The Human Element
As an expert in human decision-making and behavior, my career centers on advising corporate leaders and directors. In my daily work, I help executives—people in positions of authority, influence and responsibility—to understand themselves better. Leverage strengths and illuminate blind-spots. Know more about the impact they have on those in their direct orbit and on the business. How and why intentions get distorted, derailed or misinterpreted and what to do about that before it happens and after. Better assess risks and forecast consequences. Diagnose and solve problems which relate to the inscrutable complexities of human psychology and behavior.
The core of my consultancy is helping the heads of companies make sure they have an excellent head on their shoulders, how not to lose it, and to consistently make the best possible use of it—for themselves, their businesses, workforce and customers, and their communities and society at large.
My expertise are applicable in many aspects of corporate and organizational life with psychological underpinnings. Developing, enhancing, rehabilitating, or transitioning leadership, culture, ethical governance, and risk. Detecting, mitigating and resolving human factor disturbances such as fraud, corruption, misconduct, insider threats, and human vulnerabilities in cybersecurity. And the deep psychological dimensions of the human-technology interface including bias, ethics and behavioral forecasting and control in AI and autonomous decision-making agents.
Notwithstanding that scope, I certainly don’t get every engagement or opportunity I seek, want or think I’d make a positive impact in. Not every company knows who I am, what I bring, how it works, why it’s valuable. Even given the chance to explain and respond to those questions, my expertise, credentials, deliverables, reputation and social skills aren’t always what’s selected. Some companies want a bigger firm or more famous brand. Or say technology, conventional management consulting or data-oriented solutions are the investment they prefer to make. Getting a “No” or hearing nothing are par for the course in business.
Even in situations when I’m disappointed, frustrated and disheartened, when I disagree with the prospective client’s decision and consider that I’d have been the better choice, I’m usually eventually able to understand why the Yes went elsewhere.
But not always. There are situations which are not only mystifying but upsetting. Even troubling. Not just because I don’t like feeling or being obstructed but because on analysis the outcome seems non-sensical and wrong. When possessing exactly what's needed doesn't seem to matter or is a perverse disqualifier not an asset.
This is one of them.
There is no such thing as an enterprise which isn’t a human ecosystem, irrespective of its sector or commercial focus. People—the human element—are at the center of every professional situation. It makes perfect logical sense that an expert in that area would only be value-added. That recognition has been especially slow to cohere in cybersecurity, where the problems and supposed solutions have generally been understood as fundamentally technological and procedural, and where the human factor has largely been reduced to a weak link or a wildcard needing guardrails and training.
And so I was thrilled when RSA announced a while back that the 2020 conference would be organized around the theme of “The Human Element.” When the call-for-speakers was sent out, many colleagues contacted me expressing excitement that the area of cybersecurity for which I’m known was to be featured at the conference. They—and I—eagerly anticipated the presentation I would deliver, aligned with and extending the many other presentations I’ve given and client counsel provided on human factors in cybersecurity.
But the program was just publicly released and I received this email:
Dear Alexander,
Thank you for submitting to speak at RSA Conference 2020. We appreciate very much your interest in contributing to the education of the cybersecurity community and we recognize the time and effort it takes to go through the submission process. The pool of almost 2,400 submissions this year was extremely strong, and unfortunately, due to the limited number of sessions for each track, many high-quality submissions were not able to be incorporated into the program this year, including yours.
Session Title: Warfare of the Mind: we’re on a collision course, we just don’t know it
LinkedIn is often used as a message-board trumpeting achievement and success. Less usually to share and discuss professional setbacks and impediments. But what better opportunity and resource from which to gain insight and learning than from my diverse community of connections and beyond?
So I’m asking: How do you understand this—not only or necessarily in relation to my proposal not being accepted but as an indicator in the broader scheme? Is it an anomaly and specific to RSA programing (irrespective of the ostensible focus announced by this year’s conference theme)? Or might this be an accurate barometer of the marketplace and industry’s prevailing attitudes and interests toward understanding and addressing the human element in cybersecurity? What are your thoughts, opinions and suggestions from your own observations and experiences in your companies or with other enterprises you’re familiar with regarding how—or if—deep expertise in the human mind and decision-making are needed and could be better leveraged to mitigate and solve problems, including but not exclusive to cybersecurity?
Subscribe to The Briefing
Sign up to receive a curated digest of thought-leadership and analysis connected to Dolus Advisors’ work focusing on leadership, decision-making, and organizational issues involving complex psychological underpinnings.