Rumour has it that once a sports coach from the other side of the Ocean defined rugby as follows: “It is exactly the same thing with the American football minus American.” It is probable that some risk management professionals may claim that the jury is not out on it as regards a similar comparison between strategic risk management and managing strategic risk. However, as time goes by and recent events of the post-crisis era more profoundly proves, there are quite interesting differences among these two indispensable attributes of risk management.

First of all, strategic risk management is at the vicinity of the scientific end of the risk management scale while managing any kind of strategic risk resides on the “artistic” side of it. Namely, strategic risk management requires well defined processes, tailor made procedures, decision making matrices/trees and all of these indispensable features actively exist within a general paradigm quite accurately defined as risk environment/universe. On the other hand, managing strategic risks requires a much more “streetwise” attitude; extensive firsthand experience should be prevalent over the by book applications. Whenever strategic risk management absolutely necessitates tight team work defined by apparent job descriptions entangled with carefully abided authority matrices, it is time for risk professionals managing strategic risks to improvise and create. They filter the data set they face through the perception they have built via their risk catalogue and try to use – or even sometimes transcend – their “muscle history” as regards similar events encountered before. Their tool kits encompass specific items developed for peculiar cases instead of one size fits all kind of traditional prescriptions.

At this juncture, being a political scientists both by nature (diplomats in the family) and nurture (a BA degree on POLS), I cannot help to compare American and Soviet stance about their national security strategic risk response schemes during the Cold War years. The CIA’s style was quite evidently nearer to the strategic risk management corner of the boxing ring; a general risk assessment paradigm, predefined risk responses for each and every level of threat, carefully updated event assessments constituting basis for case studies that were thoroughly examined, etc. On the red corner, the attention to details and alertness level were of the same kind yet the general policy could not be any more different; assessment of each occurrence as a specific case deserving a unique solution, intentional lack of a general risk catalogue with the aim of abstaining from dissemination of data to different levels of the personnel, ad-lib response to developments without taking into consideration any probable unintended consequences. At the end of the day, like any pros versus cons argument, both sides had their vices and wisdoms. However, it is now apparent that an impartial holistic criticism leads to the same conclusion: In order not to be a technically superb boxer without style or a boxer with a lethal punch and a fatal heart disease it is compulsory to develop a strategic risk management paradigm combining good sides of the both stances.

In conclusion, we do not have to assess the strategic risk management and managing strategic risk stances within a “versus” paradigm. On the contrary, a professional stance embracing both risk management paradigms’ effective and efficient sides may provide us with a solid and sound solution set that is applicable to diverse situations that may be encountered throughout a wide array of sectors; from financial to retail, from warehouse management to construction. After all, a professional who has not only well defined risk management principles but also flexibility to adapt them to peculiar situation is still not invincible; but really very close to it.