Enterprise Risk Management : rationaler og paradokser i en moderne ledelsesteknologi

The outset for this thesis is the contemporary risk management concept of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). ERM has for the last 20 years been advocated as a technology of managing with a potential impact for the value creation in corporate life. The idea of managing or controlling risk is however not new. The development of statistics and the calculation of probabilities date back a number of centuries, which made it possible to link probabilities to the future occurrence of given events for large and homogeneous populations. When we further add a consequence or impact to probability we have, from the perspective of classical risk management, transformed uncertainty into predictable risk. Such linkages are utilized in many places. It provides, for example, the basic business model for insurance companies. However, the conceptual ideology of ERM leaves the rational and object-specific foundation of classic risk management. The basic idea of the ERM-paradigm is that the total risk exposure of a business organization can be handled as a portfolio in a continuous process integrated in the strategic decisions of the said organization. The strategic linkage means that we enter a domain of unique relationships where we cannot find empirical data for outcomes. [...] The final chapter discusses the contributions of the thesis and provides suggestions for the way forward. Intentional damage, cyber-crime, extreme speeds of innovative change and the fast distribution of information constantly makes the world even more dynamic and complex for organizations to navigate. The overall conclusion is that such contexts cannot be met on the grounds of a rational management paradigm. It is suggested that a reflective exploration of contradictions and paradox may be a powerful way to provide insights of the meaning of organizational processes and inherent assumptions. The impact of unpredictability may better be met if the organization contains the ability to “bounce back”. But such a resilient ability requires a fundamentally different mindset of leaders and organizational members. It is about a change being primarily political because it concerns arguments and participation in the organizational conversations.