D BEST INSPIRED COACHING
Organizational Activation Risk Index (OARI)
Fear-based behaviours drive bad business, risk and losses. Governance systems are missing this vital risk.
CULTURE & ORGANIZATIONSPRACTICES & TOOLS
Deb Best
3/2/20264 min read
Fear-based behaviours drive bad business, risk and losses. Governance systems are missing this vital risk.
Here is the business case and the risk model.
From Global to Local
This morning, I watched a discussion about trade policy from the Antalya Diplomacy Forum (ADF2025). The forum “Protectionism: The End of Globalization?” explored how a non-dominant entity should deal with a larger entity acting in a protectionist fashion. The antidote was to diversify partners (which is hard to do in real time reactively). A risk-forward approach cultivates internal capabilities coupled with diverse partnerships, as a matter of policy. Interestingly, these are DEI principles applied at the global level.
The question was posed in the forum, “What’s driving increasing protectionism?” The discussion turned to a variety of observations, historical and economic, but danced around and missed the root driver: security, or feeling the lack thereof.
For a dominant entity or person, protectionism is defense. A reaction to a perceived threat. To a non-dominant or person entity, protectionism is defense. A reaction to a real threat.
If this sounds familiar, then you’ve observed bullying in action. Large-scale geopolitical behavior mirrors psychological safety risks, particularly in how fear-based responses drive conflict and survival anxiety. Looking at the individual and macro levels reveal the parallels.
Bullies perceive a threat from their target due to insecurity, and act aggressively to protect themselves. The bully may be unaware of the irony of their behavior and often justify their action by denigrating the target. In colonization, that looks like racism or using religion as a contrived high ground. To a bully, accountability (or even transparency) is an added threat to security, which just ramps up the conflict, and more aggression toward the target. Enter violence.
This dynamic is apparent in so many conflicts, from playgrounds to genocide. The same essence of fear and insecurity trumps rationality and morality. It also seems true that dominance has a shelf-life. A rise and fall.
In psychology, this is called organizational activation.
Mitigation and Repair
As suggested at the ADF2025, the effective response to a bully is to both build internal capabilities (such as the humanities acumen including psychological and socio-political depth), and the formation of partnerships, so that the target is not isolated. Psychological principles play out at every level.
If behaviour was not fear-based, but rooted in emotional regulation, we could create very different, sustainable outcomes. So how do we move toward emotional maturity at scale and shift this dynamic?
By building psychological acumen and recognizing the signs and symptoms in our leaders and in our workplaces. Whether the organization or individuals are in dominant or non-dominant positions, these abilities enable informed action and reaction.
This is the basis of the Organizational Activation Risk Index (OARI). To identify early-warning indicators associated with unsafe dynamics can drive survival behaviors (i.e. insecurity, bullying, over-functioning, withdrawal, conflict escalation, disengagement). Current models such as Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) aims toward root causes of safety risks associated for physical events, missing out on emotional and psychological factors. Recent research on organizational activation illustrates this missing link.
Rebalancing Organizations to Reduce Risk
When we devalue people, we ignore our own sense of compassion and humanity, with collateral impact on the workplace and core competences. For some in business, this is a badge of honor: to be proud of being professionally dispassionate, while competing without a north star of greater purpose outside of self-interest. This is not something to be proud of, it is pitiable. When employees do not feel psychologically safe or systemically supported, this is inherently traumatizing and they adapt. Adaptations may appear as withdraw or disengagement, conflict and hyper-performance. Unchecked, these adaptations increase talent flight risk, operational errors, innovation stagnation, ethical risk exposure, and reputational harm.
Assessing Organizational Activation Risk
Each domain should be scored 1–5 based on the organization's current data. Final Score = (Domain A + Domain B + Domain C + Domain D) ÷ 4 Add Structural Multiplier if applicable.
A. Psychological Safety Risk (25%)
% reporting safety in admitting mistakes
% comfortable disagreeing upward
Issue escalation timeliness
Exit interview 'voice' themes
B. Chronic Workload Risk (25%)
Sustained capacity >90%
Overtime per FTE
Time off utilization
Burnout survey scores
Short-term sick leave trends
C. Behavioral Adaptation Indicators (25%)
High-performer turnover
Decline in discretionary effort
Increased grievances/conflict
Rework cycles (perfectionism proxy)
Quiet quitting indicators
D. Leadership Activation Risk (25%)
Manager 360 psychological safety scores
Span of control overload
Leadership turnover
Decision transparency scores
% leaders trained in psychologically safe leadership
Risk Rating Framework
Score - Risk Level - Meaning
Low - Healthy system, strong safety signals
Moderate-Low - Some pressure, stable adaptation
Moderate - Early survival signals present
High - Sustained activation; talent risk emerging
Critical - Chronic activation; burnout/attrition likely
Organizational Activation Risk Index (OARI)
OARI = (Psych Safety x .25) + (Chronic Load x .25) + (Behavioral Indicators x .25) + (Leadership Risk x .25) Optional Multiplier: +0.5–1.0 during restructuring, layoffs, or sustained ambiguity.
Interpretation Guide
OARI Score - Organizational State - Action
1.0–2.0 - Regulated - Monitor quarterly
2.1–3.0 - Pressured - Targeted intervention
3.1–4.0 - Activated - Leadership action required
4.1–5.0 - Chronic Risk -Governance-level intervention
Citations
Ozcelik, H. (2017). Exploring the activation dimension of affect in organizations: A focus on trait-level activation, climate-level activation, and work-related outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2127
Core work on psychological safety in organizations (underpins your discussion of speaking up, mistakes, escalation): Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Behaviour-Based Safety (since you mention BBS as an existing model): Geller, E. S. (2001). The psychology of safety handbook. CRC Press.
Walk with me
D Best Inspired Coaching
© 2026. All rights reserved.
In the spirit of respect and truth, I honour and acknowledge that I live and work within the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
Acknowledgement
Quick Links
