“GOK” Safety Systems: When Luck and Hope Replace Real Safety” A Third-World Problem or a Global Blind Spot?

#243

GOK (God Only Knows) Safety Systems: How Do They Still Exist in 2025?

Introduction

It’s baffling but true—many mid-sized and even large organisations still operate on what I call the GOK (God Only Knows) Safety System. Instead of structured safety management, these companies rely on luck, blind optimism, delegation to oblivion, and prayer. It’s almost comical—except that real lives are at stake.

Despite advancements in risk assessment, safety culture, and regulatory frameworks, businesses continue to function with a “hope-based” safety strategy, where common sense, divine intervention, or expensive consultants are expected to do the job. How do such systems persist? More importantly, can they change?

Let’s break this down from a safety management, psychological, leadership, and organisational standpoint.

---

The 10 Pillars of GOK Safety Systems

1. Luck Will Save Us
   • “Nothing has gone wrong so far, so why should it now?”
   • Relying on historical good fortune instead of proactive risk mitigation.
   • Safety is not about luck; it’s about controlling what we can.
2. Common Sense Is Enough
   • “People know what’s right and wrong.”
   • But common sense varies widely.
   • Without structured training and systems, errors multiply.
3. Living on a Prayer – Not a Bon Jovi song (Literally)
   • “Put up images of gods and deities, and they will protect the workers.”
   • Spiritual beliefs may provide comfort but are not a substitute for hazard control.
4. Hope-Based Risk Management
   • “We hope nothing happens.”
   • Hope is not a strategy—action is.
5. Denial: “We Are Too Good to Fail”
   • “We are world-class! Nothing will happen here.”
   • Overconfidence leads to complacency.
6. Optimism Bias: “It Hasn’t Happened, So It Won’t”
   • “We’ve never had a major accident in 20 years!”
   • Past luck does not mean future safety.
   • No system is accident-proof.
7. Pass the Buck
   • “You raised the issue; you solve it!”
   • Leadership ignores ownership, creating a vicious cycle of inaction.
8. Delegation to the Lowest Level
   • “Safety is everyone’s job—so let the least empowered person handle it!”
   • No real accountability, so nothing improves.
9. Consultant as a Messiah
   • “Bring in a safety consultant. He will fix it all!”
   • Consultants can advise but cannot replace leadership commitment.
10. Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)

• “This issue is in another plant, so I won’t worry about it.”
• Safety is everyone’s concern, everywhere.

---

Why Do GOK Safety Systems Persist in 2025?

Despite all the progress in safety science, technology, and behavioural approaches, these practices continue due to:

1. Lack of Leadership Commitment
   • Safety is seen as a cost centre, not an investment.
   • Leaders look for quick fixes instead of long-term safety culture.
2. Psychological Factors
   • Normalisation of Deviance: If unsafe shortcuts worked before, they will work again.
   • Optimism Bias: Belief that disasters happen elsewhere, not here.
   • Diffusion of Responsibility: “Someone else will take care of it.”
3. Cultural and Organisational Factors
   • Blame Culture: Fear of speaking up leads to hidden hazards.
   • Tick-the-Box Compliance: Safety is reduced to paperwork, not actual protection.
4. Lack of Employee Engagement
   • Workers feel their concerns are ignored.
   • Safety is seen as “management’s job,” not everyone’s responsibility.
5. External Pressures
   • Businesses prioritise profits over safety, delaying investments.
   • Regulators focus on checking boxes instead of driving real improvement.

---

Can GOK Safety Systems Be Turned Around?

Yes, but it requires a paradigm shift from hope-based safety to proactive safety management.

1. Leadership: The Catalyst for Change

✅ Commit to safety as a core value, not an afterthought.
✅ Walk the talk—safety begins at the top.
✅ Establish accountability instead of delegating to the lowest level.

2. Culture: Shifting from Compliance to Commitment

✅ Encourage open reporting of unsafe conditions.
✅ Stop blame culture—focus on solutions.
✅ Ensure safety training is practical, not just theoretical.

3. Systems: Replace Hope with Structure

✅ Implement risk-based safety strategies.
✅ Use leading indicators, not just lagging ones.
✅ Integrate safety into business strategy—not as an add-on.

4. Employee Engagement: Making Safety Personal

✅ Recognise and reward safe behaviours.
✅ Involve employees in safety decision-making.
✅ Encourage safety ownership at all levels.

---

Are GOK Safety Systems a Third-World Problem?

At first glance, one might assume that GOK safety practices—relying on luck, blind optimism, and passive delegation—are more common in developing nations. Many III World countries struggle with:

1. Weak Regulatory Enforcement
   • Even when safety laws exist, compliance is often lax due to corruption, inefficiency, or lack of will.
   • Inspectors might be overwhelmed, understaffed, or compromised (though we are staying clear of bribes here!).
2. Lower Safety Awareness and Culture
   • Education and training in risk perception and hazard management are often limited.
   • Many workers have never been formally trained in safety, relying on “common sense” and what they see others do.
3. Cost-Cutting Mindset
   • Companies prioritise short-term gains over safety investments.
   • With tight margins and weak enforcement, safety is seen as a luxury, not a necessity.
4. Religious and Superstitious Beliefs in Safety
   • “Put a garland on the machine, it will protect the operator.”
   • “Accidents happen due to fate, not negligence.”
   • While faith has its place, safety should be based on science and systems, not divine protection.
5. Workforce Power Imbalance
   • Workers lack bargaining power to demand safer conditions.
   • Fear of losing jobs discourages reporting of safety concerns.

These factors make GOK safety systems thrive in III World countries, but does that mean developed nations are immune?

---

Do Developed Countries Have GOK Safety Systems?

Surprisingly, yes—but in a different form. While developed nations have stronger regulations, better-trained workforces, and robust enforcement, some variants of GOK safety thinking still persist:

1. Over-Reliance on Historical Safety Records
   • “We’ve had no fatalities in 10 years; we must be safe!”
   • Instead of looking for hidden risks, companies rely on past performance to predict future safety.
2. Paperwork Compliance Over Real Safety
   • “Our documentation is perfect, so we must be compliant!”
   • Many multinationals focus on paperwork rather than actual safety performance—an illusion of safety.
3. Tick-the-Box Audits
   • Some organisations conduct audits for compliance, not improvement.
   • Findings get buried instead of driving real change.
4. NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) Mentality
   • “That issue happens in our China factory, not here in Europe.”
   • Developed nations often outsource high-risk operations to developing countries to avoid liabilities.
5. Delegating to Consultants Instead of Building Ownership
   • “Hire a big-name consultant, and he will fix our safety problems.”
   • Consultants provide solutions, but internal ownership is what sustains safety culture.
6. Economic Pressures and Short-Term Thinking
   • Even large corporations in developed nations cut corners in safety when profits are under threat.
   • The Boeing 737 Max crisis and the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster are examples of developed-world GOK safety thinking.

---

Key Difference: Structure vs. Superstition

• In III World countries, GOK safety is often driven by lack of awareness, superstition, weak enforcement, and cost-cutting.
• In developed countries, GOK safety takes a more sophisticated form—over-reliance on systems, audits, and past performance, leading to a false sense of security.

---

So, Is This a Third-World Problem?

Not entirely. The flavours of GOK Safety Systems differ, but no country is completely immune.

1. Developing countries rely on hope, fate, and delegation to inaction.
2. Developed nations rely on excessive documentation, past performance, and overconfidence.
3. Both ignore proactive safety leadership and ownership.

The real issue is not geography but mindset.

Wherever safety is treated as an afterthought—whether in an Indian factory, a Brazilian refinery, or an American aviation company—GOK safety systems will persist.

Conclusion: From GOK to Real Safety

GOK Safety Systems thrive in environments where denial, delegation, and blind optimism replace real safety management. But the good news? Change is possible—with leadership commitment, cultural shifts, and structured systems.

Organisations must move from a “hope-based” to a “risk-based” approach, where safety is not left to luck or divine intervention, but actively managed, measured, and ingrained in everyday operations.

The challenge is to move from GOK safety to structured, risk-based safety everywhere—whether in Bangalore, Berlin, or Boston.

Because ultimately, safety is not about where you are—it’s about how you think.

Because in the end, as my boss,Late. Dr Rajan used to say, “God only help those who help themselves”—but safety is in our hands.

Karthik

3/2/25 1230pm.