The human factor

Human behaviour, every single time. Graham Greene wrote a novel about it: The Human Factor. And it cannot have escaped the average news consumer that many ‘unexpected’ events, twists and scandals can often be led back to the same exact source: traits and actions of human beings.

All the more strange that the human factor is often ignored in many reflections and predictions. Take for instance the standard odes to certain technological innovations. Nowadays, such articles eagerly use the term ‘disruptive’, which more or less means that some new technology will change everything. Sometimes that is really true. A prime example is the open flow of information through the internet and especially its interactivity, of which the impact can hardly be overestimated. The same is true for mobile phones, especially the smartphone. However, a bit of common sense and social insight will tell you that many of today’s digital gadgets and innovations will not upset the proverbial apple cart.

A recent example is Google Glass, currently seen by most analysts as a flop, which – unlike the briefly popular, thick framed ‘nerd glasses’ – does not make the user appear more intelligent, but is intelligent itself. The wearer is constantly hooked up to the internet and its practically infinite amount of information, plus, the frame contains a small camera. Many techies predicted that after some initial scepticism (similar to the introduction of the mobile phone) the glasses would change life as we know it.  Cautious commentary by sceptical thinkers were dismissed as worthless muttering from digital Neanderthals. “This is the future. get used to it.”

Google Glass was a failure, at least as a mass-produced product. Which could have been predicted. Miraculously, trend watchers completely ignored the social and human aspects of the product, perhaps out of fear of missing the boat on the latest innovation. And this is irrespective of the question whether there is a demand for the new possibilities that such a product offers: who likes to talk to someone, during a reception or in a bar, who is simultaneously doing something completely different with his glasses, or worse, checking out who you are online? The fact that many people nowadays check their smartphones during conversations is already considered disturbing enough; people are now actually slowly but surely establishing proper smartphone etiquette.

But despite this, Google Glass-adepts completely missed these human aspects. They demonstrated a total lack of insight into social relations and processes. Not to mention the threat to privacy because of the camera. Even bars and restaurants in Silicon Valley, the actual epicentre of digital innovation, quickly prohibited the glasses.

In general, social resistance to technology is usually related to privacy. A prime example of this was the public outcry after ING announced plans to use ‘big data’ for client segmentation. In some cases, it’s about the feeling of losing control, such as with genetically manipulated food, intelligent windshield wipers, and the current discussion about the self-driving car. With the car, there is another human element that is often overlooked: the possibility of abuse (or improper use) of technical possibilities. Once you know that a self-driving car will stop automatically if an object appears in its way, you can easily just take the right of way or cross the street without any risk, just out of sheer impatience or rebelliousness. With obvious consequences.

How, you might ask, does any of this relate to accountancy? Well, for many years, auditors failed to take the human factor into account. And not just their own human behaviour – a short while ago they claimed to have independence ‘in their genes’ – but, above all, their client’s behaviour. This was illustrated by the fact that many auditors considered the lecture ‘Humans are no angels’ by philosopher Andreas Kinneging during ‘Accountantsdag 2011’ a real eye-opener. You would think that auditing was invented precisely because of this reason.

For non-auditing accountants as well, especially those in the SME sector, it is crucial to understand human behaviour, and by extension, what clients do and do not want. This relates both to ‘the society’ as a client – which expects auditors to keep a sharp eye out for potential fraud – as well as to the paying clients. This is especially true in light of the fact that many processes and data streams can easily be automated and the auditor’s routine activities are taken over by digital systems. Clients increasingly rely on the auditor’s human and psychological insights, as well as his or her communicative skills and the ability to anticipate the client’s needs, while at the same time supporting these ‘proactively’. It can be a great opportunity.  But it is an opportunity that makes a strong focus on the ‘human factor’ even more urgent than before.

Tom Nierop

Tom Nierop is chief editor of Accountant/Accountant.nl