Brexit in
the media – Some thoughts from ELS’ Management of Risk® (MoR) trainer, Brad
Lawrence.
The potential impacts of Brexit have received heavy media coverage, and will no doubt continue to do so. Potential dramas related to property rights, fluctuating costs, the standing of the pound, duties, tariffs, contractual clarity and all manner of other woes have all been splashed across the papers and discussed at (often painful) length on all manner of television and radio programmes. We are, apparently, all doomed.
However, before moving on, let’s just clarify something; 99.9% of ‘Risk Management Amateurs’ (ie, normal people!) see or hear the word ‘Risk’ and immediately think negatively, in terms of threat, drama and impending poverty. In a previous life, so did I. By natural inclination, I often still do. I am not alone; this instinctive emphasis is so common as to be almost universal amongst the uninitiated – outside of circles familiar with Corporate Governance terminology and the MoR approach, ‘Risk’ and ‘Threat’ are essentially interchangeable terms. At this stage, though, it’s worth noting that “Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners”, the worthy tome published on behalf of the Office of Government Commerce (and currently serving as the MoR practitioners bible) defines Risk as:
“an uncertain event or set of events that, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement of objectives.”*
Read it again. There you go. The definition is clearly (and very deliberately) neutral in tone. An ‘effect on the achievement of objectives’ can be both positive and negative – Surprise bonuses and ‘Showstoppers’ are both possible and should therefore be considered. This fundamental principle is covered at the very outset of any MoR course, but, regretfully, it appears that few in the national media have attended one!
With this caveat in mind and my ‘Trainer Head’ firmly fitted, some patterns in the media coverage are evident:
1. Threats get all the press.
Not only, as previously discussed, is an emphasis on threats practically hard-wired in humans, but we also have to accept the fundamental truth that ‘bad news sells’. As one famous tabloid editor once stated, ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. Accordingly, it can be argued (very strongly and with a moderate amount of ranting) that balanced and reasonable discussions of Brexit-related risks in the media have been few and far between. Also, and very interestingly, there appears to be a direct correlation between the amount of red ink used on the front page of a particular publication and the magnitude of the negative numbers it cheerfully chucks around in articles about emotive subjects such as Brexit. I suspect this is nothing new!
2. On the rare occasions where opportunities are mentioned, they tend to be discussed…..tentatively.
This point reflects another unavoidable Risk Management reality, which is that thinking pessimistically is easy. You assign values to identified risks in a worse-case, pessimistic manner, throw in traffic jams, British weather and dramas at Paddington, come up with a scary number and trot off to scare your boss. I’ve worked both with and for organisations where this process is as far as Risk Management is ever taken. Opportunities rarely get a look in and when they do, it is with none of the confidence and bluster with which Threats are discussed. This is because Opportunities tend to be harder to identify, clearly define, quantify and address than Threats. Accordingly, people find them harder to champion and present to others. This is widely recognised - It is not by accident, for example, that ‘the MoR good book’ defines only two distinct Opportunity-centric responses (Exploit and Enhance, if you’re following along in said book!), whereas Threats get five. Prove the point to yourself – mentally plan a Friday night motorway journey. I bet you come up with a long list of potential dramas before reminding yourself to try and find some potential opportunities. Furthermore, were I to race around a corner and surprise you with a camera crew, in the absence of a prompt list or any particular message to put across, you’d find yourself speaking with greater confidence and emphasis about Threats than you would Opportunities, assuming you got round to mentioning them at all.
3. It is usually Inherent values that get bandied about, not Residuals.
Whilst I can (grudgingly) forgive and understand Points 1 and 2, this point really has the power to irritate me. If you’ll forgive a brief micro-teach, I’ll explain. In MoR terms, Inherent values are those calculated for specific risks PRIOR to the planning and implementation of any form of response to them. These figures allow for the initial ranking of both Threats and Opportunities in their unadjusted form. This ranking can be used to identify the most significant risks in what can be a long list, and to assess the ‘first glance’ viability of a bid or project, according to a company’s risk approach and appetite. Once a planned response is agreed upon, a new set of figures is calculated. These new numbers, adjusted by the planned response, are the Residual values. Obviously, the aim is that your residual values are lower than your inherent values for Threats, and higher for Opportunities. As you’ll already have realised, the difference between the two values can be dramatic. Accordingly, be very wary of quotes such as ‘could be as high as’ and ‘may reach’ in the media, as any figures that follow will likely be inherent, pre-response numbers chosen for effect. I’ve yet to see any media coverage that adds the suffix ‘if no one does anything’ in articles or programmes talking about Brexit, which is unsurprising, but a bit naughty. As for adverts that use the phrase ‘up to 100%’, that’s a rant for another time and don’t get me started.
In summary then, it is unsurprising that negative Brexit coverage dominates. As I advise my MoR students, readers should approach any media coverage of Brexit (or any other polarising subject for that matter) armed with several bags of salt and be mindful of what we’ve discussed when faced with massive numbers or doom-laden proclamations. To get a balanced view, some digging might be required – hopefully I have given you some food for thought!
*Management of Risk: Guide for Practitioners, OGC Official Product, published by TSO 2010, Crown Copyright 2010.
