Being calculating...but not cold...
From political showdowns to summer drought to violence overseas to violence in our own backyards, there's a LOT of scary stuff going on. It seems all but endless. But it's notable that we go on about our daily lives, both personal and professional, coping with the pressures these various and sundry risks create. The last time that I wrote here, I wrote about paranoia and the fact that sometimes others really are out to get you. This time, I'd like to talk about the brighter side -- moving forward in an environment of adversity.
Risk is all around us. Whether or not we choose to deal with it, connect to it, or grapple with the sense of foreboding is a conscious choice. As long as we know that we can face risks, we have the opportunity to decide whether or not it's going to have a direct impact on our daily lives. Since 9/11, I have met people who were directly impacted by the tragedy. They did not have a choice. They are living with the heart-rending consequences. But it's inspiring to see how some have dealt with it. Some take the attitude that they can influence the future. Others choose to celebrate the individuals they lost by living life well. While some (justifiably) obsess over the potential impacts of similar future events, many find a way forward. Even in the face of chaos and tragedy, we are blessed with options.
In the aftermath of events like 9/11 or, more recently, the Oslo tragedy, many individuals choose to be active. They choose to talk about the need for intervention by one entity or another, and call for some type of action to be taken to prevent such events in the future. Others take time to allow the initial shock to wear off and simply move on.
The latter sounds like a cold approach. It's not. It is a calculated approach. We need to make the conscious decision as to when and how we're going to react. And there are cues when it's time to refuse to be scared.
Most of the bad decisions in life are made in haste. Why? Time provides more information. More information provides better insight. Better insight provides better decisions. So if we're going to make better, smarter decisions, we should strive to make them when we're not in the pressure-cooker of a quick turnaround.
If a risk genuinely isn't imminent, then we should probably resist our first impulses to act in haste. The week following 9/11, my wife and I seriously discussed cancelling a weekend trip to the Air and Space Museum in Washington. But rather than cancel immediately, since we had two or three days to think it over, we spent the time pondering the relative risks. As we realized that 9/11 was designed for maximum devastation, we also realized that would not be achieved by any attack on the Washington Mall that weekend. The Mall would likely be (and was) a ghost town. And since we live only blocks from another government installation, we figured our chances were just as good on the Mall as they would be at home. We went. And the museums were practically ours and ours alone.
Taking whatever time is at our disposal to make smarter and more considered decisions works in everyone's favor. When your mother told you to count to ten before taking action, she was being an effective risk manager.
We all have stakes. Stakes matter. We have those elements of work, of our personal lives and of our passions that we invest in. As a former member of the media, I can attest to the fact that many of the risks reported on by the media are carefully calibrated to make you feel like you have a stake in them. That's the objective. If you feel personally touched by a story, it worked. Otherwise, they don't pass what my old journalism professor referred to as the "So What factor."
Any time a risk is identified, we should immediately drop into "so what?" mode. Asking that question time and again can inure us to risks that seem perennial but do little real harm, and can also increase our sensitivity when we come up with a solid "so what?" answer!
Our positions can and should change over time. As I spend more and more time in New York City, I find myself aware of where I sit on the train (the front and rear cars are the most dangerous). I carry my cell phone whenever I board an elevator (I was trapped for almost 2 hours on the 19th floor of my hotel). Little behavioral changes like those stem from their relative impact on my life (nominal) and the potential benefits (huge).
Just because risks haven't happened to us doesn't mean they won't. And we shouldn't forget that risks are out there just because they haven't transpired. The ticking of the clock can mean everything in terms of the potential for a risk to occur.
In much the same way, a change in our stakes changes everything as well. We need to occasionally re-evaluate what we care about in order to ensure that we have a current understanding as to whether or not our risk attitudes need to be re-assessed.
Why go through this exercise? This is not about improving our risk identification or ensuring that we have found new and deeper issues to worry about. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If we spend the time required to properly evaluate our risks and to identify which ones are worthy of our time and attention, we can stop being paranoid about the others! And if we take that burden off our shoulders, we have more time and energy to shoulder burdens we actually care to undertake.
When we're not shouldering those burdens, our loads are significantly lighter. We're more positive about the world around us (both personal and professional). And if we have a structure for how we're going to handle the parameters of imminence, impact and translation, we know we're far more prepared to manage the pressures of our risk environment without the bearing the millstone of worry.
Do you know me? I get asked that question a lot. I've had thousands of students through the years, and invariably one will walk up to me and say those fateful words -- "You don't remember me, do you?" It's a very challenging thing to deal with. But it goes to a critical concept. Out of the thousands of students, some are indeed, memorable. Some, the moment I see them, I recognize them, remember their name, hometown and where we had our first encounter. That's the exception, rather than the rule.
The simple truth is that some people rest more clearly in our minds than others. There's a reason for that. It's not just that they were characters. It's also that we were clear on who they were, and so were they. They are memorable for their degree of clarity.
I'm currently working on a course for ProjectConnections and for a summer cruise training I'm doing. It's called Risk Management Excellence, and it focuses on the ten traits of truly excellent, effective risk managers. The first and most critical trait, before you can begin addressing specific risks themselves, is clarity.
We have all heard the complaint that the occasional politician is "off-message," or we've had bosses that we simply didn't understand. We have had moments where as parents (or as children), the logic behind our family's actions was completely lost. My youngest son James was the best at pushing back in such moments. One classic example came when he was only four years old and in preschool. For the Thanksgiving pageant, students had the choice of wearing a Native American headdress or a Pilgrim hat. He chose neither. When the teachers told him he needed to pick one or the other, he asked "why?" Their answers regarding the need for conformity were again met with the same reply: "Why?" There was no core value driving them to push for the hat. There was no philosophical rationale. They really couldn't explain why. And the battle was lost. He was the only bare-headed child in the pageant.
Some 16 years later, I believe I know my son well enough now to know that when he's in a negotiation, if the other party knows their position, knows what they're willing to accept and not accept, and can clearly state it, he'll go along. It applies in every facet of life, but especially in risk and risk management.
Know thyself.
To thine own self be true.
Those axioms have stood the test of time. And the reason? They represent clarity. It's the tool that enables us to lead, to plan, and to take others along for the journey in risk management.
We've all known risk-takers in our lives. These are the people willing to take on risks that fill us with fear. They seem to do so with aplomb. One gentleman I used to work with (call him Jason) actually risked the entire organization's library of intellectual property on the possibility of winning the biggest client in that organization's history. Everyone looked at Jason like he was a nut, but from his perspective, it was a risk worth taking. Because of the clarity of his vision, he was able to convince management (including Legal) that it was a sound idea.
Jason was clear. His career was on the line. He knew the implications. Everyone knew he knew the implications. But he also recognized that this could be the single biggest payoff of his career. It was not just his concept that carried the day. It was also his steadfast willingness to accept the risk and remain unwavering in that acceptance.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether we would rather be the person riding the wave of events around us, or whether we have the clarity to steer ourselves toward the outcomes we want. To test whether or not we have risk clarity, we can put ourselves in basic business situations. Would you risk your highest-performing team member in order to preserve the rest of the team? (The ultimate treatise on that premise can be found in the book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, by Patrick Lencioni). In order to manage teams well, we have to take certain conflict-related, personality-driven risks, and they represent a tidal wave of possible situations. Only those individuals with clarity about what they can and cannot stand can weather the storms.
Ask yourself about driving. Ask about almost anything! How fast am I willing to go? How much [delay, overrun, crap, etc.] am I willing to put up with? The answers to those questions represent our personal tolerances and thresholds and put us in a position of potential leadership on risk. If we know our limits and can express them succinctly and clearly, we are far more likely to get others to accept our tolerances as the default tolerances for our projects and our teams.
Personal clarity on risk creates a personal risk culture. If we know what constitutes a risk and what constitutes a "risk too far" in our minds, and if we can stay consistent with that perspective, others will follow suit. Most organizations have little or no clear risk culture. They cannot express it. They cannot tell others what they will and will not stomach. In many cases, it is because they do not know.
You can.
You can drive a stake into the ground and say It goes this far, and no further. But that's only something we can say if we mean it. Allowing others to step past the line creates an environment where there is no clarity on risk. Blurred lines aren't lines at all.
Achieving clarity starts with knowing thyself. It's not about planning out every possible permutation of every situation. It's a matter of defining your personal defining principles. What matters most? What doesn't matter at all? And then ask yourself the question about how far you're willing to go to defend those principles. Willing to lose your job? Willing to break alliances organizationally?
Jason knew he would either make himself CEO material or drift into oblivion. He knew the executive suite was where he wanted to be. He had clarity on the risks he was willing to take to get there. And when others, including Legal, tried to get him to stray off message, he wouldn't be persuaded. Instead, he stood fast and made it crystal clear. This was a risk worth taking.
Deriving clarity is no mean feat. It's rarely accomplished on the first draft. Rather than saying, "I'll take no risks that will cost in excess of $28,000," we need to know what about the $28,000 figure makes it our pain point. Is it because it will cause escalation to a higher level of management? Is it because it would cause a change in our status as employees? Is it because it would gain the attention of the client? Those make for much clearer and more readily consistent messages to our management and our team.
I will never take risks that will cause escalation to the executive suite.
I will never take risks that will gain client attention.
While these are more generic statements and less specific, they go to the root of why we behave the way we behave. They afford clarity on our risk tolerances to others. They take a critical first step toward clarifying why we act the way we act, and react the way we react.
Many risk managers use the "Five Whys" (a series of "why" questions repeated five times) to derive root causes of risks. We can also use the Five Whys to help build clarity on why our tolerances are our tolerances. If we can clearly state why we take (or don't take) particular risks, and can do so consistently and succinctly, our mission toward clarity has taken a vital first step.
"Clarity" is one of the 10 core elements of Risk Management Excellence, Carl Pritchard's new presentation, book, webinar and article series being released over the next year. For more information, contact Carl at carl@carlpritchard.com.