It is a familiar slogan: “Safety First.” We usually use a slogan for something we want, but are not yet doing enough. Apparently, safety is therefore not always truly first. That raises two questions: why is that, and should safety actually come first? This blog explores those questions.
Is safety really first?
When we investigate incidents and near misses, we often see that safety was not the top priority. People constantly have to make choices, and in that decision-making process the safest option often loses out to the most efficient, the most result-oriented, or the easiest option. Brain Based Safety has described a number of reasons for this. We call these reasons biases—internal motivators that increase risk-taking.We say that we choose the safest option, but in practice we often do not. Taking risks seems to be part of life.
Why are risks part of life?
If we go back a few thousand years in time, we see ancestors who could only survive by taking risks. Hunting large prey was inherently dangerous—it could easily go wrong. Yet the need for food outweighed the potential harm of fighting prey. Without taking risks, humanity would have starved and become extinct. Our DNA is programmed to take calculated risks. Risk tolerance is an essential part of our existence.
Should safety really come first?
That depends entirely on who you ask. For an employee, the choice looks different than for a leader or manager. That is what makes this such a complex issue. From employees, we expect controlled execution with as little risk as possible. Leaders, however, have a different assignment. They must keep multiple balls in the air. In addition to safety, they must achieve other targets as well. They are expected to make balanced decisions. This sometimes leads to tension between words (no risk) and actions (calculated risk). From the employee’s perspective: “They say Safety First, but they don’t act that way themselves.” Both perspectives are explored below.
The employee’s perspective
Employees experience the consequences of unsafe work processes more directly than anyone else. After all, they are in the line of fire, and if risks exist, they are the first to be exposed to them. That is why tasks are designed in such a way that employees can perform them safely. Rules and procedures safeguard this process. These can sometimes feel cumbersome, leading employees to perceive safety measures as excessive. Their DNA tolerates a certain level of risk, for example to achieve a goal more easily. Society, however, demands that the safe option is always chosen, so that everyone returns home healthy. This is what we call the Safety First principle.
The leader/manager’s perspective
Leaders, however, have a different primary objective: achieving results. To do so, multiple sub-goals must be realized simultaneously. In addition to safety, quality, quantity, and sustainability of the product or service must also be achieved. If these goals are not met, an organization will not survive in the long term. The survival of the organization is therefore the leader’s top priority. Put bluntly, it is not Safety First, but Survival of the System First.
Balancing: keeping multiple balls in the air
These sub-goals can sometimes conflict with one another. This means that no single sub-goal can be maximized, but each can be optimized. A safer way of working often takes more time, for example. Energy can only be spent once. Management, therefore, is not about choosing the absolutely safest option, but about choosing an acceptable level of safety. As a result, employees may sometimes observe that the safest option is not chosen. This can be interpreted as inconsistent role modeling, as a tension between words and actions.
Role modeling in a contradictory world
Leaders do not have an easy task. They must communicate intentions that can be somewhat contradictory: work safely, and get the job done. When a leader says, “Work safely, but I hope this task is finished by this afternoon,” there is a real chance that the employee hears: “Whatever happens, this must be finished this afternoon.” The leader believes they have emphasized safety, while the employee primarily hears performance pressure. This contradiction reduces the leader’s role model value.
Clear intention
When a leader is able to explain why a certain choice is made and consistently communicates the intention behind that behavior, willingness to follow that intention increases. Safety is an ambivalent field, full of contradictions that can be well understood by employees when properly explained. Lawyers have a saying for this: “The exception that proves the rule.” Even when it is not possible to choose a 100% safe solution, the right communication can still strengthen safety. Explanation and clarification enhance the effectiveness of leadership.
Juni Daalmans
January 2026