The Future of ERM: 12 Hidden, or Not So Hidden, Threats
Death by Survey: When Risk Registers Stop Breathing
There is a story every risk professional knows far too well. It begins with the hopeful planning phase, the place where an ERM leader decides that this year will be different. They sit at their desk and dedicate hours to shaping what they believe will be the perfect risk survey. They pour themselves into every question, refine the wording for clarity, build in context so participants know what is being asked, and imagine a future where leaders across the organization respond with deep insight and fresh thinking. After weeks of careful preparation, the survey is finally ready. They prepare the announcement, remind teams of its importance, and send it out into the world expecting it to return carrying the wisdom of the business.
In this dream the responses roll in steadily. Executives write with richness and detail. New emerging risks appear that broaden the horizon of what the company should anticipate. Existing risks come with fresh information that changes their place in the portfolio. When the ERM leader compiles the results they see a vibrant ecosystem with dozens of risks with thoughtful owners identified across the business. The follow-up workshops are full of people who are engaged and ready to refine the register even more. The whole system feels alive. It would be amazing if it actually happened that way.
The reality is far less miraculous. The same ERM leader still spends countless hours preparing the survey but once it is released the participation rate hovers at fifteen to twenty percent. Instead of rich insight the answers look almost identical to last year and the year before that. The few people who do respond appear to be recycling the same thoughts and the same scores. If there were a button that said “same” many of them would have pressed it without hesitation. By the time the follow-up workshop arrives most attendees have already checked out. They sit politely, waiting for the meeting to end so they can get back to something that feels more productive. This is the status quo of risk surveys as they exist in many companies today.
It is not difficult to illustrate why. Most people receive surveys everywhere they go. They get associate engagement surveys at work and pulse surveys throughout the year. They get end of call surveys when they speak with customer service. They get marketing surveys from companies wanting feedback on their latest push notification. None of these feel meaningful because they rarely lead to visible change. Compare this to the types of surveys people are excited to complete. Product design surveys. Early concept feedback surveys. Planning and development surveys where they can influence something they care about. Participation is high in those because people feel connected to the outcome. Risk surveys, by contrast, are often just another inbox item. They feel like a duty rather than a dialogue.
This is where the metaphor of photography becomes useful. Imagine a photographer who carries a beautiful analog camera into the mountains. They wait patiently for the perfect moment when the river cascades over the boulders, the light angles just right across the landscape, and the scene feels alive. They take photo after photo believing the results will be extraordinary. When they return home they discover that a smudge on the lens ruined everything. Or they failed to put the film in correctly. Or their finger drifted into the frame. Maybe a butterfly flew across the shot or a hiker wandered into the background munching messily on a granola bar. The photographer had good intentions and tried to capture reality but the result is still unclear. Surveys operate the same way. They try to capture a moment in the business but they miss the movement, the interruptions, and the shifting terrain. The static photograph quickly becomes an artifact rather than an accurate representation of reality.
The deeper truth is that companies rely on surveys for the same reason airlines continue to board passengers from the front even though boarding from the back is more efficient. People repeat what they have always done because it feels familiar and comfortable. It is not that surveys are useless. They can be valuable when used with intention. The problem is that many risk surveys are built from the same page of the same old book, a book that has long been forgotten on a high shelf. They stop being tools for insight and become rituals that survive out of tradition.
Even in the rare cases where a survey launches with strong engagement the energy fades across each annual cycle. Within a few years the risk register hardly changes at all. Risk owners write the same descriptions they wrote previously. They keep the same scores because nothing dramatic has happened to convince them otherwise. Mitigation plans remain consistent. The register becomes a mirror of itself, an endless loop of sameness that resembles an associate engagement survey where everyone fills it out hoping for change but nothing ever truly shifts. Some risks, such as geopolitical instability, cyber concerns, or supply chain volatility, naturally stay on the list year after year. They are real and persistent. Yet even these have depth and complexity beneath the surface that static surveys rarely explore. It is like looking at a calm lake and believing the water is quiet simply because the surface is smooth, while under the surface entire ecosystems are shifting.
The result is a list of recycled risks. They are familiar, predictable, and comfortable. They also give a false sense of security. People answer based on what they think leadership expects to hear, rather than what the signals around them are actually telling them. Managers check boxes instead of uncovering new and meaningful insights. It is similar to our trips to Big Sky, Montana. We used to go to Big Sky each year and cross-country ski. It was a quaint little town with many like-minded enthusiasts that enjoyed skiing in the mountains. The second year it shifted, and the year after, and the year after. Before we knew it, national chains moved in, like-minded people became those who believe taking a picture of the snow and mountain is more fun than going out and experiencing it. Times shifted and we no longer fit with what Big Sky had become. But our picture of Big Sky in our heads remained the same, in a past that no longer existed in the present.
This static approach has real consequences. By the time the survey is distributed, completed, analyzed, reviewed, debated, polished, and finally presented to leadership, the world has often moved several steps ahead. The register becomes a historical document rather than a forward looking compass. It sits on a shelf for a year until the cycle begins again. Companies miss emerging risks not because they are invisible but because the organization is looking at old snapshots while new developments pass quietly in the background.
History is full of examples. Blockbuster believed that physical stores would remain the dominant model for entertainment. They saw Redbox as a novelty and Netflix as an odd startup. They did not recognize the shift toward convenience and digital access because their internal indicators were anchored in the past. More recently many creative industries underestimated how quickly AI tools would reshape their business models. Retailers who relied on traditional planning cycles have struggled to adapt to competitors that use real-time insights to optimize their offerings. Geopolitical tensions have intensified supply chain vulnerabilities for companies that believed their single region sourcing strategies were stable. Peloton continued to operate as if the demand of the pandemic era would persist, even as clear signals suggested saturation and consumer fatigue.
Executives feel blindsided when risks appear that were not on the register. It is the same helplessness as a captain who sails using an old maritime chart. The map says the waters ahead are calm but storms build quietly beyond the horizon. By the time the captain notices the shift it is too late to change direction without cost.
The solution is not to discard evaluation entirely. It is to replace static exercises with dynamic ones that actually create insight. Fresh insight appears when the conversation shifts from listing risks to exploring decisions. It appears when leaders discuss what must be decided, what uncertainties surround those decisions, which signals may indicate a shift, what drivers shape the environment, and what opportunities may accompany the threats. It appears when people stop staring at what might go wrong and imagine what might be possible.
I once facilitated a session with executives where I presented three plausible scenarios built from real signals and drivers. Each scenario held both risks and opportunities. Instead of rating likelihood and impact we talked about what actions would place the company in a strong position if the scenario unfolded. We explored what might hold the organization back, what pressures would shape the trajectory, and what early indicators would tell us that things were shifting. The conversation flowed naturally. People were animated and curious. They were speaking about downside risks without being trapped in them. They were discussing opportunities without labeling them as such. They were thinking in terms of decisions rather than surveys. By the end of the session, we had achieved more insight in a few hours than any survey could provide.
This approach is not theoretical. Foresight workshops, scenario discussions, dynamic decision portfolios, and real-time monitoring are practical and accessible. They allow leaders to keep a finger on the pulse of the organization and the external environment. They replace static pictures with a live feed that evolves as signals emerge.
For executives the question is not whether surveys have value. It is whether they genuinely believe their current risk registers are helping them make better decisions. If the answer is uncertain then the organization must explore alternatives. Leaders should ask themselves what results they hope to gain from surveys, whether they are gaining them today, and whether a more dynamic approach would offer more value. They should explore frameworks that prioritize decisions and uncertainties, incorporate multiple perspectives, and build in scans of internal and external forces that shape the future.
As we reach the end of this reflection the question becomes simple. When leaders look at their risk practices do they see something that brings insight or do they see something that repeats itself without meaningful change. Do they enjoy the process. Does it feel alive. If they could redesign it completely what would they create.
Risk work should feel like surfing. Surfers paddle toward the waves with anticipation. They study the water, the wind, the currents, and the subtle changes around them. They position themselves to catch the right moment. They adjust constantly as the wave forms beneath them. If all they focused on were the dangers they would never enter the water at all. They chase the potential for the ride.
Static surveys cannot offer that kind of awareness. They freeze a single moment and pretend it is enough. The future rewards those who move with the swell, who remain alert to shifts, and who welcome both risk and opportunity as part of the same living system.
This is how ERM breaks free from death by survey and becomes a source of true insight.
Let’s discuss how to keep your risk program moving forward without missing a beat. Click here to schedule a Discovery Session or use the Discovery Session button on my website.