When I was in the factory automation business we said: management is about planning-and-control. And consequently of good nature for automation (especially production and operation management down to the planning-and-control of machine tools, robots, vehicles, ..). We were strictly following the Taylorist paradigm when characterizing our systems, but our teams, the automation-system makers, needed to think out-of-the-boundaries.
Again, I enjoyed reading the following two posts of the "Eight To Late" blog: Towards a critical practice of management and ... the metaphysics of decision-making.
And simplifying, I am distilling one thing: since the practice of sw system development focuses largely on technology trends and "best practices", we too often try to rationalize it, when we should motivate our teams to discuss radically new approaches.
But again this is two-sided: teams discussing little may end-up as industrialists (with low innovativeness), teams discussing too much will work less and do not get into the advances of explorative learning ....
Risk management needs to combine two two-sided success factors: optimize risk and optimize management. In do UnRiskers unrisk? I have tried to explain, why we combine automation and programmability. Use the "wheel", but use it in different ways and find your own innovative risk management processes.
Picture from sehfelder