Home Gudgeon and gist Language Log "Risk is positive" < "Crisis = danger + opportunity" (not)

"Risk is positive" < "Crisis = danger + opportunity" (not)

Language Log 2025-01-14

[This is a guest post by Christopher Paris (website).]

I just wanted to thank you for your 2009 essay on the misinterpretation of “wēijī” as meaning both opportunity and crisis.

This controversy takes on dramatic new importance as the misinterpretation has been used to justify the invention of a school of thought that “risk is positive.” When challenged with English language dictionaries dating back to the 1700s, showing risk as typically meaning a potential threat or harm, the proponents of “positive risk” run to the wēijī trope. They say, “the Chinese came up with this 3000 years ago, so English dictionaries don’t matter.”

While that’s bad enough, this idea of “positive risk” eventually ended up in the PMBOK* (the project management bible), but was constrained to project management where it is not so much of a sin. But at that point, the authors of standards in Australia cribbed the PMBOK language for their standard (without attribution), which was then eventually cribbed again by ISO itself (also without attribution). The language now appears in ISO** 31000 on risk management, which (ISO claims) is applicable to all industries and all professions. Now, risks are things we should pursue, rather than work to mitigate, in such industries as aerospace manufacturing (my field), pharmaceutical production, insurance adjusting, healthcare, and more.

Much, much worse is that the EU has relied on ISO standards to support key regulations. The EU’s AI Act will rope in ISO 42001, the new standard on AI management systems, essentially make it a law. It appears impossible that anyone will be able to comply with the AI Act if they do tie it into ISO 42001, since the language on risk in that standard makes no sense. It will also empower bad actors in the AI space to pursue dangerous technologies under the idea of taking “positive risk” with the full permission of the regulation.

Your article will help me debunk some of this, at least. But having laws and ISO standards fixed is a far tougher battle. Still, this shows just how the combination of lazy management consultants and lazy lawmakers can create a chaotic legal framework based on non-peer-reviewed nonsense and unchecked plagiarism.

[finis]

Addendum

In preparation for another article on my site, I worked up a graphic. It’s not done yet, but it can give you an idea of how this thing has spread from one man’s made-up invention to actual EU law. You can see how this ended up in healthcare, food safety, aerospace, automotive manufacturing… everything.

VHM:  The author is still sourcing and verifying the dates, names, and facts.  When he has finished with the graphic  and has posted it on his website, I will call it to the attention of Language Log readers.

—

*PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge, Book by Mohammed Ahmad S Al-Shamsi and Project Management Institute)

The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) is a set of standard terminology and guidelines (a body of knowledge) for project management. The body of knowledge evolves over time and is presented in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), a book whose seventh edition was released in 2021. This document results from work overseen by the Project Management Institute (PMI), which offers the CAPM and PMP certifications.

(Wikipedia)

**ISO (International Organization for Standardization)

International Organization for Standardization) is an independent, non-governmental, international standard development organization composed of representatives from the national standards organizations of member countries.

(Wikipedia)

 

Selected readings