In Lausanne, should managers use fear to prompt action?
When a manager communicates a risk, should they emphasise the severity of the consequences to encourage preventive action? In Lausanne, this question arises in medtech companies, higher education institutions, international sports organisations and scale-ups across the Lake Geneva region, although their constraints are not interchangeable.
What the literature establishes
Melanie B. Tannenbaum, Justin Hepler, Rick S. Zimmerman, Lindsey Saul, Stephanie Jacobs, Kristina Wilson and Dolores Albarracín (2015, Psychological Bulletin) synthesised experimental research on fear appeals. On average, they found a positive effect on the targeted attitudes, intentions and behaviours, with stronger effects when messages included statements supporting the efficacy of the proposed response. This challenges the assumption that invoking a threat is necessarily counterproductive.
A threat does not explain how to act
In their meta-analysis, Kim Witte and Mike Allen (2000, Health Education & Behavior) distinguish responses that support prevention from defensive reactions to the message. Their findings highlight the importance of combining a strong threat with high perceived efficacy; a strong threat accompanied by low perceived efficacy is more closely associated with defensive reactions. For a manager, two questions matter: can the proposed measure prevent the problem, and does the recipient feel capable of implementing it?
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that all it takes is to dramatise a risk and then add an instruction. Yet these studies establish neither that a more intense threat is always preferable nor that an instruction automatically makes action feasible. Presenting documented consequences is not the same as making people feel guilty: the average effect of a fear appeal does not justify managerial intimidation. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not allow us to transfer
A substantial part of this literature concerns prevention and health, rather than enduring hierarchical relationships at work. A stated intention following exposure to a message is also not equivalent to a practice sustained under time pressure. These findings therefore cannot, on their own, predict the effects of repeated warnings on trust in a manager or establish the right level of alarm for a Lausanne team.
A practical check in Lausanne
In a workshop within SHR’s “Communication” programme in Lausanne, a team could compare two versions of a non-urgent preventive reminder: the same risk information, but with the second version specifying an action, its usefulness and the means to carry it out. In a medtech company, higher education institution, sports organisation or scale-up, this test could concern reporting a suspicious email, without removing any mandatory information. Randomly assigning participants to the versions would allow the team to measure the proportion who correctly complete the reporting process in a simulation, then separately collect their assessments of their ability to act. This local result would not demonstrate lasting change, but it would help establish whether making action feasible adds value beyond simply repeating the threat. To go further: explore the Communication training in Lausanne in the canton of Vaud, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Communication in Lausanne
- communication
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne