Many companies seek to employ reliable, safe, risk-averse staff who will protect existing company principles and values; staff who will stick to existing templates of business behaviour and not push the boundaries into unknown territory.
But if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.

Sometimes, a business will seek out a risk-taker
This can be an exceptionally astute business move.
In life, right from birth, we learn by taking calculated risks.
We stand for the first time, not knowing if we’ll fall. 
We choose a career, not certain if we’ll succeed.
But, if we get it right, the benefits are substantial and far outweigh the initial, calculated risk.
This is how we progress in life. And it’s how we progress in business.

Certain roles require a person who can, highly-effectively, weigh up the risk associated with a behaviour, act on that decision and be right. This kind of behaviour pushes business out of their comfort zone and keeps them ahead of their competition.

Calculated risk
Calculated risk is about knowingly and purposefully stepping into a scenario which could cause harm. It’s about estimating the probability of failure and taking an educated chance on a positive outcome.
The sole reason we risk, is because of the opposing gain to be achieved.
We stand for the first time, knowing we might fall, but also knowing that we might walk.
We decide that falling is worth the risk. And this is how we progress.

In business, it’s a great skill to know what to risk, when to risk it and how.
- We all have different definitions of risk
- We all have different limitations set down by our risk aversion
- We all care more/less about the opinion of others
- We all care more/less about the assets of others
The balance between risking too little and too much is pivotal to success or failure. 
It takes a unique person to get risk-taking right and to be successful more often than not.
These unique people are simple to find, if you know what you’re looking for.
Psychology - the science of mind and behaviour - can find the perfect risk taker for your company.
The right person will…
Identify the risk and the opposing gain
Determine what you can afford to lose
Anticipate what could go wrong and cater for it
Take calculated risks that will benefit your company

If you’re a company who wants to actively, and safely, seek out a risk taker… contact Jon any time.

Many thefts, kidnappings and exploitations perpetrated against families and businesses are committed by an insider. That is to say, an individual already trusted with the welfare of the employer’s interests - whether they be financial, emotional or reputational - betrays that trust, to bite the hand that feeds.
But why?
Temptation - Jealously - Greed - Boredom
The reason will normally be selfish and the outcome will normally be self-progressive.
ie: the betrayer will gain something and the employer will lose something.
And the more the employer has to lose, the more tempting a target they could become.

Kim Kardashian’s Paris theft
Two quotes sum up this story for us…
“A few hours after returning from a Paris Fashion Week dinner, Kim Kardashian-West was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in her hotel room at the exclusive Hôtel de Pourtalès. The thieves - reportedly five men disguised as police officers - made off with an estimated $9 million in jewelry, including a ring.” Billboard.com 10/3/16

“I would say, beyond a reasonable certainty, based on what the media has published about the exclusivity of where the crime took place, that this is an inside job. That someone with intimate knowledge of both the Kardashian-Wests' habits, as well as whatever security was involved at the mansion, was directly responsible.” Michael Levine. Police trial expert and former undercover DEA agent (FoxNews.com 10/3/16)

This theft being an inside job is speculation until proof is found; but it’s very educated speculation based on the fact that Kim Kardashian-West’s security detail wasn’t present during the robbery.
a) her being alone at that exact time was orchestrated specially for the robbery.
b) her being alone at that exact time was an existing behaviour pattern known to the thieves.
c) her being alone at that exact time was a VERY lucky break for the thieves.
Statistically, b) is by far the most likely scenario.

Which brings us back to the question of why someone would bite the hand that feeds.
Temptation - Jealously - Greed - Boredom
The truth is that it doesn’t matter why, it matters who. Who would act in this manner?

There are clear and evidential personality traits in all of us, and these traits can foretell certain behaviours in certain situations.
If an employer knows that an employee will be exposed to excessive wealth, I can tell that employer how that employee might react - will they be loyal regardless? Will they be tempted to act unlawfully? Will they be content to exist alongside the wealth, and not experience it personally?

You see, the person we are - naturally, from birth - is impossible to completely hide. 
We’re all human and we all have triggers for positive and negative behaviours.
Existing interview techniques are not capable of getting to the truth of a person… but Forensic Psychology is.
 
Biting the hand that feeds, seems like a hugely contradictory behaviour; but we can be very contradictory creatures.
High Net Worth Individuals equate to high risk individuals when it comes to staff employment.
Wealth can distort a person’s perception of right and wrong.
Power can warp a person’s understanding of loyalty and betrayal.

Often, the perpetrator of such ‘inside’ crimes may, when asked, say that they could never have predicted their own behaviour… Forensic Psychology can.

Everyone has the potential to act irrationally, dishonestly, impetuously and out-of-character.
And it’s this potential that I can identify before it happens.

Contact any time to arrange a more in-depth discussion about how I can help to protect you, your family and your business.

Narcissists are self-loving, self-admiring, self-obsessed.
But they’re also confident, outgoing and daring.

Narcissism can be a good thing IF they’re also smart enough to know when to listen.

Trump is a ringmaster
Donald Trump shows narcissistic attributes, without question, but he hasn’t become as successful as he is by being foolish. So, is he smart? I don’t know… but it’s probably safe to say that he has, to date, surrounded himself with some smart people.

The result of the American election wasn’t unexpected I don’t think; we’d already seen it happen in the UK after all. A section of the population, tired of being ignored, had to be heard - so they moved from politely whispering their views, to insistently shouting their views. They did this by voting en masse, and with group frustration. And the US has done the same now.

Both the UK and US were promised that they’d be heard, they were promised inclusion, respect and action. They were promised decisiveness. Whether or not they get it is another thing, but sometimes a promise of something better is all we need. When people are desperate for change, straight talking becomes more important and political correctness becomes less important.
The message to politicians across the democratic world is… don’t ignore, don’t assume, don’t lie. 

Narcissism gives us strength against adverse situations.
Narcissism gets things done.
Narcissism can be dynamic, confident, outgoing and daring.
Narcissism can make a great leader.

IF…

… they’re also smart enough to know when to listen.
Time will tell.

One man can’t run a country.
The American people still have to be heard; including the ones who didn’t vote for Trump.

Due diligence is defined as “… reasonable steps taken in order to satisfy a requirement”. Which basically means ‘required carefulness’.

It involves the investigation of a business or person, prior to signing a contract, to establish appropriateness for appointment.
It’s not a legal requirement, but more a ‘doing everything possible’ scenario for protecting you, or your company’s best interests. It allows you to make an informed decision, with reasonable care and intelligent judgement.
So why does due diligence so frequently lack substance and let us down?

The reason is that there are no unquestionable guidelines as to what it means or entails. It’s all down to our individual judgement.
And, recently, there’s been a lot of talk about how successful due diligence is…

Damian Collins, acting chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, said… "What did the FA do to satisfy themselves that all those past matters were resolved and there was no reason to have any concerns at all about appointing Sam Allardyce? - They've taken action following the Telegraph investigation and the FA could rightly say 'we didn't know he was going to do that and we've taken action swiftly', but given that Sam Allardyce had been the focus of previous allegations, did they satisfy themselves that this was a sound appointment, and that his appointment would be unlikely to lead to reputational embarrassment or damage to the FA because of something that may come out? Given the allegations that had been made in the past, I think that what people would expect is that some sort of due diligence would be done to make sure that this is a sound appointment. The England national coach's affairs are under a lot more public scrutiny than a normal Premier League manager."

When is enough, enough?
This all relates back to a blog I wrote a while ago about the definition of ‘everything’. Did the FA do ‘everything’ in their power to make sure that Sam Allerdyce was a suitable appointment to England Manager? Probably not.
If the FA had done ‘everything’ in their power, would the outcome have been the same? Definitely not… because ‘everything’ would have included an expert Forensic psychological assessment.
The problem is that currently, there’s no due diligence… on due diligence.
‘Everything’ has to be redefined and we have to recognize that the guidelines we currently have are not good enough. For anything, let alone football.
We do ‘everything’ in our power to make sure that pilots are safe to take lives in their hands. We do ‘everything’ in our power to make sure that politicians are safe to lead us into the next decade.
But ‘everything’ is changing. 
Expert Forensic psychological assessment exposes the failings in our current understanding of due diligence. Mistakes were always going to happen as due diligence has never been good enough.
When it comes to the appointment of the new England Manager – existing due diligence is not enough. Doing ‘everything’ is not enough. Doing more is the only way to prevent this sort of embarrassment from occurring again.

If the FA wants to get it right – once and for all – I’m happy to help.