Risk Consistency - Lessons from Michael and Mister Rogers

Since Shakespeare's Caesar first declared himself "constant as the Northern Star"(despite the pleadings of Brutus and Cassius), consistency has not inherently had the most positive tone.  It is seen by some as militaristic, rigid and unyielding.  And yet, in creating a common understanding of risk behavior, nothing is more important.

Most of us have, at one time or another, worked for an employer whose behavior can only be described as mercurial.  Mine was Michael (and yes, that's his real name).  One day he would deem your performance to be professional and acceptable.  The next day?  You were an idiot.  One day a little regulatory slip would be considered a minor concern.  The next?  It's a crisis of untold proportions.  He was impossible to work for.  His nickname among the staff was The Prince of Darkness.  He had neither the love nor respect of his staff.  Most of us were marking time, hoping to survive the next "bloodbath" when he fired multiple staffers on a single day.  

At the other end of the spectrum is Fred Rogers.  Mister Rogers.  The late children's TV show host (Mister Rogers' Neighborhood).  In my work in media, I had the honor of meeting him in the early 1980's, when he came through Washington on a book tour.  I had a 45-minute interview scheduled with him, and was looking forward to probing the real Mister Rogers.  I anticipated that his attitude, personality and world views could be nothing like the soft-spoken, gentle, caring man that slipped on his sneakers every week and played with puppets.  As the cynic I was at the time, I was certain that some darkness lurked behind that veneer, and I would get the opportunity to crack it.  

I was wrong.  There was no veneer to crack.  What was on the surface was there to the core.  As I fired off question after question, I realized that everything he said to the children was precisely what he would say to an adult.  What he believed and cherished as a TV host was what he believed and cherished in his daily life.  He was consistent.   And in 45 minutes, he earned a lifetime of respect.

It was easy to respect Fred Rogers because of his depth of commitment and depth of belief in what he was doing and how he was doing it.  He didn't shift personalities by the audience or by the situation.  He was consistent.  

The connection to risk management and excellence in risk practice is a very simple one.  If we know what we believe and are capable of expressing it in clear, simple, direct, unequivocal terms, others will at least acknowledge our belief system.  And that belief system is the cornerstone of what we actually consider to be a risk, and what we do not.  Mister Rogers' belief system was made clear when I asked him if he ever got angry about anything.  His reply?  "There’s only one thing that makes me truly angry.  That's when I see people disrespecting other people."  As I considered his response, it was clear that he lived what he believed, and in almost any situation, it would be easy to ascertain whether or not a behavior (by himself or his staff) would be out of bounds for Mister Rogers.  Yelling at others in traffic would not be acceptable behavior in his world.  Taking advantage of a client's naiveté in a situation where they don't have the technological upper hand?  Again, out of bounds.  

Taking this into a risk perspective, would Fred have taken a risk if it could publicly embarrass a client or a team member?   No.  Absolutely not.  And if you had been working for him and saw such a risk potentially on the horizon?  You would know, unequivocally, that you had better let him know about it earlier, rather than later.  

Unfortunately, most individuals (and organizations) don't have that level of clarity on what is acceptable risk and what is not.  As a result, mercurial management kicks in.  And the results are team frustration, uneven performance, and patchy reporting.  

Classic risk management planning includes clearly delineated thresholds and tolerances.  Tolerances represent what we will not tolerate.  Thresholds represent the points leading up to the tolerances that we're about to take a hit.  In effective risk organizations, the moment a threshold is breached, escalation policies kick in.  There's no debate about whether or not we might be able to get around the problem.  We're headed for a violation of an organizational tolerance, and it is time to take action.

In order to achieve risk management excellence, we need to both define the areas of tolerance and clarify the thresholds for our team members.  And that means developing a message, finding the right communications channels to convey our message, and creating the systems that will ensure the actions taken by those around us are in compliance with that message.

 
+++++++++++

"Consistency" 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 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This article is copyright Pritchard Management Associates, 2011, all rights reserved.  Right to reproduce in full is granted freely to members of the Silver Spring chapter of the Project Management Institute for personal and professional use.  All other rights reserved