Navigating the Dialectical Tension in Safety Management: Understanding the Balance Between Safety-I and Safety-II
In the world of safety management, conflicting demands and priorities are commonplace. One of the most important debates is the tension between Safety-I and Safety-II, two perspectives that offer distinct views on how to manage risk and safety performance. Often, they are pitted against each other, a hero and a villain, diametrically opposed. I'd argue that this isn’t just a question of which approach is “better”—it’s about how to navigate the dialectical tension between them.
What is Dialectics?
Before diving into the specifics of safety management, let’s define dialectics. Dialectics refers to a method of understanding and resolving contradictions through dialogue and reasoning. The roots of dialectics lie in ancient philosophy, particularly in the works of Socrates, Plato, and later Hegel. For Hegel, dialectics involved a triadic process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A thesis represents a starting point, the antithesis opposes or contradicts it, and the synthesis resolves the contradiction by merging elements of both, leading to a more nuanced understanding.
In the context of safety management, dialectical tension arises when two seemingly opposing ideas, such as Safety-I and Safety-II, coexist and influence how we approach safety. Instead of choosing one approach over the other, dialectical thinking encourages us to explore the tension between them to find a balance that serves our needs.
The Dialectical Tension Between Safety-I and Safety-II
As discussed in the previous post, Safety-I is a traditional approach that focuses on preventing failures by identifying causes and eliminating risks. On the other hand, Safety-II shifts the focus to understanding why things go right and how systems can adapt to varying conditions. This creates a dialectical tension: Safety-I is about the absence of harm, while Safety-II is about the presence of capacity.
This tension can be seen as a thesis and antithesis:
Safety-I (Thesis): Safety is achieved when nothing goes wrong. Accidents are caused by identifiable malfunctions or human errors, and the solution is to eliminate these causes.
Safety-II (Antithesis) Safety is about making sure things go right under varying conditions. It focuses on understanding how humans and systems succeed by adapting to challenges.
The synthesis of these perspectives recognises that both views are necessary. We need Safety-I’s emphasis on identifying and controlling risks, but we also need Safety-II’s focus on building capacity for resilience and adaptation. In practice, this synthesis means that safety management should be about both eliminating failures as far as practicable and fostering success.
Embracing Dialectical Thinking in Safety
Navigating these dialectical tensions requires a mindset that goes beyond binary thinking. Instead of seeing safety management as a choice between two opposing views, dialectical thinking encourages us to embrace the complexities of modern work environments and to seek balance.
For example, when it comes to Safety-I and Safety-II, safety professionals may see them as conflicting approaches however they could be complementary. Safety-I is critical for preventing accidents, but Safety-II provides the flexibility to ensure that systems can adapt to the complexities and unpredictability of the real world.
By applying this dialectical mindset, organisations can develop safety strategies that are robust, adaptive, and sustainable. In doing so, they can move beyond simply preventing accidents to building a culture where safety is embedded in the capacity to perform well under pressure.
Finding Balance in Practice
How can organisations apply this dialectical approach in practice? Here are a few ideas:
Blend Compliance and Flexibility: Develop safety procedures that are rigorous but allow room for human judgement and adaptation when the situation demands it.
Combine Quantitative and Qualitative Data: Use traditional safety metrics (e.g., incident rates) alongside qualitative insights (e.g., worker feedback) to gain a more comprehensive understanding of safety performance.
Foster Worker Autonomy within Clear Boundaries: Provide workers with the autonomy to make real-time safety decisions while offering guidelines and support to ensure they stay aligned with overall safety goals.
Invest in Resilience, Not Just Prevention: Shift the focus from short-term incident prevention to building a workforce and systems that can thrive under pressure, adapt to change, and recover from setbacks.
Ideas you could implement
Gather a suite of decision making tools to help your people make great decisions in moments of complexity.
Discuss with your workers what decisions you are happy for them to make without your input and what decisions you definitely want consulting on.
Use a focus group or learning team next time you want to understand a safety issue.
Plan and execute a credible, disaster preparedness exercise that requires your team to navigate complexity and decision-making together. Review the strength of your controls and the opportunities you found for improvement.
Let’s Keep the Conversation Going
How do you navigate these dialectical tensions in your own safety practice? What strategies have you used to balance opposing priorities, and how have they worked for your organisation? Let’s discuss how we can bring both Safety-I and Safety-II together to create safer, more resilient workplaces.
