86

More harm than good: How safety practices can sometimes harm people (Part 2)

March 27, 2024

Share

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

This is the second in a series of 2 episodes on psychosocial harm. The question we ask in this two-part series – how safety practices can do more harm than good? In the first episode, our focus was more on understanding the problem of psychosocial harm from a legal and organisational perspective. In this episode, we focus on some practical ways to address these issues. I hope you will enjoy listening as much as we enjoyed creating this episode and it will make you think and reflect.

 

Rob, Greg, Pedro and Nippin are conducting a series of workshops in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong in May 2024.

 

Event dates: https://novellus.solutions/events/

 

About Novellus: We are an internationally recognised team with a focus on risk management, safety culture and organisation learning using proven methods in Social Psychology of Risk.

Further information

 

More harm than good part 2

SPEAKERS

Greg Smith, Rob Long, Nippin

 

Nippin  00:01

Welcome to another episode of embracing differences with me Nippin Anand, the podcast aimed at understanding and promoting transdisciplinary ways of living and thinking, meaning, assimilating different viewpoints, different subjects, different disciplines, but focused on a very simple question. How do we human beings learn? Unlearn, relearn, and make decisions? And how can we tackle risks in an uncertain world? This is the second in a series of two episodes on psychosocial harm. The question we ask in this two part series is this. How safety practices can do more harm than good? If you haven’t seen or heard the first episode, I have put the link here in this description. In the first episode, our focus was more on understand the problem of psychosocial harm from a legal and organisational perspective. In this episode, be focused on some practical ways to address these issues. I hope you will enjoy listening as much as we enjoyed creating this episode. And it will make you think and reflect which is never a bad thing. On another note, Rob, Greg Pedro and I are conducting a series of workshops in Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Singapore and Hong Kong, in the month of May 2024. Of course, all the events, and the descriptions are listed on our website novellus.solutions/events. We hope you will join us now over to the episode.

 

Greg Smith  01:56

Okay, so then just to pick up on there, Rob, in terms of where we got to, I think in the last session, I think it was a consistently held concern one and one that we’ve talked about before, but a concern that the Work Health and Safety framework is not really an appropriate framework for managing a lot of these issues around psychosocial health. As we were talking before we came on air, we think there is a genuine concern that people will have about reporting psychosocial concerns in the workplace if it has to be reported to the health and safety regulator because they don’t want to be part of that investigative process. And as we touched on, I think both the regulator and most organisations simply lack the expertise and pastoral care to properly manage this as an issue. But I think we’ll probably where we move to today or this evening is there is certainly a recognised mechanic and expectation from the regulator about certain processes that need to be in place certain things we need to demonstrate we do as an organisation, to comply with these new frameworks under the legislation. But then just Nippin. And Rob, I think this is more in your area of expertise. It’s one thing to say, we’re going to have a process of investigating and reporting or setting up systems. It’s quite another thing to have the expertise to execute that properly. Yes. And that’s not to say that, you know, if we look at the world of work, health and safety, or safety and risk more broadly, that’s a universal concern. That’s not a concern is limited to psychosocial risks. We have lots of people going and doing inspections and having conversations in the name of health and safety all the time that aren’t properly equipped to execute that role. But it just strikes me that in the case of psychosocial harm, the capacity to or psychosocial risk, or I should say, the capacity to do real harm, because you don’t have the right level of education and training. It’s a real threat, I think. Yes,

 

Rob Long  04:20

yes. And and I’ll just give an example of one form of harm before we go into the topic of what could be done. But in all of my education, and several majors in several degrees in both pastoral care and clinical psychology, the emphasis on confidentiality is absolutely paramount in any of the professionals who deal with psychosocial issues, mental health and so on. And so through it, you know, it goes without saying to any social worker, Counsellor, community worker, youth worker, clinical psychologist, psychiatrists, the fundamental foundation of any counselling session is, this will not go outside of this room, there will be no names, there’ll be no naming of conditions, there’ll be no reporting. And so therefore, you can reliably know that this is confidential. And so that is the direct opposite of what everyone in risk and safety is told that if you get information, you must report it, if you receive anything that you think is a risk or a hazard, and that’s what the documentation says, it has to be reported. Now recently, I had a 28 year old young woman who was seeking counselling for sexual harassment in the workplace. And we have the same obligations as any of the states to report these hazards to the regulator. The first bit of advice I gave her was to tell no one. That was the first advice I gave her. She continued with the counselling sessions, and her best choice was to resign her job, which she did. She left her pace of employment. We can we continued counselling, and I slowly saw her improve, her stress levels improved, her distress improved. She saw her doctor several times she’s on medication, but that also improved, because she left the workplace. I know that if she was asked to report the nature of that sexual harassment to her employer, she would have had a breakdown. Yeah.

 

Greg Smith  07:07

I mean, it’s not. It’s not fair. It’s pragmatic. But it’s not fair. Yep. And so

 

Rob Long  07:17

my advice to anyone having worked in Employee Assistance programmes for a number of years, in the largest one in Australia, actually, everyone knows if if if a big company a lot Woolworths or Coles or or Wesfarmers pay an outside provider to provide Employee Assistance counselling, that the only data the employer gets is that a counselling session was undertaken. They don’t know the employee, sometimes they don’t even know the location of the employee. They only know that an employee has been seen. That’s it.

 

Nippin  07:55

And I’ve seen this sorry.

 

Rob Long  07:57

Sorry. I

 

Greg Smith  07:59

think those services will continue to operate like that. And those services will be continued to be a part of this broader cycle. I know I absolutely think they will. But what has historically been the case, for better or for worse, and this is I think there’s a tension here. For better or for worse, there has been a discretion within employers when people want to make complaints about any sort of psychosocial concern, not to make it public not to have to deal with it if the complainant doesn’t want you to. Yep. Now, I think there are arguments at one level that the pendulum, certainly if you look at the enough is enough report in the West Australian mining industry in sexual misconduct there. There is an argument that can be made that there was too much discretion, and they allowed that to manifest. But then to take a pendulum the other way and say you kind of lose any discretion around that. And if it’s brought to your attention, or you witness something, it’s got to drop into the normal work health and safety sort of flow. I think is it has swung too far the other way. Yep. Yep.

 

Nippin  09:14

So the what I’m hearing from the two of you, at least from Rob, is that what we are applying to so psychosocial risks is exactly the same mechanistic approach that we apply to safety reporting systems, and hence it does not work and it will not work. And I think what, what Greg Hughes is trying to say is, is that yes, but there is there is always that discretionary approach. You don’t you don’t really apply the although there is a mechanistic approach. You don’t really apply it exactly in the same way. There is a level of discretion that comes through

 

Greg Smith  09:56

right now. That’s what’s changed. I think by dropping into the WHS framework. That level of discretion is much more problematic. Yes, ma’am. So I’m, you know, you deal with cases often where they say we’re just trying to deal with this as best we can. And you say, well, if if the regular if this comes to the regulator’s attention and you haven’t told them, they’re going to come down on you. So there’s a there’s a there’s a tension there.

 

Rob Long  10:31

Can I add? Sorry,

 

Nippin  10:35

don’t allow for it.

 

Rob Long  10:36

I want to add another problem to this. And we’ve spoken about employee assistance programme and outsiders of professionals outside of organisations. One of the things that bothers me the most about the risk and safety industry, is it exclusivity about what it’s knows, and it’s disrespect for professions outside of itself. psychobabble we discredit psychology, we discredit anthropologists. We discredit people like me who have expertise in pastoral care, social psychology and ethics. I mean, I’ve lectured and supervised Master’s in ethics at all sorts of levels at university. And I get dismissed constantly, because I raise ethics as an issue. And even Greg will know he would have done it in his first year at uni, you would have had to have done ethics break as your education pathway. Yeah.

 

Greg Smith  11:39

To give that a bit of context on legal ethics, our professional ethics, which are slightly different because they’re codified in the legislation, it’s a different ethical obligation than if I’m a counsellor, but it’s

 

Rob Long  11:57

part of the paper. Yeah, I agree. But I would add to that, in a general sense of ethics, where we talk about moral philosophy that is also within the the Bailiwick of legal ethics as well. But when you and I talking about this, Greg, you know, how much a risk and safety person does in ethics? No,

 

Greg Smith  12:18

but no, it’s not. Yeah, doesn’t exist. No. And

 

Rob Long  12:22

they’re now talking to a clinical counsellor, who comes to them, and says, you know, we will keep complete confidentiality of this issue. And it won’t be reported to the regulator, because it will be a breach of that confidentiality. And now you’ve got a conflict between two legal obligations, the legal obligation of the clinical counsellor, even worse, if it’s chaplain. And then you have the demand of the regulator saying, or you must report. So the nightmare that they’ve created is a moral dilemma. For the risk and safety industry, not just a idea of, well, it’s a hazard and we go through some sort of, you know, four stage management process, it’s a major, major issue, if I was a clinical counsellor, seeing someone under a sexual harassment process in an organisation, the first thing I would not do is tell the regulator or tell the organisation anything of what I knew. So first thing I do, and,

 

Greg Smith  13:34

and of course, the compounding thing here is even even if organisations use their best endeavours to preserve confidentiality, the just the fact that they have to investigate is almost inevitably going to compromise confidentiality, because you can’t, you can’t mean that. And if you’re a person who’s been accused of having done something, and you say, and they don’t give you any information that enables you to answer the allegations that have been made against you. The processes is, is silly. But again, there’s there’s a balance here because I’m, I’m very conscious of the power imbalance between often between perpetrators and victims, which allows perpetration to go on. And on not just not just in the context of sexual misconduct or bullying or harassment. There’s a whole range of things that happen in the workplace that fall far short of what most people think of as serious incidences that have a cumulative effect over time. Yeah. So if you if you say, it’s got to be, you know, the discretion and the preservation has got to be there. That’s fine, but it does It does create an environment where inappropriate behaviour can go unchecked. It does then at the other end of the spectrum, if you if you mandate certain processes, it has the potential to harm people further and certainly drive reporting underground. And that’s my my biggest concern in this whole issue is we haven’t created a framework. And maybe there isn’t one that exists, but we don’t kind of we haven’t been able to steer a middle ground, which creates an environment that can protect people.

 

Rob Long  15:35

But you see, I think that’s because professionals in the caring professions have been not consulted enough in the framing up in the creation of this whole legal and regulatory process. I think they’ve been left out. And they’ve put it in place now. And now they’re trying to bring them in. As Johnny come lately.

 

Greg Smith  15:58

Is there an issue though? I’m interested in your view that the primary concern of the caring professional is the well being of the person? Their credit they are looking after? Absolutely. That’s that. Yeah. So that’s their primary concern. Whereas what what the legislation legislature is trying to do by by enforcing this stuff through work, health and safety is broader than the well being of the individual and the pension? Yeah. Yes,

 

Rob Long  16:34

it does. But if you read the Australian Institute of Health and Safety chapter on ethics, it very clearly states that the purpose of work health and safety is duty to safety, not duty to the person is very clearly stated that the risk and safety industry, its whole purpose is the duty to the outcome of safety, rather than duty to the outcome of a person. Indeed, the words person care and helping and the word power are not used in that document.

 

Nippin  17:15

I think, you know, Greg, you and I had a discussion in Perth, before I left, and one of the things we spoke about was the idea of what is safety? And I think a lot of it is, is a is I think Rob comes from a perspective of helping and caring, which is very person centric. Whereas the dominant dominant view of safety hasn’t changed. And it probably will take a long, long time for it to acknowledge the fact that, you know, people are an important aspect of, of safety. It’s very, very mechanistic still, in the way it is understood and applied.

 

Rob Long  17:58

Yes. I, I wonder if if there’ll be some precedences in court cases, that eventually where a, an individual feels abused by an organisation due to the process, put in place by safety, and they’ll prosecute the organisation as being harmed by the process? I’m wondering if that

 

Greg Smith  18:25

we already have that in the context of disciplinary action?

 

Nippin  18:29

Yeah, but there’s something here. Sorry. I think that’s one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is something like what happened in the me to campaign, you know, that something blows out of proportion completely. And that creates so much problem for the organisation and the return not that reputation is at stake. And I think that’s where you see something happening in this space. But most of the times, I think, even the HR and allow is to protect the organisation, not the person most of the time. Absolutely. Your

 

Rob Long  19:03

Yeah, yes. They that the moment, there’s any challenge within is we close ranks, we defend the organisation, we defend our systems, we defend our methods. And that’s often at the expense of end like I advise this young woman, just leave the organisation it will cost you two dearly emotionally and morally just leave. And that was my best advice. And so unfortunately, what happens then, is the perpetuation and the repetition of the sexual harassment will stay in that organisation. Because it wasn’t reported, but the opposite is too harmful to the individual. So you just allow, it’s like, it’s like the perpetuation of sexual assault in churches. You know, you send it underground, it goes secret and just damage more people.

 

Greg Smith  20:00

And of course, it’s not on our we focused on the people, none of this is limited to sexual misconduct, the bullying and harassment and

 

Rob Long  20:11

yeah, that’s right, I raised, I raised the sexual harassment stuff, because there is so much of it now coming out from the regulators, with all this kind of systemic rubbish, which is, which is just incredibly harmful, like that recent alert that came out and my jurisdiction. And I just think if if a psychologist or a counsellor was just even consulted once, that document would not look anything like it did.

 

Nippin  20:45

Perhaps, if, if we think that we have had a good discussion on this, maybe we should move on to the second concern that Greg raised, or even you raised, Rob, which is around the competence or the expertise to actually recognise these issues in the first place in the organisation. So maybe we should talk about that as well. Yes.

 

Rob Long  21:07

Yeah. You know, it was interesting. When I was working in Beaconsfield, during the rescue, there were 210 staff. Many people were traumatised, there were 800. external contractors brought in for the rescue. So we had over 850 people involved in the rescue, with dozens and dozens of people severely traumatised. How many people do you think, on that 850 People had any expertise in pastoral care? was surprising. There was one.

 

Nippin  21:59

But I think it’s much bigger than the risk and safety? Well, I think it’s the part of the problem of being in an organisation. And I think that’s what organisations are about, I don’t know, may be interested to hear Greg’s view on this.

 

Greg Smith  22:15

Well, I mean, in part, and in part, it’s the structure, the legislation that I think drives a lot of the behaviour you’re concerned about, Rob, so you have, you have a structure of legislation that says you have to understand the activities of your business, you have to understand the things that can cause harm arising from your activity. So the hazards you have to assess those hazards, you have to develop controls, you have to implement and enforce. So when you overlay that on something like so called psychosocial risks, they say for example, you know, workload contributes to stress. So you have to do something about that, you have to have proper grievance procedures, you have to have proper performance development processes, you have to have an AP or some sort of process, you have to have a complaints procedure, you have to have a grievance procedure, you have to provide training to people on behaviours and conduct it and you know, you need to have policies and procedures. And so all of the all of the artefacts of health and safety have simply been aligned around what people believe, causes psychosocial risk. Now, some of some of those beliefs may be well informed, some of those beliefs may be less well informed. But ultimately, this this is when I talked about the issue nibbling that you’re touching on about the ability to recognise and deal with those. From from a, from a legal technical compliance perspective, the problems are no different than physical safety in the sense that if a person who doesn’t understand the physical risks associated with the type of work creates the process to manage it, it’s probably not going to be effective for the people who have to do the work. If people who don’t understand the issues around psychosocial risk, and there’s simply copying from a regulators code of practice, then those systems are probably not going to be useful, either. And then you have to overlay that so that you’ve got your mechanic but then you have to overlay that with your implementation and people have to implement the processes. And if our people aren’t competent experience, whatever we need to implement the procedures, then we have a problem and it’s not an it’s not a new problem because of the regulations. We’ve got. Years and years and years of Workers Compensation Claims built around management action Whether it’s disciplinary action, transferring people terminating their employment. So we’re not we’re not suddenly waking up this brave new world saying we’ve got this worse? Yes, we’ve made it worse. We know what the problems look like, we know. You know, we know the sorts of harm that can be done to people. And we’ve seen that through HR and workers compensation over the years. Yeah. And, but instead of saying, Here’s a once in a generational opportunity, given everything that was Scott kind of coalescing, at the same time, to think about is there a better way to regulate for this across a whole range of areas, what we’ve just done is not even slept work health and safety onto it, because it’s always been there, we’ve suddenly put it into the spotlight. And so now we’ve got multiple different parts of our organisation, parts of our legislatures, of different regulators all over the place, all responsible for this thing that we can’t kind of put a fence around called psychosocial risk. And I yeah, I think I think we have made it worse. Absolutely.

 

Nippin  26:12

I mean, just listening to both of you, I think what we are mostly driven by whether it’s in regulation or in business is fear and control. And I think that fear and control is not letting us to actually listen to the concerns of people. Although if we did, listen, if we did listen, with a little bit of patience, it probably do much better things both for the organisation and as well as for the people. But the immediate instinct, as soon as you hear somebody being bullied or sexually harassed is what do I do now to control this issue? And I think that fear and control actually makes it much worse. And then, you know, in terms of now, we’re talking about building expertise. I think that expertise does not exist in most organisation, which is to first listen before you do anything about it. It’s we are so busy. And it’s I think it’s we’ve been doing a lot of work together, Rob, I think it’s it’s so much in the genes of the of the organisation to fix every problem before understanding it. And I think that’s, that’s one of the big problems. I see it. Yeah.

 

Rob Long  27:17

You know, I wrote a very long article. How long ago, 15 years ago? And it was simply a question, isn’t it time we reformed the safety curriculum, I presented it at an institute health and safety conference got held down by mostly engineers and behaviourists. I simply raised the question. Now, the funny thing is, since I wrote that paper, there’s been no change at all, in the worker safety curriculum. And it is the same, not just in Australia, but the US and other countries. And there’s no question raised like that still, even though we’ve brought in psychosocial issues. And I would have thought that the industry, particularly practitioners, would be screaming out by now, saying that everything that you’ve got in the workout safety curriculum, everything does not help me at all deal with this issue. And my argument would be, I don’t care whether you drop one subject, two subjects or three subjects out of the current curriculum. But you’ve got to do something for the preparation of workers, safety people to enter into a workplace into this minefield. They’ve got to have something something, you know, even if it’s just 101 foundations, in people helping or 101 foundations in moral conduct and ethics. I don’t care what it is, but no one is asking for it. Nippin. And so, you know, we’ve got these advisors coming out. And it’s like in roses book, we are basically preparing them to get abused.

 

Nippin  29:22

Rob, absolutely. Such a good point. I think, if you just forget about being too sophisticated about it, just thinking about the kind of questions that we raise, even during investigations and audits, you know, there’s absolutely no regard for the person. It’s not always about the mechanistic systems and, and actually, if you just look at a question that you ask just the first question that you ask when things go wrong with people it is, it is there is no appreciation for for the holistic understanding of the problem. It’s find a problem, fix it That’s it.

 

Rob Long  30:00

Yeah. My very first question is who was traumatised? That’s my first question? And

 

Nippin  30:07

my question as an investigative work would be, why did you do it this way? Or why didn’t you do this?

 

Rob Long  30:15

And if I’m a professional counsellor on a worksite, and I’ve got three traumatised people, the first thing I’ll be advising them is to talk to no one.

 

Nippin  30:27

It’s a difficult one, Rob, because, you know, I can only talk from my experience that if it happens in the maritime world, the first thing that the client demands for is a report. So it’s not just the regulator, it’s also the client demanding for a report, which should be designed exactly in the same way the safety report.

 

Rob Long  30:45

I’d like to ask Greg about this, Greg, if a person gives evidence under duress in the moment, when they come to court, and they say I gave that evidence under duress. It does that absolve them? Of that, particularly if they had a psychiatric report?

 

Greg Smith  31:08

Doesn’t? It’s not a question of absolving, but it’s a question of how much weight gets given to the evidence. Yeah. Yeah, it’s, and you know, it’s in the circumstances. So if you give a version of say, there’s been a traumatic event, you’re interviewed, at the time of the event, you give one version of events, interviewed 48 hours later, you give a different version of events. It’s on a workout, which version of events has more, you know, bearing in mind, we’re trying to work out which version of events has more credibility five years later, which is problematic in itself? So yeah.

 

Rob Long  31:49

Okay, again, that’s fine. That’s the same CONFLICT OF DUTY to the process or duty to the person?

 

Greg Smith  31:59

Well, yeah, yes. And I think we’ve kind of touched on this last time, more in a HR context. But this idea of a there’s nearly always, in all of this rubbish at some point, in my experience, and it’s earlier or later in different organisations, and different circumstances, where the process, it kind of literally gets triggered. Right. And I the way, the way I see it manifests itself most commonly in the name of psychosocial risk keep not not as a safety issue. But it’s kind of that’s where we’re heading historically. And an HR issue is when somebody comes and talks to their, their manager, and says, I have a concern with the behaviour of my supervisor, or the behaviour of my co worker. Now, very often in an HR context, that conversation could be had. And we can work through ideas, until the point it becomes an official complaint under the grievance procedure, and then click, the process takes off. Yes. And once once the process takes off, I think that’s when individual wellbeing gets lost. So I’ll give an example. Similarly, I was involved in a fatality on a mine site some years ago. Now. You know, once the inspectors are on site, you will have people running around trying to get counselling for the people involved in the incident. There’s, there’s so there’s a group of people out here who are genuinely trying to look after the interests of individuals. But then there are a group of people and I’m sort of in that secondary group working with the regulator who’s trying to get people through the process as effectively as possible. And we had one, it was a fatality where the regulator was on site. And at one point, they demanded that so which line to councils up to site there was two contractors involved and they both had their counsellors. They demanded to see the counsellors notes of their counselling sessions with people. So then they they could form the view about whether they should be able to interview them while they’re on site. Now the counsellors guide gave that very short shrift as you can imagine, Oh, yeah. And you know, there were so that that eventually went away. But that difference between process versus the genuine care is, is it and it’s very easy to be very unsympathetic to regulators in those circumstances. But you have to recognise that you fit if I’m an inspector on site. I’m so I am subject to the power dynamics of the organisation as well. I’ve got to get things done. You know, so it’s, it’s never it’s, it’s never as Blackhat and as white hat as we would like to believe it is The body is operating under really difficult scenarios.

 

Nippin  35:03

So here’s a question. Here’s a question for both of you, I think we are just coming to the end of it. But here I am, you know, I’m an employer, and I’m looking for some help in this area. What would you say to me? Where should I go? Now, after listening to both of you over the last half an hour or so? What’s my position? What should I be doing now?

 

Greg Smith  35:24

Can I go first, because my answer is a bit more straightforward. In that, you, as an organisation, you have an obligation to the organisation as well as your people. And so you need to have demonstrable structures in place. You need to say, this is what we’ve done to think about the way we run our business, we’ve gone to the code of practice, we’ve recognised that these are the sorts of things in businesses that cause of harm to people’s mental well being. And this is what we’ve done to try and address it. That’s, that’s what I’ll be saying you need to get your structures done, you need to have your structures in place. And then I would defer to experts in the field to say, how do you make those assessments about those structures? And how do you actually deliver against those structures, which is much more in Rob’s field than mine?

 

Rob Long  36:26

You know, it’s interesting, Greg, that’s so much of the worker safety act and regulation is consumed with consultation. It’s amazing how often that word comes about. Yep. Except, except the moment we move into this area. I would argue that one of the first things Nippin I would do is I’d say, you need to get a balance of the professionals that are a part of this process. Yes, I agree with Greg, you have to have demonstrable processes. But there can’t be demonstrable process administered by engineers, you know, you need a collection, a dialogue between the professions and across the professions in order to get balanced decision. So an executive director doesn’t just listen to a geologist or a safety advisor for their opinion on something, whether it be a fatality or testimony or whatever. But that we that in the end, it will it will be the CEO of the General Manager, actually, it has to come and make a decision. But that can’t be based on an imbalanced approach to the issue. And I think if we want a balanced approach, I would either put on staff, a professional, or I would make sure that I had some, even a number of professionals who would be brought in in any complex site case, and they would be part of the consultation process, regardless of what the outcome is, at least the CEO could say, We consulted appropriate professionals.

 

Greg Smith  38:16

I think there is a genuine concern in industry at the moment. Probably more particularly in small and medium sized enterprises. They don’t know who they can turn to. And we’re seeing and the whole marketplace is being flooded by all now everybody’s an expert in psychosocial risk. Well, okay,

 

Nippin  38:43

great. Is there anything else either one of you wants to say, before we launch,

 

Rob Long  38:47

I think if we are going to do something, but for God’s sake, I think we must look at how we prepare these people. To start their career in safety. We’ve got to start looking at why would you send someone into a minefield? With no education at all in any of this now look at look at the three of us look at our life experience. Our years in the game of education and and years of education and expertise are practical experience in real life, and real life situations. You think of this of a young person coming into the Risk and Safety world with the current curriculum, and we’re virtually setting them up to get smashed in the first couple of months. They’re out in the workplace.

 

Nippin  39:39

Apparently, Rob, there is an industry out there which believes that you can sort most of these things with a checklist. Yes. I mean, yeah, I

 

Rob Long  39:51

know some of the world hyper safe. You know, I know someone who wrote a book called Paper safe and I reckon everyone should bloody well read it. I

 

Nippin  40:01

think that’s a that’s a good end. That’s a good conversation. Yeah. Okay, I’ll stop there.

 

Greg Smith  40:09

Okay, thanks Nippin

 

Nippin  40:10

If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, many more podcasts are available on our website novellas dot solutions forward stroke knowledge space. The podcast embracing differences is available on Spotify, pod bean, Apple podcasts and anchor. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel team develops. That way. Every time we publish a new podcast, you will get to know you want to find out more about our work, visit us at novellus. solutions or simply write to us at support@novellus.solutions. Thank you for wanting to learn more than you knew yesterday. And until we meet again, Goodbye and have fun