When you are assessing the risk of things going wrong, how do you measure it? The good old risk matrix is a handy tool, but unless you use it regularly, it can be confusing. An analogy might be helpful. 

On one side is likelihood. Think about likelihood as the height chart at the Royal Easter Show. You stand your child next to it, knowing that if they don’t quite measure up, the chance of something going wrong increases. 

Now shift to consequence. If your child does slip, how badly they are hurt depends on the ride. On a gentle teacup ride, it might be a bump or a bruise. On a rollercoaster, there’s speed and height, so the outcome could be a far more serious injury – or worse!

At work, likelihood should be based on data. i.e. has it happened before, how often. Consequence is based on the negative impact. This could be injury, but could also be financial loss, reputational damage, or downtime. It’s all connected. 

As a parent you might be weighing up the risk of injury to your child not only in terms of their pain, but also medical bills and the scorn of the grandparents and other parents when they find out what you’ve done! 

Recently I have been discussing the risk of psychosocial hazards, and whether they require their own category of consequence. Some organisations choose to expand on existing Financial, Safety and other categories to spell out specifics. Think stress claims, medical conditions, absenteeism to name a few.

My advice is, if your range of consequences isn’t speaking to you or your audience, then reword them so that they do. 

The classic risk matrix is a powerful tool, but only if it speaks your language.