The vast majority of companies, regardless of what they themselves believe, are

significantly influenced in their resilience planning by the personalities that

represent the process. Whether it is a sole champion or a department that is cha
rged with the enterprise resilience strategy and execution of planning, it is mo
st likely that their personal passions, skills, experience or even comprehension
will dominate the overall corporate preparedness and response to actual threats
. This phenomena is further compounded by the degree of humility or hubris of th
ese executors and their ability to assimilate, even in the wake of such shortfal
ls, to rapidly and effectively respond to such oversights. Regrettably, it is of
ten all too late to change at the 11th hour and many of the failing are dismisse
d/justified by environment, market forces, mother nature or just bad luck. Not t
he root cause. Sizeable amounts of money is lost, unrealized or expended on unne
cessary opportune cost daily or annually as a result.
The scope and demands of modern and dynamic corporates, especially multinational
or geographically dispersed entities, is by no means an easy task. A vast amoun
t of knowledge and planning may be required and then resources/strategies applie
d to areas that warrant countermeasures/treatment solutions that then must be si
mplified or distilled for consumption and action by numerous stakeholders or lin
e managers. Limited scope, ego, protectionism, arrogance, incompetence, budget c
onstraints and many other issues act in unison to prevent a less than optimum re
sult for all involved. The most resilient companies and the most efficient depar
tments acknowledge all these issues and build such human failings and influences
into the methodology to achieve superior results. Paradoxically, these companie
s are often the most competitive companies also thanks to this vision and foreth
ought.
If this were not challenging enough, the character, charisma, communications ski
lls or business acumen of the lead/executive representative of such functions co
uld signal the final success or failure of all the accumulated work conducted th
at comes to then convincing the CEO/COO/CFO that a particular threat is credible
or a specific investment is necessitated on the strength of the threat and the
potential impact if left unchecked. Should they be found wanting, the threat rem
ains unchecked. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!
Financial management has moved past this similar challenge (for the most part) b
y means of audits, internal checks, disclosure, review or external validation of
findings. Risk management, of a non-financial nature, has a long way to go befo
re such approaches become mainstream.
Resilience is based on a comprehensive understanding of all the assets/investmen
ts/capital at risk. Qualifying and quantifying the threats and the residual risk
present; once current and proposed mitigation/treatment/corrective measures are
implemented. A subsequent project plan based on budgets, tolerances, practicali
ties, strategies and threats is then initiated. None of this is possible or cond
ucted until executive or leadership elements are consulted, convinced and contri
bute to the outcome, not retrospectively. The sheer diversity and complications
of modern and fast paced business operations mandates that this process be a tea
m sport and a collaborative approach.
If you have never met your risk manager, or contributed to the demand or have no
budget for such measures, you are part of the problem and less a part of the so
lution and remain symptomatic of this chronic disease.
Like all addictions or dependency behavior, the first step in breaking the cycle
begins with asking yourself some fairly honest and confronting questions. If yo
u canâ t affect change then you need help, not time, but actionable collaboration. If
not, are you merely a wolf in sheepâ s clothing, only to be discovered when most nee
ded?