How risk leadership leads to better, more rational decisions
Authors:
- Bhavik Modi, Senior Director, Innovation and Digital Transformation at BTS
- Dr. Annette Hofmann, Director of the Lindner Center for Insurance and Risk Management at the University of Cincinnati, author of The 10 Commandments of Risk Leadership, and Editor-in-Chief of the Risk Management Insurance Review (RMIR).
Dr. Annette Hofmann is a researcher, author, and leading expert in the field of organizational risk. In this interview with Bhavik Modi, Senior Director, BTS, Dr. Hofmann explains how moving beyond a traditional approach to risk and developing risk leadership competence can help companies become more resilient and profitable—and may even save lives.Bhavik Modi: Dr. Hofmann, I’ve been fascinated to explore your research into risk in relation to the healthcare and insurance markets, and to industry in general. Under your leadership as director, the Lindner Center for Insurance and Risk Management is doing fantastic work in researching and collaborating with industry. BTS is excited to be partnering with the center on a new course based on your research. Thank you for agreeing to discuss your insights with me.Modi: I’d like to start with defining terms. Organizations have traditionally focused on risk management. How is this different from risk leadership?Dr. Annette Hofmann: Speaking specifically about the insurance industry, risk professionals are typically trained to think in terms of established concepts of coverage—additional insureds, medical payments, etc. They use risk maps or ratings to classify different risks and then evaluate them to find an appropriate risk-management technique. They focus on the mechanics, the quantitative aspects, of managing risk.Risk leadership addresses not just the quantitative but also the qualitative aspects of dealing with risk. This requires risk literacy. Understanding individual risk perception, risk aversion, risk perception-related behavior, and how emotions respond to risk and the cognitive biases that result is crucial to developing the risk literacy that enables better decision-making. This understanding is especially important for leaders, as their decisions have greater consequences. Risk leadership also requires communicating about risk, providing direction and guiding the company through tough times by coordinating efforts to deal with major risk exposures, anticipating opportunities to avoid risks, and implementing a risk-related strategy to ensure long-term success.Modi: Often, risk leadership is associated with the insurance or actuarial professions. How can this concept be applied to organizations in other industries?Hofmann: Many new titles have emerged in the past decade—Chief Risk Officer (CRO), Director of Risk Management, Vice President Risk Services—demonstrating a broad recognition that risk management deserves to be a top priority. The challenge is to move from competence in risk management to true risk leadership.In The Leader’s Brain, Wharton Neuroscience Professor Michael Platt describes how key areas in our brain work and how insights from this can be used to teach us how to develop better leadership abilities. He writes that while it’s difficult to train people in some areas, such as ethical decision-making, improvements in risk literacy are relatively easy to accomplish. The task consists mainly of acquiring knowledge about the risk-related biases our brains are commonly exposed to and gaining insights into how these biases can be avoided. Understanding the hidden forces that drive our decision-making processes under risk and uncertainty, we can be trained to make more rational decisions.Modi: What is the “uncommon sense” when it comes to risk leadership? What behaviors are well understood but often not put into practice? Or which behaviors are counterintuitive to how we would traditionally think and work?Hofmann: Managers are often seen as having sophisticated information-processing capability, as being able to make rational risk-related decisions based on economic incentives and the fullest available range of information. But managers are human beings, and like all of us, prone to biases and cognitive mistakes when they interpret risk-related information. These mistakes, together with emotions, hinder the objectivity of their decisions, which ultimately may hurt the financial survival of their firms.For example, the lack of objectivity prevents managers from identifying and taking into account secondary risk effects, which is when avoiding or trying to mitigate one risk creates another risk. Risk leadership means not only seeing the potential for secondary risk but also communicating throughout the organization how this is influencing the decision-making process.Consider the case of a U.S. manufacturer that recently experienced a small explosion leading to worker injuries. The company decided, following pressure from employees, to stop producing the part that was responsible for the explosion. Consequently, the part is now being imported from a Chinese supplier. Was this a wise decision? Well, the risk of another explosion is avoided, but now there is a secondary risk: the imported part could be defective; it might be delivered late or not at all. The decision to stop producing the part now creates supply chain risk.Good risk communication, letting employees know about the very small risk of explosion and the firm’s efforts to prevent a recurrence while continuing to produce the part, might have been a superior strategy for the company.Modi: How much of risk leadership is preventive versus reactive? And what are the consequences of poor risk leadership in a reactive or preventive situation?Hofmann: When it comes to reactions, one of the best illustrations of poor risk leadership can be found in the behavior of government officials following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, killing almost 3,000 people.Officials did not provide the public with information about this type of risk that may have headed off a misguided reaction. After 9/11, many people used a car to get to another city or location far from their home rather than taking an airplane. Because driving is so much more dangerous than flying, this switch resulted in an estimated 1,600 more fatalities in the U.S. in the year following 9/11 than would have occurred if people had continued with their previous plans and patterns of travel. Our ability to make decisions based on factual probability data is often influenced by our fears and emotions following big events like the terrorist attacks, and policymakers did not address this effect by communicating potential second-order risk effects to the public.When it comes to preventive risk leadership, people often neglect the potential occurrence of natural disasters by adjusting their subjective probability judgments.People tend to prefer insuring against a high-probability-low-consequence risk such as a bicycle theft, over a low-probability-high-consequence risk, such as a flood. They purchase add-on coverage to the homeowner's insurance policy to cover the risk of bicycle theft rather than covering the risk of loss due to flooding.Studies of insurance demand suggest that individuals tend to ignore or undervalue low probability events.However, after a catastrophe occurs, people suddenly think this will happen again soon and then decide to purchase coverage, which according to probability they are less likely to need the following year. A preventive risk leadership approach would be to inform people about this misguided behavioral pattern and incentivize them to purchase catastrophe insurance before something happens.Modi: It’s clear that developing risk leadership requires a dramatic shift in thinking, including a recognition that, as you say in your book, we are not rational in the face of risk. Change is hard. Why is it worth it for organizations to make this change?Hofmann: Risk leadership enables organizations to identify, and therefore eliminate, the cognitive biases that lead to bad decisions. This needs training and I am happy to help – but of course I am human and therefore my decisions are also far from perfect. Training in risk leadership will lead to better decisions and better communication of those decisions, and ultimately to more profitability and greater long-term success of a company.
Related content
Related content
Organizations have long wanted to scale coaching, but have been limited by cost and capacity. With AI, that's beginning to change as new platforms make coaching more accessible, flexible, and available on demand, extending support beyond a select group of leaders to entire populations.
For talent leaders, this shift creates both opportunity and complexity. With greater reach comes a new set of trade-offs: how to balance access with depth, flexibility with accountability, and efficiency with meaningful development.
The limits of unlimited (coaching).
Unlimited coaching sounds like the obvious answer. Remove the barriers, give everyone access, let people engage on their own terms. What's not to like?
In practice, quite a bit.
When coaching has no defined structure or cadence, engagement tends to become episodic - people show up when something feels urgent and step back when it doesn't. The coaching relationship never quite deepens. Conversations cover ground but don't build on it. And the development that was supposed to happen keeps getting pushed to the next session, and the next.
Three patterns emerge:
- Sporadic engagement over sustained development. Without a rhythm to anchor the work, coaching becomes reactive. Clients bring whatever is most pressing that week rather than working toward something larger. Progress happens in bursts, if at all.
- Insights that don't compound. Great coaching reveals patterns over time - things a client can't see in one session but can't unsee after several. Without continuity, and without a consistent coaching relationship to hold the thread, each conversation starts close to zero.
- Outcomes that are hard to measure. No milestones. No defined endpoint. No clear way for the organization, or the client, to know whether it's working. Activity fills the gap where impact should be.
The result is a model that's easy to scale and hard to defend. Which is exactly the problem talent leaders are navigating right now.
The relationship is the lever.
Decades of research into what makes coaching work keeps arriving at the same answer: it's the relationship. Not the platform, not the methodology. The relationship.
When a coach and client build trust over time, developing shared language, and returning to the same themes with increasing depth, something shifts. Conversations get more honest. Insights stick. The client starts doing the work between sessions, not just during them. That's when coaching becomes genuinely transformative, and it can't be rushed or replicated in a one-off session.
The ICF and EMCC are clear on this: continuity is what dives outcomes. The coaching engagements that produce lasting change are the ones where each session builds on the last, not the ones that simply offer more access.
Three principles make that possible: Consistency, Continuity, and Completion.
1. Consistency
The foundation everything else is built on.
The temptation when designing a coaching program is to treat flexibility as a feature - let people book when they want, swap coaches freely, engage on their own schedule. But frequent coach changes reset the clock. Every new coach has to earn trust, learn context, and find their footing with the client. That's time spent getting started, not getting somewhere.
A stable coaching relationship works differently:
- The coach starts to see around corners, uncovering patterns the client can't see on their own
- The client stops performing and starts being honest
- The relationship itself becomes a source of accountability, not just the sessions
Consistency doesn't constrain the work. It's what makes the deeper work possible.
2. Continuity
What turns a series of sessions into genuine development.
Without continuity, coaching tends to be additive at best- each session offers something useful, but nothing compounds. With it, the work builds on itself in ways that can't happen in isolated conversations.
What continuity makes possible:
- A limiting belief surfaced in session three becomes a thread that runs through the rest of the engagement
- A behavioral pattern the client couldn't see at the start becomes impossible to ignore by the end
- Space opens up for the harder work - the kind that requires sitting with discomfort across multiple sessions, not resolving it quickly and moving on
That slower, deeper work is where lasting change actually happens. It doesn't come from more sessions. It comes from the right sessions, in the right order, with the same person.
3. Completion
The most underrated principle of the three.
In a world of unlimited access, there's no finish line, and without one, it's surprisingly hard to know what you're working toward, or whether you've gotten there. A defined endpoint changes the entire shape of an engagement.
A clear endpoint creates urgency and focuses every session on what matters most.
- Shifts the question from "what should we talk about this week?" to "what do we need to accomplish before we're done?"
- Gives both coach and client a body of work to look back on, not just a log of conversations
For talent leaders, this is also what makes coaching legible as an investment. Sessions logged is an activity metric. A cohort of leaders who completed a structured engagement and can articulate what changed, that's a result.
Don't just scale it, design it (here’s how)
The opportunity in front of talent leaders right now is significant. The organizations that will get the most from this moment are the ones that treat coaching design as seriously as coaching delivery.
Practical design decisions:
- Define the arc before you launch: set the number of sessions, the cadence, and the goals upfront, not after people have already started booking
- Protect the coaching relationship: Make coach switching the exception, not the default, and design your program to discourage unnecessary re-matches
- Build in milestones: create structured check-ins at the midpoint and end of each engagement so progress is visible to both the coach and the organization
- Separate on-demand support from developmental coaching: Use AI-enabled tools for in-the-moment guidance, and reserve structured engagements for the deeper work
- Measure completion, not just activation: Track how many people finish an engagement, not just how many start one
Questions to pressure-test your design:
- Does every participant know what they're working toward before their first session?
- Can your coaches see enough context about a client's journey to pick up where they left off?
- Would you be able to show, at the end of a cohort, what changed, and for whom?
Access opened the door. Intention is what makes it worth walking through.
Three decisions that changed everything.
Two years ago, we made three deliberate decisions about how BTS would move with Applied AI.
We would become our own Customer Zero.
While others were building strategies, defining governance, and waiting for clarity, we made a different call: we decided not to wait. Not because the stakes were low, but because they were high. And because in a space evolving this quickly, clarity wouldn’t come from planning. It would come from movement.
So instead of starting with a roadmap, we started with three principles:
- No top-down mandate. The people closest to the work figure it out.
- IT must evolve from gatekeeper to enabler - leading AI trials and fast experimentation.
- Don’t wait for certainty.
We set the organization in motion, and once we did, things started to move quickly.
What if we started this company today?
Waiting for certainty is itself a choice, and it’s costing companies more than they realize.
We started where we knew the work best: our simulations. No perfect plan, just teams moving, trying, and iterating.
Simulations are core to who we are at BTS. Companies that simulate don’t just make better decisions; they execute faster and build more engaged cultures.
The team asked a simple question:
"What if we were to start our company today?”
That question started the flywheel.
They asked IT for a few licenses and started building - vibe-coding, writing agents, and testing tools - moving at a pace that would make any VC-backed start-up smile.
The messy middle.
At first, the team was underwhelmed.
The early reports were blunt:
“Not good with math.”
“Poor graph capabilities.”
The team wasn't discouraged. They kept tinkering - jumping between tools, staying on top of new releases, experimenting constantly.
This was a small team, across 24 countries, building off each other’s ideas. Laughing at crazy creations. Breaking things. Iterating in a sandbox alongside real clientwork.
Each cycle produced something:
- A sharper scenario
- A faster build
- A more powerful simulation
The flywheel was turning, and it was generating something real.
When the diamond appeared.
Then something shifted.
The team moved into client trials across five countries. They figured out ISO compliance and built the architecture to handle the complexity, the “spaghetti.”
And what emerged wasn’t incremental:
- What used to take weeks started happening in days.
- Limited creativity started to feel like unlimited innovation.
- Clients became self-serving.
- Agentic simulations were built directly into client systems for real-time updates and preparation.
This was our first AI diamond - a high-impact outcome created by many cycles of experimentation compounding into real value.
It only appeared because we kept the flywheel turning, each cycle increasing the odds that something would break through.
95% adoption in eight weeks.
Then it was time to take the AI diamond global.
BTS is decentralized and highly entrepreneurial. We operate across 24 countries and 38 offices, where local teams have real autonomy.
And historically? That’s meant a low appetite for adopting something built somewhere else and pushed from the center.
So we expected resistance.
Instead, something surprising happened.
In the first eight weeks, we saw 95% adoption across our global footprint.
It felt completely different from our own digital initiatives, ERP implementations, top-down rollouts of the past.
This moved on its own. Why?
We realized it didn’t start with a framework or a model, it started with a feeling.
The feeling of being at the leading edge of one’s craft and profession.
- Joy
- Excitement
- Pride
As we watched this play out across teams it stopped feeling like isolated wins.
There was a pattern to it. A repeatable, organic, innovation motion.
And the flywheel didn’t stop with simulations.
It spread across finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Some cycles led to small improvements, and others revealed new diamonds.
Not becausewe planned for them, but because we built the conditions for people to find them.
The question I'd ask any CEO right now: Is your flywheel turning, or are you still waiting for the perfect plan?
In part 2, I’ll share the key success factors behind the breakthrough, and what we’re now seeing across more than 120 global clients.
La maggior parte delle riunioni di vendita non fallisce.
Semplicemente non porta a una decisione.
Ed è lì che si perde valore.
I clienti di oggi sono più informati, più selettivi e hanno meno tempo.
Non hanno bisogno di altre presentazioni di prodotto.
Hanno bisogno di conversazioni che li aiutino a stabilire le priorità, decidere e andare avanti.
Eppure, il 58% delle riunioni di vendita non riesce a creare valore reale.
Non perché i venditori manchino di capacità, ma perché le conversazioni non sono progettate per far avanzare le decisioni.
“I clienti non agiscono su ogni esigenza che riconoscono.
Agiscono quando qualcosa diventa una priorità.”
In questo breve executive brief scoprirai:
- Perché la maggior parte delle conversazioni informa… ma non porta all’azione
- Cosa spinge davvero i clienti a stabilire priorità e muoversi
- Come creare urgenza senza compromettere la fiducia
- Il passaggio dal presentare soluzioni al facilitare decisioni
- Cosa distingue le conversazioni che si bloccano da quelle che accelerano il progresso
Se i tuoi team stanno affrontando trattative bloccate, decisioni ritardate o un pipeline lento, questo brief ti aiuterà a capire il perché e cosa fare in modo diverso.
Scarica l’executive brief e scopri come progettare conversazioni che portano davvero a decisioni.