Getting the message

Your article on ‘Getting the message’ in the September issue touched on organisational communication, an area of risk management that is often neglected. Some of the points you raised made me smile, as they are just as I have seen things over the years.

- The scenario of ‘top-down messages’ being worded in terms that the shop floor can readily understand really is nothing new – but the problem was rightly covered, as it continues to persist. As only higher management have the big picture, it is essential that the ‘need to know’ doctrine is sufficiently open for line managers and workers to have enough appreciation of the organisations’ challenges and of their contribution to the greater good.

Similarly bottom-up reporting should be encouraged, with reassurances about non-retribution and later feedback to the informant to show that the data was appreciated. In fact there should be positive bottom-up reporting as well as negative, otherwise management may be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that all directives which receive no complaints are working well.

- The reference to 82% of your respondents stating that it was ‘absolutely crucial’ that the risk manager was a good communicator was actually rather disappointing. This means 18% of your survey don’t think it’s crucial!

However, the risk manager cannot do it all. In a large organisation there is the need for risk champions in the right places to help spread the message. These people should be on relevant organisational committees, and a better way to describe them should perhaps be ‘risk and communication champions’.

Risk and uncertainty

This brings me to the old adage about the job title itself being misleading. Risk managers don’t actually manage risk, except in their own department. Everybody in an organisation manages risk; the risk manager is merely a conduit and a catalyst for information on the subject. Thus, the ability to be a good communicator is absolute, not 82%.

Further, the term ‘risk’ itself has been criticised over recent times. Many advocate the use of ‘uncertainty’, but while technically correct, this is not a good word to communicate with, at least not until after many more years of usage in a commercial sense. ‘Risk’ is now almost universally understood, even if associated with mundane happenings such as employees having accidents in company vehicles. ‘Risk and uncertainty’ perhaps shows the way, and ‘risk and performance’ has a more positive ring to it. If we can convince managers that performance objectives can be widely influenced by risk, upside as well as downside, and that communication is the vehicle for educating on risk and performance, then we will be achieving something worthwhile.

- A point often overlooked is lateral communication within an organisation. As long ago as the late 1960s, there was an effort to improve this coordinational problem through risk management advice provided from within the insurance broking industry to clients. There was less risk management advice around in those days of course, risk being something that was often just hived off to the insurance companies!

“A point often overlooked is lateral communication within an organisation

The need for a plan

When we look at organisational charts today, they tend to take on the appearance of a garden rake, with the tentacles of command dangling down from the main board, with the flat cross braces for lateral strength being only implemented at higher levels. Indeed, the bottom of the prongs are often cut off completely, the reader being left to imagine how workers communicate with their supervisors and trainers and colleagues.

Communication at grass roots level is often at social functions or in sports club dressing rooms. No bad thing in itself, but if there has been a lack of management communication of information beforehand, rumours start and are believed.

Another weakness in many organisational charts is that the risk manager is shown in an up-down line under the financial director, implying that the function has little to do with the actions of divisions shown in other prongs of the rake. In an ideal world, the risk manager would be in a box alone, linked with dotted lines to all other operations.

- In conclusion, the September feature stated that 58% of the subjects of the survey had a formal communication plan for normal operations. Sadly, this means that 42% did not. No doubt we are talking about quite sizeable organisations too, so perhaps many of the problems of organisational communication stem from the fact that well over a third of organisations have no formal plan.

Communication strategy

Your survey additionally showed that 27% of risk professionals also targeted shop floor staff. Perhaps that was because there was a need within their organisation for this extra activity: communication to small groups has often been the most effective medium in these circumstances – a point picked up near the end of the original article with reference to workshops.

A good internal communication strategy is essential. Main board decisions need to be converted into policies for practical application by the senior management team and then to be conveyed effectively, with the minimum of ‘blurred edges’ throughout the organisation.

To conclude, the sponsor’s column confirmed that the survey focused on internal communication, with the importance of communication being extended to insurers and professional advisers. There was no reference to communication with commercial partners, especially those in the private sector who are contracted to public sector principals, and that really is another story in its own right.