Jason Fried recently wrote about the difference between founders and CEOs: founders inject risk, CEOs manage it. It’s a simplification, but there’s a lot of truth there. And it’s a distinction that doesn’t just apply to business - it’s just as relevant in research environments.

Every research environment has its risk-takers - people who are ready to experiment, dive into untested waters, and embrace the chance of failure if it means discovering something new. These are the ones looking beyond the obvious, asking unconventional questions, trying bold methods. They’re critical, because without risk-takers, research stagnates.

On the other side, you have the risk-managers. These are the people focused on stability, quality, and consistency. They refine established methods, prioritize rigorous checks, and aim for steady results. Risk-managers aren’t slowing things down; they’re making sure things hold together, that each step forward has a firm footing.

In any serious research setting, this balance is essential.

It all works best with a portfolio approach - a mix of projects and people who bring different strengths to the table. Think of it like this: some projects are steady and reliable, providing consistency and credibility. These are the foundation. But at the same time, there need to be high-risk, high-reward projects that might not succeed but have the potential to change everything if they do.

For researchers, it’s about creating their own balance. Maybe that means taking on a few core projects that produce consistent results while dedicating time to a couple of big, ambitious ideas. Some projects will pan out; some won’t. But this mix keeps a research profile resilient and ready for real innovation.

For managers, it’s about building an environment where everyone has a place. Risk-takers should feel empowered to pursue bold initiatives. Risk-managers should be valued for making sure the ground stays solid. And there’s a need for those who understand both perspectives - people who can see the value in pushing boundaries but recognize the importance of stability. It’s about creating a culture where failing at something ambitious isn’t seen as a setback but as part of the process.

Research environments need serious risk-taking to stay relevant and make a real impact. That’s a given. But they also need structure, a way to ensure that bold projects have a foundation to rely on, and that risk-taking is balanced with control. A portfolio approach doesn’t just keep research organizations stable; it keeps them moving, capturing the best of both security and ambition. Research needs its rebels and its anchors - that’s where true breakthroughs happen.

-- João