Are you spending your time doing “strategic work” — the kind that adds meaning and value to your long-term goals? Successful small business owners, or SMBs, do. “But, how does a small business owner ever find the time to do strategic work?”, you ask. “That can take up as much as 80% of my day.” I’ll tell you how — by developing systems of policies, procedures, and forms for doing the tactical, daily work.

Unsuccessful small business owners struggle to prioritize their time. They’re continually fighting fires or doing the mundane tasks — going to the post office, running around their disorganized workspace, answering the phone — and getting nothing done.

Does That Sound Familiar?

If your business is based on a system of policies, procedures, and forms, it will run on its own without you having to tend to all the details all of the time. This may seem hard to believe, but it works — Fortune 500 companies have been doing this for decades. “McDonald’s” now uses a clearly defined system of policies and procedures to unify marketing, operations, and customer service worldwide — they started in 1940 with a single restaurant, in California.

“You deserve a break today.”
(McDonald’s campaign slogan, 1971)

McDonald’s is just one example of how a small business like yours can — and must — create a system of policies and procedures to ensure its success. Start by imagining that you’re creating a model for your own series of franchise locations. Every day when you go to work, take one process at a time and systematize it with the policies, procedures, and forms your employees need to do the job you want them to do.

Why Start from Scratch?

That’s where Bizmanualz MS-Word procedure templates come in. Our renowned series of policies, procedures, and forms provides hundreds of templates and guides for your accounting, finance, human resources, information technology, and other departments. Every Bizmanualz policy and procedure manual comes with a set of sample procedures, a “How To” guide to help you get started, and a sample manual for the department manager to use as a guide.

Focus Is the Key

Today, start working on your business instead of in your business. Focus on strategic work and delegate the tactical work with Bizmanualz procedure templates — you’ll realize your goals, get out of the office more, and build the successful business you set out to build.

Free Procedure Samples

Why not check out the Bizmanualz line of free procedure samples and see for yourself how you can use these powerful procedure templates in your business?

I’m at that age where I have one or more doctors run annual tests to gauge my health. At least once a year, I see my primary care physician, a cardiologist, a pulmonologist, and other assorted  health care providers. They compare my current numbers — height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol count, and so forth — with the numbers typical of a person of my age and gender, as well as with my historical numbers.

If my numbers are improving or if they’re above average, they let me go for another year with just a light warning to do this, or don’t do that. Now, there’s nothing in the law that says I have to get an annual checkup; it just makes good sense to me to know if I can proceed “as is” or if I need to take some kind of corrective action. Here’s another example: I’m averaging seven years’ ownership per automobile in the time I’ve been driving¹, a fact that I like to think is due to my attention to routine preventive maintenance.

The same is true of my bank accounts and my personal relationships. Regular, careful attention to details helps ensure that very little falls through the cracks.

If it’s important for an individual to routinely measure events and processes and analyze them in light of reasonable expectations and history, isn’t it reasonable to expect that businesses would do the same?

Which begs the question: Is your company measuring its performance? Is it doing something substantial with those measures, like improving its processes? Regardless of whether your company is required by some standard or regulation to measure its progress toward objectives, doesn’t it make good business sense to always look at how you’re doing in comparison with certain reference points (your own past, your goals, competitors’ performance, etc.)?

It’s been proved many times and in many ways: You can’t improve what you don’t measure. Do you agree or disagree?

NOTES

¹The average jumps to over eight and one-half years when I count just the new vehicles I’ve owned.

Anyone will tell you it’s impossible to know how well your business is doing if you aren’t taking measurements. Those same people will tell you you have to measure the “right” things.

Yes, it’s just that simple…or so they’d have you believe. How do you know you’re measuring the right things, though?

W. Edwards Deming

W. Edwards Deming was one of the pioneers of management by measurement. Dr. Deming recognized that all processes are flawed — some more than others — and that variation can and does occur at every step in a process. The causes of that variation need to be identified and reduced if product quality is to be improved.

Deming believed that organizations must continually monitor and measure their processes. He taught that process data should be examined by managers to determine the causes of variation, eliminate them, and improve the process. This idea became known as the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” (PDCA) cycle.

The “plan” phase of the cycle is where, among many things, you state the goals you have in mind for the process. What are the expected results? In other words, how do you know the process works if you’re not tracking (measuring) its progress?

Your objectives have to be SMART – specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. If your objectives aren’t all of the above, your best-designed process plan is still doomed to failure.

Specific – Define your objectives in concrete terms (i.e. increase by 50%); fuzzy won’t do.

Measurable – Objectivity is the key here. Weight, time, growth, revenue — these are things we can measure with ease. We can’t measure “goodness”, “attractive”, or “quality” with certainty; they’re all relative (and subjective) terms.

Attainable – Your objectives must be realistic. Perfection is impossible, especially the first time around. No process is 100% efficient — variation will occur. One of your implied objectives is to reduce the variation in your process.

Relevant – While increased efficiency and decreased variation do result in cost savings, not every process can be directly measured in terms of euros, yen, or dollars saved. Make sure the people directly involved with the process can understand the process objectives.

Time-bound – Efficiency is determined by comparing output with various costs, like time and money (e.g., dollars per hour, units produced per minute). Even with pure research and development projects, you don’t have an infinite budget; you have to say, “We need tangible results by ‘x’ date.”

Does any of this ensure you’ll be measuring the right stuff from the outset? Well, no. You’ll actually have to rely on experience and research to help you set objectives the first time through. But, once you have the process in place — you’ve been through the “plan” phase and now you’re “doing” it — you’ll be gathering enough data from your process that you can “check” it and determine if you’re headed in the right direction.

You then “act” on that information and make corrections, if necessary. That’s the surest way to know — keep measuring and comparing as you reiterate the process.

Any questions? Comments?

For many companies, it’s that time of year — time for year-end performance reviews. Time to see if we can find our performance reviews from last year, or head over to Human Resources to get a copy. For managers, time to dust off the performance reviews from last year and see if anything’s changed.

If you’re like most of us, you haven’t kept a daily diary of your accomplishments, so you have to construct an account of the last 12 months from long-buried memories in just a few days. You don’t bother listing your close calls, almosts, and never-weres — you need to put a positive spin on your year.

You might go into the review feeling you did a “more-than-adequate” job, even if you can’t quantify it exactly. Then again, you might approach the review with a sense of foreboding. You’re not well prepared. Maybe you feel like you’re going to get slammed. Maybe you wish the shoe were on the other foot. Maybe you wish everybody would just forget about it.

The performance review, as most of us know it, is a broken process. Lately, there appears to be a groundswell of support for the idea of doing away with performance reviews. According to an article in a recent Wall Street Journal, many HR professionals are “frustrated that managers don’t have the courage” to give constructive feedback.

In an interview from July, 2010, UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert said that performance reviews should be dispensed with altogether because annual reviews don’t promote candid discussions about problems in the workplace or their potential solutions.

Going back to 2006, the Harvard Business School’s “Working Knowledge” page ran an article by James Heskett, one of the HBS faculty, in which he called into question the main objective of performance reviews. Professor Heskett asked, “Is (the objective) to weed out poor performers? To recognize the so-called A players? To provide the basis for compensation decisions?” He concluded that we don’t do a good job of establishing or communicating objectives.

W. Edwards Deming, one of the gods of quality, called the performance review one of the “deadly diseases of management“. You’re not going to find a much stronger indictment than that.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had a formalized performance review. The manager in question got much more out of the typical performance review because he always had the performance of the group in mind. He linked my performance to that of my teammates, which helped create and maintain a team ethos.

Unfortunately, his type of performance review wasn’t the norm. Too often, the performance review is an exercise with no apparent purpose, except to satisfy a regulatory requirement or follow a decades-old policy. We go through the motions but don’t accomplish anything. By conducting performance reviews the way we do, we miss so many opportunities for improvement.

We all deserve better from this “process”.

* * * * * * *

I’m currently conducting a performance review poll on LinkedIn. Please drop in (it’ll only take 10 seconds, if that) and register your opinion. Or, post a comment below.

What do you think? Do performance reviews work for your company or your group? Or, do you think the performance review should’ve been retired with the mechanical adding machine and green eyeshades?

* * * * * * *

REFERENCES

• Light, Joe, “Human Resource Executives Say Reviews Are Off the Mark”, Wall Street Journal (Nov 7 2010) – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596723632340284.html
• NPR Staff, “Annual Job Review Is ‘Total Baloney,’ Expert Says”, NPR-dot-org (Jul 8 2010) – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128362511
• Heskett, Jim, “What’s to Be Done About Performance Reviews?”, HBS Working Knowledge (Nov 27 2006) – http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5563.html
• “Management’s Five Deadly Diseases – a Conversation with Dr. W. Edwards Deming”, Encyclopedia Brittanica Educational Corporation , 1984 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMAwIHGN0Y. (Video is approx. 15 minutes long.)

FURTHER READING

• Peralta, Eyder, “Top 10 Performance Review Euphemisms”, NPR-dot-org (Nov 9 2010) – http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/09/131189907/top-ten-performance-review-euphemisms

It seems for the last couple of years as though we’ve been constantly running in crisis mode. To put it mildly, the worldwide economic situation got out of control 2-3 years ago and it doesn’t show signs of improving soon. Uncertainty abounds, fingers are pointed in every direction, and many of us feel powerless to do anything but wait and worry.

“What? Me worry?”
Alfred E. Newman

Crisis Management Is a Response…

The economic crisis has occurred and whether it was through our fault or not, we have to get it under control and fix it quickly as possible — that’s what crisis management is. Depending on the nature and extent of a problem, it may take considerable resources to fix. As we’ve seen, our current economic crisis has used up an enormous amount of resources and promises to swallow up many more before we even come close to a solution.

Unfortunately, it looks like many companies — but especially small-to-medium businesses – will simply have to do their best to ride out the economic storm. Too much is beyond their knowledge or control.

…Whereas Risk Management Is Strategic

Many people have laid the lion’s share of the blame for the economic crisis on the financial sector, or on government policies. Certainly they weren’t the only causes, however. Companies in every sector took unnecessary risks and didn’t implement a system of effective controls and oversight. Good risk management practices existed but they weren’t followed.

Risk management consists of identifying potential threats, assessing their likelihood and their impact (if they were to occur), and taking the necessary steps to eliminate or minimize risks. There are risks we’ll always be powerless to avoid or control (severe weather, earthquake, etc.), but we can cope with them — and many others — better simply by implementing effective risk management systems.

Management Philosophy

There is a management philosophy, mirrored by ISO 9001, that merely correcting a problem isn’t as good as identifying its root cause and taking steps to make sure the problem doesn’t recur. That’s called “taking corrective action“.

That philosophy also says that making sure a problem doesn’t happen again isn’t as good as preventing it from happening in the first place (aka, “preventive action“). It follows, then, that risk management is markedly preferable to crisis management. This is not to say you shouldn’t prepare to manage crises (after all, the best-laid risk management plans aren’t going to prevent every crisis…like they say, “Stuff happens”) but that crisis management should be your fall-back position.

Comments, anyone?

Why DO we write procedures? Anyone? (“Because we HAVE to!”)

Well, that’s one reason, though it’s not the best one. (“What do you mean, ‘not the best one’? The law says we need written procedures to be in compliance. If we’re not in compliance, we lose business.”)

Believe it or not, there are many excellent reasons to write procedures, and complying with regulations or standards, while it may seem the most important reason (because of the potential for fines and other penalties), is actually pretty far down the list. The best reasons for writing procedures include:

1. Documenting and analyzing process results in order to improve the process (in other words, you know if a process is getting better or worse by taking measurements and comparing them);
2. Communicating how you measure the effectiveness of a process (i.e., what your expectations are for the process (pieces per hour, zero defects, etc.));
3. Decreasing process error rates (moving the process closer to Six Sigma performance level);
4. Making it easier to replicate a process (that is, regardless of who’s working at it or when, the process remains the same);
5. Retaining and transferring valuable knowledge;
6. Documenting — and sharing — risks, hazards, and “lessons learned”;
7. Reducing the time you need to train (or retrain) workers;
8. Improving the consistency of process results (another way to put it is “your customers don’t like surprises”);
9. Simplifying access to — and understanding what is — important information; and
10. Solidifying the foundation for your company’s growth.

So, what do you think? Did I miss something? Do you know any other reason why written procedures make sense?

Like I say when someone wishes me good luck, “I hope it doesn’t come down to luck…but I won’t turn it down if it comes my way.”

I wonder how many of our clients, on receiving our policy-and-procedure manuals, have asked themselves what in heck they got themselves into. (“There’s a lot of stuff here…where do I begin?”) Well, like a lot of things, it’s probably not as difficult as it looks initially. First, you took a step in the right direction by using our templates to develop your company policies and procedures. It’s always easier to start with some of the work already done for you, rather than you having to start from scratch.

Now, how do you proceed?

Understand Why You Need Policies and Procedures

You don’t need policies and procedures merely to comply with regulations or industry standards (like ISO 9001). Sure, there’s nothing quite like the threat of fines, legal action, and the scorn of the business community to motivate you, but that’s far from the best reason. Much better reasons for developing policies and procedures include:

• Communicating your business goals and priorities;
• Standardizing processes, behavior, and results;
• Training your employees consistently; and
• Identifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviors (and encouraging or discouraging them).

Prioritize Your Needs and Set Goals and Timelines

Now that you understand “why”, you need to decide “what”.  Of the policies and procedures you could work on, you have to determine which one(s) are going to provide:

• The biggest bang for the buck;
• A quick return on your investment; and/or
• The greatest good for the greatest number.

Only you know what you need.  I can offer you suggestions (like “start with a fairly simple process”) but only you have the intimate, day-to-day knowledge of your organization. It’s your company: you decide.

So, decide which process you’re going to document first.  If you have absolutely no idea (you have no metrics and no historical basis for evaluation), try any Bizmanualz policy or procedure.  Document your initial design and development process and use it as a baseline for further development.

Give the first procedure a fair evaluation.  Don’t look at your first policy-and-procedure development, point out all the flaws you can find, declare the project an abject failure, and pull the plug.

Introduce discipline into the development process by setting clear and meaningful (aka, “SMART“) goals and timelines.

Analyze Your Existing Procedure

If you already have a de facto¹ procedure in place, don’t throw it out in favor of so-called best practices that may or may not work for your firm.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (Anon.)

Now is as good a time as any to document your process.  Diagram it quickly in any manner and medium with which you’re comfortable. Simple is best (“Don’t make a big production out of it!”, Mom used to say).  Next…

Compare Your Process with Bizmanualz Best Practices

Bizmanualz has already looked at many companies’ procedures, blended them together to describe “best practices”, and reasonably modeled these procedures on the Deming, or “Plan-Do-Check-Act”, cycle. You may find that your procedure already looks very much like the PDCA model:

• You develop a set of objectives and a plan (process) for realizing those objectives;
• You implement the plan and immediately start collecting process data (in-process, end-of-process, etc.);
• You routinely analyze the data, to see if the process is performing in line with expectations; and
• You make changes to the process (procedure) in order to improve it and improve your results.

If that’s the case, you don’t have far to go at all. Next…

Make Our Procedure Your Procedure

Make the obvious and necessary changes to the Bizmanualz policy and/or procedure.  We wrote them generally, like ISO standards, so they’d have the widest possible application.  Any resemblance between our procedure and your process is coincidental; that is, you’ll have to customize our procedures – make them your procedures.  For example:

• Change every instance of “Bizmanualz” or “the company” to your company;
• Where you have an existing form (e.g., purchase order, customer order, invoice), use it – and make sure field names, etc., on the form and in the procedure agree;
• Change job titles in the “Responsibilities” section and in the procedure itself to reflect your circumstances;
• Change diagrams² as needed;
• Add visual aids – they add impact and meaning and they complement verbal descriptions very well (especially when they come from your office, your shop floor, your staff, etc.); and
• Leave out what you don’t need.  An entire procedure or just part of one — if it doesn’t apply to your situation, delete it.  Make your policies and procedures simple and direct.

Verify and Validate the Procedure

The people responsible for implementing the procedure have to put it to the test.  Oh, you could write a procedure and thrust it on an unsuspecting workforce but until it’s subjected to “real world” conditions, the results you see may not be the ones you want or expect.

And there’s more to it than procedure verification and validation. Some people call it “getting buy-in”. Whatever you call it, recognize that your employees are stakeholders in the company. They have a vested interest in the company, too – if it does well, they do well. So, keep them in the loop on matters that directly affect them, to ensure their understanding and cooperation.

Even if they’re not directly impacted by the procedure in question, keep all employees informed of this — and most — company matters.

Implement the Procedure

Now, publish the tested-and-verified procedure.  Distribute the procedure to those responsible for executing it, analyzing it, and training employees.  NOTE: A document management system, or DMS, will help you address publication and distribution, as well as improve document control.

Hold a training session on the procedure – make sure trainees are not only capable of doing the work, but that they understand the process and the objectives, as well.  Finally, execute the process.  Collect the data from measuring devices and routinely analyze it.  Look for anomalies and trends in the data, evaluate the process, and aim for continual improvement.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s just that simple! Any questions?

NOTES

¹Just because you haven’t documented it doesn’t mean you don’t have an effective process in place.  Example: my wife and I came to a quick understanding some time ago that I would clean tubs, showers, and toilets and balance the checkbook. It’s very effective, plus there’s no point in documenting such processes because (a) they’re easy and (b) she won’t ever do them.

²We’ve been using Microsoft Visio to build diagrams. Unfortunately, Visio is not automatically included with any version of MS-Office, so far as we know. There are many alternatives to Visio, though – any search engine will help you find them – so your organization need not be constrained by a lack of Visio³.

³No, that’s not a typo.

Remember when Ford’s tagline was “Quality Is Job 1″? No? Well, maybe this will jog your memory.

Back in the 1980′s, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and AMC¹ were quickly losing ground to Japanese automakers². Rumors that U.S. auto workers were deliberately sabotaging cars on assembly lines gained traction; these rumors were alleged to have been started to divert attention from the obvious and growing inequities between American and Japanese vehicles.

Fact is, American car buyers were turning away from domestic cars simply because their Asiatic counterparts were cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate. The bad reputation American cars were saddled with then — a consumer perception of poor quality — persists to this day, even though Toyota — which leapfrogged all American automakers in 2007 to become the world’s #1 vehicle producer precisely because of its reputation for quality — has turned out to be the modern-day emperor with no clothes.  It looks as though quality took a back seat to profits.

Then there’s BP, whose failed wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico “will live in infamy”³, mainly because it appears the company would not spend a little on safety because that might eat into profits. This story has been thoroughly covered in the news, on blogs (including ours), and in company emails.

Now add the computer maker Dell to the list. Dell is now in court for allegedly selling millions of defective computers from 2003-2005 — computers that it supposedly knew were defective — hurting companies that relied on its reputation for quality manufacturing and customer service.

What’s the common thread running through all of these cases? Corporate hubris? Maybe.  A message running throughout these companies that “quality be damned — just get it out fast and make a big profit”? Quite possibly. Is their profit more important to you — the consumer – than a quality product and your satisfaction?

When do we, as consumers, demand that quality be placed before price? It catches up with the producer — eventually — but why wait for the inevitable? Why chase the elusive promise of “newer and better”? (Look at what Apple’s going through with the iPhone 4.)^{4, 5} Also, when do we, as corporate citizens, begin to see that our responsibility to give our customers quality isn’t incompatible with healthy profits?

It’s often said that we get what we deserve. If you think you deserve better, demand — and hold out for — quality.

Notes:

¹ Yes, they were still around, though not for long. AMC was put down for good in 1988.

² Except for body rust; that problem plagued Japanese auto makers for decades. My first two new vehicles were Japanese-made and I logged 18 years and several hundred thousand miles between them. If not for the severe case of “car cancer” they both caught, I believe they would’ve given me 20 or more years, combined.

³ My apologies to the late Franklin D. Roosevelt only.

⁴ http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-iphone-hit-class-action-suit/story?id=11066239.

⁵ http://news.cnet.com/8301-30677_3-20008919-244.html.

Further Reading/Viewing:

1. Enderle, Rob, “Dell and the Cost of Cover-Ups“, IT Business Edge post, 30 Jun 2010.
2. Evans, Joel, “Is Apple Covering Up the Real Problem with Its iPhone?“, ZDNet blog post, 4 July 2010.
3. “Product Recalls“, Back in Black, The Daily Show, 6 July 2010.

I recently posed this question to the “Bizmanualz Policies Procedures Network“, or group, on LinkedIn:

“The same teams (Brasil, Italia, España, Deutschland, etc.) are perennially among the top contenders for the FIFA World Cup. Do you think it’s the personnel or the system that makes these teams consistently great?”

I’d like to know what you think, and why. To me, it’s sort of a “Heredity or environment?” question: it isn’t one or the other. I mean, you could have one or the other and you might do well. However, if you have both good personnel and a good system that optimizes their individual skills and experience and blends them…

Look at some of the great individual performers of all time, in team sports – Pelé, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, and Babe Ruth. As capable as they were, they didn’t reach the zenith of their respective sports until they were surrounded by other capable people and learned to work as a team, using a system. (I wish I could have John Facenda narrate those last two sentences.)

Strangely, we forget how much their coaches — and the systems they designed and implemented — had to do with their successes. Feola, Jackson, Sather, and Huggins — all devised systems that ensured quality and consistency. Management also scouted well and hired not just talented and hard-working player personnel, but those who understood the “team concept” and put the team ahead of individual accomplishments.

The same is true in business, of course. Some of your employees are undoubtedly star performers but until they have a system that coordinates — meshes – their actions with those of other capable people, and until everyone buys into the concept of “team first”, they’re never going to reach their potential. And as a result, neither will your company.

You have to have a management system that fosters quality, consistency, and ongoing improvement to the system and the people using it. And, you have to have the right players.

By the way, I may as well get a plug in for our LinkedIn policies and procedures group. We’re at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=86367. If you’re not part of our group, or if you haven’t joined LinkedIn yet, consider this your invitation to join us.

I look forward to your comments — here, by email, and on LinkedIn. I’m especially excited when you challenge my “knowledge” or my way of thinking. (Or as they say in my favorite sport, ice hockey, “You wanna go?”)

Let’s get it on!

Toastmasters is the best environment I know of for personal and professional improvement. Here’s why.

The process of speechmaking — writing the speech, giving it, receiving an evaluation, and using the evaluation to improve is possibly the purest form of the Deming Cycle, or the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycle:

• Plan your presentation — research, draft, and rehearse it
• Do — give the presentation
• Check the presentation — a fellow Toastmaster evaluates your speech
• Act on the evaluation — take what you’ve learned and apply it

(Was W. Edwards Deming a Toastmaster? He should’ve been.)

Everyone in the club I belong to (and, I think it’s safe to say, every Toastmaster) understands and accepts the idea that improvement isn’t something achieved in a vacuum. Furthermore, your own improvement isn’t worth much if the club — meaning your fellow club members — isn’t improving, too. Instead of “me”, it’s about “us”.

You’re never going to get a completely unbiased, objective evaluation but you might be surprised how much more objective evaluations are when everyone is working toward a common goal. Our goals are: (1) to be the best Toastmasters we can be, (2) to help other club members be the best they can be, and (3) to have our club recognized as one of the best in Toastmasters International. You can’t have one without the other two.

Every evaluation is subjective, to some extent. There is no objective method for determining that one speech or performer is better than another, just as there’s no way to say one business project is more deserving of funding than another. But at least there are objectives for every speech and guidelines for every evaluation.

As an evaluator, I make sure the stated objectives were achieved, and I’m allowed to use my own judgment in arriving at my overall evaluation. It’s my duty to avoid presenting my opinion as fact. Furthermore, while I’m the official evaluator for a speech — standing before the group to present a spoken evaluation — every other member in attendance gives their own brief evaluation in writing. That way, it’s not just one person’s opinion.

This is what sets Toastmasters apart from the business environment. We freely acknowledge that our evaluations are, in part, based on opinion and they’re balanced out with dozens of other evaluations.

In the business world, we like to think our evaluations are entirely fact-based and completely objective. Office politics, personal biases, conflicting objectives, and a limited pool of funds for projects tend to blot out any hint of objectivity, though.

We have to continually keep in mind the “bigger picture”. Even if you’re in sales and I’m in IT and we don’t work “elbow-to-elbow” every day and you and I have different departmental and individual objectives…we are working for the same company, toward the same corporate objectives.

We’re not on opposite sides (though we often act like it). Instead of maintaining some semblance of objectivity and keeping our eyes on the same prize, we put our own goals above those of the company and the result of that is never good.

When projects are being presented to a management team for review, each member of the team must base his or her evaluation as much as possible on the facts of the case, keeping in mind the main goal of the review is what’s best for the company. Acknowledge that there is some degree of subjectivity in each person’s evaluation — get that in the open. There’s nothing wrong with having differences of opinion.

So, remember next time you go into a project review, a design review, a performance review…don’t go in with the goal of making yourself look good at someone else’s expense. Instead, evaluate for improvement!

Further Reading:

• Lucas, Suzanne, “Managers: Stop the Shuffling“, BNET Blogs, 12 July 2010.