“That Looks like Good Soup!”
The security agent explained that we could return to the unsecured area of the airport to eat the food or we could dump it in the trash. Neither option was appealing. “That sure looks like good soup!” the agent conducting the airline security screening was searching a carry-on bag my wife, and best friend had brought along. It was our nourishment for later. Perhaps a dinner. The homemade veggie sauteed mix was prepared with care and love for our upcoming trip. Anticipating the journey, we had made a meal for ourselves.
We were shocked that the veggie mix had fallen victim to the shrewd scrutiny of a security agent. He was doing his job. We were taken aback at the assessment of our meal, because it was not a soupy liquid, but the vegetable medley had wilted down into a more saucy consistency which was due to sitting in its container during the car ride to the airport. The vegetable liquids had marinated together like the perfect sauce to go with basmati rice. It was going to be amazing.
The security agent disagreed. He thought it was a liquid that exceeded the rule. In his judgment, it was out of compliance.
My wife and I were definitely not hungry at that moment and we didn’t want to go back through the security line, so we left the container-filled meal with the security agent.
The Gray in our World
It got me thinking about safety rules. As humans, we create very specific, black and white detailed rules to control variables in life from unwanted outcomes. We have a lot of rules. These rules make things more complex and this can create confusion for us humans because as intellectual creatures we have the ability to discern between what is right and wrong and differentiate between things to make wise decisions. Much of our world is gray. While safety rules are generally black and white or based on lagging indicators from losses experienced, there is much to be learned by looking at the gray and the not-so-clear aspects of risks to understand and learn through multimodalities to discern with wisdom. Ambiguity requires flexibility and improvisation. Rules are to prevent an unfavorable result and to control situations. This seems logical. For example, bad things have happened on airplanes, so humans create rules to prevent those bad things from happening. Make a rule to prevent a bad thing from happening; seems simple, right? What we are missing are the unintended consequences of making rules, and in some cases, many rules, for others to follow and enforcing these rules with painful strictness without giving credence to obvious situational confirmation.
When we humans desire to accomplish goals then we envision the tasks, assess the hazards, and apply controls in methodical sequences to prevent undesirable outcomes. We even employ analytical professionals to calculate these risks and the likelihood of occurrence based on prior incurred losses to provide leaders with a lens to make decisions using these data. We consult with subject matter experts to provide us with sage advice based on academic knowledge. We employ engineers to calculate structural integrity, load ratings, hazardous energies, geology, environmental conditions, and chemical reactions - just to name a few. The challenging and chaotic nature of our world provides us with much to study and reflect on.
Why did we still experience a loss even after all of this effort to control the risks?
If the answer were easy, then knowledge in and of itself would prevent losses from hazards. For example, if we know that certain behaviors and activities in our world cause harm, then we should stop doing those things, right?
But, for example, we still drive motor vehicles.
Over 40% of workplace fatalities are from highway and transportation incidents. We know that distracted driving from the use of a mobile device is harmful and can cause something bad to happen, but we have humans who, even though they cognitively know this is a risk, will still operate a motor vehicle and simultaneously use a mobile device. Rules have been made to control these risks and there are entire federal organizations and non-profit organizations dedicated to controlling driving risks. And, yet, fatal driving experiences still exist. Driving is just one example, there are many others.
Knowledge in and of itself does not prevent risky behaviors. If knowledge and access to knowledge were the answer, then humans would be healthy, happy, and without the need for anything. Other factors influence the effect of humans and choices. It is our duty as strategic safety leaders to find the balance between rules, knowledge, sociology, and leadership. And when we do, then we find the fulcrum point to leverage knowledge and influence at just the right point of action to make poignant changes.
I hope the security agent enjoyed the soup.
