One of the greatest risks to the success of an organization is human error, an operational risk that exists within every organization. Human errors lead to accidents, legal issues, financial costs, and many other risks that adversely impact an organization all over the world. But what if there were ways to implement human risk control techniques rooted in the discipline of psychology? Out-of-the-box thinking about managing operational risks can lead to a safer and more profitable organization.
Controlling human behavior is hard; if not impossible. Humans are complex creatures supplied with a mind that can go a million different directions when faced with a situation or decision. Uncertainty plays a large part in the complexity inherent of human behaviors and the subsequent decisions made based on said behaviors. As the future cannot be predicted, nor can human behavior, controls must be introduced to create a tolerable uncertainty for society. Tolerable uncertainty can be created when individuals make consistent decisions that benefit others above one’s self. For example, selfishness is a behavioral quality that derails intelligent behavior and results in poor decision quality, regardless of the importance of the decision.
For any organization, employee errors pose the greatest source of risk to the survival and success of the business. If you turn on the news you can find a bevy of stories on humans making less than stellar decisions without the ‘greater good of society’ in mind, causing irreversible harm to themselves, their organizations, and the world around them. Focusing in the financial realm, the desire of greed alone can be enough to cripple even the largest of companies once seen as darlings by ‘experts” in the field (e.g. Enron in 2002). Wells Fargo, HSBC, Bear Sterns, are all examples of how human behaviors alone led to catastrophic failures impacting society as a whole, not merely their customers. Society is filled with individuals who accept human behavior being attached to the whims of fate, predestined behaviors that are reluctant to change. Yet, I do not see the world this way. As long as humans are breathing, they possess the ability to change behaviors to better serve society as a whole.
Thus, leading us to successive approximation, a psychological concept I came across during my research of Bertrand Russell’s “The Scientific Outlook.” I stumbled upon Russell’s work while surfing Temple’s library in my feeble attempt to connect risk management and ancient Greek logic. I will let you know how that connection works out in the future, but I digress. Successive approximation, also referred to as “shaping,” is defined as, a method used primarily in operant conditioning whereby behaviors which are desired are reinforced, however, later into the study, only precise behaviors are reinforced. With employee engagement being a major hurdle for many companies when adjusting to a new generational workforce, it struck me how psychological methodologies can not only engage employees, but control their behaviors when facing complex, uncertain situations.
A disturbing report by Aon showed 24% of global employees surveyed are highly engaged at work, with 39% of participants stating they were moderately engaged at work. This is alarming as when employees are not engaged, their focus on work tasks tend to follow suit. Employees who are disengaged and not seeing the value in their work product, are more prone to making errors and poor decisions that can adversely impact their organization. Unfortunately, this is not an issue companies can blame on millennials, the President, or anything else. When it comes to engagement in the workplace, company leadership is where the fingers must be pointed. However, through psychological methodologies that have been around for some time, we can implement human risk control techniques (i.e. shaping) to alter employee behaviors for the better. Increased engagement and decreased behavioral errors are the main goals of implementing this methodology, let us dive into successive approximation in a bit more detail.
Successive approximation is most commonly associated with shaping, a training method by which successive approximations of a target behavior are reinforced, usually with a reward of some utility.
A simple example is explained below:
Target Behavior: Teaching student Italian
Step 1: Student introduces himself in Italian, student is reinforced.
Step 2: Student talks about themselves and their family in Italian
Step 3: Student must make a conversation with a fellow student only in Italian. Only then will the student be reinforced.
Step 4: Student gets a reward if speaks in Italian through the entire class
Step 5: Student speaks in Italian without any errors and thus received the reward.
Successive approximation methodologies such as shaping can have a positive effect by both engaging employees through constant reinforcement for positive actions or decisions, while decreasing risks of human errors. Employees are less inclined to cause errors that can have catastrophic impacts on society as a whole when they are positively reinforced by management, engaged in the work they do every day, and actively making quality decisions not simply for the company, but for the greater good of society.
Societal harm caused by human errors can be, even more devastating to people, property and the environment than natural disasters. The BP Oil Spill is a great example of human errors causing societal harm as severe as hurricanes that impacted the same geographical location. However, my belief is human errors resulting in catastrophic losses can inject an element that natural disasters cannot possess, loss of public trust. Almost every year a hurricane strikes the gulf coast of the U.S., but citizens have never complained of losing trust in mother nature, it simply does not make sense. Loss of public trust can occur when companies allow human errors to cause systemic losses that impact lives, assets and even the environment. Trust is part of a company’s brand, it must be protected by all means. A loss of public trust is parallel to a loss in profits due to reputational harm.
No matter the organization, human risk control techniques such as successive approximation can be utilized to decrease human errors and increase workforce engagement. Consistent positive actions towards ethical objectives are a win/win for not only the company but the greater good of society. If we can all break the negative actions that adversely impact our communities and businesses, the world can be a better place for the long term. Behaviors are not predestined, we possess the cognitive abilities to change our behaviors for the better. Managing risk must go beyond frameworks and matrices to truly discover ways we can correct negative actions to build a better tomorrow. We have to think outside the box when it comes to our feeble attempts to wrestle with uncertainty that surrounds our every move.
Let us try.
Featured image designed by ijeab / Freepik
