InformationWeek

A mission statement must answer the question, "What do we want to be when we grow up?"

I've found this axiom to be an invaluable "machete" in the strategic-planning jungle.

Tony D.

Dear Tony:
I thought about your mission statement test, "What do we want to be when we grow up?" and I do believe it works. It covers all the right points: aspirations, maturity, growth, goals, and vision. I really like it.

The only problem I see with it is if you take a look at how young some of the very rich dot-com entrepreneurs are, and the way they run their companies (Nerf soccer games, beer bashes, wonderful stock options, etc.) why would anyone want to grow up?

Do not recommend solutions. Let them come to you. Have No. 1 on your list being in on acquisitions, and don't say anything else until they have agreed to do so. Then move on to other areas such as bonuses for staff, etc. Then you can go to your staff and tell them what bonuses, etc. you have secured for them, and your heroism will be noticed by all.

Hope this helps.
Jeremy

Dear Jeremy:
You have a noble idea, but I don't think that you have ever met Kratmeyer or our CEO, Phil Whitehead. Here is what would happen (and, by the way, our place isn't a whole lot different than most): First Kratmeyer would go to Phil and accuse me of making up self-serving numbers for the sole purpose of embarrassing him and, worse, circulating them without his prior knowledge. Next, he would ask me to justify the new estimate that I am "flaunting." Imagine the time I would waste trying to assure him of its validity. Next, he would call a meeting with Phil, and cynically say that I have convinced him that my second estimate is indeed correct and that the one that I handed him previously was padded because I was annoyed with him. He would then tell me to do it for the "real" estimate and turn to Phil, our mutual boss, and Gornish, our tight-fisted CFO, for support of the righteousness of his cause. And guess what? Because they are interested in saving money, Phil and Sid would agree with him.

No, Jeremy, all in all, I believe in letting sleeping Kratmeyers lie.

The approach that works best for me is to swallow my urge to maim, do the job successfully, and then while everyone is basking in the glory of the victory, point out that we might have done even better if we had more notice. I've found that people are easier to convince when they are feeling magnanimous. While it is a less dramatic method, I think it has a higher potential of improving the situation the next time around.

I am the manager of an IS department, and I always try to keep our hardware and software within current standards. However, I am always the last one to make the move. As much as I understand and support the need to be up to date, I am also very dependent on my system. And I need it to work. The funny thing about it is that "working" for me can also mean that I understand when and why it crashes. My husband, who's also in the industry, thinks I am crazy when I don't dump it all and start over every few months. Why don't I? I'm happy with all the quirks and problems it seems to have. I am also quite content, even though it's not the fastest computer in the bunch.

Well, my day has come, and I am in the processing of introducing some new things in our organization. So now I am moving to a new machine, and you'd think I was lining up for a root canal. I worked on this darn thing last night until I thought I would put it on an Internet auction. Yet, I will make the move, and I know I will be better for it--I think. I am putting sticky notes on the monitor as continual reminders of glory days.

Great column, and I hope it continues to be in my mailbox every other week!

Michelle J.

Dear Michelle:
Your letter was fun to read. I can relate to your desire to leave well enough alone when it comes to messing with your personal computer. My own major nightmare is that it seems as if every time I touch my machine with a "little change," I regret it.

I do have one observation for you. You stated that you are always the last one to make the move when it comes to installing the hardware and software changes necessary to meet your department standards and that, "As much as I understand and support the need to be up to date, I am also very dependent on my system. And I need it to work."

I'd like to suggest that, as manager of the department, you be the first, not the last, to convert to the new system. Your users are in the same boat as you are with respect to needing their computers for their day-to-day activities. If you are in the vanguard of the changes, I think that you'll find that you have a better understanding of the problems of these users--plus, your staff will no doubt make special efforts to make it right for the boss. And what they learn by doing so will be used for the benefit of everyone who has to be converted to the new system after you.

Have you considered consolidating your columns into a book? It seems to me that there may be a market for it, but I don't know if it would be a humor or a business book!

Keep the columns coming!

Pete

Dear Pete:
Thanks for your letter. Actually, I am planning to put the columns together in a book with a little bit of additional commentary around the events and people about whom I write. If any reader would like to be notified of such an event, please drop me an E-mail, and I'll build a mailing list to let you know about it. Just use the word BOOK as the subject line.

Now for the hard part. Would it be a humor book or a business book? Actually, I think it would qualify as both, just not at the same time. It's the rare business book that has lasting value. If you want to see what I mean, go to the library, or the remainder section of your favorite bookstore. Pick up the business book de jour (the one we all thought would change the way we manage) from last year, and thumb through it. More often than not, you'll break out laughing.

Sincerely,
Edith

Dear Edith:
I would think that as a person who works in a university (as revealed by the writer's E-mail address) and has potential influence over young minds, you would be especially careful about having good documentation for your assertions. If you check, you'll find that the characters (present company included) with the least flaws in my world are Cindy, my estimated partner at home, and J. Karen Lovell, our company's VP of planning. Both of these people will attest that they are decidedly female.

It is surprising to me that you would be offended that Stephanie Stone is as hard-hearted as her name. Stephanie is an executive, and you'll find that executives come in all types of personalities as well as two sexes. She certainly is not alone in her self-serving demeanor. Sid Gornish and Kratmeyer outshine her in the nasty department.

I am not sure why you are reminding me that many of my readers are women. Surely, you don't mean to imply that they will accuse me of misogyny because one of the female characters has flaws. Nor can I imagine that you think that male readers would welcome misogyny. Why, if those were your opinions, I'd sadly have to label you a sexist.