Bottom-Up Risk Identification
This project investigates how hierarchical structures suppress critical risk information—and designs new organizational models to ensure early warnings are heard and acted upon.
Bottom-Up Risk Identification
What is this research about?
Warnings from frontline staff are often the first and only clues to emerging threats. Yet across domains—from oil rigs and hospitals to intelligence agencies—critical signals from lower levels are frequently ignored, dismissed, or blocked from reaching decision-makers. This project explores the structural and cultural reasons behind such failures, using both a systematic review of major disasters and an in-depth case study of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. Through this research, we aim to understand why hierarchical organizations often fail to act on internal risk signals—and how they can be redesigned to do better. The project will develop a practical framework for building “risk-hearing” organizations, capable of recognizing and responding to early warnings regardless of where they arise in the hierarchy.
The Problem:
Organizational disasters—from the Deepwater Horizon explosion to the Fukushima meltdown—often follow a predictable pattern: someone knew. Frontline employees or junior analysts frequently recognize signs of danger, but their warnings are stifled by the very structures designed to manage risk. Our review of over 20 case studies reveals recurring patterns of failure: rigid hierarchies that block upward communication, cultures of fear or futility, and managerial denial of weak signals. Formal policies that claim to welcome feedback are often contradicted by punitive or dismissive practices on the ground.
This problem is not abstract. In the lead-up to the October 7 attacks on Israel, junior soldiers and intelligence analysts reported signs of Hamas preparing for a large-scale assault. Yet those warnings were not escalated. Why? Because assumptions at the top—combined with institutional inertia and dismissive command culture—led to dangerous overconfidence. This breakdown mirrors those found in healthcare, engineering, and defense systems worldwide.
Solving this problem is critical not only for preventing disasters, but for building organizations that can adapt, learn, and survive in high-risk, high-stakes environments.
Goals and Methods:
The goal of this project is to develop evidence-based guidelines for designing organizations that reliably surface and act on critical risk information—especially when that information originates from lower levels of the hierarchy. In today’s fast-moving, high-risk world, the ability to hear and respond to early warnings is a defining feature of resilient institutions.
Many hierarchies are structured in ways that mute frontline voices, delay recognition of danger, and create blind spots at the top. By drawing on lessons from organizational disasters, interviews with frontline personnel, and primary research, we aim to produce clear, practical recommendations that help leaders create cultures and structures where early warnings are welcomed, not suppressed. Our work will offer concrete design principles for hierarchies that don’t just manage risk—but hear it.
Outcomes:
This study is currently ongoing. To be among the first to learn about our findings and access practical tools for improving organizational communication, sign up for our newsletter.
Research You Can Rely On
Did you know that many research findings are manipulated—or even outright false? Some estimates suggest that up to 90% of published research may be unreliable. Meanwhile, more than $167 billion in taxpayer money is spent annually on research and development.
Science is supposed to provide trusted answers and inform smart decisions. But when studies are flawed or findings can't be replicated, confidence in research—and the policies and practices built on it—starts to erode.
At BRITE Institute, we believe research should do more than just look credible. It should be credible. That’s why we go above and beyond typical standards with rigorous practices that ensure honesty, transparency, and accuracy at every step.
Below are just some of the ways we safeguard the integrity of our work:
What is this research about?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
The Problem:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Goals and Methods:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Outcomes:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.