Country selector
Corporate
Country Selector: Corporate
Every day, organizations invest in technologies that improve communication, lone-worker safety, and operational efficiency. Yet when incidents occur, technology is only part of the answer. Human performance, culture, trust, and leadership shape the conditions under which teams respond effectively.
Mistakes are inevitable in any organization, sometimes with serious consequences. What matters most is how leaders respond. According to Certified Business Psychologist and Human Factors Specialist Jodie Jarvis, leaders need to understand how to create a work environment that makes mistakes less likely.
"Building trust, actively listening and taking the time to really understand what makes people's work difficult are absolutely essential when aiming to make work safer," says Jarvis. "Effective leadership and relationship building are two things no AI or technology system can replace."
Jarvis began her career as cabin crew with a world-leading Middle Eastern airline, then trained flight-deck and cabin crew in safety and emergency response. That is where a question took hold that has stayed with her since: why do good, motivated people, trying their best, still make serious mistakes at work?
They treat "human error" as the ultimate cause and the end-point of an investigation. This belief runs deep. Someone made a mistake, so that person is blamed, dismissed or retrained, and the problem is considered solved. Yet comparable incidents keep recurring, year after year, because the underlying context was never addressed.
When it comes to Human Factors, the word "human" can be misleading. People assume it is about the individual and their behavior. In fact, it is about the systemic, cultural and environmental factors that shape how individuals behave. The question is not: how can we get people to try harder? It is: how can we design the workplace, the system and the culture to enable the right behaviors and minimize the opportunity for human error?
So when the final conclusion is that someone made a mistake, you are leaving valuable insight on the table. What you really want to know is: what are the underlying systemic and cultural influences that enabled this to play out?
Effective solutions often lean towards implementing fail-safe defenses, or strengthening existing ones, reducing reliance on the human as the last layer of defense. Where the human must remain that last layer, we should not blame them later for being the weakest link if we already knew they were from the start.
Building trust, actively listening and taking the time to really understand what makes people's work difficult, are absolutely essential when aiming to make work safer.
That is one of the biggest fears I witness among leaders. If you let go of blame, the reasoning goes, employees will assume a misstep carries no consequences. But most people come to work to do a good job. We don't remove blame so that people can get away with anything. We remove it to enable a rich learning process. For the very few who may have genuinely stepped out of line, consequences are not ruled out.
Accountability is a partnership. Employees have to be able to count on the organization and its leaders, and the organization, in turn, has to be able to count on its employees. The phrase "hold to account" often creeps in after an event has already happened.
That achieves far less than setting someone up properly from the start. So when something goes wrong, the most useful question is not: who did it? It is: how was this possible? Because if one person could make this mistake, someone else can make it again.
Human beings are sociable by nature. We collaborate, consult and correct one another. Put someone entirely on their own, and you remove all those safety nets at once. Whether that is dangerous depends largely on skills and experience.
A lone worker has more opportunities to get it wrong, to learn and to build resilience. The significant risk arises when organizations place people without that resilience in a position where they are alone, without support.
I have witnessed a "sink or swim" approach across many safety-critical organizations, often because there simply aren't enough experienced people to go around. The answer is not to leave that to chance, but to prepare people deliberately before they are alone, and to ensure they can still reach others the moment they need to.
Where those human safety nets fall away, how people stay connected and reach one another becomes even more decisive. This is where technology can play a supporting role.
Where those human safety nets fall away, how people stay connected and reach one another becomes even more decisive. This is where technology can play a supporting role, helping people reach the right person quickly, share accurate information, and coordinate an effective response at the moment it matters most.
Certainly. But I have spent years running psychological safety assessments, and the pattern is consistent. Even your most highly skilled employees will stay silent if the environment is not right. People speak up when they trust their manager and team to respond supportively, and when they know there is no penalty for naming a problem.
Take away psychological safety, replace it with fear, and reporting quietly dries up. For lone workers, this weighs even more heavily. There is no one watching, no one to notice, no one to correct. You are entirely dependent on people doing the right thing when no one is watching. A culture of silence is therefore not primarily an employee shortcoming. It is a system-related issue, underpinned by trust that has not yet been earned.
Three things have to be in order at the same time. The first is mindset: moving away from "human error" as a final verdict towards a culture that examines the wider context. That is not a training exercise but a cultural shift, and it takes time.
The second is skill set. Give people the capabilities and self-awareness their role demands. Ask yourself: which skills does this person now need that they did not need before, and how do we build them? Non-technical skills matter here: communicating clearly, being assertive when it counts, and developing self-awareness. Finally, people need the right tool set: the means to do their work properly, aligned with the mindset and skills the organization has built.
A framework such as a genuine Just Culture helps people look through the right lens when something goes wrong. Effective leadership and relationship building, after all, are two things that no AI or technology system can replace.
The safest organizations are not those where people never make mistakes. Instead, they are the organizations that recognize that mistakes are inevitable, design systems that anticipate them, and create cultures where employees feel confident speaking up before small problems become serious incidents.
Technology plays an important role, but only when it supports capable people, effective leadership and a culture of trust.
Jodie Jarvis is a Certified Business Psychologist specializing in Human Factors. She began her career as cabin crew for a world-leading airline based in Dubai, later training flight-deck and cabin crew in safety and emergency response, work that drew her to the question of why even the best employees make mistakes.
That question led to a master's in Occupational Psychology and to high-reliability sectors including rail and nuclear, where she focused on event investigations, culture and organizational learning, and more recently on psychological safety. Now back in Dubai and working in the technology industry, she guides the culture and development of employees and leaders, helping them thrive in their roles.
