I was at a Rams game, seated on the 30 yard line . . . two rows from the top! The action on the field looked distant, compressed.
Then, at a Utah football game, I was in the front row — every motion, every expression, every nuance was in sharp relief. Unless the camera guy stood in front of me.
Two different vantage points. Two different levels of clarity.
That’s what perspective does: it frames what you see, what you assume, and ultimately what you decide.
In threat management (and in risk work generally), we live or die by how well we calibrate perspective:
-If your vantage point is too far removed, you miss subtle signs.
-If you’re too close (or filter through interference), you may overinterpret noise.
-If your view is obstructed (end zone, blind spots, that darn ESPN cameraman), you may misread events entirely.
This is why due diligence and background investigations are indispensable. They’re like shifting seats to validate your view.
Multiple angles = more confidence.
Just as you might cross-check replays from different camera angles to make a sports call, in investigations or intelligence work you triangulate sources (documentation, interviews, open-source data, dark web). That redundancy helps you spot inconsistencies, hidden threats, or “nets” that obscure the truth.
Perspective exposes assumptions.
From afar, things might look fine. Up close, you see cracks. In partially-obscured views, you might misinterpret a false positive or negative. Due diligence helps you challenge what you take for granted — the assumptions baked into documents, claims, or narratives.
Weak perspective leads to failures.
-In M&A, poorly conducted diligence is often a root cause of post-deal write-downs and value destruction. (Dealroom; “The 9 Biggest M&A Failures of All Time)
-In the fintech / startup sector, investors too often back projects driven by hype rather than grounded verification. A recent critique called this the “due diligence deficit”—for example, in the collapse of AI concern Builder, which allegedly inflated revenues 300%. (Financial Times; “The Due Diligence Deficit”)
-Regulatory enforcement is tightening: failure in third-party risk management is now drawing FTC scrutiny. (IAPP; “The FTC and the Future of Third-party Due Diligence”)
Perspective evolves with context. What seems like a safe view in one moment can degrade (obstructions, shifting conditions). Diligence isn’t a one-off—it’s iterative. You constantly re-evaluate as new data arrives.
If decisions matter — in threat work or any domain of risk — you can’t rely on a single vantage point. You need to move seats, remove blinders, peel back the obstructions.
Because the cost of mis-perspective is not an “oops” — it’s a broken decision, compromised outcomes, reputational damage, or worse.