See Something, Say Something

In 1984, a group of terrorists attempted to assassinate the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by bombing the hotel she was staying in. They failed, though tragically they did kill five other people. In a statement, the group said: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.” It's a sobering thought.

One of the ways the police have responded to this dynamic is to rely on members of the public to act as their eyes and ears. By asking them to report suspicious activities or things that look out of place, there's a greater chance of preventing bad outcomes. The challenge that poses is that the average member of the public isn't a security expert, so won't always be able to tell what is a genuine threat and what isn't. They may also not want to feel like they are wasting police time on something that could have an innocent explanation. Which is why many police forces have introduced mechanisms designed to address this.

In the UK, there's “See It. Say It. Sorted”, a campaign that encourages members of the public to report things, no matter how insignificant, to a dedicated phone or text number. The word “sorted” is designed to provide a sense of closure; “if you report it to us, we'll take care of it” is the implied message. In the US, the equivalent of “See It. Say It. Sorted.” is “See Something, Say Something”. To support that, the authorities have also released “See Something, Send Something”, an app that allows members of the public to send photographs or written notes of suspicious activities or items to the authorities.

By removing both psychological and logistical barriers to reporting, these campaigns make it easier for people to help the police. That in turn, should increase the number of reports and hopefully give them more of that all‐important luck.

M Is for Manageable

“See It. Say It. Sorted” is a prime illustration of the first of two principles that underpin “Manageable”. By making things we want people to do easier, we make it more likely they will do them. Conversely, if there are things we don't want them to do, then making them harder will make it less likely that they will do them.

It is also worth being aware that if we can't make the thing we want them to do easier, then it may also be possible to make alternative options feel harder. To put it another way, if compliance can't be made easier, then we can also think about making non compliance harder.

Equally, we need to be mindful that it isn't the actual ease of doing something that matters. It is the perception of how hard it is that is critical. So, if we can't make something easier in reality, we may be able to make it seem easier. For example, by “chunking”, breaking up a big task into lots of smaller tasks.

When a Fine Is a Fee

The second principle that Manageable explores is best explained via a story. A number of years ago I worked for someone who had a driver who would take him to and from work. On the odd occasion the driver was unavailable, he would drive himself. One day, I met him as he was coming getting out of his car. I noticed that he'd parked illegally. Not, I might add, in an inconsiderate way; there was no reason why it would inconvenience anyone else. However, since there were parking patrols in that area, I realised that if he planned to stay there all day, he'd likely get fined or have his car towed away.

I pointed this out to him and have never forgotten his response: “They can fine me, and take the car away and fine me for that as well, it's still cheaper than paying for parking and it's far more convenient.” He had a point. If the car did get towed away, he'd just send his driver to collect it.

It's a great example of when a fine becomes a fee. Something that is supposed to act as a deterrent, actually incentivises the activity it is designed to prevent. There's a famous experiment conducted in an Israeli daycare centre where parents were fined if they were late in collecting their kids.¹

When the fines were introduced, late collections increased. Far from deterring, the fine served to legitimise the action; you are paying to be allowed to do it, so you no longer feel guilty. As an aside, they removed the fine regime when they realised the impact, and although late collection rates declined, they never fell back to pre‐fine levels.

The difference between the two stories is that the parents knew that there was a 100% chance that they would have to pay the fine if they were late. My former boss, on the other hand, was just playing “parking attendant roulette”; even if he lost the “game”, he still was better off overall.

The “fine is a fee” stories help to introduce the second principle behind Manageable, which focuses on noncompliance. In doing so, it considers how our employees perceive both the likelihood and consequences of getting caught being noncompliant. The principle is as follows: the more “manageable” noncompliance is, the more likely they are not to comply.

In practice, employees for whom these factors are relevant are likely to consider both together. In some environments, the likelihood of getting caught could be more of a significant factor than the consequences.

Key Questions

To explore whether our employees are likely to find something more or less manageable, we need to consider the following questions; as ever, all are worded from the perspective of the employee.

1. 1a. Is what they are asking me to do manageable?

   If the answer to 1a. is “no”, then we might also wish to ask:

2. 1b. Is the idea of what they are asking me to do manageable?
3. 2. Is there an alternative option available to me that I would find more manageable?
4. 3. Am I deterred by the consequences of noncompliance with what I am being asked to do?
5. 4. Do I think I am likely to be caught if I am noncompliant?