In the realm of organisational safety, we often pride ourselves on low incident rates and robust safety management systems. But are we falling into a dangerous logical trap? After a recent enlightening conversation with safety expert Greg Smith on Proving Safety, I found myself questioning some fundamental assumptions about how we evaluate safety in our organisations.
The Correlation-Causation Fallacy: A Quick Primer
We've all heard the classic example: ice cream sales and shark attacks are correlated. Does this mean ice cream sales cause shark attacks? Of course not. Or consider exercise and skin cancer rates – while there's a correlation, the real driver is a third variable: sun exposure. These examples illustrate the correlation-causation fallacy, where we mistakenly assume that because two things are related, one must cause the other.
The Safety Management Blind Spot
This same fallacy might be clouding our judgment in safety management. Consider these common assumptions:
"Our Lost Time Injury (LTI) rate is low, therefore our safety management system must be working."
"We've had incidents, so we need more layers of existing safety measures."
But here's the crucial question: How confident are we that there's actual causation between our safety initiatives and the outcomes we observe? Are we perhaps confusing correlation with causation?
Rethinking Safety: From Noun to Verb
As Greg Smith pointedly observed, "The key is doing less but doing it better, with a focus on intent and criticality. It's about turning safety into a permanent research project within the organisation."
This perspective challenges us to view safety not as a static system but as an ongoing process of discovery. The 'noun' of safety we seek often turns out to be a 'verb' – a dynamic, living practice manifested primarily through the people doing the work, sometimes despite our systems rather than because of them.
The Path Forward: Curiosity and Humility
The most effective safety professionals I've had the privilege to work with share two essential qualities: curiosity and humility. These traits enable them to:
Question assumptions about what "works" in safety management
Maintain an open mind about the real drivers of safety outcomes
Continuously learn from the organisation and its people
Adapt approaches based on evidence rather than assumption
Wrap-Up
The correlation-causation fallacy reminds us that in safety management, as in life, things aren't always what they seem. By maintaining curiosity and humility, we can move beyond simplistic assumptions and develop more effective approaches to keeping our people safe.
Remember: Sometimes the safest organizations aren't those with the most comprehensive systems, but those that understand the difference between correlation and causation in their safety outcomes.
Comments