"They should have..."

Three little words that appear in countless incident investigations. But what if they're stopping us from understanding what really happened?

In Episode 5 of Leading Safely: Off the Shelf, Georgina Poole explores Sidney Dekker's ideas about counterfactual thinking from The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'.

We'll challenge why focusing on what people should have done can distract us from understanding why their actions made sense at the time.

Expect a little humour, uncomfortable questions and practical insights that might change how you approach your next investigation.

Because knowing what someone should have done isn't the same as understanding why they didn't.

You've collected the evidence. Reviewed the records. Interviewed everyone involved. Built your timeline.

So you've got the full story... right?

Well, not necessarily!

In Episode 4 of Leading Safely: Off the Shelf, Georgina Poole explores Sidney Dekker's ideas about evidence, context and understanding from The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'.

We'll challenge why having more information doesn't always mean having a better understanding, how investigators can unintentionally construct a story that makes perfect sense in hindsight, and why seeing an event through the eyes of those involved can change everything.

Expect some uncomfortable questions, practical examples and a fresh perspective on what it really means to investigate.

Because having all the pieces of the puzzle doesn't necessarily mean you've put them together the right way.

Ever looked back at an incident and thought, "Surely they should have known better?"

Well, what if the problem isn't what they failed to see, but what we can see now?

In Episode 3 of Leading Safely: Off the Shelf, Georgina Poole explores Sidney Dekker's ideas about hindsight bias and micro-matching from The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'.

We'll challenge why mistakes seem so obvious after the event, how investigators can unknowingly judge people using information they never had, and why finding a gap between a procedure and someone's actions doesn't necessarily explain anything.

Expect a little humour, some uncomfortable questions and a fresh perspective on how we investigate when things go wrong.

Because it's easy to say, "They should have seen it coming" when you already know how the story ends.