.png)
Risk Maturity Diagnostic: A Case Study in Building Psychological Safety and Effective Governance
- Julien Haye
- Jun 1
- 5 min read
Context for the Risk Maturity Diagnostic
A leading investment management firm engaged Aevitium LTD to conduct a comprehensive Risk Maturity Diagnostic and explore how well their culture supported effective risk management, strategic decision-making, and psychological safety. This engagement aimed to address evolving market risks, regulatory demands, and the need for proactive governance.
Across the financial services sector, recent polls have shown that:
40% of respondents identified lack of leadership support as the biggest challenge to psychological safety.
33% highlighted resistance to collaboration as the key barrier to breaking down silos, while 21% noted siloed communication as a major hurdle.
53% cited lack of leadership alignment as the primary obstacle to building a strong risk culture.
These findings underscore the importance of robust leadership, clear communication, and psychological safety in fostering a culture of risk awareness and shared ownership—key themes explored throughout this diagnostic.
Challenge
Despite having a strong governance framework, there were concerns about inconsistent risk behaviours and uncertainty around how to escalate issues. Leadership sought clarity on whether cultural and conduct dynamics were enabling or hindering risk awareness, collaboration, and decision quality.
Explore how leadership clarity and escalation behaviours can be strengthened with our Risk Leadership Diagnostics.
Our Risk Maturity Diagnostic Approach
1️⃣ Define Objectives
We aligned with leadership to define the core objectives of the diagnostic. This included clarifying focus areas, such as:
Psychological safety and openness to challenge
Integration of risk into decision-making
Leadership and change agent roles
Technology adoption for risk intelligence
2️⃣ Deploy Tailored Survey
We used a structured survey to gather insights from a cross-section of leaders and staff. The survey covered:
Leadership behaviours in supporting risk ownership and adaptability
Cross-functional collaboration and cultural enablers or blockers
Technology use for proactive risk management
How risk is integrated into decision-making
3️⃣ Conduct Structured Interviews
Building on survey data, we conducted in-depth interviews to explore:
Alignment between leadership intentions and day-to-day experience
Key gaps in psychological safety and learning culture
Perceptions of risk function maturity and effectiveness
4️⃣ Benchmark Against the SAFE Framework
Survey and interview findings were mapped against our SAFE Framework:
Set the Tone: Leadership’s role in creating a safe environment
Align with Purpose: Linking risk with strategy and decision-making
Facilitate Collaboration: Breaking silos and building cross-functional ownership
Embed Practices: Institutionalising risk processes and leveraging technology
5️⃣ Synthesise Findings and Prioritise Actions
We synthesised quantitative survey data and qualitative interview insights into a maturity assessment. This identified:
Immediate gaps (short-term priorities)
Areas for systematic improvement (medium-term priorities)
Opportunities for long-term transformation
6️⃣ Deliver Clear Roadmap
We provided a prioritised roadmap, tailored to the organisation’s culture and regulatory environment, to build:
A psychologically safe environment
Integrated risk processes
Cross-functional collaboration
Technology-driven risk intelligence
What We Learned
Psychological safety was present but uneven, particularly in learning from failures and raising dissenting views.
Risk was factored into strategic discussions but was not fully embedded into early decision-making processes.
Technology and cross-functional collaboration offered significant opportunities to enhance risk intelligence and shared ownership across teams.
Leadership behaviours set a clear tone for risk management, but inconsistencies remained in how open dialogue and accountability were practised.
Outcome and Next Steps
We delivered a comprehensive maturity assessment using the SAFE Framework, grounded in both survey insights and structured interviews.
Key findings included:
✅ Gaps in psychological safety and uneven application of risk ownership practices, especially in cross-functional areas.
✅ A moderate comfort level in speaking up about risks, with clear room to improve escalation pathways and feedback structures.
✅ Inconsistent risk awareness and training initiatives, highlighting the opportunity for immersive learning and leadership role-modelling.
✅ A call for more advanced use of technology and predictive analytics to strengthen proactive risk intelligence.
The final roadmap prioritised quick wins (within 3 months), such as structured learning reviews and leadership alignment, as well as longer-term transformation (up to 12 months and beyond) to embed risk as a core driver of decision-making.
📘 The Risk Within provides a roadmap for embedding psychological safety into risk management. It identifies critical touch points across the risk lifecycle and offers clear actions to align leadership, culture, and governance. It is designed to help risk functions integrate more deeply into the business and strengthen decision-making at every level.
Insights from Broader Polls vs. Risk Maturity Diagnostic Findings
Common Challenges and Alignment
The diagnostic survey findings align closely with broader industry polls on psychological safety and risk culture:
Lack of Leadership Support – 40% of poll respondents identified this as the main challenge to psychological safety, echoed in the diagnostic results, which found inconsistencies in leadership behaviours and role-modelling.
Resistance to Collaboration – 33% of respondents cited this as a major obstacle to breaking down silos, while the diagnostic similarly highlighted challenges in cross-functional risk ownership and cultural silos.
Resistance to Change – In the polls, 57% of respondents saw this as the biggest cultural barrier, aligning with diagnostic findings that underscored gaps in embedding risk culture and adaptability.
What These Contrasts Mean
Broader relevance: The alignment with external polling data confirms that cultural and leadership challenges in risk management are widespread, highlighting the importance of fostering psychological safety, trust, and collaborative decision-making.
Organisation-specific priorities: While these challenges are broadly shared, diagnostic findings help tailor improvement roadmaps to each organisation’s unique cultural and operational context.
This contrast between broader insights and diagnostic findings provides a balanced and targeted foundation for strategic decision-making and continuous improvement.
About the Author: Julien Haye
Managing Director of Aevitium LTD and former Chief Risk Officer with over 26 years of experience in global financial services and non-profit organisations. Known for his pragmatic, people-first approach, Julien specialises in transforming risk and compliance into strategic enablers. He is the author of The Risk Within: Cultivating Psychological Safety for Strategic Decision-Making and hosts the RiskMasters podcast, where he shares insights from risk leaders and change makers.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a Risk Maturity Diagnostic?
A Risk Maturity Diagnostic is a structured assessment that measures how well an organisation’s culture, leadership behaviours, and decision-making frameworks support proactive risk management and psychological safety.
Why is psychological safety important in risk management?
Psychological safety encourages open dialogue, enabling teams to escalate risks and share insights without fear of blame. This leads to stronger decision-making and better risk ownership across the organisation.
How does the SAFE Framework fit into the diagnostic?
The SAFE Framework (Set the Tone, Align with Purpose, Facilitate Collaboration, Embed Practices) guides the diagnostic process by mapping leadership behaviours and cultural enablers against best practices in governance and risk management.
What are typical outcomes of a Risk Maturity Diagnostic?
Outcomes include a clear picture of cultural and operational gaps, a prioritised roadmap for improvement, and actionable recommendations to build trust, enhance collaboration, and strengthen risk intelligence.
Who should consider a Risk Maturity Diagnostic?
Any organisation, particularly those in complex, regulated industries, can benefit from a diagnostic to ensure their risk culture is aligned with strategic goals and evolving market demands.
Comments