Select Page

Often going to far is labeled as negative and indeed there are times when they can be, an example that comes to mind is tax evasion compared to tax avoidance.

Lets explore that example, I think I can almost successfully say that everyone wants to avoid paying too much tax – but the line between getting this 100% right and crossing over to evading tax can be blurred.
Does this mean you shouldn’t try to achieve 100%, I would say not – what it does mean is that you can see the risk and mitigate it by getting the right approved advice.

The key learning here is to realise that going to far is not an all blanket negative action to avoid but rather should be understood in context. Figure out the possible risks in trying to go to the limit (e.g. evasion above) and bring checks and balances into your process to mitigate this (like legal advice).

Try it out, here is a quick idea of what you could do.

– Think of areas in your company where you could honestly go a bit further?
– What would the opportunities and risks are there in doing this?
– Prioritise this list in terms of biggest gain and least risk. Can we a quick thumbtack – point here is to get a priority list not be exact.
– Sit with your team and work out how you could mitigate these risks.
– Figure out the cost of these mitigating risks, the potential gain you are going to make, the time it will take and make a decision if you are going to pursue it.

The decision also doesn’t have to be yes or no, you could have a range of steps in between, for instance you could define certain conditions that if they were met you would stop or continue, or you could just choose to push the boundary one further step and not all the way.

Don’t be limited by only two options!