Hi Olaf — great to see you engaging in depth on this piece as well! As with my response to your in-depth engagement on the Thresholds & Allocations article, I’m going to respond to your multiple comments on this article in one fell swoop, here in this comment.
On Positive Mavericks, you are absolutely right on the risks we incur. And your list isn’t exhaustive. But we really don’t see any other options. The idea for term “positive mavericks” originated from the academic literature on “positive deviance,” which describes deviating from societal norms when those norms are demonstrably unethical. In other words, deviance not for deviance’s sake, but because it would be impossible to maintain one’s moral compass while continuing to support status quo norms. The latitude we have is the “positive” aspect — which is often misinterpreted as well, with those who hew to status quo often projecting negativity onto us. Hence the last bullet in the list of definitions of Positive Mavericks (see here) around persistence… Btw, my sense is that you are a Positive Maverick, though I’m not sure I would wish this status on anyone, but we certainly do need more of us in the world.
On the systemic / enterprise risk gap, we are looking to close this gap. So for example, while we welcome the new COSO / WBCSD report on Enterprise Risk, which creates seismic shifts in the ERM world, we still believe it doesn’t go far enough. We’ve engaged with the primary authors of the report, and they confirmed that inside-out risk is not covered.
On circular effects and interdependencies, yes, you are capturing our sense of “bite-you-in-the-butt” risk. We see the world as inherently interconnected, such that risk aggregates to the systemic level where it affects all — just as it was created by (incremental) contributions to “all”. I highly recommend reading the Hawley / Lukomnik report on the shift from alpha to beta.
On Lockheed Martin, they are doing leading edge work on context-based metrics, but a comprehensive assessment of their business model would certainly raise questions about its “sustainability” that would likely boil down to thorny ethical issues of whether we need weapons of war to maintain peace. Glad to have that conversation over a beer or two, but it’s probably too big for this comments section.
Finally, thanks so much for your final words. We will indeed keep writing (we’re not even halfway through yet), so please keep reading! And I encourage you to go back and read earlier parts, and engage there as well if inspired. We’re bundling all these posts into a single document to be released at our Conference at KPMG in Amsterdam in June.