A mayor tells the CHRO to "accept" chronic 911-dispatcher understaffing as the city's risk appetite. What should the CHRO do instead of treating that remark as a closed decision?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Saying the city will just live with empty 911 seats is not a risk appetite—it is leaving the station unlocked and hoping nobody notices. Real acceptance is a conscious call after leftover risk to service levels is written down. The CHRO's job is to put that residual risk on the table and push a different treatment, not to file a shrug as a closed decision.
Full Explanation
Risk acceptance is a deliberate executive choice that requires residual-risk transparency, not neglect of a known staffing gap. Chronic dispatcher vacancies create measurable residual risk to 911 service levels, response times, and public safety. The CHRO should document that residual risk and recommend treatment such as staffing, process, or demand controls rather than silent acceptance. SPHR leaders escalate untreated people risk; they do not launder it as appetite because an elected official wants the item closed.