Not exactly...it's not that shareholders don't want you to take chances, especially if higher profits emerge down the line....it's who is held accountable.
If you just regularly have meager profits, the worse that will likely happen to you is that the board of directors will fire you - but even that risk can be ameliorated by maintaining good relations with board members, ensuring your friends get elected to the board, keeping aggressive investors from becoming stockholders, and/or getting the rest of the board to "buy" into your strategy. For the most part, this is the safe path to take.
Alternatively, you can take a big risk to potientially generate huge profits down the line - which will help your career if it works out, but if it doesn't, you'll face a situation that will look like:
* Large investors with lots of money lose some of it on your stock
* One of those investors might get upset and point out that CEO's are protected from being liable for loses only if they follow the law and perform their primary responsibilities.
* They point out that your primary responsibility is to safeguard and look after the interests of shareholders and that you _didn't need_ to take the risk that you did.
* They ask a judge to remove your legal protection and personally sue you for whatever $ the investor lost.
Given that situation, what choice would you make as CEO?
This is a big reason why smaller companies with closely held shares generally grow faster. If we want larger publically held companies to act different, we have to change the decision calculus - however, I'd hardly expect any proposed law changes that increase corporate executive legal protections to be popular.