They usually don't. We just think they do. First, something uncomfortable: When we review adverse events in clinical medicine, we are not as objective as we think we are. We believe we are analysing what happened. What we are actually doing is reconstructing it — backwards, through the filter
Metropolitan Books / Henry Holt, 2014 What it is: A surgeon's honest exploration of how medicine approaches aging, serious illness, and death — and why we sometimes lose track of what matters the most. Why it matters: Medicine is built around fixing things. But sometimes patients are dying, and that&
Ashgate, 2006 — Third edition Routledge, 2014 What it is: A foundational text in human factors and safety science that fundamentally reframes how we think about error, blame, and learning in complex systems. Dekker introduces what he calls the "new view" of human error — a shift away from finding
Portfolio/Penguin, 2009 What it is: An argument that inspiring leaders and organisations communicate from the inside out — starting with purpose rather than with what they do or how they do it. Sinek calls this the Golden Circle: Why, How, What. Most leaders and organisations work from the outside in.
Sidney W.A. Dekker, Journal of Safety Research, 2002 🔗 DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00032-4 The research question: How can investigators reconstruct the human contribution to accidents in a way that actually explains what happened — rather than simply identifying who to blame? What they found: Dekker argues that most accident
I am not here because I have it all figured out. I am here because I have questions that won't leave me alone — and because I have learned that the best way to think clearly is to write, share, and invite others into the conversation. That is what