To some, there’s an enormous difference between expectations and objectives. Our expectations are based on such factors as “the social contract”, our knowledge, and our personal experience. Objectives are rational, exhibiting little, if any, measurable bias, and are clearly communicated.

Our expectations reflect our personal biases. Expectations are often unstated — they are somehow expected to be understood. For example, we expect that adult pedestrians will not haphazardly dart in and out of vehicular traffic. That seems like a reasonable expectation, doesn’t it? We don’t often hear or read of pedestrians being killed as they burst or wander into traffic. The car is bigger, heavier, and faster — why would anyone risk serious injury or death?

Expectations being what they are, many are not met. They are often burdened by others’ expectations. For example, you expect the businessperson on the street corner, on their cellphone while dragging a wheeled suitcase along, is going to look before crossing the street in front of your car. They, on the other hand, expect every vehicle operator to see and yield to them. Someone’s expectations will be dashed, probably both.

One thing expectations rarely are, and that is “based on empirical evidence or sound policy“. Suspicions and hunches aren’t evidence. Too often, a manager comes up with “that’s the way it’s always been done”, or “that’s the way I’ve always done it and it’s always worked.” (Always? Really? Show me the numbers that bear that out.)

“It ain’t braggin’ if you c’n back it up.“
“Dizzy” Dean

Another thing expectations never are, and that’s “communicating well with others“. The essence of a well-run company is establishing SMART objectives that everyone in the organization understands and agrees with.

If you want your expectations met, you have to state them as clearly and precisely as you can to everyone responsible for meeting them. You have to get feedback from those people so you know everyone’s on your wavelength.

“A moving target is hard to hit.“
Lucy Ricardo (“I Love Lucy”)

Do this and your expectations are no longer mere expectations — they are the company’s business objectives. Unstated expectations will always be unmet expectations.

“Collaboration” is one of the newer buzzwords to make its way into the businesspersons’ vocabulary. Social media — a hot buzzphrase itself — like to emphasize the fact that they’re designed to enhance collaborative activity. One company (not ours) goes so far as to claim its collaborative software “can accelerate team productivity, improve interactions, and support innovation“.

“I call that bold talk…“
True Grit (1969)

What Does It Actually Mean to Collaborate?

Collaborate means “work together to accomplish a goal”; the word comes from Latin, “work with”. Collaboration implies that two or more people are working as equals (or close to it) to make something, to solve a problem, etc. John Lennon and Paul McCartney collaborated on much of the Beatles’ early work, for example.

What does it mean to collaborate within your organization? Do employees cross boundaries all the time, or do they stay in their comfortable little silos? As a leader/manager, you may think it’s not possible to collaborate with employees. You might picture yourself “up here” and your employees as “down there” — you might feel if your employees get the notion they’re your equals, you won’t have control of the organization.

I say you’ll never see true collaboration if you have that mindset. Your employees may be able to collaborate without you, but you not collaborating with them? Do you discourage independent thought, or the sharing of ideas? Do you not want your employees to grow? If so, you’re in more trouble than you know.

Why Do We Collaborate?

We’re essentially social beings. Some of us think we work well independently. While that may be true at times, over the long road of life we need others to help us accomplish tasks and achieve goals. We need input from other sources, whether it’s measuring devices or people, to assure ourselves that we’re doing the right thing in the right way, or at least headed in the right direction.

Collaboration can help ensure and improve quality. There’s this old saying that ”too many cooks spoil the broth”, but that’s only true when the cooks are working at cross-purposes, each trying to stake their claim as the best cook. That’s obviously not collaboration.

Collaboration comes about through a shared vision, shared priorities, and shared objectives. We get things done when we work together, don’t we?

“No man is an island, entire of itself.“
John Donne, poet (1572-1631)

Who Should Collaborate?

Collaboration should not be confined to your company. You can’t afford to keep it to yourself. Successful firms collaborate with everyone — their employees, their vendors, their customers. Every time you interact with someone, that’s an opportunity for collaboration, right? So, the answer is ”everyone”.

When Should You Collaborate?

As important as it is to collaborate — as much as it helps you and others accomplish — it can’t possibly be a “24/7″ activity. We all need time alone to think, review, contemplate, and decide. And there are, of course, those personal needs and interests that make us complete and help us collaborate much better.

For instance, if my Bizmanualz colleagues and I are together the entire workday, reading the same material, eating our lunches together every day, even spending every break period together, we wouldn’t get the cross-fertilization of ideas that we would if we occasionally spent time tending to our own interests. Another way to put it: When you spend a week or two on holiday with your family, aren’t you just a little sick of one another toward the end? Don’t you need a little time apart?

How Do You Ensure That Your Employees Continue Collaborating?

Collaboration cannot be a one-time event. Treat collaboration like any business process. You can model it on the Deming (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle, for example. Of course, I’m not suggesting you write a collaboration procedure — you really can’t. Some of the best collaboration comes about spontaneously, after all. You wouldn’t want to restrict the collaborative process by saying, “It has to be done this way“.

Instead, you should write up guidelines for sparking or encouraging collaboration so your employees will recognize — and be prepared to take advantage of — problems or opportunities that are solved best through collaboration. You need to make it part of your company culture. While they’re working together, people should be inclined to take note of what works and what doesn’t, so they can add to the collective knowledge and continually improve the process of collaboration.

To get your employees to collaborate…

• Provide the right atmosphere;
• Provide a common vision and sense of purpose;
• Provide your employees with the means and the time to collaborate freely;
• Don’t do anything that would restrict collaboration or encourage “siloing”;
• Open up as many avenues for collaboration as possible, including software; and
• Lead by example.

Other Resources

• Sampson, Michael, “The Right Way to Get Employees to Collaborate”, Information Week, 9 May 2011
• Anderson, Chris, “Why Should You Publish Your Policies and Procedures Online?”, 3 Jan 2011
• Burrier, Dan, “Create Better, Collaborate Better“, Harvard Business Review (online), 25 May 2011

Last April 17, I read the news on the Internet, as I do every day, and saw a report that an Indian firm, Godrej & Boyce, produced the last typewriter and was shutting down its Mumbai factory. The story seemed plausible to me — I haven’t used my Brother daisy-wheel electric in eons and I can’t tell you the last time I’ve seen anyone use a typewriter to dash off an angry letter to the editor, let alone get their daily work done.

A little more than a week later, it was announced that these “RIP, typewriter” stories were all wrong. There are still companies manufacturing those old-fashioned mechanical marvels and if you want one — seriously! — new and used typewriters are fairly easy to come by.

Many people who grew up entirely in the Internet era are waxing rhapsodic about “the satisfying ‘clickety-clack’ sound of the keys” and ”getting in touch with the basic creative process, like it was back in the days of Faulkner, Hemingway, and Kerouac”.

“It all comes back to the basics.“
Dave Thomas, “Wendy’s” founder (1932-2002)

Well, before I dismissed these people as daydreamers, I had to think about how we communicated in the pre-word-processor, pre-smartphone era. True, the typewriter was not encouraging or forgiving but it made you plan…carefully. It made you pay attention to details.

Documents in those times (portrayed so effectively in movies like “The Front Page” and TV shows like “Mad Men”) were thoroughly edited and revised before being released. Calling back hundreds of design documents or proposals — or hundreds of thousands of newspapers — simply wasn’t practical. And once word got around that you were careless or sloppy or didn’t get the facts straight, your reputation was ruined.

“This is Bensinger. Give me a ‘rewrite man’.“
The Front Page (1974)

In the 21st century, business documents, news stories, blog posts, tweets, etc., are generated at alarming speeds. In fact, the speed of communication has become the main driver of communication; the message itself is often an afterthought. Thoroughness, accuracy, and attention to detail — in short, the quality of communication — have suffered significantly.

This may not mean much to the casual tweeter or blogger but to business, reduced quality of communication can be toxic. Deadlines are important – second-place finishers don’t usually get championship rings — but so is quality. First-place finishers can have their trophies taken away.

So, as a business leader — think about your policy, procedure, email, or other document you’re about to issue. Isn’t it worth the extra few minutes to get it done right?

* * * * * * *

OnPolicy is a new document management system from Bizmanualz, designed to help ensure high-quality communication by automating the document review-and-approval process, organizing your policies and procedures, making them readily available when and where they’re needed, and ensuring periodic reviews of all your documents. See the OnPolicy website or email us (info@onpolicy.com) for more information.

* * * * * * *

RECOMMENDED READING

1. Jacob, Shine, “Typewriters About to Become a Page in History”, Business Standard, 17 April 2011 – http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/typewriters-about-to-becomepage-in-history/432497/.
2. McCracken, Harry, “Rumors of the Typewriter’s Death: Greatly Exaggerated”, Technologizer.com, 26 April 2011 - http://technologizer.com/2011/04/26/typewriters-not-dead/.

Are you a “good” boss?  Google’s “Project Oxygen” has taken a lot of time — a couple of years, actually — to study what makes a good boss. Their “people analytics” staff has come up with eight key attributes of good managers within their organization.¹ Among those eight attributes are:

• Technical expertise (as you might expect of a tech firm like Google);
• Having a clear vision and strategy for “the team”;
• Helping your employees with career development;
• Be productive and results-oriented; and
• Be an effective and empathetic leader.

What shouldn’t surprise us is that of the eight attributes of a good manager, the “ability to work well with one’s employees” was ranked first in Google’s study. “Technical expertise”, which Google had considered an absolute necessity to being a team leader, was ranked at the bottom.

You may recall that in the Bizmanualz blog, we’ve talked about the qualities of great leaders and what makes true leaders different from others.   Mostly, what separates leaders from mere managers are those intangible qualities, those “quirks” of personality that stump psychologists and sociologists to this day.

What makes for a good manager and exactly how do we quantify it? Well, it’s been tried — a number of times — but Google is putting their own spin on the concept. Despite past failings elsewhere, the people at Google think it’s possible to make the process of grooming leaders a reliable, repeatable process. Their goal is to make the process of hiring and training leaders like any other human resources procedure.

This should be welcome news to every other HR department if Google’s HR can do it right. Managing people, with all their complexities and variations, is (at best) extremely difficult and statistical analysis is helpful only to a point. The chief problem with “data driven management” is that people can’t easily be reduced to a set of predictable behaviors and outcomes — we are only human. Every statistic has to be taken with a grain of salt² but even more so when human behavior is the focus.

I’m going to follow Google’s Project Oxygen to see if there’s any merit to it. I sincerely hope so but I don’t harbor lofty expectations, either. Google may have a world of resources behind them but — people being people – it’s not a sure bet that Project Oxygen will deliver the goods.

So, what do you think? Can Google be successful — at something not so technical — when many other companies before them haven’t been?

NOTES

¹Bryant, Adam, “Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss”, New York Times, 12 March 2011 — http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html.

²Seife, Charles, Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception, Viking Press (23 Sept 2010). ISBN-13 #978-0670022-16-8.

Real leaders — not those people who run for office every other year, promising “real” leadership for a change — possess a combination of qualities and characteristics that make us want to follow them. Whether we naturally gravitate to these quality individuals or we subconsciously recognize their leadership, we follow them. We’re pretty good at recognizing greatness in certain people.

Why are some people great leaders? What do they possess that we don’t?

“What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? What makes the dawn come up like thunder?”
Cowardly Lion, “The Wizard of Oz” (1939)

Leaders generally possess these characteristics:

• They are credible;
• They’re persuasive;
• They’re able to plan effectively;
• They have a strong belief system (a sound moral/ethical code);
• They communicate extremely well (direct, to the point);
• They’re confident, both in their abilities and in the abilities of others;
• They’re goal-oriented;
• They’re charismatic;
• They do what’s right, not necessarily what’s popular;
• They are decisive, especially in crises;
• They are responsible;
• They’re knowledgeable and experienced (and they share their knowledge and experience);
• They don’t become complacent (they don’t rest on their laurels);
• They trust, but don’t assume; and
• They have an eye for talent.

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1 (1776)

But where does it come from? Is there such a thing as innovative leadership quality? It seems anyone can be trained to be a manager, but leaders are cut from a different cloth. Why? It’s not that they’re born that way. They can be made, but there’s no easily reproducible process, no easy-to-follow recipe or we’d be doing it all the time.

The service academies seem to have the greatest success in this regard — they purposely educate and groom individuals to be leaders by instilling discipline, self-sacrifice, and an unshakable work ethic and by constantly emphasizing the need to plan for the best but prepare for the worst. Still, even they don’t have anything close to a perfect track record when it comes to turning out leaders. Similarly, there are outstanding leaders throughout history who never served in the military.

“The real leader has no need to lead; he is content to point the way.”
Henry Miller (1891-1980)

How are leaders best made, in your opinion? Or are they born? Do you go looking for leaders or do you wait for them to come to you? Does your organization have a process for identifying and training potential leaders?

What message are you trying to get across in your procedures? To whom? Is your message getting through? How do you know?

“What message am I supposed to get across, besides ‘This is how you’re supposed to do it’?”, you may ask. To that I reply (in the form of a question), “Are we talking ‘procedures‘? Or ‘work instructions‘?”

If the activity is fairly simple:

• There might be more than one way to do it, but none of them is longer than 6-7 steps;
• It doesn’t require a lot of parts, tools, or prep time; and/or
• It’s not being done by a broad, diverse group of people;

we’re talking about work instructions. An example is “loading a smartphone app”:

• Use a search engine to find an app that does what you want;
• Go to a web site that has the app; and
• Download the app and install it on your smartphone.

Many tasks are simple and straightforward so that an employee can be trained in minutes just by showing them how it’s done and letting them do the task repeatedly until they have it right. You don’t need to write a work instruction (or a procedure) when:

• It would take less time to show someone than to write and test a work instruction; and/or
• The risk of failure is minimal (i.e., the probability of failure is small-to-nonexistent, as is its impact).

If you can’t afford the risk, either don’t do it or reduce your risk by documenting the process.

Which brings us to procedures. Procedures are documented processes. The processes may be so complex that they can’t be reduced to a set of work instructions. A process may also consist of a number of processes. The process may cross departmental and/or hierarchical boundaries.

In all cases, it’s important to communicate certain concepts clearly and effectively in your procedures, such as:

• Purpose;
• Roles and responsibilities;
• Scope; and
• The company’s policy on that subject.

If you’re not communicating these points to your intended audience — if your message is being lost in translation — here are some things you can do to help:

1. Add graphical content. If I tell you, “Enter your user name and password and hit [Login]“, you probably know what that means, regardless of what application I’m talking about. But, what if you don’t?

Procedures are primarily designed to train (and retrain) people to perform complex processes and/or processes they don’t perform often. If you’re unfamiliar with logging in, it’d be helpful to you if I showed you what that looks like, wouldn’t it?

(Don’t you love the warmth of that light bulb that goes “on” in your head as you say, “A-ha!”?)

2. Use active voice. It’s more direct. It leaves less room for interpretation. For example, which of the following makes more sense:

• “An internal audit program shall be prepared annually by the lead Quality Auditor before the end of the current calendar year”?, or
• “The lead Quality Auditor shall prepare next year’s interal audit program before the end of the current calendar year”?

3. Write as if you’re talking to one person. Picture yourself trying to teach a procedure to someone who’s not at all familiar with it or the company, like a new hire.

That’s the procedure’s audience and that’s how you should write all procedures — as if it’s just you and the trainee at the computer, machine, etc.

4. Tell your audience “why”. The new hire in #3, above, should have been through a general company orientation — the company’s lines of business, how long it’s been in business, the vision and mission statements, company objectives, etc. — by now. They need all that background to understand how this procedure fits into the grand scheme (that is, how the process helps the company achieve its objectives, or “why they’re learning the procedure”).

If you don’t tell them why, they’re liable to ask themselves at some point, “Why am I doing this?” You may not agree with — or like — the answers they come up with on their own. This may be counterproductive.

5. Simplify, simplify, and simplify. My favorite example is the Swiss Army knife¹. The more expensive variations have nearly every tool you might possibly need. Capable of doing a hundred things, it does none of them well. I’ll take a tool box with me on a camping trip; you bring your Swiss Army knife.

Champ 28 Swiss army knife, by Wenger

Is my kit heavier? Yes! Is it stowable in the glove box?² No! But will your saw cut anything larger or heavier than string cheese? Will your knife cut nylon rope? Will your hammer…wait…you don’t have one. (I will credit you the beer and wine bottle openers, however.)

My point is you should keep your procedures like your tools — simple, functional, and easy to use.

Remember these five techniques for improving your procedures:

1. Add graphical content;
2. Use active voice;
3. Write like you’re talking to an audience of one;
4. Tell the reader “why”; and
5. Keep it simple

…and your procedures will be simple and easy to use, which will improve your workforce’s productivity and morale. So, who’s with me?

* * * * * * *

Notes:

¹I’m expressing a personal preference; that’s all. (I can’t see “Dexter” using a Swiss army knife, can you?) However, if Wenger wants to give me a Swiss army knife and show me how to use it, I’m open to that.

²I’m curious: How long have you been driving? Have you ever, in that time, put a pair of gloves in the “glove box” of any auto?

One question asked endlessly in business, academic, political, and other circles is, ”What’s the difference between a manager and a leader?”

The most often quoted answer seems to be, “The manager does things right – the leader does the right things.” What exactly does that mean – “doing the right thing”?  Does that mean history tells us whether the leader did the right thing? Can someone be a leader even if they end up on the losing side?

A leader is one who knows that though the risk of failure may be great, they don’t give up on themselves or others. Leaders are people of exceptional character who are capable of bringing others through a crisis. All leaders share certain qualities or characteristics, including:

1. Self-respect and respect for others. If you don’t have a healthy self-respect, you won’t respect others. If you don’t respect others, they will not respect you. You can’t lead people who don’t respect you.

2. The ability to communicate effectively. Leaders say what they mean and mean exactly what they say. Effective communicators are far more persuasive than those who don’t communicate well.

3. Integrity and character. Leaders are not swayed by unsubstantiated opinions or unfounded rumors. Fame, power, or material gain don’t motivate them. Leaders have integrity, that strength of character that resists assault.

4. Having a vision, a mission (or a purpose), a sense of direction, and a clear set of goals. Moreover, they know that their job isn’t done when one set of goals is reached. Leaders know that life is a journey.

5. Being grounded. Leaders have a vision of what the world around them ought to be, but they are also pragmatic. Things will not always go smoothly, but leaders understand that and have the presence of mind to deal with that.

6. Courage. Fear is a powerful motivator; it causes many of us to turn away from our goals when our belief in ourselves and our cause isn’t strong. Leaders aren’t fearless — leaders make a conscious choice to act in spite of their fear.

7. Persistence, commitment, and dedication. It’s like they always say: “Winners don’t quit, and quitters don’t win.”  Nothing worth having comes easily. When setbacks crop up, leaders don’t flag because they always have their eyes on the prize.

8. Humility. Leaders aren’t self-promoting or self-aggrandizing. They don’t take all the credit. They give credit to others and refuse it for themselves.

9. A sense of responsibility. Leaders are willing to bear the ultimate responsibility for their undertakings. They don’t point the finger of blame when things go awry.

10. Decisiveness. When action is called for, real leaders don’t waffle. Knowing that a window of opportunity exists (“the time to act is now”), they act quickly and effectively, based on the best available information.

Most importantly, leaders have these characteristics in balance. Some may tell you there is one characteristic more important than the rest. They’ll say something like, “Oh, you have to have that ‘vision thing’ above all else.” Not true – people won’t follow someone who has vision without courage or humility, for example.

What about you? What do you think are the most important qualities in a leader? Who do you consider a leader and why?

Thanks so much for your time.

Some of you may be familiar with the recently released and much maligned PowerPoint diagram someone in the US military came up with (“We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint“, NY Times, Apr. 26, 2010). It is thought to be one of the worst uses of a much-overused, yet little understood, business tool. I’m compelled to say in the author’s defense, though, that they did get one point across extremely well.  The military strategy in Afghanistan is FAR too complex.

It’s not just governmental entities that commit egregious “fails” in communication. Business is as likely, if not more so, to commit atrocious communication gaffes using so-called communication tools, such as PowerPoint.

PowerPoint’s misuse and overuse has spawned terms like “death by PowerPoint”.  Microsoft isn’t to blame, though. They put the tool out there — it’s up to us to use it effectively.

Everything from pencil and paper to streaming video can be used to “get the message across”. But whatever the medium, you have to have a message worth saying AND you have to make sure people understand it. That, in a nutshell, is quality communication.

However great you think your message is, if you can’t easily get it across to a 9-year-old, you’re probably not going to get that point across very well to anyone who doesn’t speak your language on an everyday basis.

That’s not saying the people you work or do business with are on a mental or experiential par with the average nine-year-old, of course. However, a typical 9-year-old makes a great litmus test. Here’s what I mean. Try summarizing your presentation, your argument, your sales pitch, or whatever in a sentence of 15 words…or fewer.

“Why a four-year-old child could understand this report!
(Run out and find me a four-year-old child.  I can’t make heads or tails of this.)”
Rufus T. Firefly (“Duck Soup”, 1933)

Now, run this “elevator speech” past your nine-year-old. If you don’t have a 9-year-old living with you, go next door. Or, just find a friend or neighbor who isn’t in your line of work. If nobody gets the condensed version, forget the 200-page slide show with all the cool transitions, dancing letters, and the entire Pantone palette.

We have discussed a number of times how with quality communication, things get done. For instance, I wrote about keeping things simple in PowerPoint last fall. We ran another article last year about how improving the quality of internal communications benefits the entire organization.

What’s true for PowerPoint is true for any medium or message. Your policies and procedures — whether you use MS-Word, Adobe Pro, XBRL, a document management system, a picture book, or plain old text — must be clear and concise.

Every form of communication in your office, for whatever reason or however critical to your company’s mission, MUST be straightforward and clean. Get your message across in a way that leaves no room for confusion, misunderstanding, or error. Make sure the message is worth saying AND make sure everyone in your audience understands it.

Do you have an example of an e-mail, PowerPoint, or procedure fail that you’d like to share? Send me an e-mail or go to our web site and leave a comment.

Thanks for your time.

Much has been made of procedure writing, both here at Bizmanualz and around the Internet, but very little is said about an equally important part of the design and development process — procedure review.

Many problems with procedures that crop up after they’ve been implemented are traceable to inadequate or no review. Let’s say a procedure as written describes an ideal process, performed under ideal conditions (i.e., real-world conditions aren’t taken into account). If this isn’t caught in a procedure review, the end product will meet requirements only through luck. Luck being notoriously unreliable, inconsistent, and uncontrollable, you’re clearly better off with a review.

Why do you review anything? To ensure the accuracy and completeness of whatever it is you’re reviewing and to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the policy, process, or situation. In short, to ensure effective communication, which will lead you to the desired outcome.

Effective communication is a big reason why the international quality standard, ISO 9001, mandates design and development reviews (clause 7.3.4).  If you don’t review, you risk missing any number of product requirements, both stated and unstated, and you risk losing customers.

Need another reason to review policies and procedures? No one is perfect and no process is perfect. No one will write the perfect procedure the first time, every time.

Furthermore, no one — NO ONE! — can multitask. Your technical writer wears several other hats, right? That person is bound to temporarily lose focus on the policy or procedure they’re writing when other projects and other managers are continually demanding that their stuff is mission critical, “…so drop everything and work on this.” (Now, where was I?)

We all agree, then, that policies and procedures have to be reviewed, right? So, how’s it done? Well, one method that works is based on speech evaluations as done by Toastmasters. For a Toastmaster, learning how to evaluate a speech – or a written document – is as critical as learning how to give a speech or write one.

Objectives

Always start with the objectives or requirements. Were they clearly communicated to the technical writer? Did he/she understand them? Do you? Were the objectives prioritized and categorized? Were they SMART objectives?

Review

Did the technical writer achieve the stated objectives/requirements? (Have a list of the objectives in front of you as you review the document.)

Also, list some important, yet unstated, objectives. For example, correct spelling and good grammar are often taken for granted. Don’t make that mistake. Make up a checklist for often overlooked items, like “Are important terms defined?” and “Is ‘active voice’ used?”

Did the tech writer go beyond the stated objectives? For example:

The procedure mentions a packaging machine that a first-time reader may not be familiar with. The tech writer includes a long shot (photo) of the machine and a closeup of the control panel. The pictures aren’t a requirement; furthermore, they (and additional photos) push the document beyond the stated requirement of “six pages, maximum”.

Which is the SMARTer objective, user understanding or document length?

Reward

In your review, whether its written or oral, be sure to lead with those aspects of the procedure where objectives were met or exceeded. If critical objectives were not, consider possible explanations for that (the writer’s level of experience, competing projects, the amount of information provided them, clarity of the objectives, etc.).

The point is not to let the writer “off the hook” (or to find a hook to hang them on). It’s about encouraging the writer – praising what they did well and asking them to do better. Tell them, “Here’s what you did well.”

Don’t be vague or insincere, either. Don’t fish for compliments — you’re not helping them by telling them that their capitalization was great, or they had all the commas in the right places.

Be truthful, be specific, and give them something to build on.

Respond

Tell the writer exactly what you see in the procedure (ex., will the reader know who’s supposed to do what, when, and why?) Restate the objectives and indicate which were met, which were exceeded, and which weren’t met. Use a numeric scale in your review (rarely is anything “black or white”).

Beyond that, does the procedure “flow”? Did they use the PDCA model correctly? Did she or he use words, voice, style, grammar, etc., effectively? Does the story – and the message – come across clearly?

Tell them what they did well and point out specific opportunities for improvement. Hand the document back to them with another objective: you need the revision back for a “final” review by a specific date.

Remember that policy and procedure review is an integral part of a design and development process. After you’ve reviewed the document, the writer will probably have to make some changes. After the writer has revised the document, review it again.

Don’t review it to death, however. Four or more reviews of the same document should tell you that the review process has broken down…somewhere. It might be time – at least temporarily – to bring in another pair of eyes.

As a reviewer, you’re obliged to:

• Be sure that stated and unstated objectives were met;
• Be fair;
• Be consistent;
• Be thorough; and
• Point out strengths and opportunities for improvement in the document and in the process.

And as one of my favorite sports announcers (Jack Buck) used to say after every broadcast, “Thanks for your time this time. ‘Til next time — so long.”

* * * * *

For more on evaluation, see “The Three R’s of Evaluating“, by David Hobson, DTM (“Toastmasters” magazine, Nov., 2007).

First, what is a policy?  Well, in an article we recently ran, we established that a policy and procedure are two distinct entities. According to the dictionary, policy is a “definite course or method of action selected from alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions”.

Organizations typically have high- and low-level policies.  High-level policies govern the entire company in most or all circumstances. They are somewhat generalized and often articulate soft goals.  They speak of company desires, needs, and aspirations.  High-level policy doesn’t readily lend itself to procedures; instead, it takes the form of a standard, or a guideline.

Low-level policy deals with a more specific set of circumstances. Low-level policy is the kind that usually leads to procedures. An example of a low-level policy that everyone’s familiar with has to do with attendance; employees are expected to come to the office to carry out their duties during “normal working hours”.

Because the world around us is continually changing, our policies – especially the high-level policies – have to be reviewed and reshaped occasionally.  We do this by implementing “the policy cycle”.  The policy cycle consists of:

• Setting the policy agenda;
• Writing policy;
• Implementing policy;
• Enforcing it;
• Reviewing the policy; and
• Updating policy.

Setting the Policy Agenda

Your organization has limited resources – time, money, people, etc.  Whatever your company’s intent, whatever its objectives and strategy, you can only do so much.  Your policy agenda is a concession to the scarcity of resources.  What resources you have, you manage well and you prioritize.

The smaller the organization, the easier it is to set a policy agenda, generally.  It’s with large organizations that we see more intense competition to politicize an agenda – to get preferred items on the agenda because they serve localized interests, which are easier to understand and deal with, rather than those of the entire company.

Writing Policy

A policy has to be easy to understand and implement. Policy statements have to be written clearly, concisely, and directly.  Policies should not be open to interpretation, though this isn’t always possible, especially with high-level policies.  In that case, the company must identify policy experts who will be readily available to interpret policy and resolve differences.

Policy writing has to be an iterative process.  Policy drafts should be reviewed by a representative sample of the group or groups who will be responsible for implementing the policy on a daily basis.

Implementing Policy

People have to know that a policy exists if they’re to be held accountable for it.  Not only do they need to be aware of it – they should also know why the policy exists.  People generally view policies as restrictions and unless it’s clear where and why the policy originated – that there’s a valid reason for it and that the organization benefits – compliance will be a problem.

Policies have to be communicated effectively and there needs to be a suitable introductory period to ensure compliance. People should have plenty of advance notice – give them time to learn the policy, discuss it with others, understand it, and submit their comments.  When people feel like they’ve had a say in policy, they’re more likely to comply.

Enforcing Policy

Given that policies are often developed in response to problems, how do you make sure the problem doesn’t recur?  Well, you try not to do what a lot of governmental bodies often do – you don’t make policy that’s unenforceable.  The U.S. Congress has been doing this for years with respect to food safety, writing more laws for the FDA to enforce while hampering its ability to conduct inspections by slashing its budget.

Policy has to be clear on what constitutes compliance and what happens in the event of noncompliance.  There has to be a clear responsibility for ensuring compliance and imposing penalties.

Reviewing and Updating Policy

Policies are often changed only because a noticeable event or trend occurred which forced the organization to respond.  A notable example of that is the proliferation of smartphones; so many individuals have purchased smartphones and incorporated them into their daily routines so quickly that the company can’t keep up.

The majority of company policies, once written and implemented, are rarely looked at again.  Yet, all policies have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they reflect the business realities of the moment.  A good example of that is some automakers’ infatuation with the SUV, based on a policy of maximizing profit rather than giving customers what they need.  Even if $140 barrels of oil and the decline in SUV sales weren’t a strong enough signal to them, the automakers should have been reevaluating their policy periodically with an eye to updating it.  Their hundred-year-plus histories should have told them – you either change or you have change forced on you.

What about your organization?  When was the last time you reviewed any of your policies? Do you follow a policy cycle?