Australia
N.Z
U.K
Why the metrics you trust might be misleading you
For decades, safety performance has been measured using a familiar set of numbers: TRIFR, LTIFR, and other recordable injury frequency rates. These acronyms have become staples in boardroom reports, contract tenders, and executive dashboards. They’re neat, they’re benchmarkable, and they give leaders a sense of control.
But what if those numbers are wrong – or at the very least, unhelpful?
That was the question at the centre of a recent HSI Donesafe webinar, Are You Measuring What Matters? Hosted by Ben Evans and featuring Georgina Poole – health and safety leader, keynote speaker, and co-author of Random Noise – the session challenged the role traditional metrics play in safety decision-making.
And the answer, it turns out, is far more complex than simply swapping one metric for another.
The seductive simplicity of numbers
“We look for easy numbers,” said Georgina early in the discussion. “Something measurable, something achievable, something that looks like it’s telling us what we want to know.”
And that’s the trap. Because while metrics like TRIFR and LTIFR may offer comfort to senior leaders, they don’t necessarily tell the truth. “Just because your TRIFR is low doesn’t mean your workers are safe,” she added. “And a high TRIFR doesn’t automatically mean you’re at risk of a fatality. The numbers don’t reflect what’s really happening.”
Ben echoed this sentiment: “Metrics give the illusion of control. They’re benchmarkable. They’re familiar. But if they’re not meaningful, they can create a false sense of safety.”
From insight to distortion
One of the most powerful sections of the discussion focused on how metrics – particularly when tied to incentives – can actively distort the safety picture.
Georgina shared examples of organisations where workers were discouraged from reporting injuries, or where minor incidents were downplayed to avoid triggering reportable classifications. “In some cases, there’s massaging of the data,” she said. “And that’s not because people are dishonest – it’s because the system rewards certain outcomes.”
When metrics become the target rather than the tool, the result is what some call safety theatre – the appearance of control, rather than the reality of safety.
So what should we measure instead?
The short answer: it depends.
Rather than prescribing a universal replacement for TRIFR, Georgina and Ben advocated for a more nuanced, contextual, and human-centred approach to understanding risk and safety performance. That includes:
- Operational learning – Creating systems that capture insights from the work as it’s really done, not just as it was imagined in the procedure.
- Learning teams – Facilitated conversations with workers to understand the everyday pressures, trade-offs, and challenges they face.
- Qualitative indicators – Capturing patterns from conversations, interactions, and near misses that often go unseen in traditional reporting.
- Follow-up actions – Instead of just measuring what’s reported, measure how well your organisation responds to what’s reported.
“Organisations need to stop pretending they can quantify safety in a tidy little box,” said Georgina. “Start listening instead. Ask curious questions. Understand the context. That’s where the real risk lives.”
Engaging the executive team
Of course, changing how safety is measured isn’t just about frontline tools – it’s a cultural shift that needs leadership buy-in. Ben and Georgina discussed the challenge of getting boards and executive teams to move away from familiar metrics and embrace more qualitative, less ‘clean’ indicators.
“The reality is, execs like the numbers,” said Ben. “They’re clean. They fit into graphs. But when you show them stories, patterns, and real-world examples, it starts to change the conversation.”
Georgina recommended using compelling case studies and worker voice data to reframe the narrative. “It’s about helping leaders feel less comfortable with the illusion of control – and more comfortable with understanding uncertainty.”
It’s not about abandoning metrics altogether
To be clear, this isn’t an anti-metrics movement. Numbers still play a critical role – but they shouldn’t be the only thing we look at.
Georgina likened the current system to reading a car’s fuel gauge and assuming that’s all you need to drive safely. “Metrics can give you a signal,” she said. “But they’re not the full picture. You need context, feedback, and learning to make sense of them.”
And perhaps most importantly, we need to remember that safety numbers represent real people. Real lives. Real families. “It’s about decency,” she said. “Metrics are never the goal. People are.”
Change starts with one conversation
For organisations still clinging to outdated safety KPIs, the thought of change can feel daunting. But it doesn’t have to be radical. Georgina suggested starting small – focus on learning teams, track how issues are followed up, create space for better conversations.
And ask yourself honestly: Are we measuring what matters?
Because if the numbers are more about looking safe than being safe, then maybe it’s time to step away from the numbers and start listening to your workers.
Want to keep the conversation going?
You can access the full recording, explore cultural gap analysis, or learn how HSI Donesafe is helping organisations build culturally responsive safety systems — all starting with a conversation.
Get the webinar recording here
Share:
