The way we view risk is surprisingly subjective. What one person considers a minor task, another might perceive as inherently dangerous. This difference in perception can have significant implications in cleaning work, where employees face a variety of potential hazards daily.

To illustrate this, consider the following: is climbing a ladder to clean a high window or shelf riskier than cleaning a public toilet? The “correct” answer isn’t straightforward. The actual risk associated with each task is a complex interplay of factors, but our perceived risk is often shaped by how we view the world in which live and work in, and how the world has shaped us through our individual experiences, emotions, and even cultural background – our individual perspectives.

Understanding Perception and Perspective

Before we dig deeper into the roots of risk perception, it’s crucial to clarify the concepts of ‘perception’ and ‘perspective’ and how they work together. Let’s think about it in the context of cleaning.

Perception: Your Immediate Sensory Take

Perception is how we immediately interpret sensory information. In cleaning, this isn’t just seeing a wet floor, but perceiving it as a potential slip hazard. It’s not just smelling a chemical, but perceiving that smell as potentially harmful or indicative of effective cleaning.

Perception is immediate and sensory-based, focusing on the direct information we gather through our senses – sight, smell, touch, even sound. It’s your brain’s first, rapid interpretation of what your senses are telling you in the moment.

Perspective: Your Overall Viewpoint – The Lens You Use

‘Perspective’, on the other hand, is broader. It’s the overall attitude or viewpoint you adopt towards a situation, a lens shaped by your beliefs, values, and personal history. For a cleaner, perspective might be shaped by their beliefs about hygiene, their past experiences with cleaning tasks, or even their cultural background regarding cleanliness. For example, a cleaner with a strong perspective on the importance of hygiene might view disinfecting surfaces with a higher sense of risk (and importance) than someone who prioritizes speed and efficiency above all else. This perspective acts as a framework, influencing how you interpret those initial perceptions and make judgements about risk.

How They Work Together

Perspective is the framework that encompasses our beliefs and values, fundamentally influencing how we interpret our perceptions. While perception is the initial sensory input – the raw data coming in – perspective provides the framework for how we interpret that input and make judgements about it.

Both perception and perspective are inherently subjective, varying from person to person. They both play crucial roles in shaping our understanding and response to the world, especially in the dynamic environment of cleaning work. Perspective influences how we approach and interpret cleaning situations – are we naturally cautious, or more laid-back? Perception is the ongoing process of making sense of the sensory inputs around us as we work – is that floor really wet enough to be slippery? Understanding both perception and perspective is absolutely key to understanding why individuals assess risks so differently in the cleaning workplace and respond to safety procedures in their own unique ways.

This can easily be illustrated by the reaction to the characteristic smell of household Bleach. What are your immediate thoughts and reactions the moment you take a whiff? Some people would associate the smell with ‘clean and hygienic’. Now, imagine you’ve had a bad experience using Bleach in the past, now if you smell it again, what is your first reaction?

Unveiling Perceived Risk: A Practical Exercise

To shed light on these varying perceptions, a simple yet effective exercise can be invaluable. This exercise, designed for cleaning staff, aims to highlight the differences in how individuals assess risk and to encourage open discussion about safety.

The exercise begins by presenting a series of common cleaning scenarios and asking participants to rate the risk level of each on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the riskiest. The key is to encourage a “gut feeling” response, discouraging overthinking and emphasising that there are no right or wrong answers.

Here are some typical scenarios used in this exercise:

• Climbing a ladder to clean a high window or shelf.
• Lifting and carrying several large boxes of cleaning supplies.
• Cleaning the inside of an oven.
• Working alone in an empty house or building at night.
• Using a new ‘heavy duty’ bathroom cleaner.
• Diluting a concentrated commercial cleaning chemical with water.
• Sweeping and mopping a flight of stairs.
• Cleaning up a spillage of an unknown liquid.
• Cleaning public toilets in a busy area.
• Vacuuming an entrance mat during working hours.

After individual risk ratings are collected, the exercise moves into a group discussion phase. This is where the real learning begins. Facilitators encourage participants to observe the spread of perceived risks across the group and delve into the reasoning behind their ratings.

Exploring the Range of Risk Perception

During the discussion, several key questions are explored:

• Patterns in Perception: Are there any noticeable patterns in how people rated the scenarios? Did certain scenarios consistently receive high or low ratings?
• Clustering and Divergence: Were there scenarios where opinions clustered closely together, indicating a shared perception of risk? Conversely, were there scenarios where opinions were widely divergent, revealing significant differences in risk assessment?
• Influencing Factors: What factors influenced individual choices? What personal experiences, beliefs, or assumptions led participants to rate risks as they did?

This open dialogue is crucial. It helps individuals recognise that their perception of risk is not necessarily universal and that others may view the same situation very differently. It also begins to uncover the underlying factors that shape these perceptions.

The Deep Roots of Risk Perception: Personal Experiences and Workplace Culture

Our perception of risk isn’t formed in a vacuum. It’s deeply rooted in our personal histories, cultural backgrounds, and the environments we work in. For cleaning staff, several key factors can significantly influence how they perceive risks in their daily tasks:

• Familiarity Effect: Repetition can breed complacency. Staff who have performed a task countless times without incident may start to underestimate its inherent risks. For example, a cleaner who has mixed chemicals for years without any issues might become lax about reading labels or using personal protective equipment (PPE). “Nothing bad has happened before, so it probably won’t happen now” becomes the underlying, often unconscious, assumption.
• Negative Experience Bias: The opposite of familiarity is also true. A negative experience or even a near-miss can lead to an overestimation of risk in the future. A cleaner who slipped and fell on a wet floor once might become excessively cautious about all floor-cleaning tasks, even when proper safety measures are in place. Past experiences, especially negative ones, can create a powerful emotional imprint on risk perception.
• Cultural and Background Influences: Cultural norms and upbringing play a subtle but significant role. Individuals from different backgrounds may have varying ingrained attitudes towards risk and safety. Some cultures might emphasise individual responsibility and resilience, while others might expect a stronger emphasis on organisational safeguards and collective safety. Previous work environments and industries also shape these ingrained perceptions.
• Training and Education: The quality and type of safety training directly impact risk perception. Well-trained staff are more likely to accurately assess risks because they have a better understanding of potential hazards, safe work procedures, and the consequences of unsafe practices. Effective training empowers staff to move beyond gut feelings and make informed judgements about risk.
• Personal Health Factors: An individual’s health status can significantly alter their perception of risk. Someone with respiratory issues might be acutely aware of the dangers of chemical fumes and perceive them as a higher risk than someone without such sensitivities. Similarly, individuals with pre-existing back problems will naturally be more cautious about lifting and carrying tasks.
• Time and Resource Pressures: Workplace pressures, such as tight deadlines or understaffing, can negatively impact risk perception. When employees feel rushed or stressed, they may be more likely to cut corners, disregard safety procedures, and underestimate risks to get the job done quickly. A culture that prioritises speed over safety can subtly encourage risky behaviours and distort risk perception.
• Individual Perspective on Work and Safety: How cleaners perceive their role and the importance of safety procedures profoundly influences their assessment of risk. For instance, if an individual views cleaning as simply ‘unskilled’ or a job with low social value, they might be less invested in safety procedures, perceiving risks as just ‘part of the job’ or something to be quickly overcome to finish tasks. Conversely, cleaners who identify as professionals, take pride in their work, and understand their contribution to hygiene and well-being are more likely to appreciate the rationale behind safety measures. Furthermore, a cleaner’s general attitude towards rules and authority can play a role. Those who are naturally compliant and respect workplace regulations are more likely to adhere to safety guidelines and perceive risks more seriously. Conversely, individuals who are more resistant to rules or feel disempowered in their role might underestimate risks or view safety procedures as unnecessary impediments to efficiency. Feeling valued and respected by the organisation also contributes; when cleaners feel their safety is genuinely prioritised by their employer, they are more likely to internalise safety messages and act accordingly.

Perceived Risk vs. Actual Risk: Bridging the Gap for Safer Cleaning

It’s essential to understand the distinction between perceived risk and actual risk.

• Perceived Risk is subjective. It’s our personal judgement about the likelihood and severity of harm, shaped by emotions, experiences, and biases.
• Actual Risk is objective. It’s the evidence-based probability of an adverse event occurring, along with the severity of its consequences, often calculated using data and scientific assessment.

The gap between these two can be dangerous. If perceived risk is lower than actual risk, cleaners might become complacent and take unnecessary chances. Conversely, if perceived risk is higher than actual risk, it can lead to unnecessary anxiety and potentially inefficient work practices.

Key differences and their implications:

• Emotional vs. Rational: Perceived risk is often emotionally driven (fear of the unknown, past trauma), while actual risk is based on data and rational analysis. A cleaner might fear a rare chemical explosion more than the common but less dramatic risk of repetitive strain injuries, even if the latter poses a greater overall threat in their daily work.
• Immediacy: We tend to perceive immediate risks (like slipping on a wet floor) as more significant than long-term risks (like the cumulative effects of chemical exposure). This can lead to prioritising slip hazards over proper chemical handling, even if long-term exposure has more serious health consequences.
• Control: Risks we feel we can control are often perceived as less dangerous, even if objectively they are not. A cleaner might feel safer using a familiar but hazardous chemical because they believe they “know how to handle it,” compared to a new, safer alternative they are unfamiliar with.
• Overestimation and Underestimation: Unfamiliar, complex, or highly publicised risks are often overestimated. Familiar, everyday risks are often underestimated. This can lead to misallocation of safety efforts, focusing on sensational but less likely risks while neglecting common and more probable hazards.
• Impact on Behaviour: Ultimately, it’s perceived risk, not actual risk, that often drives behaviour. If cleaners perceive a task as low-risk, they might not take necessary precautions, even if the actual risk is significant.

The Double-Edged Sword of ‘Healthy Fear’: Benefits and Potential Downsides

The concept of a ‘healthy fear’ in the workplace is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a degree of healthy fear is undeniably beneficial. It acts as a crucial safeguard against complacency. When cleaning staff possess a respectful awareness of potential hazards – be it from chemicals, heights, or slips – they are far more likely to adhere strictly to safety procedures. This healthy fear fosters vigilance, encouraging individuals to be proactive in identifying risks, using personal protective equipment correctly, and taking the necessary precautions to prevent accidents. It instils a sense of responsibility and encourages a mindful approach to every task, no matter how routine it may seem.

However, it is vital to recognise that the line between ‘healthy fear’ and detrimental anxiety can be easily crossed. If fear becomes excessive or is not properly managed, it can be counterproductive and even harmful. Overly fearful employees may experience increased stress and anxiety, potentially leading to reduced performance, poor decision-making in pressured situations, or even avoidance of necessary tasks. Furthermore, a workplace culture that relies too heavily on fear, rather than understanding and empowerment, can be demotivating and erode trust. The goal is to cultivate a respect for risk, underpinned by knowledge and training, rather than to instil a debilitating fear that hinders effective and safe working practices. Therefore, it is crucial to strike a balance, fostering a ‘healthy fear’ that promotes safety consciousness without tipping over into harmful anxiety.

Closing the Gap: Strategies for a Safer Cleaning Environment

To bridge the gap between perceived and actual risk and foster a truly safe cleaning environment, organisations should take proactive steps. The ultimate aim is to cultivate a ‘healthy fear’ – a realistic and respectful awareness of the potential hazards in cleaning work. This ‘healthy fear’ is NOT about inducing anxiety or panic, but rather about fostering a balanced sense of caution and vigilance that prevents complacency and encourages consistent adherence to safety procedures.

Here’s how to bridge the gap and cultivate this ‘healthy fear’:

• Provide Clear, Factual Information: Regularly communicate objective information about the actual risks associated with cleaning tasks. Use safety data sheets (SDS), risk assessments, and safety briefings to provide factual details about hazards and appropriate control measures.  By understanding the real risks, staff can develop a ‘healthy fear’ grounded in facts, not just assumptions or emotions.
• Use Real-World Examples and Statistics: Illustrate actual risks with relatable examples and, where possible, statistics. Instead of simply stating “chemical exposure is dangerous,” explain the potential health effects, show data on related illnesses in the cleaning industry, and share success stories of preventative measures. Real-world examples help make the risks tangible and relatable, fostering a more realistic and ‘healthy fear’ of potential consequences.
• Encourage Open Discussion: Create a culture where staff feel comfortable discussing their risk perceptions and why they might differ from actual risks. Facilitate regular safety meetings and toolbox talks where these conversations can happen openly and without judgement. Open dialogue helps to normalise discussions about risk and fear, allowing staff to articulate concerns and develop a shared understanding of ‘healthy fear’ within the team.
• Regularly Update Risk Assessments and Communicate Findings: Risk assessments should be living documents, regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in processes, chemicals, or equipment. Crucially, the findings of these assessments and any updates to safety procedures must be effectively communicated to all cleaning staff. Up-to-date risk assessments provide a clear and current picture of potential hazards, reinforcing a ‘healthy fear’ based on the latest understanding of workplace risks.
• Provide Ongoing Training: Invest in comprehensive and ongoing safety training that addresses both common and rare risks in cleaning work. Training should not be a one-off event but an ongoing process that reinforces safe work practices, updates knowledge, and addresses emerging hazards.  Effective training equips staff with the knowledge and skills to manage risks confidently and responsibly, contributing to a ‘healthy fear’ that empowers safe work practices rather than inducing paralysis.

By implementing these strategies, organisations can move towards a safety culture where cleaning staff possess a ‘healthy fear’ of workplace hazards – a balanced awareness that motivates safe behaviour, reduces complacency, and ultimately contributes to a healthier and more secure working environment for everyone.

Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility for Safety

Understanding attitudes to risk in cleaning is not just about numbers and procedures; it’s largely about people. By acknowledging the subjective nature of risk perception and addressing the factors that influence it, organisations can move beyond simply enforcing rules and create a true culture of safety. This culture is built on open communication, shared understanding, and a collective commitment to ensuring the well-being of every cleaning professional. Ultimately, a safer cleaning environment is a more productive and sustainable one, benefiting both employees and the organisations they serve.