26. March 2026

The Contradiction

Something that has puzzled me for years — and that I keep seeing across very different organisations, in very different sectors.

Many describe themselves as operating in volatile, uncertain environments. They accept that risk is part of the work. They speak of resilience, adaptability, initiative. And in many ways, this is true — they do operate in conditions that others would refuse, and they do it with commitment.

But when an incident actually happens, something shifts.

The same organisation that accepted uncertainty begins reacting as though the incident shouldn't have occurred. The reflex is to look for the error, the fault, the gap in the procedure — as if the event were proof that something went wrong in the system, rather than a possible consequence of the environment they chose to operate in.

There's a deep contradiction here, and I think it runs deeper than most people realise.

We speak of uncertainty, but we respond to incidents as though certainty was possible. We value initiative, but we judge outcomes as though every consequence should have been foreseen. We say we are resilient — we accept exposure, we adapt, we take calculated risks — but when those risks materialise, we react with the logic of a system that was designed to prevent any incident from ever happening.

In other words, we talk like one kind of organisation, but we respond like another.

I think this matters enormously. Because the way an organisation reacts after an incident shapes everything that comes before the next one. It shapes the willingness to report honestly. The freedom to take initiative. The trust people place in the system.

If the culture says "we accept risk" but the reaction says "someone must be accountable for this failure," people learn quickly which message is real. And the real message is always the one that follows the incident — not the one written in the policy.

I don't think there's an easy resolution to this tension. It lives in the identity of the organisation — in the gap between who it says it is and how it actually behaves under stress.

But I believe it starts with a conversation. An honest one — not about what we aspire to be, but about who we actually are in our relationship with risk. What we truly accept. What we're genuinely prepared to face.

That conversation is uncomfortable. But without it, the contradiction persists — quietly undermining the very culture we're trying to build.