Oh how many times have we heard that little jingle in the last few weeks?

I’ve got to tell you, that little ‘diddy has come in soooo handy with my 8 and 10 year old sons over the years, I don’t know what I’d do without it. Something about Christmas time, that chubby old bean counter, and his insistence of good behavior, that tends to keep those little guys on the straight and narrow over the holidays. If only we could keep it going all year long.

Since we’re all in the holiday spirit, I thought I’d use this week’s column to reinforce Santa’s message of accountability, at least for us grown up performance managers out there. I should warn you, however, that I’ve kept this one a little “light” and “fun” since most of us tend to be distracted this time of year with more important things like family and loved ones. Nevertheless, it should drive home some key points we’ve been making all year.

For starters, it’s worth acknowledging that Santa has clearly mastered the art of generating good behavior. And as I’ve watched him year in and year out, he appears to only get better at it with time. I can only conclude that he is a great student of the PM discipline, constantly learning from others, and applying these best practices to his Northern Operation. Santa has clearly learned from the best, and so should we.

A few weeks ago, I referenced a speech by David Walker, the Comptroller General of the US, and head of the General Accounting Office – the GAO, which is incidentally being transitioned to be called the Government Accountability Office- a much more appropriate name for this important government function. His overriding message was that performance is maximized when:

1) there are clear incentives for doing the right things,
2) there is transparency of information so that employees know when they are doing the right things, and
3) there are clear accountabilities and consequences when people do the wrong thing.

While Saint Nick only shows his face once a year, he does exemplify these three key principles quite well. At Christmas time, kids prepare their lists- the incentives if you will, for what is likely to happen if Santa concludes they have done the right things most of the time. Santa also has an extensive network of helpers, including billions of parents who help translate these expectations and let those little ones know when they happen to veer off course (i.e. -transparency of performance information). Furthermore, there are those constant reminders us parents give in the way of “time outs” and punishments if our little guys don’t get back on track quickly. And while I’ve never experienced it first hand, there are those horror stories we’ve all heard about the stockings full of coal.

One of these days I’ll have to arrange a “best practice” site visit to the North Pole to see this stuff first hand. How does he keep track of all of those performance reports? “Checking it twice” has got to be a huge undertaking, but somehow it all gets done right since I haven’t heard of any North Pole Enron’s, WorldCom’s, or Tyco’s lately. And there is certainly no shortage of rewards for good performance- the plethora of toys and games that magically show up every Christmas Eve. Yup, this is definitely a business model worth exploring.

So as we prepare our organizations, systems, and processes for 2006, let’s take a page out of Santa’s playbook and focus on these three key elements of performance management. I’m sure if we do, 2006 will bring us a much stronger PM process, better and more consistent performance results, and the good fortune that often comes with it.

I wish all of you the best this holiday season, and remember to keep an eye on that chubby old guy from the North. He’s likely to teach us some more great lessons in the days to come.

Let’s face it, competitive outsourcing is here to stay. We don’t have to agree with it politically, emotionally, or theoretically…it’s just a fact of life in today’s business environment…. which begs the question whether our performance management process and systems are up to the task.

For all that has been written about the practice of outsourcing (and there’s no shortage of writings in this space), precious little has been said about if and how our PM processes and systems will need to change in a heavily outsourced environment. Perhaps this is because many companies still see an outsourcing relationship as just another vendor to be managed- a key vendor or strategic partner perhaps, but a vendor relationship nonetheless. But is it really that simple? To answer this question, it’s worth looking at a couple of key aspects of performance management that has shaped this landscape in recent years.

On one hand, there is the reality of outsourcing, and the overwhelming complexity of dealing with an overextended network of information flows, many of which will ultimately exist outside of your corporate information portfolio. On the other hand, we’ve had the significant growth of ERP and other corporate wide reporting systems- a IT “wave” that is replacing our legacy mainframes with the latest and greatest in enterprise reporting technology. The operative word here is “enterprise”- and what that word really means to the future of performance management.

While the wave of ERP systems has driven some well needed perspective and improvements to our performance reporting environment, it has also created a level of “structure” that may be difficult to maintain in tomorrow’s business environment. The reality is that hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent in this transformation, an investment that could soon end up in our museum of IT history if we are not careful. Outsourcing poses the biggest risk in this arena, as it will quickly challenge the very structure that these latest and greatest corporate applications set out to achieve.

Let’s look at a typical outsourcing context.Take a function like facilities management…stuff like corporate security, catering, janitorial services, equipment maintenance and the like- a function that was once one of many departments that make up our internal organization. Only now, this function has become heavily outsourced because of the scale and unit cost efficiencies achieved by shifting these services to a best-in-breed provider (an obvious end state for all “non core” function like this).

On the surface, the outsourcing of a function like this appears to be a significant
“win-win”. That is until the company tries to roll the management of this function into the corporate IT fold. What was once a simple task of rolling up accounting and HR data from internal systems, is now a task that may involve up to 10 different vendors. If the complexity of capturing the costs from this many points of service doesn’t kill you, the process of understanding and normalizing for the differences in data reporting and accounting practices certainly will.

And that’s not the worst of it. The “zinger” in all of this is that you’ve just spent 80 million dollars as a company to develop your “integrated” reporting framework, which, at a minimum will have to be re-tooled to integrate with the myriad of relationships that are now reflected inside of one single outsourced process. That assumes of course, that all of these vendors and partners “play ball” your way- an unlikely reality, to say the least.

If you’re an IT director responsible for the implementation of one of these integrated reporting systems, this is the proverbial train wreck waiting to happen. But don’t jump off that bridge quite yet, because there is a silver lining. That is, if you are willing to challenge the conventional way information is managed.
The answer lies in embracing what some refer to as an “inside out” versus a “top down” information management framework.

So what do we mean by an “inside out” information framework? Let’s start from a different place. Imagine a world where an enterprise is really a large collection of many businesses, all of which can be viewed as independent competitive entities- entities that are assembled in a way that is strategically connected to the vision, mission, and objectives of the corporation.

That’s right…everything from the security guards on the first floor, to the investor relations department on the thirty-fifth. Instead of each of these businesses being given a budget, they are given a clear set of KPI’s, a list of competitors, and a performance contract with clear incentives and accountabilities. They (with some coaching if necessary) determine what information they need to manage their business and achieve their outcomes. They may be given some tools of the trade to manage this information, but the information is their’s to manage.

Conversely, at the portfolio level, leadership defines the outcomes that each of these businesses are to achieve. The portfolio level can be a very small team of individuals, each of whom are accountable for defining what they need, how much of it they need, and the competitive price they’re willing to pay. They have their own dashboards and KPI’s to manage, but they are a lot more focused on outcomes and less on the operational indicators (the “how’s of how the business is managed rather that “what’s” of what they must achieve in terms of outcomes). The operational side of the business (the how’s) is managed in a highly decentralized manner, often by the providers of these services themselves, who are in many cases external vendors and suppliers. Performance Management has become a highly decentralized portfolio management game- a world where the integration of the provider network becomes far more important than achieving that perfect “top to bottom” architecture and warehouse of corporate information.

There are lots of ways to describe a model like this. Some refer to this model as an “Asset Management” orientation where assets are managed separately from the services that construct, maintain, and service them. Others call it a management philosophy of “universal contestability”. Others call it a framework for simply rationalizing and outsourcing services. But whatever you choose to call it, it poses a dramatically different challenge us- one that if not met head on sets up our huge IT investments for failure.

So what specifically needs changing?

For starters, the information needs in the outsourcing context are markedly different, and need to be identified as such. Today, the information needed to guide the outcomes, and run these competitive businesses may not even exist in our legacy systems, and in turn are not likely to even end up in the ERPs themselves. To continue with the Facilities Management example, try comparing a performance report (assuming there is one) of a internal corporate security department with the likes of say Pinkerton (a competitive provider of security services nation wide). They are dramatically different in both design and content.

Next comes the challenge of managing one of these entities, when and if they become outsourced. How much of that information will be needed from the vendor? How much will come from your systems? How will you blend the two when necessary under the likely scenario the data sharing protocols are different?

This is the challenge of integration is far more important than the challenge of aggregation which is often the foundation for most of our corporate systems. We are fixated to some degree on terms like the “cascading scorecard” which by definition sets us up to manage each of these functions down to the work-face level rather than a logical network of relationships between the corporation and its nodal-style network of strategic suppliers and providers.

By applying a more decentralized/ portfolio managed construct to our information needs, we begin to more accurately paint the picture of how our organizations will function in the future, enabling our ERP’s to function effectively at the result or outcome level.

As you implement your PM reporting systems, think small and grow outward. Develop systems to meet the needs of each discrete business-individually at first. It doesn’t mean you can’t use the same software or measurement frameworks and ultimately replicate and link to other business processes and functions over time. It doesn’t mean that you can’t connect these businesses strategically.

In the performance management world, smaller is better, at least to start with. It’s easy to build on successes and link things together over time, as long as you keep the framework flexible and adaptable. Avoid the tendency to have the perfect system, one that looks great on paper but won’t come close to surviving the challenges posed to it over time. The complexity you eliminate will go a long way towards delivering superior information at a fraction of today’s cost.

Much has been written in the HR and Change Management community on the subject of alignment- and rightly so. A vexing issue to say the least, alignment (or lack thereof) is one of the most common reasons (excuses?) for not meeting performance targets. So it’s only fitting that we at PMW spend some time exploring the issue of alignment from a Performance Management perspective.

Why is it that alignment is so elusive? Is alignment something we can manage, or is it something intangible like culture that just develops over the years? Is creating alignment a people process or an operational process? All good questions, but questions that cannot be answered without looking more deeply at what alignment looks like as it is being developed, to the time that it is ultimately achieved.

Let’s start with what alignment is. Alignment, in its purest form, is a shared COMMITMENT to producing an outcome and the strategy through which that outcome will be achieved. It is a DECLARATION of ownership by EACH INDIVIDUAL team member, and a PROMISE to do their part in achieving that outcome. Most importantly, alignment is a CHOICE that a member of a team brings himself to after understanding and EMBODYING the desired outcome and strategy. People can, and often do, disagree with parts of a solution, but can still remain aligned with the LARGER PURPOSE or CAUSE. Hence, they are usually able to say what is missing for them to come back into alignment. Stated simply, alignment is the HIGHEST level of commitment that can be observed in groups- much larger and more powerful than agreement, acceptance, “buy in”, or any other type of organizational consensus that may be achieved.

Sounds pretty straightforward, until you look at the PROCESS by which genuine alignment is created. In contrast with the process of consensus or compliance building, the process of creating alignment is markedly different. Take a team whose leader is personally sold on a solution and simply wants to gain compliance to his strategy. That process can be a complex negotiation, or a simple mandate- but whichever path is chosen, it will likely result in a “compromised solution”- either a “watered down” version of the outcome, or a “watered down” level of commitment. Achieving that kind of consensus can be purely a people process- taking a group and leading them to the water, and hopefully getting them to take a sip. But it is nothing like the process of achieving genuine alignment around a bold vision and strategy observed in most leading edge organizations.

A genuinely aligned team looks very different. The commitments are not only bold and unwavering, but art fully EMBODIED in the individuals who set out on the journey to achieve the vision. Think about your favorite sports team when everything seems to click. Players are in the right spots, appearing to almost read each other’s minds. They know each other’s tendencies and always seem to be one step ahead of the game. That’s real alignment. And that’s something you can’t teach, instruct or demand… as it is a commitment that is built within the individuals themselves. Genuine alignment is integrated into the fabric of a business- from the mission of the team to the goals of each individual, to the plan that is put in place to achieve it. From there, it becomes an integral part of each individual’s roles and accountabilities from start to finish.

What are the key ingredients necessary in building this kind of alignment? Here are a few “common denominators” you’ll see in a well aligned team as it is being formed:

Built on a BOLD VISION- Groups cannot be aligned if you’re business processes sit on a weak foundation. That is, a large organization cannot create real alignment around small tactical initiatives like “grow revenue by 5% per year” or cut expenses by 10%. A bold vision stretches the imagination into a world that looks radically different (and better) to the team that will take you there. Think about the visions of our early pioneers, forefathers, and activist leaders. Whether you believe in their cause or not, most would admit that their visions were inspiring. Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, JFK, MLK, Reagan- all laid out inspiring visions to their following- many of which inspired their following to put their life on the line to achieve it. People get aligned around a “CAUSE”, not a budget goal. Find out how to turn your vision, mission, and business objectives into a “bold cause”, and you’ll get a lot closer to your desired levels of alignment.

A Story about the Future based on GROUNDED ASSESSMENTS of the past and present- If you’ve got a bold vision, and it’s based on changing a current “reality”, you’d better be good at your assessments of the past and present. That means when you lay out your case for change and your new vision, it needs to be based on an accurate and defendable assessment of current state- based on FACT- not feelings or opinions. Feelings and emotions might convince someone to follow you, but it won’t get them to “own” the outcome for themselves. People are smarter than that. In order to step out on the end of the plank, each member of the team needs to be sure that the risk is worth taking. For that reason, bulletproofing your assessments is a must in the early stages of alignment building.

Ability to WITHSTAND CHALLENGES and necessary course corrections throughout the journey- Most of the time alignment doesn’t just happen in one step, in fact it rarely ever does. Alignment building is iterative and continuous- from the start of the journey to the end. One of the accepted realities of alignment is that people can often come in and out of it, as conditions change. What’s different about an aligned team is that team members, once initially aligned, are able to see and declare for themselves that they have fallen out of alignment on one or more aspects of the roadmap. So, from time to time, you may (and should expect to) get healthy challenges and questions about the path you’re on. Your answers and responses will be the keys to bringing those team members back into alignment. A plan that is airtight and defendable at the outset of the journey may develop problems as conditions change. A team that is genuinely aligned will be able to handle the types of challenges and course corrections that may be necessary during the journey, without risking the integrity of the outcome.

TRANSPARENCY of INFORMATION- Rarely does alignment work in a “closed book environment”. “Do it because I said so” and “trust us on this” are fine for declarations and compliance building, but won’t get you anywhere on building ownership for a commitment, and a personal promise to execute it. If the above two tenets of alignment are real, then the data environment needs to support it. Optimally, the data environment should be conducive to questioning and learning. If your assessments are grounded and defendable, then there is only positive that can come out of sharing that data with your team openly and honestly. Closed systems will surely stifle progress toward genuine alignment.

ACCOUNTABILITY “Through and Through”- Embodied. Integrated. Embedded— Getting commitment woven into the fabric of your business processes is not possible until the commitment is part of every team member’s personal goals and reward system. If the bold ambition declared at the top, is not seriously connected to an individual’s performance contract, there will exist a big alignment gap that will be virtually impossible to fill. Performance contracts and reward systems are what documents and connects the individual’s commitment to the broader ambition of the team. It is imperative that these ends of the spectrum get and stay connected.

So there you have it- a quick checklist to ensure you are on the path to an aligned and high performing team. While creating alignment is anything but “quick”, focusing on these items can make the process a lot faster and less painful than it needs to be. And the resulting alignment will a lot stronger too!

Over the last few weeks, a few readers have asked me to comment on “how a good performance management methodology plays into some of the newer, and more popular change initiatives” at play in their companies- “whether it be six sigma, lean, value centric CRM”, or any of the other major initiatives at play today inside our organizations.

First, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say, for starters, that performance management is NOT a change methodology in and of itself. Rather, it is a discipline- timeless in terms of its applicability, and blind of any bias in change methodology.

For years, we at ePGI have preached that Performance Management sits at the center of change. While it may appear a little self-serving for an organization providing PM solutions, few companies that have successfully embraced these newer methodologies would argue with the importance of performance management in their overall journey.

PM, in its most basic form, is a process of measurement, diagnosis, and reporting that accompanies the journey of change. PM serves as an organizational gauge, which measures both the progress and quality of change. Think of it like a pilot thinks of his altimeter, air speed and other key indicators central to air flight. No matter what model of aircraft a pilot chooses to fly from point A to point B- be it a single engine Cessna or a fancy new G4 cross continent jet- the basic elements of flying remain the same. The success of a flight depends on how well a pilot manages these critical indicators, and the supplemental diagnostic data that is available to the pilot on demand.

Case in point: I once sat next to a 747 pilot who described what the pilot was doing- play by play- as we made our approach into Sydney Australia. What he described was not what a typical passenger would think given all the dials, gauges, and fancy displays visible to passengers as they peek into the cockpit during boarding. Instead, what he described was very focused and deliberate- concentration on a handful of key indicators, with detailed drill downs available should something fall outside of “normal control limits”.

Long before balanced scorecard initiatives, six sigma programs, lean manufacturing methodologies…and the myriad of other efficiency and quality solutions that have come on the scene in recent years- Performance Management was the mainstay for any organization that was worth its salt. What the newer and more popular change methodologies have brought to the scene are faster, better, and more efficient processes to create and manage change. No doubt about that. But no matter which methodologies you choose to embrace, you’ll never reach a productive destination without a good performance management program. Performance Management is THE common denominator, central to any effective change program.

The great irony of performance management is that despite its importance in everything an organization does, it is perhaps the simplest of processes to get your arms around and master. And while organizations spend millions to train, educate, and master new and emerging change techniques, many still fail to spend the comparatively smaller percentage of time required to establish a good performance management foundation that will likely make or break the resulting ROI.

Simply stated, the PM discipline is really about providing the information and analysis required in effectively managing people and processes. For example, we’ve all been schooled with the age old- “Plan/ Do/ Check/ Adjust” method for managing a particular function, process, or organization. Without an effective and clear process for measuring and analyzing performance, the execution of each of these steps would be severely impeded.

Now, take something like Lean Six Sigma, for example- one of these more recent and popular methodologies for identifying and capturing performance improvement. At its very core is an acronym called DMAIC- Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control- a technique leaders in the six sigma discipline call a “structured data-based problem solving methodology”. Sound a little familiar? DMAIC, while hard to argue with, is really not too different from what successful organizations saw in year’s prior. Are the newer methodologies, better, and more rigorous? Absolutely. But at their core are still the fundamentals of a good performance management discipline.

My intention with this comparison is NOT to criticize companies who have sworn to follow a particular improvement methodology- in this case, the six sigma following. Rather, what I am trying to illustrate is that without a solid performance management foundation– good measurement techniques, good analysis and diagnostic practices, good goal setting procedures, and good tracking and reporting processes—few, if any of these approaches will achieve their desired outcome in terms of cost savings, quality improvement, or process speed and efficiency.

So as we embrace the new principles and techniques of these new change methodologies, let’s be careful to not overlook the simpler, and more important PM processes that are central to yielding the benefits these approaches promise. To use a sports analogy, performance management is really about good “blocking and tackling”. Gameplans and strategies can and will vary from competitor to competitor. New gameplans will emerge. New “gadget plays” will be introduced that will change the complexion of games to come. But without the fundamentals of blocking and tackling, few if any of those gameplans would achieve their intended outcome.

Such is the case with performance improvement. As we navigate our change initiatives, lets make sure we put the appropriate emphasis and resources on the PM fundamentals. The extra benefits that accrue will not only serve you well within your current improvement programs, but within the next generation of initiatives that are on your future horizon.

Whatever your political bent, or your view of the American media, you’ve got to love the recent comments of Lieutenant General Russell Honore during the Katrina aftermath.

When interrogated by reporters about Katrina-related mistakes and miscues, during the immediate aftermath of Katrina and the pending arrival of Rita, the Lt. General fired back with one of the best “in your face” rebuttals in media history. “You guys are STUCK ON STUPID!”, he said, “…and I’m not going to answer those questions!” Then, as only great leaders can do, he shifted the attention to what could be done NOW… going forward. In one short phrase, he showed the insanity of a backward looking fixation in a time of crisis, and the importance of quickly learning from mistakes and moving on. If only we could instill that kind of thinking into our organizations and personal lives.

We, as a culture, waste a lot of time fixated on the past. This is a tricky topic, because in order to learn, we have to be able to look backwards. I don’t believe the Lt. General meant to suggest we not look backward. Rather, I believe, he intended to show us the art of WHEN and HOW we should look back.

Here are a few of my observations about backward-looking actions, and where that line exists between effective diagnosis and what the good General would call a “stuck-on-stupid” culture:
———————————–
1. When (and WHEN NOT TO) look backwards- the theme I believe was most central to the Lt. General’s comments was this: There is a time and a place for a backward looking assessment.

In a football game, assessments occur at various intervals- half-time, end of quarters, during time outs, in the huddle, and sometimes even right before the play during a “check off” at the line of scrimmage. But assessments and questions about fault or blame NEVER occur DURING the play. The few seconds it takes for the play to unfold is about execution only. How stupid it would appear if one of the sports reporters walked onto the field and began questioning the coaches and players in the middle of a particular play. In sports, we see that kind of on-the-field interference as unacceptable, but in other crisis situations (like Katrina), we don’t think twice about the appropriateness of it.

In business it’s even worse. We have management agendas, advisors and consultants, board politics, and a myriad of other factors all screaming their opinion about how the play should unfold. Let’s take a lesson from our sports brethren, and save those assessments for AFTER the play is run. There’s nothing wrong with good assessment. But let’s save them for a time when they’ll have real impact instead of being seen (appropriately) as a distraction.

One more quick analogy on when and how often we should look backwards. Think of the last time you drove a car. How much of the total time would you say you looked in the rear-view mirror. Most driving instructors will tell you that you should look up into the rear-view mirror about once every six seconds. That translates to about 15% …probably not too unreasonable a number to shoot for in the workplace.
———————————-
2. Are our comments focused on specific behaviors or root cause? A lot can be observed by the questions we ask during a review of a failed strategy or play.

There is a great story that is told about a man who walks down a street and falls into a deep hole. He does the same thing each morning, with each day producing little or no real insight. The first few days are spent asking “why me?” type questions. The next few days are spent getting out of the hole quicker and more efficiently. The next few days, he walks around the hole. It’s not until the last day that the man decides to take a different route altogether, eliminating his risk of falling into the hole entirely. For many days, we might say this man was “stuck on stupid”. But he finally learned to ask the right questions, and only then was he able to solve his problem.
———————————-
3. The “SO WHAT” Test- Early in my career, I had a boss that would frequently add the margin comment “So What?” to his review of various letters and reports written by his staff. It was his way of saying, “OK I hear you… and I get your point, but what is the implication, or conclusion I should draw ?”.

I’ve since applied this principle to much of what I do in business and life, and I believe this was one of the Lt. General’s key messages in his “stuck on stupid” rant. Assessments are great, as long as they lead to new learnings, AND a new way of doing business. Most of the time, if timed right, good assessments will lead to changed strategies or actions. But there are many cases (and you see them everyday) where the main purpose of an assessment is to assign blame or channel criticism. It’s those cases where the assessment is better left alone, at least temporarily. Again, you can always come back to it later after the play is run, or the game at hand is over.
———————————-
4. Setting a new bar (measure the future not the past)- One way to get “stuck on stupid” is to keep hammering away at a measure of metric that has failed you more than once. If that’s the case, its time to either change your approach to the problem, change the measure, or both.

On first blush, you might say that changing the measure seems to be taking our eye off the ball, or conforming the metric to fit your situation. But in years of studying performance, I’ve found that repeated failures typically mean that you’re not sending the right signals. That is, often you’re tracking something that is too distant from an individual or team’s accountability area.

Last week, I played in a “scramble” format golf tournament in which each player hits a shot, and the team selects the best of those shots from which to progress. Our team was composed of a long hitter (driver), approach man (for mid range shots), an “up and down” guy (for greenside shots), and a good putter. Each one of us excelled in a particular area. We’ve played these kind of tournaments many times before. But this time, we tried something different. We decided to assign goals for each category of performance, so that for example, the driver was responsible for # of fairways hit, the approach guy was responsible for greens hit in regulation, and so on. The impact on our collective performance was significant and noticeable (I wont tell you our net score but I will say it was a notable improvement), and far better than the occasions in which we focused only on the total score.
———————————-
5. Avoid the blame game / Reward (vs. punish) failures- this one is related to, but a bit different from #3 above, in that it deals with how you treat and reward accountable individuals.

In all of our organizations, we have those individuals who try new things, embrace change, and have a real bias toward action. Sometimes, improvisation is necessary, especially if the situation is very dynamic. And it’s in those cases where you need to reward quick decision making based on grounded assessments and learning.

There was an old adage years ago called “Go Ugly Early (and Often)”. Give me someone who learns and implements change quickly, versus someone who gets “stuck” in analysis of past performance. Looking back is good, but you’ve got to reward those who can also look forward and ACT. To me this is the essence of the Lt. General’s comments.
———————————-

Let’s face it, there’s something about the word STUPID that gets our attention. We saw it in Clinton’s campaign with the catch phrase “It’s the economy STUPID”. And while we scold our children for calling someone Stupid, none of us wants to be viewed that way. Why do you think we play the blame game so much? It’s all an attempt to not be viewed by our peers as the one who “dropped the ball”.

What we don’t always see, however, is that it is just as (if not more) stupid to “lock in” on failures and analysis of those failures without a corresponding focus on the timing of our assessments, the changes that need to result, and the speed with which we can then move on.

Let’s hand it to Mr. Honore for calling it as he saw it, and getting all of us motivated on what the future holds, rather than getting hung up on our past failures.