Let’s be honest—safety isn’t typically seen as a highly desirable profession. Too often, we’re perceived as party-spoilers—people who dictate how work should be done without fully understanding the intricacies of the job. This perception undermines our credibility and influence in the workplace.
Yet, as safety practitioners, we know the value of our role. Our work prevents pain, suffering, and even loss of life. We aim to be seen not just as necessary but as respected professionals who are integral to an organisation’s success.
The Professionalism Challenge
Professions are typically defined by specialised knowledge, formal education, ethical standards, and a level of autonomy grounded in expertise. However, the health and safety sector often struggles to meet these criteria. One of the main challenges is bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application.
Many safety practitioners hold non-graduate qualifications that focus on what must be done rather than why it must be done. This educational gap leads to rigid adherence to established practices rather than critical engagement with new approaches. As a result, legislation often becomes the default template rather than a guide to achieving meaningful safety outcomes.
A key example of this challenge is the adoption of the Safety II philosophy, a framework developed by thinkers such as Erik Hollnagel and Sidney Dekker. While Safety II has generated significant enthusiasm, many practitioners struggle to implement its principles effectively. Dekker points out that safety professionals tend to favour prescriptive, checklist-driven solutions over engaging deeply with complex, real-world safety challenges.
Another issue is that safety practitioners often operate at a technical rather than a strategic level. In most professions, senior roles involve strategic decision-making, while technical roles focus on execution. This distinction is less pronounced in safety, where even senior practitioners often prioritise technical compliance over broader, systems-based safety strategies.
The Compliance Trap
The effects of this divide are particularly evident in industries like construction. In New Zealand, for example, major construction firms require subcontractors to produce detailed Site Specific Safety Plans (SSSPs), often extending into hundreds of pages. Many wrongly assume these procedural documents are a legal requirement. This reflects a wider misconception: the belief that safety can be assured through rigid processes rather than through shared responsibility and adaptive strategies.
As a result, safety professionals are often viewed as necessary but not influential. While it’s encouraging to see more companies including safety professionals in senior management, the reality is that safety teams often report to HR rather than directly to executive leadership. Titles like Health and Safety Manager may suggest authority, but in practice, these roles are frequently equated with HR advisors—more administrative than strategic.
Becoming Strategic Change Agents
How do we change this perception? How do we transition from compliance officers to true strategists?
In my book, Safety 2.1 – The Safety Envelope, I argue that we have a choice. We can remain confined to routine tasks—conducting inspections, minuting Safety Committee meetings, walking the shop floor, and compiling safety statistics for board reports. Or we can adopt a more strategic approach, making a tangible difference in how work is done—not by adding more red tape, but by empowering workers to use common sense and take responsibility for their own and others’ safety.
The phrases common sense and taking responsibility are often dismissed in safety circles, but I deliberately emphasize them. When framed correctly, these concepts become two of the most powerful drivers of meaningful safety improvements. They signal that workers are actively contributing their indispensable expertise to prevent harm.
To secure a seat at the senior leadership table, we need to demonstrate that our work makes the business better—safer and better. Initially, this means solving safety problems, but over time, our contributions should extend to improving productivity, quality, reducing waste, and minimising rework. When we show how safety enhances overall business performance, we can move beyond our token 15-minute slot in board meetings—where we merely regurgitate statistics—to becoming trusted, strategic advisors.
Safety as a Performance Driver
Safety is crucial, but it doesn’t operate in isolation. The same factors that drive high performance also drive safe performance. The old saying “safety and productivity are blood twins” holds true. If people are set up for success in their jobs, they will not only perform better—they will work more safely.
This is a central theme in Safety 2.1 – The Safety Envelope, where I explore how safety practitioners can break through the glass ceiling and establish themselves as true professionals.
Conclusion
Elevating the status of safety professionals requires bridging the gap between theory and practice, embracing frameworks like Safety II, and moving beyond technical compliance to strategic safety leadership. By demonstrating our value beyond safety—by improving productivity, quality, and operational efficiency—we can shift perceptions and establish ourselves as indispensable change agents within our organisations.