Do Risk Assessors Make Good Risk Managers, and Why Not? R. B. Belzer, Washington University
People often envision themselves as being better at jobs that others do. Toxicologists mistakenly think they make good economists, and vice versa. These misperceptions can be persistent if (poor) performance cannot be readily measured. Sports provide a wealth of examples where misperceptions of ability are easily exposed and thus not long tolerated. In basketball, for example, centers are usually poorer ball handlers than guards (but love to dribble), and guards make do not dunk as well as centers (but love to try). Risk analysts often complain that risk managers make terrible decisions. It is said that risk managers are uninformed about science, confused about analysis, and sometimes purposefully distort risk analysis to justify predetermined choices. But how well do risk analysts perform when they also must act as risk managers? Only occasionally do risk assessors get explicit opportunities to be risk managers in public contexts, and the quality of their performance cannot be readily measured. Nevertheless, risk assessors must manage risks in their own lives. Do they act in ways that are consistent with the advice they give? If so, do they make better decisions? This paper describes and analyzes presents a personal risk management problem that is becoming increasingly common as "baby boomers" succumb to middle-age: coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Despite its small sample properties (N=1), the example illustrates why risk analysts could make excellent risk managers under certain circumstances, why they are poor in others, and why they are always terrible patients.
Go to . . .
2000 SRA Annual Meeting Table of Contents
2000 SRA Annual Meeting Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page