You're debating risk levels with colleagues on system innovations. How do you find common ground?

A mi me ha resultado útil la definición de riesgo de ISO 31000: “el efecto de la incertidumbre en los objetivos” Qué objetivos: cualquiera. Qué efecto: positivo o negativo o neutro. Incertidumbre: la ausencia de información o incompleta.

In financial discussions, risk has various meanings, and different people perceive it differently. For example, clients with limited financial knowledge often prefer safer, capital-guaranteed products, reflecting their risk aversion. In contrast, business owners I've worked with typically have a larger appetite for risk, shaped by their experience in managing uncertainties. Understanding their background, knowledge, and work environment is crucial in tailoring my advice. By aligning my suggestions with their risk tolerance, I ensure that the strategies I recommend are both appropriate and confidence-building.

Un ejemplo que he visto es considerar las partes interesadas en los procesos de gestión de riesgos. Cuáles partes interesadas: pues las que define ISO…. Búsquela, se sorprenderán la cantidad de sope yantes que han dejado fuera de la valoración de riesgos.

Active listening is essential, but profiling team members adds another layer of understanding. For instance, one key team member has an SC profile in DISC. Knowing this, communicating with him will be less about putting my point across and more about understanding what are his inner thoughts as he is highly introspective, thoughtful and considerate, and puts a lot of thought behind each of his suggestions. This allows me to consider each of the things he says with greater depth. Profiling helps me grasp his perspective better and fosters more effective collaboration.

La matriz de riesgo orienta la ejecución. Un riesgo es un riesgo, no importa de donde es su origen, finalmente estamos mandatados a gestionarlo. La ejecución es la clave para que la estrategia sea tangible.

Prioritizing concerns is crucial in high-level discussions, especially when clients or organizations face multiple challenges. I've found it particularly effective to focus on solving the biggest problems first, as addressing these often makes the smaller issues easier to resolve. In team settings, I delegate the less critical problems to support staff, allowing me to concentrate on the most crucial issues. This approach not only streamlines the problem-solving process but also ensures we achieve more in less time by focusing our energies where they’re needed most.

In my current company, I'm fortunate to be part of a system where all the directors actively share their challenges and the areas they're focusing on. With our diverse backgrounds, personality types, clientele bases, and skill sets, this collaborative approach often brings fresh perspectives that help me see the big picture. It's not uncommon for a colleague's unique viewpoint to unlock new, creative solutions to existing problems. By exploring alternatives together, we can leverage our collective strengths to find innovative approaches that mitigate risks and drive success.

While compromise is often necessary, I've realized that the sales skills I've honed over the years are just as valuable in internal discussions as they are with clients. These skills help me advocate for resource allocation to areas I believe are crucial or that my associates have highlighted for development. It's tempting to stick to the "standard operating procedure" because existing systems are in place, but I remind myself that every organizational agreement was written by people and can be adapted. By effectively presenting my case and demonstrating the value of these changes, I can often persuade the organization to adjust its approach, ensuring that we meet our core objectives while still addressing essential concerns.