The previous articles in this series examined two factors that strongly influence personal safety. Accountability is the idea that meaningful improvement begins when workers accept responsibility for their own safety decisions. Through mental preparation, workers gain an understanding of the ways in which temperament, emotional triggers and habits affect their judgment under pressure. This article builds on those concepts by addressing spiritual preparation, a third factor not nearly as commonly discussed that nevertheless plays a critical role in how people behave on the job. Spiritual preparedness is not necessarily about religion (although it could be) or belief systems imposed by organizations. Rather, it is an individual’s collection of commitments, fueled by an internal source of strength that provides identity, purpose and meaning during adversity. Taking Risks When We Know Better In safety-critical lines of work, clarifying and honoring one’s source of strength and associated commitments often helps employees follow the rules they know are right instead of taking shortcuts that feel easier in the moment. Many serious injuries have occurred because people knew better and broke the rules anyway – not because they weren’t aware of the rules. Every day, lineworkers and other employees make tradeoffs because they think, “The odds are low that this will go wrong,” “I’ve done this a hundred times,” or “This will only take a second.” These decisions feel completely rational in the moment, like jaywalking when traffic seems light. No one wants to be hurt or killed, naturally, but people don’t always experience risk in a consistent manner. In a nutshell, safety professionals strive toward zero risk. Frontline workers manage perceived risk. When a worker’s task appears routine with little probability of harm, rules can feel like inconveniences whose costs outweigh the benefits. It is in that gap – the one between how organizations think about risk and how frontline workers experience it – where people get hurt. So, how do we bridge the gap? What can we do to help people further lower their injury risk even when it doesn’t feel necessary to them? The answer isn’t more rules. It’s spiritual preparation: strengthening the internal commitments that guide human behavior when risk feels acceptable. The Limits of Policies and Procedures Organizational policies and procedures are developed under the assumption that employees will act rationally and consistently in all conditions. Realistically, stress and fatigue affect human decision-making. When those influences are strong, even well-designed rules can lose their power. This is why incident investigators so often discover that the individuals involved understood the hazards and knew the correct procedures yet still made different choices. Such behavior is not primarily driven by training or policy but by what the individuals valued most in the moment (e.g., speed, group acceptance, avoiding hassle, simply getting the job done). That behavioral shift is exactly why spiritual preparation matters; it is when a person’s moral code enters the picture. Lineworkers rely on pole partners near energized conductors because a second set of eyes can catch things a lone worker might miss. Professional divers operate the same way underwater. However, these systems only work when both people genuinely believe they are responsible for each other’s safety, not just their own. Written rules are not the source of that belief. It is a deeply held internal standard, a personal moral code that firmly states, “I don’t look the other way when someone next to me is at risk.” The U.S. military provides a clear example of how powerful this can be. When a fellow soldier is injured in combat, our self-preservation instinct tells us to seek cover. Yet soldiers stay put because they are anchored to the commitment that they will not leave anyone behind despite their own fear. The strength of their personal and collective moral codes is what enables them to act against their instincts. Civilian work is different, but the mechanism is the same. Employees who have clarified their own moral code – those values and commitments they refuse to violate – are far less likely to drift into unsafe behavior under difficult conditions. Spiritual Preparation and Safety Performance Again, spiritual preparation is the work of identifying and strengthening that code. It addresses a segment of safety performance that exists below conscious human awareness, influencing what happens when someone knows the right thing to do but feels pressure to do something else. Without making clear commitments, people are more susceptible to fatigue, rushing, overconfidence and unspoken group norms. Moral clarity makes those pressures easier to resist because decisions are anchored to something deeper than convenience or habit. In practical terms, spiritual preparation helps turn ideas like “I am my brother’s keeper” into consistent behavior, not merely situational intent. Building a Spiritual Foundation Developing a personal moral code doesn’t happen by accident. Employees in high-risk professions have long relied on proven approaches to clarify their values and strengthen their ability to act consistently under pressure. Three of these proven approaches are described below for the reader’s consideration. 1. Arete: Excellence of Character Rooted in classical philosophy, “arete” (ah–reh–tay) means excellence of character. It’s the idea that under pressure, people fall back on who they believe they are rather than what they intend to do. Arete focuses on aligning one’s identity, habits and behavior so that internal standards remain steady even when shortcuts appear tempting. From a safety perspective, this strengthens the internal voice that says, “This risky choice does not align with who I am or how I want to be known.” “Premeditatio malorum” – Latin for “premeditation of evils” – is one concept I’ve found particularly helpful. The phrase is inscribed on a small coin I keep with me, an unwavering reminder to think through likely problems before they occur. While the coin’s wording reflects ancient hardships, I’ve adapted the idea to modern work situations, including winter storms, incorrect circuit maps, missing equipment and poor planning. Taking time to think through these scenarios in advance makes it easier to respond calmly, deliberately and safely if they do occur. I also recommend reviewing Brian Johnson’s Philosopher’s Notes (see www.philosophersnotes.com), which combine ancient wisdom and modern psychology in short, easy-to-read installments. They are inspiring to read and directly applicable to our work. 2. The U.S. Army: Spiritual Fitness Under Adversity Spiritually fit individuals possess an internal source of strength that provides them with identity, purpose and meaning during adversity, according to the U.S. Army. That source could be faith, duty, service, loyalty or promises made to others. In the Army, spiritual fitness is supported by both the chain of command and the storied Chaplain Corps. Our deeply held beliefs help us sustain disciplined behavior when stress, fear and exhaustion take over. Law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency responders rely on similar internal moral codes every day, often supported by chaplains, because the codes help them function reliably in high-consequence situations. I witnessed this firsthand while working as a switching center supervisor during a period of civil unrest in Los Angeles. Several of us stayed on duty for days. First the U.S. Marines secured the intersection outside the station, and then the National Guard moved directly into the facility while we continued to operate the system citywide. It was a tragic situation, but the team drew on a shared sense of duty to restore and maintain service. No one questioned staying or doing what needed to be done. That kind of reliability under pressure is a product of clear internal commitments – not rules – the same foundation the Army refers to as spiritual fitness. 3. Fuller Seminary: Meaning and Connection Fuller Seminary’s Thrive model (see https://thethrivecenter.org/explore) suggests that people find meaning when they feel a sense of connection to something larger than themselves. Judgment improves when work is clearly tied to contribution and responsibility to others. Unsafe behavior becomes harder to self-justify. The Thrive model focuses on preparation rather than control. Since it is impossible to prevent every challenge we will face on the job, it makes sense to concentrate on fortifying ourselves in advance so that we respond well when conditions inevitably deteriorate. In this sense, spiritual health works like physical conditioning, improving how we perform under stress. What does this require from a practical standpoint? You must clarify what matters most to you; build daily habits that support safe decision-making; stay connected to those you work and live with; and periodically assess whether your actions still match the kind of worker and teammate you want to be. I found the Fuller concepts invaluable during periods of organizational upheaval, including layoffs, station closures, involuntary reassignments, and in the aftermath of serious injuries and fatalities. Those experiences pushed me to reconsider the broader arc of my life and take comfort in what exists beyond work. Why This Matters The persistence of serious injuries and fatalities in the utility industry indicates that safety efforts must continue to evolve. Spiritual preparation is designed to help us better control our behavior. It is much like defensive driving on a larger scale; think of it as defensive working. This preparation helps people clarify what they stand for before they find themselves under pressure. A worker armed with a clear personal moral code has something solid to rely on when their instincts and emotions could lead to poor choices. Professionals who operate in exceedingly high-risk environments (U.S. Army soldiers, for example) have learned that distinct moral commitments are essential to reliable performance. There is no reason the same principles cannot apply to us. Human behavior is often based on unconscious drivers. Spiritual preparation matters because it improves our behavioral consistency when conditions are at their worst. That consistency under pressure is one of the strongest predictors of whether a worker goes home safely at the end of each day. 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.

In safety management, data is often treated as objective truth. Leaders use incident rates, near-miss reports, injury trends and predictive models to guide them as they prioritize risk and allocate organizational resources. Yet data can quietly mislead us, particularly when bias is embedded in what we collect and our measurement and interpretation methods. Effective, ethical safety leaders continuously work to recognize and address these distortions. Exploring Various Biases A widely cited World War II-era example illustrates the dangers of biased data. During the war, Allied forces studied returning aircraft to determine where additional armor was needed. Analysts initially recommended reinforcing areas with the most visible bullet holes. Statistician Abraham Wald challenged this reasoning, highlighting what is now known as survivorship bias. He observed that the only aircraft analyzed were those that survived their missions. Aircraft that failed to return home had likely sustained catastrophic damage to areas where no bullet holes were observed on the surviving planes. Wald’s insight suggested that undamaged areas required reinforcement, not the visibly damaged ones. Survivorship bias remains a powerful warning for leaders whose safety programs rely on incomplete or filtered data. However, it is only one source of potential distortion. Selection bias occurs when data is drawn from an unrepresentative sample. In a utility environment, this could happen when organizations heavily rely on information from crews or regions with strong reporting cultures while underestimating risk in areas where incidents and near misses are less likely to be reported. Leaders may inadvertently prioritize the wrong hazards when the dataset does not reflect the entire population. Even when data is broadly collected, confirmation bias can still emerge (i.e., leaders subconsciously favor data that supports their existing beliefs or assumptions). For example, if management believes a particular work practice is safe, near-miss data that challenges their belief may be discounted or dismissed as anomalous. Over time, selective interpretation reinforces blind spots and weakens organizational learning. Measurement bias can be introduced at the point of data capture, resulting in inconsistently defined or poorly standardized safety data. Metrics that depend on subjective judgment – such as what qualifies as a safety observation or near miss – can vary widely among supervisors, crews and contractors. When measurement practices differ, trends become unreliable and comparisons across departments or time periods lose meaning. Historical bias arises when data reflects outdated assumptions, norms or exclusions that no longer align with today’s workforce or operating environments. Caroline Criado Perez’s book “Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men” highlights how systems built on incomplete data can overlook entire populations. In safety-critical industries, this could appear in PPE design, equipment ergonomics or training materials developed for a narrow segment of the workforce, leaving others at elevated risk. More recently, algorithmic bias has emerged as organizations increasingly adopt predictive analytics and other safety tools driven by artificial intelligence, which can inherit and amplify patterns embedded in historical data. Any algorithms trained using past incident data that underrepresents certain hazards, job roles or worker groups may consistently underestimate risk in those areas. Since algorithmic outputs often appear objective, this bias can be difficult to detect and challenge without deliberate oversight. Overcoming Vulnerabilities Embedded bias distorts safety intelligence and can create organizational vulnerabilities. Resources may be misdirected. Early warning signs could be missed. Emerging hazards might remain invisible until a serious incident occurs. Overreliance on lagging indicators like recordable injury rates could create a false sense of security, especially in high-risk utility operations. Biased data can also further erode trust. Reporting declines when frontline workers witness leadership decisions that conflict with their lived experiences, deepening the data gap. Despite these risks, high-quality data remains indispensable to effective safety management, enabling organizations to identify trends, prioritize controls, evaluate interventions, and shift from reactive responses to proactive prevention. Decisions made without data are often driven by anecdotes and intuition. The challenge, therefore, is not whether to use data but how to use it thoughtfully and with full awareness of its limitations. Recognizing bias is the first step. Leaders should routinely ask, who is missing from this dataset? What assumptions shaped these metrics? What risks could be hidden? A questioning approach encourages more accurate, proactive, ethical decision-making. Leaders who understand bias are more likely to consult multiple data sources, blending quantitative indicators with qualitative insights from job observations, worker feedback and learning teams. Most importantly, confronting data bias helps to ensure that safety systems are designed to protect all workers, not just those most visible in the data. Intentional effort is required to turn awareness into action. Organizations must routinely audit safety data for gaps and inconsistencies, standardize definitions and measurement practices, and foster psychologically safe reporting environments. As use of predictive analytics and other AI tools expands, transparency and human oversight are essential. Leaders must treat model outputs as decision aids – not decision-makers – and be accountable for how data-driven insights are applied in the field. Conclusion Numbers carry authority, shaping organizational budgets, priorities and narratives. However, as Abraham Wald demonstrated decades ago, some of our greatest threats may never appear in the data we see. Safety leaders who understand and deliberately question, test and correct for biases ultimately position their organizations to more effectively mitigate risk. About the Author: Gina Vanderlin, CSP, CHMM, CIT, CUSP, is the customer operations health and safety program manager at PSEG Long Island. With over 15 years of experience leading EHS initiatives in high-reliability industries, she remains passionate about elevating safety from a compliance function to a strategic driver of culture, engagement and operational excellence. Reach Vanderlin at gina.vanderlin@psegliny.com.