How to build a better world one (risk) decision at a time?

With the pressures created by the current economy it is not unusual to find people are becoming more concerned about safety and seeking ways to return to stability. When this applies to individuals, this behaviour closely matches 'survival' behaviour. Where it applies to collectives -be that communities, organisations, nations etc - we start observing behaviours such as group-think, territorialism, nimby-ism, terrorism and more worryingly, the search for stronger leaders who are believed for their promise to return the collective to 'safety' and 'stability'.
 
Safety and stability are myths, which even strong leadership cannot help bring to life. Why? Because the 'laws of nature' dictate that risk is the norm and continuous change (AKA evolution) is positive. These are the simple, but for a lot of people, counter-intuitive principles which will help rebalance decisions for better (more peaceful) outcomes.
 
All this is based on a false belief that risk is the polar opposite to safety, and that only safety can avoid blame (see 'False' Risk Continuum below). Nothing could be further from the truth! Evidence shows that (command-and-) control behaviours actually attract more extreme 'survival' behaviour in others - be that flight or flight - leaving the collective more open to extreme behaviours and scenarios as described above. 

 

 

In order to win, we need to complete the continuum with the polar opposite to control. So here is what the full risk continuum looks like: 

 

The polar opposite of control is neglect. Without adding the consideration of neglect to our decision-making processes, risk will continue to be seen as needing to be avoided instead of embraced as that what helps us survive, grow and evolve. 

 

The trick is not to control but to find balance, build resilience to change, letting go of control and learning with the flow as set by the 'laws of nature'!

 

 

 



The drive for consistency & fairness

The drive for consistency and fairness has a major influence on risk attitudes in many organisations. Consistency and fairness are seen as important contributors to staff well-being and perceived as requirements to minimise conflict within the organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The drive for consistency and fairness actually has the opposite effect. They are driven from litigation concerns and contribute to risk averse cultures through introducing (sometimes heavy-handed) monitoring, gate-keeping and other bureaucratic practices. They advocate 'one-size-fits-all' solutions to comply with and minimises creativity & innovative practices. Ironically compliance-driven organisations discourage accountability & ownership while encouraging poorer staff well-being, higher staff turnover and actually in turn invite more risk & litigation.

If you apply this to Equality & Diversity, consistency and fairness actually creates more stereotypical ideas. It suggests that every person who has a protected characteristic can be understood through E&D Training.

There is a driving force which could be totally ignored, which is individuality. I have two friends who are Jewish, one is very strict in their beliefs while the other is not. Is it not my friends' responsibility to inform the people around them of their life choices?

Organisations have to be careful that when they collate information about people with protected characteristics not to add to stereotyping activities. People have a choice whether to tell the organisation about their disability or sexual orientation.

So instead of driving consistency and fairness, think about how individuality and identity can be supported and contribute to changing the culture of the organisation for the better.