including consideration of the mind body and spirit would enhance the mental health and well-being of their workers.

CLICK LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED HERE

If we adopt an approach to safety that is focused on controlling others then banning things in the name of safety is a perfect solution to dealing with the grey, messiness and ambiguity of risk. There is no grey in banning something, right?

Have you heard of the ‘Banned Objects Index’ (BOI)? It is the latest ‘measure’ that you can use to compare your organisations safety culture against another. The ‘BOI’ is easy to calculate, it’s simply the number of banned objects (for safety reasons) per full time equivalent employees. The higher the number, the better the safety culture. Sounds pretty simple right?

Could ‘BOI’ be the elusive ‘Positive Performance Indicator’ we have all been searching for?

Word in the industry is that Government are considering a national ‘BOI’ target and an associated strategy for achieving it. The country’s leading safety body, the Stupid Incident Again (SIA) are reportedly forming a Committee to review the concept, with one insider leaking that the BOI is just what the industry has been searching for. Some suggest that it could even replace Zero Harm as our key aspirational safety target as it’s so much better to have a positive number as a goal.

It also means that the risk and safety industry would have access to a great new range of charts and diagrams where finally safety numbers can go up instead of down. Business is more likely to take our message seriously when we finally have a positive performance indicator that makes sense. Onwards an upwards in safety…..

This all sounds pretty silly right? I mean why would any organisation think that the number of items banned from a site could be an indication of safety culture? In fact, why would an organisation think that they could in any way get a feel for culture through the use of any (apparent) objective measure? Did someone mention LTIFR?

I guess if your tools of choice in ‘enforcing’ safety are control, rule and fear, then a BOI might make perfect sense in measuring culture. If we adopt an approach to safety that is focused on controlling others then banning things in the name of safety is a perfect solution to dealing with the grey, messiness and ambiguity of risk. There is no grey in banning something, right?

Do we really understand the psychology of risk?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED HERE

The Link Between Think and Blink

I attended another engaging ‘thinking group’ meeting this morning on the Central Coast of NSW in Australia. The meeting was organised by James Ellis, and some new ‘thinkers’ joined us at today’s meeting including; a clinical psychologist who also practices in forensic psychology; a training manager with a background in community care; an accountant with an interest in behavioural economics; a quality/safety manager who proudly claimed “I just love learning from different people”; and a PhD doctor who teaches an MBA program.

Throw into the mix three mugs that are doing their best to learn about social psychology and risk and what comes out is some great thinking, from a diverse group of people, all with at least one thing in common, a desire to share, experience and learn as part of a community.

While our Thinking Groups usually run with no set agenda and with minimal formalities, we generally have a theme that is often around a book, a topic or an idea that one of the group is keen to discuss. Thinking Groups are not unlike a book club.

This morning’s theme, was loosely around Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink, which on the website is described as:

“a book about how we think without thinking, about choices that seem to be made in an instant-in the blink of an eye-that actually aren’t as simple as they seem.”

Our Thinking Group meeting provided a great link between think and blink.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE WHICH I FIRST PUBLISHED HERE