Don’t make security personal, it’s one of the dumbest security slogans trending now and of course, like all security propaganda, it masks critical messages that we should think about and talk about in addressing risks, according to Dr. Rob Long, an expert in social psychology at the Safety Risk portal. He states that at the moment it is not tacitly looked at in the security (in)profession only on the ethics of risk, but also on the socialization of risks.

“I remember my first time with a new organization a decade ago, going to a large warehouse complex on the way to their main office. I didn’t know then that this organization would throw out many of the security myths, indoctrination and propaganda with which they had been burdened for many years. Neither did they. I remember walking from the parking lot to the office and there on the side of the warehouse was a huge poster that they had just invested thousands of dollars in. It was 5 metres tall and 50 metres long and it said ‘safety starts with me’ in bold orange and black text,” he said.

As he entered the office, he met the manager for the first time and immediately told him, “You’ve got the wrong poster.”

– He said ‘What?! We just paid thousands for it‘. I said: Yes, if you want to promote mutual responsibility, community, ownership and accountability, one should also read‘security starts with us’. The poster was taken down that afternoon and this organization has been practicing an SPoR approach to risk ever since , he explained in his article.

He points out that individualism is one of the ideologies that plagues security and this “stupid idea that security is personal” encourages this ideology. Individualism is also associated with its associates Behaviorism, positivism and engineering.

– Combine all four and you have a diabolical cocktail that allows the brutalization of persons in the name of good, the elevation of objects and data as a task of security and blindness to the most critical issue facing this unprofessional industry – persons – warns.

As he says, there can never be professionalism in safety until it moves away from zero, individualism, behaviorism (he wrote more about it here: https://safetyrisk.net/kicking-the-behaviourism-habit/ ; https://safetyrisk.net/the-curse-of-behaviourism/ ) and engineering.

Below we bring some of these “make security personal” nonsense, as he calls them, that ‘float’ on the net.

• https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/what-is-your-personal-safety-story
• https://www.nsc.org/support-nsc/safety-is-personal
• https://www.thechecker.net/stories/blog/workplace-safety-make-it-personal
• https://www.wsp.com/en-US/who-we-are/corporate-responsibility/health-safety
• https://safestart.com/news/making-safety-personal/
• https://www.themarlincompany.com/qa/making-safety-personal/
• https://www.ishn.com/blogs/16-thought-leadership/post/100897-making-safety-personal-it-starts-with-you

He points out that there is even an organization that calls its identity “personal”: https://makingsafetypersonal.com/making-safety-personal-what-is-it/ which of course is just another brand for behaviorism.

– If you do a google search for “make security personal”, you will get 10,690,000,000 results. All of this makes a focus of certainty about individuals and creates blindness for risk socialization. Often combined with this stupid message is the unethical nonsense of “passion for safety.” Some of the best brutalism and unethical conduct I have ever witnessed to safety are justified by a ‘passion’ about safety. You never see slogans from Security about being ‘wise’, ‘social’ or ‘intelligent’ about security, just wrap that passion and brutally abuse whoever you want in the name of good.”

He drew attention to how often we see that language in security is “do the right thing” or “ethical responsibility” undefined, and nothing more than a mask for behaviorism and duty under the rules. All that language in “do the right thing” is never directed at the person. It’s always system-centered, compliance-centered and individually centered.

– Just look at any of these so-called “incident investigations”, never about corporate ethics and accountability and always about the guilt of a scapegoat on an individual. Costa Concordia is a classic example (https://novellus.solutions/ ). Where in the world is there a security curriculum that includes Rene Girard’s Scapegoat? Of course, nowhere. Often when something goes wrong, the security person is also a scapegoat (https://safetyrisk.net/scapegoating-and-safety/, https://www.ishn.com/articles/112694-ehs-professionals-often-become-the-scapegoat ). The best way to move away from the scapegoat is to reject behaviorism, individualism and engineering methodologies. – he stressed.

Furthermore, it warns that when your God is zero, people will be demonized (https://www.nsc.org/workplace/safety-topics/work-to-zero/summit ). When risk is constructed as an enemy, learning seems like a demon. In SPoR, everything is in balance. It’s always about the balance of workspace, headspace and group space (https://vimeo.com/143710374). It’s always about what works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/).

– And we know from all the evidence that individualism, behaviorism and bureaucracy don’t work. It’s not that the personal dimension of risk isn’t relevant, but there’s simply no balance in the security industry that’s fixed on individualism, love of objects, love of metrics, love of zero, and behaviorism. While Safety does not strike a balance with helping, ethics of care, and focus on the person, it can never be professional.