Ever heard someone say, “safety must be part of our DNA”? The phrase is used by some consultants to suggest that safety should be something innate and automatic in an organization. But the metaphor has some serious flaws. Firstly, it oversimplifies how organizations work. Secondly, it mixes up ideas from different sciences in ways that don’t make sense. And, thirdly, it ignores what makes safety happen—adaptation and learning. Let’s see why the DNA metaphor is misleading by looking at genesis as explained by the famous social scientist Kurt Lewin. His work helps us understand why comparing safety to DNA doesn’t add up.

 

What is genesis?

Kurt Lewin wrote his book about genesis in 1922, long before scientists cracked the DNA-code, but he knew a lot about genetic development. Lewin’s idea of genesis (or genidentity) helps to understand how things that are linked in a sequence, stay connected or change over time.

For example:

• In physics, genesis explains how things like energy or matter remain connected through transformations, like water turning into steam. Physics focuses on strict, logical continuity, like the law of conservation.
• In biology, it’s about relationships, like how a parent is connected to their child. Biology looks at growth and relationships, which are more complex.
• In evolutionary history, genesis is about how species are related and how they’ve changed over time. Evolutionary history focuses on the branching paths of life over millions of years.

 

Why does this matter for safety?

When someone says “safety must be part of our DNA,” they’re borrowing a concept from biology but misusing it. In biology, DNA carries genetic information—it’s fixed, built into every living thing. But safety isn’t fixed, and it’s definitely not something we’re born with. Working safely is something we do, not something we have. Here’s why the DNA metaphor doesn’t work for safety management:

1. Safety isn’t automatic or natural. Safety doesn’t just happen. It’s the result of deliberate actions like designing, creating, and maintaining systems that adapt to challenges. Saying it’s in our DNA ignores all the hard work it takes to make safety happen.
2. It’s blaming people, not systems. If safety were in our DNA, then failures might seem like someone’s personal flaw, as if they were born unsafe. But most safety issues come from systems, not individuals. Blaming people stops us from fixing the real problems.
3. It leaves no room for learning. DNA is fixed, but safety isn’t. Safety requires constant learning and adapting. We need to figure out what’s working, why things go right, and build on those successes.
4. It misuses scientific concepts. Borrowing ideas like DNA from biology makes things sound scientific but doesn’t really help.

 

Safety as a deliberate practice

Instead of saying safety is in our DNA, we should think of safety as a practice—something we build and maintain together. In safety, this means:

• Look at what’s going right and figure out how to keep it going.
• Systems and situations are always changing, so we have to keep up.
• Safety isn’t about individuals alone; it’s about technical stuff, teams, relations, hierarchies, and the environment too.

 

Why this matters

When we treat safety as something fixed or automatic, we miss the bigger picture. Safety is not an inherent trait or fixed property but a state resulting from deliberate, sustained efforts. System performance is inherently variable, and this variability can lead to both success and failure. Therefore, safety management must account for the dynamic, systemic, and unpredictable nature of work.

Similarly, culture itself is not something people have but something they construct in specific encounters (Dahl, 2014). Mutual relations and power are part of the picture. Meanings are shared, interpreted, and created when people do something together—when they communicate. This makes culture a living, adaptive process, that has to do with the interactions and relationships that define an organization.

Borrowing metaphors like DNA or claiming safety as an emergent property misses this essential point. Safety is not a biological or static property—it’s influenced in real-time through conversations, goals, and action. Failing to acknowledge this risks ignoring the complex human factors and power dynamics that influence how safety practices develop and evolve.

 

Conclusion

So, let’s stop saying safety is in our DNA. Instead, let’s focus on what really makes organizations safe – technical stuff and relationships, collaborative effort, learning, and adaptation. Don’t rush to blame people for not having safety in their DNA, but seek to understand why their choices made sense to them at the time. This different perspective allows us to address the real challenges they face and supports context-sensitive adaptations.

 

Sources:

• Dahl, Ø. (2014), “Is Culture Something We Have or Something We Do? From Descriptive Essentialist to Dynamic Intercultural Constructivist Communication”, Journal of Intercultural Communication, Vol. 14, Issue 36, November 2014.
• Lewin, K. (1922), Der Begriff der Genese in Physik, Biologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte - Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Wissenschaftslehre, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.