Risk management is not the same as "limiting risk at all cost." The former will balance the reward potentials with the risk of investment; the latter will turn down anything that's not a lock.
OK...but I think 'limiting risk at all cost' is a bit of stereotype; doctors (and attorneys) do take difficult or even dangerous decisions which require them to weigh risk as a matter of course, which is why members of both professions carry malpractice insurance. Also, many board decisions do not require unanimity.
I question the idea above because it echoes a good deal of what I've heard about the pre-crash standing of risk managers at banks; during the bull market they got sidelined as party poopers and now many of the same banks are risk-averse to the point of paralysis. Surely there's room for a happy medium; growth-at-all-costs is no healthier than safety-at-all-costs, and we often read of reckless corporate decisions which end up costing shareholders far more than than they saved in the short term. Look at that recent Home Depot lawsuit for example - a $4m 'saving' turned into a $21m loss.
Further, 'external signs of success...choice of profession exposes what their priorities are' suggests that somehow members of these professions get ahead by charging fat fees for obvious common-sense advice; doing well by simply having a phobia of mistakes and accumulating their reputations by default. But 'making it look easy' is one of the things that distinguishes skilled from mediocre people in every profession. By that yardstick, programmers are just glorified button-pushers, capitalists are mere rentiers, emergency workers are all adrenalin junkies, and civil servants do nothing but push paper.
It's true you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, and eggs that aren't cooked within a certain time will go bad. On the other hand, turning the heat all the way up ensures your omelet will be inedible.
