In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum explores a critical disconnect he observes in many boardrooms: the separation of risk, opportunity, and return discussions. Curum argues that while boards diligently track each of these elements, their siloed review often leads to flawed strategic decision-making.
Curum highlights the common organizational structure where risk is relegated to a risk committee, opportunity is debated in strategy sessions, and return targets are confined to finance packs. This fragmentation, he contends, prevents a holistic view necessary for effective governance.
“Most boards know exactly how much return they’re chasing. Few can name the specific risk that could kill them getting there.”
The Perils of Siloed Thinking
According to Nick Curum, this structural separation creates two predictable negative outcomes for strategic planning: either recklessness or timidity. He elaborates on how this imbalance can manifest.
When Upside Outweighs Downside Awareness
Curum points out that when potential gains are discussed without a clear understanding and ownership of the potential downsides, a phenomenon he calls “drift” can turn into overconfidence. This unchecked optimism can lead executive teams to make decisions that appear sound in presentations but falter under real-world capital scrutiny.
“If upside is discussed without explicit downside ownership, drift turns into overconfidence.”
When Caution Leads to Paralysis
Conversely, Curum argues that when risk is analyzed in isolation, without a clear view of the opportunities it might unlock or protect, caution can escalate into strategic paralysis. This can result in executive teams being bolder in their ambition statements than in their risk registers, or more courageous in PowerPoint decks than in actual capital allocation discussions.
“If risk is discussed without quantified opportunity, caution hardens into paralysis.”
Realigning Strategy with Governance
Nick Curum posits that the true discipline for boards and executive teams lies not in choosing between safety and ambition, but in integrating them. He proposes a framework that forces every strategic move to answer fundamental questions that are often structurally separated in traditional board processes.
Curum outlines three key questions that should guide strategic decisions:
- What exactly can go wrong — and whose name is on it?
- What exactly can go right — and how have we quantified it?
- Are we funded and incentivised to live through the volatility between them?
He emphasizes that balancing risk and opportunity is not merely a philosophical exercise but a core aspect of governance. Curum suggests a practical approach: listing top strategic opportunities and risks on the same page to reveal potential strategy misalignment.
“The framework in the image breaks this into five checkpoints. Most boards get stuck at trade-offs. If you listed your top five strategic opportunities and top five strategic risks on the same page… Would they clearly connect? Or would they expose that you’re running two different strategies?”
By forcing these elements into a single, connected conversation, Curum believes boards can move beyond merely managing risk or pursuing opportunity, towards a more robust and integrated governance model that accounts for the inherent volatility in strategic execution.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Nick Curum on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on February 17, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →