Executive Wisdom for Business

Leading, teaching, learning.

As a leader, what do you want to accomplish?

As the leader, YOU have to know what you want in order to share your vision for the organisation with your people. You must articulate with concise clarity:

1. The results you need
2. What the organisation and its people will look like, and
3. What your product, service and relationships will feel like

Some organisational strategies are predicated on initiating a new-found business model. While others simply build upon what is already in place and understood, allowing the stakeholders to be aware of how their capabilities and talents will drive the organisation forward.

The leader necessarily, must be cognisant of five disciplines:

• Personal Mastery
• Mental Models
• Building Shared Vision
• Team Learning, and
• Systems Thinking

Rather than endeavouring to instruct each of these as models and disciplines, hit upon something people already comprehend and improve the propositions of what they know, where that knowledge and proposition is essentially and equivalent to one of the disciplines.

How do you as a leader succeed in this? Ask high quality questions!

Asking questions in such a manner that you are reasonably positive the person to answer the question, either knows or can develop an answer and have a better than good chance of getting it right. As questions are asked and correct answers provided, it enhances the feeling of reassurance on the part of the person answering, so you can start asking more difficult questions, which require greater consideration, and an incorrect response can be explored further to develop a better understanding. Ultimately, the dialogue will produce a suitable answer.

You want to encourage forward movement while strengthening the character of the interaction to a point where it can sustain some sideways and maybe even retrospective activities, yet resume its impetus on a path toward deeper and deeper levels of appreciation of ideas which are fundamentally already understood or are readily inferred through wisdom.

Give yourself the freedom to understand that:

• Things happen for a reason
• What gets measured usually has a better chance of being completed
• Everyone cares about something
• Structure influences behaviour
• People always do what makes the most sense to them
• Don't fight the system; change the rules and the system will change itself
• React, Respond, Generate, Create
• There are no unmotivated people, only de-motivating structures

Ric Willmot - Delivering Breakthrough Executive Performance

The Terror of Timidity

I rejoice in failure, as it means success is on its way.

At a recent luncheon with a client firm, one of the partners derided me saying that he knew for a fact that I had failed to attract enough attendees to proceed with a seminar program in Darwin.

"And, that being the case, I don't believe that we should engage Mr. Willmot. There are other consultants. I know one. I think we should get him. He succeeds at everything he does."

The partner who had recommended me, asked if I wished to respond.

"A bulls-eye every time? You want to develop your partners as a Leadership Team. Your objectives are to stay ahead of the curve, ride these turbulent economic waves, and be at the crest of the swell as it begins to break, to get the advantage over your competitors who were too afraid to venture into these waters. You have recognised that in order to survive, you need to be uniquely positioned ahead the pack. This doesn't come without a measure of risk. You want to flex your muscles and not only survive this economy but strengthen in spite of it.

What are your competitors doing right now? They are acting timidly: reducing staff, cutting expenses, offering pricing discounts, and bashing their existing customers to keep any revenues happening.

I admit that I fail. That's because I keep pressing the envelope. If somebody wants to convince me they never fail, only three things can hold true:

1. They have never tried anything worth failing.
2. They have failed but were too stupid to realise it.
3. Or, they're telling falsehoods."

I made my point.

My business model is very different to what it was five years ago, and I expect it will be quite different again in another five years. I partner with my clients and continually seek ways to add value for them. I keep searching for the WOW Factor as Tom Peters puts it.

I routinely unearth new and fascinating ways to engage and support my clients to make their businesses better. I still have clients who rave about my BMW CEO Networking Day. But if I'm not failing, I'm not trying. My friend, Peter calls it "the risk muscle". He says that we need to keep exercising our risk muscle by trying new adventures in our business. "If you don't," he warns "it atrophies and you're no longer able to take chances. Meaning you will never get any better, meaning that very quickly you become worthless; to your clients and to yourself."

In just the last month, here is what I've experienced:

• Failed to secure enough delegates to proceed with a Darwin Management Seminar Series.
• Walked away from an in-house Leadership & Management Program for a law firm because the HR Manager repeatedly failed to provide information when promised, for me to write a purposeful plan to be reviewed by the senior executive team.
• The Australian Institute of Professional Facilitators want me to tune the Professional Services College specifically for their members as a badged AIPF Program. There have been over a thousand professionals from nine countries in the last four years graduate from this program.
• A client who was so impressed with the College is specifically speaking with the partners of a significant national accounting firm, recommending to them that they embrace it as part of their corporate curriculum.
• I launched the Executive Wisdom Club one week ago and with very little promotion have filled 22 of the 50 available memberships. Those memberships have come from 4 different countries.

I'm 3 from 5. Do you think I'm generating activity and opportunity for my clients?

Woody Allen said, "If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative".

Are you flexing your risk muscle? What might you do this month to innovate your organisation?

Ric Willmot

 

Making work fun starts with the CEO

Singapore Media Development Authourity

What an amazing piece of PR. You have to admire the energy and enthusiasm of these leaders at the MDA. I wonder if MDA has a culture and environment that promotes buy-in, commitment and enthusiasm amongst staff? I will be making sure I  personally meet with the CEO of MDA on one of my visits to Singapore in 2009 when I am delivering my executive management workshops and programs.

Ric Willmot

Employees Are Customers Too

Let's take an imaginary trip to Big Box, a super-store selling a little bit of everything. As Rod Serling used to say, "Imagine if you will, a busy sales floor, many wide aisles of merchandise, music piped through the pleasantly designed ceiling, and a bundle of money in your pocket."

We've decided we want to stop in and buy a flat-screen TV, then we'll go down the block to a supermarket to pick up something for dinner. It's the weekend, and we're feeling pretty good about things. Times are a bit hard, but in our particular line of business, we're expanding not contracting.

Our first stop is the TV store, where we collar a fine-looking young gentleman in a purple knit shirt, apparently a sales associate. He was on his way somewhere, and now, impatiently asks us what we want. We tell him we're looking for the flat-screen TVs, and could he give us some help.

He tells us he's too busy right now, the manager needs something from the back room. Hollering over at some other fine, upstanding young person, he yells that "these guys need something about a TV."

Walking over to the department, our new customer assistance professional asks us what we want. We repeat the request, only to be told that there isn't much stock to see. They were expecting a shipment, but it didn't come in. Then there's silence.

Being good-natured and philosophic advocates of the redemption of all human beings, we wonder politely if perhaps there may be something similar to what we're trying to buy. With a dazed look of incomprehension, our young attendant turns to a fellow corporate representative and shrugs.

Between the two of them, a parley takes place along the lines of a state negotiation over national boundaries. They turn to us and tell us they haven't a clue. Then there's silence. Eventually, we get the idea that we're not wanted here, and so we leave.

Figuring we'll buy the TV online, we decide to stop into the food store. There too, we find nicely laid-out aisles, lots of merchandise, and another young lady working enthusiastically at stocking some items. She asks if there's anything we need, and we tell her no, we're just wandering around.

With a smile, she tells us to let her know if she can help, then continues with her work. We find a nice-looking duck, some vegetables, and pick up some butter that's priced well below most of the surrounding stores. Heading to the checkout line, we find that our young lady has been keeping an eye on us, and slides behind the cash register just as we arrive.

There's a flurry of activity, belts move, keys click, lights happen, and voila...we're done. A bit surprised, we observe that she's in quite a good mood. She smiles and tells us she loves working for this company. They pay almost twice what other food stores offer in salary, and although she not only runs the cash register, but also has to handle stocking and some cleanup, she doesn't mind. It keeps her busy when things are slow.

We wonder how they can have such a low price on butter? She tells us that by reducing the number of employees, paying more to each one, they reduce costs and pass those along to the customers. Hah! Imagine that! (We make a note to do more of our shopping here!)

In the Big Box company, where "human resources" apparently matter a great deal, the employees are considered to be a problem. The company knows they need some sort of warm bodies dressed in pretty colors, but they don't quite understand why. It's just always done that way.

The food store, on the other hand, knows that the employees are the only direct face and voice of the overall company. Well-paid knowledge gurus of business management tell us that "customer interface" is important somehow, but apparently the well-paid executive gurus who attend the seminars don't understand the term.

Employees can either relate to the customers, or live in a vacuum of mental oblivion. The employees can either bring in more customers, talk up the company, and engage in that modern-day "social networking" everyone likes to blather on about, or they can ignore the whole thing.

Yet another high-level corporate make-believe is to say that each department in a company is the "customer" of another department. Somehow, by spouting these magic words the corporate efficiency will improve. Nobody knows how, but that's the story and they're sticking with it.

Is it worth it, to pay the least possible amount in salary and ensure totally replaceable employees? Is it worth it to have interchangeable blobs of muscle and bone to wander around aimlessly in a trance? How much money does a company really save when every third customer with a big-ticket purchase in mind "falls through the cracks" of employee apathy?

5-Second Interview

This week, I was interviewed by a radio station in Esperance, Western Australia.

They asked me if I would do something which has never been asked of me before. They wanted me to give them 5-seconds-or-less answers to how businesses should react to the global economic "crisis". (Their word not mine.) The pretext was that they could use these 5-second snippets at any point for any reason that made sense to them. Didn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me, but what the heck, I'm up for anything, once.

Although they would not release a recording of the interview to place here on my blog, they did supply a transcript. It felt like I was on the Temptation game show in that 60-second rush to get as many answers right as you can.

Radio Host: Do businesses need to be technically smarter at what they do to survive these tough times?
Me: Put the technical training on hold; get better at the basics.

RH: So what have the Boards and CEOs got to do to protect their businesses?
Me: Protect the staff; the game will be won or lost at the coalface.

RH: How should businesses create opportunities for themselves?
Me: There may be some opportunities or there may be a lot of opportunities depending on the industry-type. But the opportunities will all evolve from "execution-excellence" rather than "inventiveness", "creativity" or "cunning".

RH: So, what are the first steps towards execution-excellence?
Me: Turn-up and be turned-on. Are you fronting up for the work that is necessary to thrive and are you prepared and engaged to deliver your best?

RH: Are management needing to get tougher to achieve the results they got during the boom times?
Me: Management have to be considerate in all they do, no matter how tough it is. And, they need to remember to get down in the trenches with their team so they can experience what the front-line are experiencing. Smarter decisions can then be made.

RH: What do businesses need to aim for over the next 6 to 12 months?
Me: Aim and hit the small victories, consistently and regularly, with tenacity. These will culminate in some rather large results.

RH: You would be recommending that organisations cut costs to survive?
Me: Luxuries like silver service coffee in meeting rooms can go. But excellence in staff development and resources, in product or service delivery, excellence in customer service and excellence in relationships will not only allow businesses to survive but they will in fact, thrive in these current economic conditions.

RH: You are promoted by the Australian Speakers Bureau here in WA as "The Strategist"; your final comment please, what would be the single best piece of strategic advice you could offer, as a generalisation for Australian business?
Me: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Understand who needs your product or service, know where to reach them, provide opportunities for them to learn about who you are and what you do, then when they buy you, be excellent and deliver sensational outcomes for them.

RH: Ric, thank you for your Executive Wisdom. Well, there you go people, The Strategist from Executive Wisdom Consulting Group has given you his insights on the state of the economy and business in general. He's certainly not doom and gloom, as are many of the other experts we've had on the show over the last few weeks. Is he right, is he wrong, call in and tell us what you think ...

I never hung around to listen to the calls.
My "buzzer-hand" had cramped.

© Ric Willmot 2008 All rights reserved

Will you get in the wheelbarrow?

The story goes ... upon completing a highly dangerous tightrope walk over Niagara Falls in appalling wind and rain, 'The Great Zumbrati' was greeted by an enthusiastic supporter, who urged him to make a return trip, this time pushing a wheelbarrow, which the spectator had thoughtfully brought along.

The Great Zumbrati was reluctant, given the terrible conditions, but the supporter pressed him, "You can do it - I know you can," he urged.
"You really believe I can do it?" asked Zumbrati.
"Yes - definitely - you can do it," the supporter gushed.
"Okay," said Zumbrati, "Get in the wheelbarrow ...."

How many times have you heard a supervisor or manager say, "You can do it" or "Make it happen" - probably often. These words are very easy to say but the trust, belief and commitment that it can be done are much more difficult to earn.

Will you get in the wheelbarrow?

We wouldn't hesitate if we were confident that Zumbrati was well trained, experienced and motivated; that the wheelbarrow was of the best design and materials; and that the tightrope was securely fastened and recently inspected.

As leaders we ask our people to do many things in support of the organisation. Many of these tasks are complex, intensive, very demanding and some even ambiguous. So how is it that your people might do such great things every day - and enthusiastically walk that tightrope?

A major reason will be if they have trust and confidence in their leadership. Their beliefs do not come easy, but must be earned by the supervisor or leader.

You can start by understanding exactly what you are asking your people to accomplish. To do this you have to be ready and willing to get "down in the trenches" and see what is really happening. Often, this is the only way to accurately assess training, equipment and processes as well as identifying any potential roadblocks to mission performance.

You need to know your peoples' capabilities and when it may be more appropriate to say, "No, we can't do that." This might be for many good reasons such as a lack of manning, training or equipment. Whatever the reason, making this decision is not easy and goes counter to the "can-do" attitude most of us have in leadership positions.

However, this is a key component of earning trust from our staff. As we move into the future we will continue to have great challenges. As leaders we have to be sure we cultivate this trust by showing our confidence in our people and that we ensure they have the best training, equipment and experience to accomplish the organisational objectives.

If you succeed in this endeavor, your people will walk any tightrope you ask, and you will have the confidence to get in that wheelbarrow with them!

© Ric Willmot 2008 All rights reserved

What are your top business challenges?

Research undertaken by Executive Wisdom during the second quarter of 2008 established what Australian organizations felt would be their greatest business challenges for the financial year July 2008 - June 2009.

Here is a snapshot of the results in order of magnitude:

1. Cost-cutting strategies 39%
2. Faster financial growth 33%
3. Competitor threats to market share 26%
4. Need to expand into new markets 18%
5. Need to launch new products and services 17%
6. Requirement to refresh* senior management 14%
7. Coping with market changes 11%

These results were achieved by interviewing 255 business owners or CEOs of Australian-based organizations with a turnover of more than $1 million p.a. and more than 5 years in operation.

What are your top business challenges?
How will you handle these challenges?
What resources do you have on hand to assist you?

Business is challenging, especially in these volatile times. The organizations that have identified what specific challenges they will face; that have developed strategies for these tough times; and have managed the necessary resources required, as well as eliciting guidance and mentoring from internal and external points - are the organizations that will not only survive, but will in fact, prosper.

Are you lighting candles or cursing the darkness?

- Ric Willmot

******

If you would like to know more about the research Executive Wisdom does in Australia and in Dubai - or you would like us to undertake a research project for you - contact us at: info@executivewisdom.com

Let's Wait and See?

There are circumstances in which waiting to see what happens is a good tactic, but those circumstances are usually few and far between for the wise executive. Waiting to see what happens is a willful decision, with the intent to remain passive for the purpose of testing. This means designing a test, implementing that test, and waiting for the results.

Unfortunately, waiting to see what happens has become the modern way of life. At a deep level, this passive "going with the flow" relates directly to the concept of cause and effect and the concept of opinions. Many people today claim they have a "right to an opinion." Technically, that's true: Having an opinion is a function of having and operating a mind. But not all opinions are equal.

Another critical aspect of waiting to see what happens relates to the concept of irrevocable consequences. Yet again, too many people these days believe that nothing is irrevocable, all things can be fixed, and everyone is entitled to a "do-over."

Let's suppose we tell a student who's learning to drive that one should never collide head-on with a moving train. Our student might shrug off our advice, telling us that it's our opinion and that they have a different opinion of driving. We'll furthermore tell them that should they have such a collision, they likely will die. Again, our student might consider this to be an opinion.

What's the difference between an opinion and an analysis; an opinion and a predictive assessment? Are we resting our case on how we feel about things in general? Do we have a general sense of life, and we get uncomfortable in some situations, thinking about head-on collisions with a train? Of course not, one would think.

And let's consider the modern-day response, that the student will try such a collision and wait to see what happens. Although not a technically accurate term, this course of thinking would be called a philosophy of empiricism and possibly, pragmatism: "I'll know it's true when I've seen it with my own eyes."

One of the catastrophic results of this belief that all opinions are equally valid is the irrevocable consequence. Another result is the denial of cause and effect, which amounts to total denial of reality. Such a denial rests on the basic feeling (otherwise known as a belief) that reality itself is a matter of personal opinion. No such things as physics, mathematics, logic, analysis, and all the other functions of a reasoning mind apply.

To the modern day cynic, this type of foundation is helpful in "culling the herd." Our example student, well versed in the scientific method of today's woeful educational system, would propose a test. They would first drive a car straight-on into a locomotive, then see what happens. To their way of thinking, they then would avoid hitting the locomotive in the next experiment to see what happens. "Logically," they would argue, they could then correlate the end results of each experiment.

The only flaw in the plan is that following the first experiment, the rest of the student's projected lifespan would become moot (or at least, that's our opinion).

Making executive decisions means factoring in events that haven't yet taken place. It means treating probabilities as real influences. Projecting trends and future situations requires a clear understanding that feelings are one form of cognition, but that analysis is a very different form of mental activity. Because future projections do not yet exist, many people today, believe (feel) that such events don't exist. But, who knows, they ask? "Why don't we just wait and see what happens?"

A corollary argument to all opinions being equal is that anything is possible. Taken together, the argument becomes insane: Reality is only a matter of opinion, and since anything is possible; therefore, whatever might happen won't happen until we see it happen. What sort of executive runs a business in such a fashion?

One a single tool remains to the executive faced with this sort of foolishness, and that's clear authority. Advisors, committees, study groups, and so forth all are useful and important, but ultimately someone must make an absolute decision. Since many of those decisions rest on probability assessments, the decision-maker must have the authority to make, and the power to enforce those decisions.

Cogent vs. Moral Arguments

Today's business climate is increasingly chaotic, complex, and filled with strange pitfalls. Skilled executives, more and more are finding themselves beleaguered both in the press and in their own social environments. Issues that once were clearly understood, suddenly seem obscure, confused, adversarial, and without any rational foundation. What's going on?

Let's take an issue of energy consumption. Any business requires some form of energy to both exist and to operate. We would assume that anyone with common sense clearly understands this basic premise. Why then, do business owners continually find themselves being cast as villains and thieves?

Another issue is simply the concept of making a profit. We look back over the past decades, assuming that everyone understands that running a business rests fundamentally on the idea of making a profit by offering a product or service. Yet words like "profiteer," "reasonable profit," "windfall profit" and others, seem to say that we should run a business as a charity.

The problem here is far deeper than politics, cultural differences, and business education. Indeed, the problem has its roots in the fundamentals of philosophy itself. Arguments, discussion, rationales, and everything associated with making a business case or justification have been changed. In most cases, the business-minded owner, manager, executive, or entrepreneur hasn't even noticed this change.

A cogent argument, used to present a business case or the reasoning behind a set of actions, appeals to reason and thoughtful analysis. The underlying assumption is that a set of actions has taken place and someone wants to understand why those actions happened. To an extent, there's an interest in motivations, but for the most part, the discussion centers around facts and events.

But what happens when ordinary events and actions become moral dilemmas? Suddenly, the argument and discussion no longer center on the pros and cons of the situation. Instead, the entire framework moves into the goodness and badness of the person (and associated people) involved.

Using energy, from a business perspective, revolves around the costs of that energy, efficiencies of utilization, results from the energy, and so forth. Benefits of nuclear versus coal, or steam versus oil should be a simple analysis based on the many ordinarily understood principles of everyday life.

These days, however, energy, as a topic, has been converted to a morality. To use energy or not has become the same thing as the moral issue of whether or not murder is a good thing, theft is good or bad, lying, cheating, and other such moral issues. Sustainable energy is a moral decision, on a par with choosing a religion.

Profits, simplistically speaking, result from subtracting costs from revenues. A "reasonable" profit is subject to interpretation, leading to a semantic examination of the word "profiteer." But when we remove the concept of profits entirely from costs and revenues, converting it instead to a moral issue, we have an entirely different discussion.

Is it right to produce a profit? Are you a decent, honorable, moral human being if you earn a profit? Wouldn't God have included profit-making in the Ten Commandments? This is what happens when a rational business principle is transmogrified into a moral issue.

The business community cannot and must not stand by idly, ignoring the extreme dangers of this type of situation. Everywhere we look, we see the rapid elevation of political leaders and political parties, founded on the principle of converting reality-based issues into morality-based ideologies. Global warming no longer is a scientific debate; it's become a moral issue where rational discussion has been invalidated.

We, as business people, must understand that the whole foundation on which we base our thoughts and reasoning no longer applies in the minds of what likely is the emerging majority of the population. Ignorance, regression, and political greed have set conditions for a wildfire of ideological fanaticism, all of it arising from this conversion of thoughtful dialog to moral issues.

A morality is a basic way of life — a set of rules not only applicable to an individual, but rules that subscribers fully believe should and must be applied to the entire civilization. The looming catastrophe for world business rests in the must be applied aspect. Increasing government regulation now descends from the moral correctness of a belief system, not the rational interests of the society.

To be sure, when a stakeholder fails in a persuasive argument, we would in the past have accepted that "you win some, you lose some." Now, however, when all issues have become moral problems, the loss isn't over something as simple as a business event. That loss now includes such things as the mortal soul, the entire future way of life, and the good graces of a supreme being!

Logic and argument no longer apply, when good and evil are at stake, right and wrong, and eternal damnation is the ultimate penalty. Does that sound absurd? Ridiculous? Insane? Not when we restructure any business discussion or rational debate as a moral crisis. And that's exactly what's happening in the world today.

The wise executives will take the time to educate themselves on the intricacies of faith-based rhetoric, to better understand the rapidly approaching days of crippling government regulations. Political demagogues are using this principle to gain regulatory power, and meanwhile, business leaders ignore the groundswell of public approval for those agendas.

Valuing What Didn't Happen: The Empty Set

We face a serious problem in today's world, with a decreasing capability of understanding what might have happened, and to place a value on what didn't happen.

"The problem with doing something right the first time is that nobody understands how hard it was to do it right the first time." -- Anyonymous

What we're looking at is the "empty set," a set or group of not-existing things. In logic, we know that it isn't possible to prove a negative, but in the physical world of tangible and concrete events, we must at least be able to assign a value to the "not" things — those things that didn't happen.

Let's take, for example, two office administrators and their impact on a business event. We'll call one Sally, the other one Irma. Sally is about 22 years old, having limited experience, and will work for $10/hr. Irma is in her 40s, has been an office manager for many years, and expects $30/hr. Sally states that she has strong skills in computers and office technology, so does Irma.

The small business owner decides to save some money and hire Sally. After all, she's younger, more energetic, and up with the current world of work. After a few days, the owner tells Sally that she must send out a direct mailing to 1,000 clients. It should take about an hour, and cost $600 to accomplish (we're using filler numbers just to have something to work with).

It takes Sally about an hour and a half, because she's not that familiar with the software needed. The mailer goes out, and the contact telephone number isn't correct. The cost of the mailing, including Sally's salary comes to $615 for the first mailing, and another $615 for her to do it all over again, a total cost of $1,230. It might actually take Sally even longer, as she's worried about making another mistake.

Most people these days understand how to run this scenario. They can see the actual work Sally's done, see the actual mailing as it was sent out, and see the real mistake that was made. They can understand the real money that was paid and the actual problems that did occur. But what most people don't understand is the value of what did "not" happen.

If Irma had been given the task, she likely would have accomplished the mailing in the allotted 1 hour, at a salary of $30. With her experience, she also would have proofed the mailing, making sure that all information was correct, including the contact phone number. The mailing would still cost $600, with a total cost of $630...a 50% savings over what actually did happen.

Does the business owner realize it cost twice as much as it would have cost had he or she chosen to hire Irma? More and more, these days, the answer is no. "Who knows what might've happened," people say, shrugging and writing off the whole experience.

This concept of what does not exist, the "empty set," offers us a way to understand that although something did not happen, it still should be calculated into probability trends. Just because a problem didn't happen doesn't mean that there were no benefits accruing from that "not-ness." Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people seem interested in examining this empty set.

Look at a tunnel through an arbor of trees and branches. What you mostly see is the way the forest offers an opening that looks like a tunnel. Another way of looking at it is that there's an empty space that's "pushing" aside the trees and branches. It's a matter of taste and style, as to which way you want to see the tunnel. But the fact is that it can be seen in those two ways; not only the one way.

So too, we can examine what actually happened and calculate the value of everything involved at the end or start of the process. If we choose to ignore the empty set, then we can conclude that the final cost of the process is what it is. It just costs that much, and that's all there is to it. If, however we include the empty set of potential problems, and assign values to the potential consequences of those problems, we'll see quite a different story.

Business executives tend to often dismiss this empty set, thinking that what could have happened really isn't all that important, particularly in relation to what did actually happen. Unfortunately, we only can value what actually happened after the fact. The empty set helps us to examine costs and benefits before the fact.

A secondary aspect of this form of examining what doesn't exist shows up in sales. Consider a business designed to prevent an event from taking place, perhaps a security business. It's commonly understood that we can sell fear of what "might" happen, and the value of the security is in what does "not" happen. By purchasing the system, the customer does not experience a robbery or break-in.

Doesn't it seem odd that so many people understand how to sell the "not-ness" of preventative measures, yet fail to calculate that same empty set into everday operations? Which is the greater value: the annual salary savings by hiring Sally; or what does not happen by hiring Irma — the "not things" that Irma brings to the table?

(An interesting game based on sets, includes the empty set where nothing matches. To hone your skills at seeing both what "is" and what "is not," try the daily puzzle for fun.)