25+ years risk management

Why 75 essays spanning more than 25 years have been brought together in the e-book ‘Publiek Risico: Essays’: to inform and to inspire

Eric Frank en Jack Kruf | August 2020


The principles of risk management are inherent in every ecosystem and, as far as humans are concerned, are some 300,000 years old. Every human still has stored in his brain the early stages of development. To survive as a group or as individuals. It occurred to us that these basic principles are palpable in the thoughts expressed in this selection of essays. Much of it is essential.

Now, anno 2020, we look back. For 15 years (period 2006-2020) we have been alternately responsible for the establishment, control and management of the Dutch branch of PRIMO, the Public Risk Management Organisation. A good time to present a selection of essays that gives a picture of the origin, the functioning and the development of the risk management profession. This is the introduction to the e-book Publiek Risico: Essays (in Dutch).

It is a personal selection, in which, in our view, the various angles of the field are most strongly displayed. It is a selection, which we know is selling people short, of course. But the choice of a limited set of essays and pages forces one to choose. It is 75 essays and 723 pages. Bundled in this e-book.

Risk management as a profession is as old as the road to Rome

Risk management as a profession is as old as the road to Rome (and actually much older as already indicated above), but the starting point for the Netherlands is laid in 1995, in the run-up to the process whereby the central government in the Netherlands planted the first seeds. Not really for itself, no, not really, but to devise a construct in which it could decentralize tasks to lower governments and then to enforce supervision of their execution. So divest and see that it goes well. A special reason, then, which is not so much the public good but rather the mechanism of control. That is the first thing that strikes one.

The selection of articles shows the interpretation of this approach, also shows that many experts and scientists have contributed many new ideas to it, but the central government has not really changed its mind in terms of position and approach in those 25 years. There is actually the paragraph on resilience as the only real framework. Although this is legally complied with, many municipalities hardly apply it as a real steering instrument.

What is also striking is that the municipalities, provinces and water boards are actually not at all organized in this regard, even after 25 years. Everyone works with their own approach, with their own frameworks, models, consultants and even their own scientists. There is hardly a corporate framework with which municipalities, provinces and water boards work.

Only 25 years after the government made the decision to work this way, the umbrella organizations are showing, albeit sparsely – incidentally, on a project basis and usually facility by facility – a sign of life on this issue. This is noticeable in the selection. Essays from these are lacking. The essays come mainly from a few front runners in the public domain, scholars or external consultants.

A search of the public administration itself has very moderate results

Risk management has not landed, it is for many directors and top managers a fremdkörper. It has not become a management tool for sailing sharply to the wind, innovating and looking ahead. It is a must, and sometimes even a washing-up job.

Risk management is still a push model, actually an unwanted child of the government, in which consultants and commercial parties have of course provided a breath of fresh air, but also in which they came up with special ideas, approaches and models. And above all, the diversity of definitions and explanations is enormous. It seems to have become a polluted term, a container. This causes great confusion and hap-snap business. This is where the shoe pinches with regard to public risk management. The playing field is divided and there is no unified language.

Our selection of articles is a call to really take up the gauntlet and re-evaluate the wealth of knowledge and ideas before us, to use them and above all to get to work. The ball is in the court of the board and top management. This requires authority and, above all, support and consistency from the top of the ministries.

After 25 years, we are still kind of where we were 25 years ago: most directors and top managers don’t feel like adopting this profession profession professionally at all. Their explanation is that it is negative, inhibiting, not motivating, avoiding. Of course, this is nonsense, but perception is sometimes stronger than reality. The core of the profession is knowingly not understood. There is work to be done, a lot, indeed a lot. This selection contains the ingredients.

In front of you is a journey of more than 25 years, which also shows that good ideas have been launched and many attempts have been made to broaden the profession and make it mature. Some of these, in our view, are worth sharing and deserve to be put on the drawing board for the continued development of the profession. We wish you a reading with pleasure and inspiration. Ω

Lees in Nederlands

Colofon

Editorial: Eric Frank (language editor, Dutch) en Jack Kruf (final editor). With thanks to all authors for their contribution.

ISBN/EAN: This book has been registered in 2013 and published in 2020 at Centraal Boekhuis as Publiek Risico: Essays, with ISBN-number 9789491818011.

Publication: This e-boek is exclusively and on personal insights of the editors composed and curated. It is published by Governance Connect. On the 1st of January 2022 the rights have beeb taken over by Civitas Naturalis Foundation. The publication has been disseminated in the network of public managers in The Netherlands and Flanders and is used by PRIMO Nederland and PRIMO Europe for support in their education programs.

Rights: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and/or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publishers. This publication may not be lent, resold, hired out of otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form, binding or cover other than that in which it is published, without the prior consent of the publishers. No rights can derived from the contents of this book.

The risk of leadership

A plea for a new search for ‘responsible-in-the-end’ leadership: stewardship

Jack Kruf | 10 March 2017


Of course, we have our democratic system as a great set of principles and values as a form of equipment for good public governance. Public leadership, concerning that of public organisations as well as of the public domain of society, is embedded in this system, at least it should be. You may expect excellent results, because the democratic system traces back to the Greek δημοκρατία 508 BC, and itself is tested and challenged over and over again. Through the millennia it developed until now.

Considering the present state of society and of natural ecosystems you may be surprised by the results of this period of 2525 years of development. The Global Risks Reports published by the World Economic Forum – published since 2005 – tell the story of how critical the earth condition is. Reading these reports I had a flashback to the year 1972 when the Club of Rome presented facts, findings and figures in the report The Limits to Growth. Since at least five decades (i.e. half a century!) we know what is going on and where many generations of leadership has brought us.

Not that good
Within this democratic system the results of our public leadership over the years are not that good. Autocratic systems perform not better. More than ever public risks – being deviations, harms and losses related to the public values we so highly pamper – seem to emerge at a faster pace – such as there are disruptions caused by climate change and cybercrime, large scale pollution and poverty, fundamental lack of social cohesion, water shortage and migration issues. Well, what can we say about risk leadership while leadership itself seems to be the risk? We elaborate on this.

Redefinition
Public leadership must be reconsidered against the background of the structural and diminishing trust of citizens in politics as a whole as well as in public organisations. In society you more and more sense and hear Houston we have a problem. The general feeling is that public leaders do not listen to citizens and companies, are perceived as the ‘elite’, do not act in line with their promises during election time. What makes things worse is the disappearance of public leaders after a governing period of 4 – 6 year, when their term has come to an end, and make place for a new wave politicians, all with new promises.

It seems that risk leadership itself has become a risk

There seems to be much governance from the board room and from behind the desk. The living world of society seems to be separated from the ruling system world, where the leaders actually live in. There is this hugely felt need under citizens, clients, companies and if they could talk to us by natural ecosystems as forests and coral reefs – for leaders that listen to the wants and needs and from there truly generate values as safety, balance, cohesion, continuity, predictability, protection and security. There are gaps and risks (as form of harms and losses to values), all over the place.

From this perspective it is obvious that managing and governing the public risks, that emerge in society – well defined as risk leadership – needs to be redefined. It seems that leadership itself has become a risk factor. The so called risk leaders who cause risks in stead of leading us in the prevention, approach, mitigation and management. That is worrying, because the right course of public governance, anchored in the basic of democracy, depends on this. This aspect of weakness in leadership should at least lead to a continuing process of self-reflection, improved self-awareness and self-correction.

St. Thomas University: “The Risk Leadership Initiative is focused on several aspects of modern risk management, but one of our key issues of concern is the challenge of getting organisational leaders to integrate risk management thinking into their overall decision-making frameworks. Since PRIMO has, from the beginning in 2005, been focused on top level leaders we would be interested to hear your views on the problems, opportunities, and challenges of getting risk management included in executive, politician, and director level policy making and policy implementation. Examples of successes would be particularly interesting to us. Jack Kruf: “It is clear that leaders of public and private organisations should play a coordinating and connecting role in a more holistic approach of the risks we are facing. This well written and illustrated report impressively highlights where we find the challenges on our path toward a more balanced society. Sharing knowledge, open dialogue, building trust, good governance, stewardship and leadership.””

Political risk
In present think tanks has been brought forward by different stakeholders, the impressions that society itself is on a drift and that it seems that the democratic set of tools is running out of its ability to control. In the outcome and result of many elections and referenda it more and more becomes evident that the drift in risks, for society in public risks, finds ground in political leadership and hereto related components. Reflecting on risk leadership brings us automatically from the academic and management domain in the direction of politics.

According Niccolò Machiavelli politics is the world of mainly that of power and influence. Is then politics one of the key drivers of public risk itself? Is the quest of risk leadership in fact all about the risk of politics or political risk? It is possible. Zooming in a bit more here. What is political risk? Matthee (2011) defines it as follows:

‘Political risk is a type of risk faced by investors, corporations, and governments that political decisions, events, or conditions will significantly affect the profitability of a business actor or the expected value of a given economic action.’ 

In a broader definition also citizens and communities should find resort in this definition. Anyway, politics is an obvious dimension that brings harm. An important aspect to build in the new program of Professor Peter Young. It leads in my view to the conclusion that risk leadership at least needs to embrace itself and for its practical applicability and use has to be upgraded, maybe even reconsidered, redefined, re-invented or re-engineered. In the public domain of day to day business and government, it means that this attitude of self reflection needs be applied to every elected and governing council, the place where politics actually emerge.

It has become clear from the European UDITE and PRIMO network that many city managers express the general feeling – from extensive experience with society, citizens, clients, investors, businesses, NGO’s and media – that this unpredictable working of politics has become a critical factor and express that the system of democracy itself is under pressure.

The unpredictable working of politics has become a critical factor

What is leadership if “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” (Churchill). What is in perspective of the emerging public risks in fact the ability of democracy? Gore (2009) reflected as follows:

”It is now apparent that the climate crisis is posing an unprecedented threat… to our assumptions about the ability of democracy and capitalism to recognize this threat for what it is and respond…”.

These doubts in and lack of trust in de governing system, where leaders live, form the background for a further reflection on leadership, especially when it concerns risks for citizens, society and nature.

Stewardship
Discussing the major public risks within the European network of public leaders the main concept for leadership that addresses and mitigates is felt in the form of stewardship, not (only) in the religious way but as a form that has a true holistic approach. We remember here the great Alexander von Humboldt and his holistic approach over the borders of sciences in the early 19th century. He essentially connected sciences and approaches and with that crossed the lines of segmentation of opinions and views into a true ecological approach of areas and topics. Could his approach be a starting point for a more successful approach of public leadership, connecting vertically detail with headline, strategy with implementation and horizontally all relevant stakeholders. This way of perception could be beneficial and a great asset for modern leaders.

Alexander von Humboldt connected sciences… and with that crossed the lines of segmentation. 

Elaborate a little bit more on Von Humboldt. To be able seeing things as one and interconnected is the capacity of true ‘reflection’ needed, i.e. the capacity zooming out and seeing the larger picture, in connecting the dots. Like Alexander von Humboldt did in his 1858 masterwork (Cosmos part I). He for the first time in history connected the different sciences of the living and non-living world. He concluded: “Physical geography…, elevated to a higher point of view, … embraces the sphere of organic life…”. That was a great discovery and a major lesson to be able to connect the dots.

On governing cities and regions this reflection can be of great advantage in diagnosing the problem and define actions. Reflection is needed to get the bigger picture of things, people and happenings and to develop a sabbatical and clear view how to lead. It helps leaders getting the bigger picture, see more sharply the connection of elements within the public domain and thereby contribute to better decision making and putting things in perspective.

Change

From the network of PRIMO comes the experience that most of the public risks emerge from firstly lack of reflection capacity by leaders and with that insufficient diagnoses causes ineffective decisions. Only 12% of policies leads to implementation and from this only 25% is effective. Secondly lack of good working interfaces between stakeholders caused by a lack of binding leadership and thirdly by what can be defined as responsible-in-the-end leadership, i.e. stewardship. The last being an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources.

The concept of Risk Leadership can be possibly enriched with key leader capacities of reflection, connection and stewardship. In my view these can contribute to the reduction of risks, caused by leaders themselves and improve the quality of public and private governance and management in general. The initiative of Risk Leadership by the St. Thomas University could not have been timed better in this timeframe of changing paradigms, drifting societies and on a large scale emerging public risks. It is time for change. Ω


Bibliography

Gore, A. (2009) Our Choice: Changing the way we think. Emmaus, US: Rodale Books.

Matthee, H. (2011) ‘Political risk analysis’ in Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., & Morlino, L. (eds.), International encyclopedia of political science (pp. 2011-2014). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412959636.n457

This article was originally published to contribute to the Risk Leadership Initiative of the Opus College of Business of the University of St. Thomas, lead by Professor Peter Young. As published here the article has been amended on its original in formulation and positioning. Hyperlinks and biography are added. The publishing date has been kept on its original: 10 March 2017.

© Jack Kruf photo: Ludwig Oswald Wenckebach (1955) Monsieur Jacques [Bronze]. Rotterdam.

25+ jaar risicomanagement

Boek

Waarom 75 essays over een periode van meer dan 25 jaar zijn samengebracht in het e-boek ‘Publiek Risico: Essays’: om te informeren en te inspireren

Eric Frank en Jack Kruf | augustus 2020


De beginselen van risicomanagement liggen besloten in elk ecosysteem en zijn voor wat de mens betreft zo’n 300.000 jaar oud. Elk mens heeft in zijn hersenen de vroege ontwikkelingsstadia nog opgeslagen. Om te overleven als groep of als individu. Het kwam ons voor dat deze basisprincipes voelbaar zijn in de gedachten verwoord in deze selectie van essays. Veel ervan is wezenlijk.

Nu, anno 2020, kijken wij slechts een stukje terug. Gedurende 15 jaar (periode 2006-2020) zijn wij afwisselend verantwoordelijk geweest voor de oprichting, besturing en management van de Nederlandse tak van PRIMO, de Public Risk Management Organisation. Een mooi moment om een selectie van essays te presenteren, dat een beeld geeft van het ontstaan, de werking en de ontwikkeling van het vak risicomanagement. Dit is de inleiding van het e-boek Publiek Risico: Essays.

Het is een persoonlijke selectie, waarbij in onze ogen de diverse invalshoeken van het vakgebied het sterkst worden geëtaleerd. Het is een selectie, waarvan wij weten dat wij mensen tekort doen, natuurlijk. Maar de keuze voor een beperkte set van essays en pagina’s dwingt om te kiezen. Het zijn 75 essays en 723 pagina’s. Gebundeld in dit e-boek.

Risicomanagement is als vak zo oud als de weg naar Rome.

Risicomanagement is als vak zo oud als de weg naar Rome (en eigenlijk veel ouder zoals hierboven reeds geduid), maar het startpunt voor Nederland wordt gelegd in 1995, in de aanloop naar het proces waarbij de rijksoverheid in Nederland de eerste zaadjes plantte. Niet echt voor zichzelf, nee niet echt, maar om een construct te bedenken waarbij zij taken kon decentraliseren naar lagere overheden en vervolgens om toezicht op de uitoefening af te dwingen. Afstoten dus en erop toezien dat het goed gaat. Een bijzondere reden dus, die niet zozeer de publieke zaak vooropstelt maar eerder het mechanisme van controle. Dat is het eerste dat opvalt.

De selectie van artikelen geeft de duiding van deze aanpak weer, laat ook zien dat vele experts en wetenschappers er veel nieuwe ideeën op hebben ingebracht, maar de rijksoverheid is qua standpunt en aanpak in die 25 jaar eigenlijk niet van gedachten veranderd. Er is eigenlijk de paragraaf weerstandsvermogen als enig echte kader. Daar wordt weliswaar wettelijk aan voldaan, maar veel gemeenten passen het nauwelijks toe als echt sturingsinstrument.

Wat opvalt is ook dat de gemeenten, provincies en waterschappen eigenlijk in het geheel nog niet georganiseerd zijn op dit punt, ook niet na 25 jaar. Iedereen werkt met een eigen aanpak, met eigen raamwerken, modellen, adviseurs en zelfs eigen wetenschappers. Er is nauwelijks sprake van een corporate kader waarmee door gemeenten, provincies en waterschappen wordt gewerkt.

Pas 25 jaar nadat het rijk de beslissing nam om zo te gaan werken, tonen de koepelorganisaties, zij het mondjesmaat – incidenteel, op projectbasis en meestal facilitair – een teken van leven op dit punt. Dat is merkbaar in de selectie. Essays hiervan ontbreken. De essays komen met name van enkele front runners in het publieke domein, wetenschappers of extern adviseurs.

Een zoektocht van het openbaar bestuur zelve kent een zeer matig resultaat.

Risicomanagement is niet geland, het is voor veel bestuurders en topmanagers een fremdkörper. Het is geen sturingsinstrument geworden om scherp aan de wind te zeilen, te innoveren, vooruit te zien. Het is een moetje, ja soms zelfs een wassen neus. Risicomanagement is nog steeds een duwmodel, eigenlijk een ongewenst kindje van de overheid, waarin adviseurs en commerciële partijen natuurlijk voor een frisse wind hebben gezorgd, maar ook waarin zij met bijzondere ideeën, benaderingen en modellen kwamen aanzetten. En vooral de diversiteit aan begripsduiding en -uitleg is enorm. Het lijkt een vervuild begrip geworden, een container. Dit zorgt voor grote verwarring en hap-snap business. Daar wringt hem de schoen met betrekking tot publiek risicomanagement. Het speelveld is verdeeld en er is geen eenduidige taal.

Onze selectie van artikelen is een oproep om de handschoen nu echt eens op te pakken en voorliggende rijkdom aan kennis en ideeën opnieuw te wegen, te benutten en vooral aan de slag te gaan. Bestuur en topmanagement zijn daarbij aan zet. Daarvoor is wel gezag nodig en vooral draagvlak en consistentie vanuit de top van de ministeries.

Na 25 jaar zijn wij nog steeds een beetje waar wij 25 jaar geleden waren: de meeste bestuurders en topmanagers voelen er helemaal niets voor om dit vak professioneel te adopteren. Hun uitleg is dat het negatief is, remmend, niet motiverend, mijdend. Natuurlijk is dit onzin, maar goed de beleving is soms sterker dan de werkelijkheid. De kern van het vak wordt willens en wetens niet begrepen. Er is werk aan de winkel, veel, jawel heel veel. Deze selectie bevat daarvoor de ingrediënten.

Voor u ligt een reis van meer dan 25 jaar, die ook laat zien dat goede ideeën zijngelanceerd en dat vele pogingen zijn ondernomen om het vak te verbreden en om het volwassen te laten worden. Een deel daarvan is in onze ogen het waard om gedeeld te worden en verdient om op de tekentafel te brengen bij de doorontwikkeling van het vak. Wij wensen u leesplezier én inspiratie. Ω

Colofon

Redactie: Eric Frank (taalredactie) en Jack Kruf (eindredactie). Met dank aan alle auteurs voor hun bijdragen..

ISBN/EAN: Dit boek is in 2013 geregistreerd en in 2020 gepubliceerd bij het Centraal Boekenhuis als Publiek Risico: Essays, met ISBN-nummer 9789491818011.

Publicatie: Dit e-boek is uitsluitend en op persoonlijke inzichten van de redactie samengesteld en gecureerd. Het wordt uitgegeven door Governance Connect. Per 1 januari 2022 zijn de rechten overgenomen door Stichting Civitas Naturalis. De publicatie is verspreid in het netwerk van publieke managers in Nederland en Vlaanderen en wordt gebruikt door PRIMO Nederland en PRIMO Europe ter ondersteuning van hun onderwijsprogramma’s.

Rechten: Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen en/of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgevers. Deze uitgave mag zonder voorafgaande toestemming van de uitgevers niet worden uitgeleend, doorverkocht, verhuurd of op andere wijze in het economisch verkeer gebracht in enige vorm, bindwijze of omslag, anders dan waarin zij is uitgegeven. Aan de inhoud van dit boek kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

Read in English