What does good compliance actually look like? If you’re picturing clipboards, spreadsheets, or a flawless audit score, Dr Tristan Casey would urge you to think again. 

At the NSCA National Safety Conference in Sydney, Dr Casey, Director at New View Safety and an endorsed organisational psychologist, delivered a thought-provoking keynote titled “Where Adaptivity Meets Compliance.”  

His central message? Compliance isn’t just about following rules. It’s about understanding why those rules exist and knowing when, and how, to adapt them safely. 

The Real-World Test of Compliance 

Dr Casey opened with a powerful story. While designing a training program for a nuclear remediation company overseas, he asked a manager to share a time when compliance became a challenge. The manager described a situation where workers were extracting fuel rods from a corroded nuclear vessel. Every procedure was followed, every checklist ticked – but it quickly became apparent that doing so could actually increase the risk of a catastrophic release of nuclear waste. 

Their solution? They brought in regulators, safety professionals, and technical experts to collaborate on an alternative plan. One that stayed true to the intent of the rules, but not the literal interpretation. 

“That’s the difference between rigid compliance and adaptive compliance,” Dr Casey explained. “They didn’t follow the rules to the letter but they achieved the safest possible outcome.” 

This, he said, is the future of compliance in safety-critical work: not blind obedience, but intelligent, contextual decision-making. 

The Problem With Surface Compliance 

To understand what needs to change, Dr Casey broke compliance down into three types: 

• Surface compliance: Going through the motions. Workers complete forms or checklists without engaging with the real safety purpose behind them.
• Deep compliance: Understanding the ‘why’ behind procedures and following them with intention and care.
• Adaptive compliance: Modifying or reinterpreting processes – especially under pressure or in unpredictable situations – while still achieving the intended safety outcome. 

Too often, organisations operate at the surface level. “You might get 99% compliance scores,” Dr Casey said, “but what’s the quality of that compliance?” 

He cited common behaviours that underpin surface compliance: 

• Faking good – only complying when someone is watching. 
• Mindlessness – treating compliance like a repetitive chore, rather than a safety-critical task. 
• Minimal effort – doing just enough to tick the box and move on. 

A classic example? “Teams pre-filling all their risk assessments for the week on a Friday,” he said. “It’s just a cover-your-arse exercise. The paperwork’s done, but none of the value is realised.” 

The consequences of this are serious. It creates false assurance. This is when managers and boards believe systems are working, when in reality they’re disconnected from what’s really happening on the frontline. 

It also leads to worker disengagement. “If procedures are irrelevant or impossible to follow, people feel disempowered. Eventually they become cynical: ‘This is a waste of time. Why bother?’” 

The Cost of Compliance for Compliance’s Sake 

Dr Casey pointed to a Deloitte report that found up to 60% of compliance activity isn’t legally required but rather it’s self-imposed by businesses. Worse, the average employee spends up to eight weeks a year on these tasks. 

“And what do we get for that investment?” he asked. “We’re still having incidents. Often, we’re still compliant but the procedures didn’t match the reality of the work.” 

This mismatch points to a deeper issue: a breakdown between the means (the compliance activity) and the ends (the safety outcome). “When that connection is lost, you get surface compliance. You get box-ticking that doesn’t actually reduce risk.” 

From Deep to Adaptive: Making Compliance Work 

While deep compliance – thoughtful, purposeful engagement with procedures – is the goal for many, Dr Casey argued that we must go further. In a complex, dynamic world, we need compliance systems that are resilient and flexible. We need adaptive compliance. 

“Have you ever had to adjust how you do something because the situation changed?” he asked. “That’s adaptive compliance. You’re still meeting the goal, just not in the exact way the paperwork describes.” 

He introduced the concept of “freedom within a framework”, a balance between standardisation and flexibility. Adaptive compliance means knowing when to follow rules precisely, and when to use professional judgement to achieve the same outcome more safely or effectively. 

An example from the mining industry illustrated this well. Faced with maintenance backlogs, one company changed its work schedule – doing three production runs in one day so they could spend the next on preventative maintenance. Technically non-compliant with the original schedule, but a smart, risk-informed decision that improved safety and performance. 

Why Adaptive Compliance Builds Better Organisations 

According to Dr Casey, adaptive compliance delivers several powerful benefits: 

• It balances competing goals – Safety vs. productivity, consistency vs. agility. Adaptive thinking allows both to coexist. 
• It encourages continuous improvement – Workers who adapt share insights that improve systems, not just outcomes. 
• It increases resilience – When disruptions hit, adaptive teams cope better because they’ve been empowered to think and respond. 

He also warned against over-reliance on rigid systems. “If compliance is too inflexible, it can actually create risk. In the Alpha mine disaster, if workers had followed the evacuation plan exactly, many more would have died.” 

Creating the Conditions for Better Compliance 

So how can organisations shift from surface to adaptive? 

Dr Casey outlined several enablers: 

1. Clarify the non-negotiables – Not everything is up for interpretation. Critical controls must be deeply complied with. 
2. Engage with regulators – Build trust. Ask for guidance. Co-design solutions when needed. 
3. Create feedback loops – Capture and learn from adaptive decisions to improve the system. 
4. Decentralise decision-making – Let those closest to the work apply their expertise. 
5. Rethink training – Move beyond reading procedures. Use scenarios to teach judgment, negotiation, and risk conversations. 

Finally, he reminded the room: “Compliance isn’t just about individual behaviour. It’s about the system behind it. If people are cutting corners, ask why the system is pushing them to do that.” 

About Dr Tristan Casey

Dr Tristan Casey is a respected scientist, and director at New View Safety.

He is a seasoned ‘scientist-practitioner’ with experience across private consulting, academia, and government. He is an endorsed Organisational Psychologist with over 15 years’ expertise in the practical management of health, safety, and wellbeing. Dr Casey has developed numerous award-winning training programs, measurement tools, and academic publications. He is a keen advocate of the positive links between safety, wellbeing, and overall job performance.