If you’ve been around kids for any extended period, the temptation to say, “Because I said so,” can become strong!
It doesn’t stop with children. The briefest trawl of memes (where my daughter lives) with the hashtag “fail” will demonstrate that we cannot follow simple instructions. As risk professionals, we must walk the line between explaining the why without labouring the point or resorting to “Because I said so.”
To get there, we need some steps.
Right-sizing risk = streamlined decision-making
There’s a lake near here, where we sometimes go for a walk. The sign as you enter gives a mix of guidance and listing prohibitions. The sign is quite a lot. Do we need to be informed that lakes can be deep and mud soft? Is it necessary to explain an immediately obviously uneven dirt track is “uneven”? Then there’s the more cryptic blue/green algae and backcasting.
I understand this sign must cater to all, and as a public space in a litigious country, we must be saved from our own stupidity and the owners from liability. But we risk failure when organisations run their risk and compliance programs like this. Why? It gets ignored, as it’s easy to discount things where much appears irrelevant to you or self-evident.
Our job is to right-size risk to individual user groups and focus on the decision-making bit (where it goes wrong).
Engaging without gazillions
Once we’ve shrunk the risk universe for the consumers of our content, we need to make that content intuitive (and stick). I won’t lie; this is the hardest bit. Why?
😬 We learn differently 😬 We don’t all grasp concepts at the same speed 😬 We’re fried (pressured and sleep-deprived) 😬 We can be cynical 😬 We’re distracted
Here and on other platforms, you may see high-budget and slick compliance training vaunted as innovative. But much of this is out of the budgetary reach of the 99% of organisations I work with. The solutions are varied, but three themes seem constant:
- Keep instructions clear - the CTA (call to action).
- Understand the pressures - why might someone not comply?
- Ensure relevance - decrees agreed on high may be tactically impractical.
Getting buy-in
If right-sizing is the what and engaging the why, we must do the how. Again, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but a blend of behavioural analysis, negotiation tactics, and decision-making frameworks will help.
For instance, if your risk/compliance function is seen as a blocker - the “department of no” - then shift the discourse. Often, when this is the case, it’s because people bring you things “for approval.” The onus is on you to review, judge, and decide. You place yourself in the adult role and them in that of a child. We all like to feel a bit of agency. The organisation’s with the best integrity cultures - in my anecdotal experience - all have one thing in common:
🤯 They discuss decisions.
Ask your people, “I have identified someone I can speak to about an ethical dilemma,” Y/N. If more than 20% say “No”, it’s time to change how you talk about risk.
So…?
As risk professionals, we must walk the line between explaining the why without labouring the point or resorting to “Because I said so.”
Broadly, that is a three-step process:
👉 Right-sizing 👉 Engaging 👉 Empowering