Risk and Filleted, Deboned Fish

A beautifully fresh piece of filleted fish, dripping with lemony buttery sauce is a meal I would enjoy any day! What makes filleted fish such a delight is that all (sometimes most) of the pesky bones have been expertly removed, allowing you unfettered delight in every succulent bite.

So, you ask, "What does filleted fish have to do with risk?" Loads actually, let's look at what filleting and deboning the fish achieves for the diner:

• no bones means no choking on an accidentally swallowed bone
• a pain-free meal since you don't accidentally get stabbed in the gum by a small fishbone (ouch!)
• no fingers in your mouth at the dinner table digging out bones from your mouth so you don't swallow them.

We can agree that avoiding any one of these would be a win at the dining table and avoiding all three would be amazing, resulting in a satisfying meal. How does this analogy relate to risk in your business, your project or your life?

If you think about your business, project or life as the beautifully prepared fish you want to enjoy (successful outcome), the more bones (risks)left in the piece of fish, the less enjoyable the meal will be. Similarly, the more bones (risks) you leave undiscovered and dealt with in your business, the less likely you are to have the desired outcome for your business, project and life.

I propose two approaches to risk mitigation that we need to bear in mind once we've identified all the possible risks:

Additive measures:

What can we add, buy, in-source, etc, to help mitigate a particular risk? This might look like buying new technology, additional training of staff, hiring consultants, etc. I call these additive measures to risk mitigation and this is usually the first port of call.

Reductive Measures:

What do we need to remove from the existing situation to ensure a successful outcome? This is the side of risk mitigation we tend to have a blindspot to. For instance, consider whether the removal of a challenging team member would be worthwhile if it ensured the success of the business or project. Keeping the challenging person could mean further alienation of the rest of the team, alienation of the client and delays in the completion of the project. Would it make sense to remove that (bone) risk to ensure a successful outcome?

Another example might be in a situation where the team is constantly overwhelmed with too many divergent projects and or clients. What would a narrowing of focus on fewer verticals but deeper service levels mean for the success of the business? Again, in this scenario, one could keep the most profitable verticals of operation and over time resign the less profitable and nuisance-filled verticles. This approach is less disruptive to team cohesion enhancing their ability to share knowledge and experiences and learn from each other, benefitting the business.

In conclusion, though additive measures might be necessary and useful, taking the time to also consider what you need to get rid of, to achieve your desired outcome, presents rich new areas and ideas for exploration. We love to hold on to things, people, and situations, thinking that more and bigger is better. However, when we see how frequently entrepreneurial ventures overtake large corporations, precisely because of what they don't have, we might be surprised what a little introspection can yield.