Consider Re-evaluating Reviews in Your Workflow?
Written by: Laurie Duncanson- Lending Operations, Project Management, and Training Consultant
In many financial institutions, layers of review, approvals, and re-verifications are added with the best of intentions: to prevent errors, reduce risk, and protect quality. In addition, new or improved system automation can eliminate reviews but are often forgotten because of the “wait and see” effect. Over time, however, excessive double‑checking can become a silent drag on productivity, morale, customer service, and accountability. Accepting a measured level of risk can be a more effective alternative.
Why Double‑Checking Becomes the Default
Double‑checking usually emerges in response to fear: fear of mistakes, blame, or reputational damage. When an error occurs, the instinctive fix is often to add another checkpoint rather than address root causes. While this feels safer, it creates compounding effects:
Workflow slows and delays are created as tasks move through multiple hands.
Responsibility becomes diffused (“someone else will catch it”).
Trust erodes, particularly for capable employees.
Costs increase with minimal improvement in outcomes.
Over time, organizations can find themselves spending more effort verifying work than doing it.
The Hidden Costs of Over‑Verification
While double‑checking is required to meet investors requirements (quality control program) and truly may reduce some risk, it also introduces other risks that are less visible:
Cognitive fatigue - lack of attention: purpose is unknown or tedious.
Customer Service Delays: unnecessary lengthening of the process.
Learned helplessness: Individuals stop taking ownership when their judgment is consistently second‑guessed.
Ironically, too much checking can increase system‑wide risk by weakening accountability and reducing adaptability.
The Role of Risk Acceptance
Accepting risk does not mean being careless. It means consciously deciding where errors are tolerable, recoverable, or instructive—and designing systems accordingly. Every process already involves risk; the real question is whether that risk is being managed intentionally or passively hidden behind redundancy.
Organizations that reduce unnecessary double‑checking make several deliberate choices:
They accept that small, non‑catastrophic errors will occasionally happen.
They prioritize detection and correction over prevention at all costs.
They treat mistakes as data rather than failures.
This approach shifts the focus from avoiding error entirely to minimizing the impact of error.
When Double‑Checking Is Actually Necessary
Not all double‑checking should be eliminated as quality control programs are needed, prudent, and required by investors, examiners, etc.
Double‑checking is most justified when:
Errors are irreversible, creating an unsellable loan, fraud or lack of repayment ability.
The cost of a mistake dramatically outweighs the cost of another review.
Tasks are rare or performed under unusual conditions such as flood.
Outside these contexts, routine work often benefits more from clarity, system automation, training, and/or ownership than from additional review layers.
Designing for Fewer Checks and Better Outcomes
To reduce checking, organizations can take these steps:
Clear Processes: Step by Step directions including but not limited to system requirements.
Capability building: Training and feedback are more effective than oversight.
Ownership: Assigning clear responsibility increases care and attention.
Systematic solutions: Automation of required fields, tasks and milestone completion components.
Psychological safety: Errors should be viewed by management objectively and not as punishment or failure.
Trust as a Risk Management Strategy
Trust is often framed as a cultural value, but it is also a practical risk strategy. When people are trusted, they tend to act more carefully, not less. Removing unnecessary checks signals confidence in judgment and competence, reinforcing a sense of professional responsibility.
Trust does not eliminate risk—it reallocates it. Instead of spreading risk thinly across many reviewers, it places it squarely with the person closest to the work, where context and insight are strongest.
Conclusion
Double‑checking feels safe, but unchecked verification can quietly undermine speed, ownership, and learning. Accepting a thoughtful level of risk allows organizations to move from defensive control to intentional design.
By deciding where mistakes are acceptable, investing in capability, and trusting people to carry responsibility, organizations can reduce the burden of double‑checking while improving overall performance. In the long run, the goal is not zero risk—but resilient systems that can handle risk without grinding to a halt.
An evaluation of your workflow can be instrumental in improving operating costs, providing positive experience for employees and customers, while maintaining exceptional quality results. If you have any questions about the strategies discussed in this article, we welcome you to contact Laurie directly at lduncanson@scapartnering.com. For general inquiries or to learn more about SCA’s full suite of services, please feel free to connect with us through our Online Inquiry Form.
