“If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” -Sir Ken Robinson Innately curious and hardwired to seek order, humans often grasp onto the latest ideas and inventions that help us satisfy our need to understand the world around us. Don’t believe me? Consider geocentricism, or the now-obsolete belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. In earlier millennia, we followed herds of animals as they migrated, all of us sleeping under the stars. Our ancestors knew the night sky better than many of us do today. As they watched their world revolve around them, they assumed that the universe must have been created in service to them – right up until the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton confirmed heliocentrism (i.e., that the sun is the center of our solar system). Naturally, our ancestors were slow to accept this new information because changing deep-seated beliefs is no easy feat. They experienced discomfort and outright fear, preferring the warm and fuzzy feeling derived from trusting that the universe was solely focused on their needs. Much like our ancestors, humans today often feel certain that we know all there is to know. When we dip a teaspoon into the proverbial ocean of available knowledge and find no whales, it is easy to assume whales do not exist. There weren’t any in our saltwater sample, right? I noted earlier that it is not uncommon for us to acquire a small amount of information and run with it. Sometimes we will even protect and defend that information when someone challenges us or proves us wrong. Why do we respond in that manner? Well, our beliefs feel like a cozy security blanket, and our discomfort is provoked when someone snatches that blanket away. Though modern human society has undoubtedly evolved, the reality is that we are not vastly different from our ancestors. One exception is that in 2026, there is no valid reason why we shouldn’t trade in our teaspoons for much larger buckets of knowledge. Predictive Processing Errors We should not be surprised that safety has evolved in much the same way, given that it is a product of human systems and behaviors. Still, recognizing that can be difficult without the proper perspective. Let’s start by acknowledging that so long as we are breathing, there exists an infinite number of circumstances, decisions and other possibilities that could impact us. These possibilities intersect – again, in infinite ways – sometimes combining to produce worksite incidents. Yet too many industry professionals believe that we can identify and prevent the limitless number of potential event scenarios, using incident analyses to determine and address root causes. Incidents stem from predictive processing errors, which is just a fancy term for certain mistakes made by the human brain. Here is the critical part that readers must understand: We cannot and will not predict an incident that we have never previously experienced or imagined or do not believe could occur. Recall the teaspoon-and-whales fallacy referenced earlier. Time constraints and other job pressures are not uncommon in our industry. When we feel as though we must make a snap decision, the brain looks for cues and patterns based on our previous experiences and education. It will not make any decisions based on information it does not possess. In other words, greater intelligence and safer jobsites are much more likely to emerge when we share information with each other, preferably in healthy group settings that support quality interactions. But here’s the catch. First, the human brain wants to conserve as much of the body’s energy as possible. Second, many of us are painfully aware that some individuals and working environments require more of our energy than others do. With that said, we can try to avoid interacting with coworkers who deplete us, but we also must realize that nothing results from a conversation that never takes place. No one will learn anything new that could enhance safety for all. Optimism Bias and Experiential Blindness Optimism bias – or a person’s inclination to underestimate the likelihood that something could go wrong – is a predictive processing error often made when the brain is in a state of experiential blindness. Our ability to accurately predict future events is severely hampered if we have never experienced those scenarios or imagined they could happen. Discovering our mistakes can be troubling as well, often triggering an emotional response that blocks the brain’s frontal lobe – the part that controls our critical thinking and executive functions. Keep the previous paragraph in mind as we work through this next part. Let’s say someone raises a concern during a job briefing that is almost immediately dismissed by the rest of the crew. A concern shot down that quickly will likely never elicit any feedback or suggested actions from the group. But what if we reframe the way we think about concerns, treating them as predictions of unwanted outcomes? The more concerns that we raise, the more possibilities we can imagine, which increases our likelihood of identifying mitigation strategies that protect employees, customers and the public. Safety is a product of our interactions on the job. Humans have invented the social hierarchy that exists in many organizations, but here is the reality: Every single worker is a piece of our puzzle. Remove one of them and outcomes change. The same is true in non-utility environments. For instance, a patient’s care could be undermined if the sheets on their hospital bed are soiled or their meals haven’t been carefully prepared. The next time you decide to bake your favorite loaf of bread, omit a couple of ingredients and let us know if it looks and tastes the same way you remember. Tracking Events That Don’t Happen Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: “If we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it.” That may be true for many things, yet it is not wholly accurate for safety. Yes, we collect and analyze data after incidents have occurred. But in an organization that fosters high-level, quality interactions among workers – interactions that enable us to carefully and intentionally move forward together through uncertainty – how do we measure and manage those incidents that never happened because of our safety efforts? The simple answer: We don’t. Instead, we focus on learning what we can from every outcome – wanted, unwanted, expected and unexpected. Upstream Signals There is one last thing I want to mention here. Since we do not typically notice what we are not looking for, we can miss weak upstream signals that point toward unwanted and unexpected outcomes. That means we must make a concerted effort to improve our observational skills, with success greatly dependent on team dynamics. Is there synchrony among our team? If not, who or what is out of alignment? Our next safety meeting could provide some clues. While there, observe who is sitting in the back of the room. Have those individuals mostly assumed the same body language and posture, such as crossing their arms? Isn’t that interesting when we consider the tidy sum many of us are willing to pay for good seats to an event we are eager to attend? In fact, I do not believe our workers who sit in the back row, arms crossed, are consciously or voluntarily making that choice. I believe their behavior is an indicator of an unsettling, undefined “something” occurring upstream in the organizational system. Conclusion Safety should be about playing to win – not merely playing not to lose. To continue the utility industry’s safety evolution, it is imperative that we foster work environments in which concerns are treated as predictions of unwanted outcomes and our interactions with one another are considered opportunities to expand our collective intelligence. About the Author: William N. Martin, CUSP, NRP, RN, DIMM, is president and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC (www.thinkprojectllc.com) and SAFR LLC. A third-generation electric utility worker and medical professional with extensive experience in high-risk operations and emergency medicine, he served nearly 20 years in lineman, line supervisor and safety director roles. Additionally, Martin spent 23 years as a critical care flight paramedic and registered nurse with cardiology and orthopedic experience. He earned a Diploma in Mountain Medicine and was an instructor/trainer for the National Ski Patrol. Currently, Martin writes and speaks nationally about safety and human performance, with a special focus on unleashing human potential.

Author’s Note: The first part of this five-part series (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/when-the-system-isnt-enough-how-to-create-personal-motivation-that-saves-lives/) explored the notion of accepting 100% accountability for our safety at work. This article addresses mental preparation to reduce risk of serious injuries and fatalities. Part three will cover spiritual health, with a focus on clarifying and leveraging our own deeply held beliefs.

*****

Combat had endless tests, and one of the worst sins was “chattering” on the radio, which was reserved for essential messages; loose talk showed the wrong stuff. A Navy pilot once yelled, “I’ve got a MiG at zero!” as the enemy locked on his tail. An irritated voice cut in: “Shut up and die like an aviator.” –Paraphrased from Tom Wolfe’s “The Right Stuff” Are U.S. Navy pilots really born this way? Many lineworkers have their own phrase: “He is a good hand.” While understated, it is meant to describe the pinnacle of lineworker excellence. But what is the “right stuff” in our industry? Calm, cool and collected? Competent, stoic and thoughtful? The kind of person who can say, “Houston, we have a problem” without missing a beat? Do we expect a lineworker to perform a thorough job briefing or safety analysis during a heat wave in the same way astronaut Jim Lovell calculated trajectories for Apollo 13’s return inside an overheated space capsule? Navy pilots aren’t born calm, and lineworkers aren’t born good hands. These are learned behaviors cultivated through training, character development and good habit formation. As such, this article will not provide readers with a single definition of the right stuff. Instead, it will explain the origins of our natural dispositions and how we can evolve into people others trust with their lives. What You’re Born With vs. What You Build Since we’re not born ready-made for hazardous work, it is helpful to understand the raw wiring we begin our lives with and the patterns we develop over time. Temperament is your nervous system’s factory setting, the tendencies you exhibited as a toddler and probably still demonstrate today. Some of us are naturally quiet and steady while others jump right into the center of things. None of this is good or bad. It is simply your starting point. Your personality, or learned response to life, is shaped as your temperament interacts with your environment. You can thank everyone you have ever known for influencing it. Personality is the ongoing negotiation between who you are on the inside and what the external world expects of you. Some struggle with this balance, but most manage it well enough. Emotional reactions arise from the interplay of both. Like voltage seeking ground, every moment is matched against your temperament and personality. Experiences in line with your natural tendencies generate little emotional current, while those that conflict create spikes. If someone threatens your family, for example, you’ll almost certainly feel it at full wattage; less so if someone hands you a package of peanut M&M’s instead of the plain ones you prefer. Strong spikes become trigger points that can create havoc. Thankfully, David Rock, Ph.D., devised the SCARF Model, a cheat sheet for understanding these emotional triggers. In simple terms, the typical adult will have an emotional response to a perceived threat against their sense of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness or fairness. The bigger the threat, the bigger the reaction – works every time. Consider an apprentice who has just been insulted in front of the rest of the crew. Depending on their temperament, they may react loudly and immediately or quietly a few hours later. For some it will be an immediate fistfight; others will prefer nailing your favorite hard hat to a pole when you’re not around. What Predicts Safe Behavior? Once you know what sets you off, you can train yourself to manage those triggers and influence safety in the field. Psychologists have studied five core personality traits – measured by the Five Factor Model, which has been supported by numerous studies since 1992 – that predict safety-related behavior. Taking this assessment can help you understand your temperament, personality, emotional triggers and how likely you are to work safely in hazardous conditions. The five factors are:

1. Conscientiousness: High assessment scores indicate deliberate, careful work. Low scores suggest carelessness.
2. Neuroticism: High scores signify impulsive, reactive behavior, especially under stress. Low scores mean stability, calm and steady decision-making.
3. Extroversion: High extroversion can either lead to distraction and horseplay or, with genuine competence, turn into strong, vocal advocacy for safety.
4. Agreeableness: High scores mean you’re cooperative, willing to follow rules and a team player.
5. Openness: Being open to untested approaches in hazardous situations can be risky, but being cautiously open to new safety tools and methods is a plus.

It is in your best interest to know your Five Factor scores, which highlight natural risks and areas that may need development. Although personality does not dictate your decisions, it does strongly influence your likeliest choices, and most of us are more predictable than we realize. Five Factor assessment results often confirm an individual’s suitability for line work, but even then, understanding these traits provides clearer insights into how we operate internally. Personality Can Change With Practice Now that we know which traits influence safe behavior, the question is, can we modify our own personal traits to enhance our safety in the field? Contrary to popular belief, the answer is yes – but there are three requirements: (1) willingness to change your behavior, (2) belief that you can change and (3) consistent practice until the new behavior becomes habit. This may sound like psychobabble, but it is based on the same principle as boot camp, during which character development trains emotions. Boot camp attendees typically walk in with one disposition and walk out with another. Line apprenticeships work the same way. Often, there is a notion that we rise to the occasion, but the reality is that we sink to our level of training. True mastery is on us. It is – and can only be – a personal choice. Elite athletes and special operations soldiers are prime examples. Their careers demand constant mastery, so they relentlessly concentrate on how they eat, move, sleep, communicate, focus, make decisions, plan their work and avoid complacency. Their apprenticeship never really ends. In the utility world, effort often tapers once someone tops out, but we shouldn’t give up once we’ve “made it” because injuries and fatalities still happen. True mastery doesn’t stop at the peak; it’s up to each of us to keep learning and improving. Full accountability for our own safety means we shouldn’t ignore anything that could give us an edge. Upgrading Your Mental Firmware If your temperament is the factory setting of your nervous system, then mastery comes from upgrading the mental firmware that runs on top of it. The first step is understanding how you’re built (i.e., your natural temperament and the personality you’ve developed over time). The next step is intentionally improving how you operate. This is when models like SCARF become useful. In addition to explaining why you react the way you do, they also help you predict what will set you off, enabling you to manage your pressure points before they manage you. Note: Because this work is deeply personal, these upgrades should always be voluntary and confidential. Here are the four steps I train clients to use when upgrading their mental firmware:

1. Understand how thinking and emotion interact: Recognize what high-quality decisions look and feel like, especially under pressure.
2. Strengthen habits: Build routines that make safe behavior automatic, not optional.
3. Improve attention and focus: Stay mentally present and resist complacency.
4. Visualize work processes before the day begins: Perform a mental pre-mortem – picture the job, identify hazards and make adjustments – before stepping onto the site.

All of these skills can be trained on, practiced and improved. In combination, they help to close the gap between who a person is naturally and the person the work requires them to be to keep themselves safe. A Deliberate Endeavor The right stuff isn’t magic or something bestowed upon you. It’s developed deliberately over time by people who want to be the best at what they do and go home whole. Everyone employed in a hazardous trade has the capacity to develop the right stuff, but it will only happen when workers learn who they are, understand their triggers and commit to mastery. About the Author: Tom Cohenno, Ed.D., CSP, CUSP, NBC-HWC, is a recognized safety expert and principal of Applied Learning Science (https://appliedlearningscience.com). With deep academic and operational experience as a U.S. Navy veteran, substation chief and former utility executive, he blends real-world insight with evidence-based research to deliver practical, impactful safety solutions.

*****

To learn more about Dr. David Rock’s SCARF model, read “SCARF: A Brain-Based Model for Collaborating With and Influencing Others” (see https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf) and “Managing With the Brain in Mind” (see https://davidrock.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ManagingWBrainInMind.pdf).