Risk Isn’t a Register: A CEO’s Perspective on Courage, Culture, and Partnership

Developed from Corporate Research Forum’s (CRF) CEO Fireside Chat: The Role of the Board, with CEO of Leeds Bradford Airport Vincent Hodder and RHR Senior Partner, Head of International, Region Lead—Europe Orla Leonard.

In a recent fireside chat between RHR’s Orla Leonard, senior partner and head of International, Region Lead—Europe, and Vincent Hodder, CEO of Leeds Bradford Airport, a complex, private-equity-backed airport business, Vincent offered a refreshingly contrarian view of risk. Rather than framing risk as something to be documented, mitigated, or avoided, he described it as a muscle—something that must be exercised daily, across decisions big and small, and embedded deep within organizational culture.

Why CEOs Misread Risk—and Opportunity

Vincent began with a simple but powerful insight: humans are not evolutionarily wired to assess risk well. We instinctively overestimate negative outcomes and underestimate positive ones. This bias doesn’t just distort risk registers: it distorts leadership judgment.

For Vincent, the CEO’s job is not to eliminate this bias but to interrogate it. When he feels nervous about a decision, he forces himself to ask deeper questions: “What am I really worried about? What outcome do I fear most? And is it actually as bad as I think?” By stripping away fear—particularly the fear of failure—leaders can create space to invest in opportunity rather than retreat into safety.

This reframing matters because, as Vincent emphasized, risk does not live in documents; it lives in everyday operations, especially in critical asset environments where consequences are real and sometimes irreversible. Readiness, adaptability, and behavioral discipline, not optimism or pessimism, are what ultimately determine outcomes.

Context Is Everything

One of the most important insights Vincent shared was that risk cannot be judged in isolation. Decisions that appear high risk on the surface often look very different once placed in their full strategic and operational context.

In this case, the leadership team faced a choice between two imperfect options. Rather than asking which path eliminated risk, Vincent focused on which option best served the organization’s long-term intent, resilience, and commercial reality. The assessment wasn’t about avoiding failure altogether but about understanding the consequences of each possible outcome, including the cost of inaction or being overly cautious.

Seen through this lens, risk became a relative judgment, not an absolute one. What mattered most was not whether something carried risk but whether the downside was acceptable in light of the opportunity it enabled. As Vincent noted, failure only has meaning when weighed against the strategic alternative, and sometimes the riskiest move is choosing certainty over progress.

When Risk Becomes Cultural

One of the most powerful moments in the conversation came when Vincent described a situation where technical solutions alone were insufficient. The organization faced a material operational risk that could not be solved simply through capital investment or structural change. Instead, it required an alternative approach that depended on rigorous processes, frequent checks, and unwavering consistency in execution.

What made this risk distinctive was that its success hinged less on engineering and more on human behavior. The controls were robust on paper but only effective if people followed them precisely, every day, without exception. Vincent noted that the real question was not whether the system was well designed but whether leaders could rely on disciplined, repeatable behavior across the organization.

This is where risk became cultural; leaders had to ensure that teams understood not just what to do but also why it mattered. Ownership, visibility, and accountability became critical. Through sustained leadership presence, reinforcement of standards, and a shared sense of responsibility, the risk was managed not by avoiding it but by embedding the right day-to-day behaviors.

Vincent emphasized that this experience fundamentally reshaped how he thinks about risk. Controls and policies matter, but they only work when culture supports them. In high-stakes environments, risk is ultimately sustained or eroded through everyday choices, attention to detail, and the consistency with which people show up to do the right thing.

Talent Decisions: Acting Before the Math Balances

Risk becomes even murkier when data runs out. Vincent described a senior talent decision in the run-up to a private equity exit—one where keeping the status quo felt safer than making a disruptive change.

His rule of thumb was striking: the moment the upside of change even approaches the downside of staying the same, you’ve already waited too long.

Status quo bias keeps leaders frozen, but organizations rarely improve without movement. In this case, the decision to act—supported by months of coaching attempts and candid HR partnership—proved transformational for the business.

HR as a Risk Partner, Not a Safety Net

Throughout the conversation, one theme was unmistakable: risk leadership is impossible without a deep CEO and HR partnership. Vincent described his HR director not as a support function but as a trusted advisor—someone who challenges bias, protects procedural integrity, and provides a confidential space for difficult judgment calls.

His advice to HR leaders was direct: don’t position yourself as the person who keeps things “safe.” Sometimes, tribunals are the right outcome. Sometimes, failure is acceptable—and even necessary—when the cost is small and the opportunity is large. Growth demands courage. And courage, Vincent reminded us, is not reckless—it is thoughtful, contextual, and deeply human.