The “art” of safety, as opposed to the science or technology, offers subtle ways to use influencing language without inadvertently or clumsily sabotaging one’s own best efforts. The recently released Art of Safety offers ingenious ways to lift stalled programs off the plateau through the use of simple communication techniques.

One critical linguistic structure, related to the concept that the brain is literal and people’s attention will go where directed, is the phenomenon of presuppositions. These are utterances, or phrases, that carry with them something that is already presupposed by that phrase. If the receiver does not challenge the utterance immediately, it generally means that, at the unconscious level, they have “bought into” the presupposition.

Here are 2 examples of the 7 Deadly Presuppositions of Safety that need to be avoided.

1. “Can I help you?” – When someone walks into your office and you say, “How can I help you?” it presupposes you’re the helper and you’re in charge of the helping process. Then, who is helpless? That other person is.

As soon as they, in response, utter a single syllable, without challenging the presupposition, they’ve unconsciously “bought into” this relationship of dependency. This only reinforces traditional approaches that the leader is responsible for safety behavior, not the worker. “How can I help you?” creates dependant people. Avoid creating dependant people.

Avoid asking, “How can I help you?” A better, neutral question is “What’s up”, no presupposition implied. Dealing with this presupposition has broad applicability, well beyond safety applications. The Art of Safety also expands on why verbally presented information further creates dependency, while visual information empowers.

2. “Safety is job 1.” Everyone believes in the importance of safety and prevention, but producing a product or delivering a service is what our organizations are primarily created to do. We believe that production or service provision need not be conducted in such a way as to compromise safety. So these, along with quality, customer orientation, environmental protection, etc., are each important. But to say “Safety is job 1” attaches a primacy to safety, because of the ordinal reference to “1.” As well intentioned as that expression may be, as soon as we have to focus on productivity, we’re accused of not believing in safety, as if it were an “either/or” choice. It’s not.

We need to stop talking as if it is. This single utterance may be responsible for more workplace safety arguments than any other. It creates unnecessary conflict that can be simply avoided by referring to safety as a goal and priority “along with” production, service, quality, environment, etc. Even the most practiced leaders and professionals are often unaware of how they come across both verbally and non-verbally, and how they create the reality of the workplace by shaping how it’s experienced.

Small improvements in communication techniques pay big dividends in maintaining positive relationships and error-free performance.