Quality Control: How To Respond To "Just Give Me a Dashboard!" By Frank Buytendijk | Sep 1, 2005 12:00 PM Buzzwords such as "dashboard" are currently exerting a great deal of attraction for my clients. Most everyone who's working to improve their company's performance management systems (which Gartner refers to as corporate performance management, CPM, rather than BPM) seems to be considering implementing data visualization tools that show, at a glance, how well the organization is meeting its goals. The IT and business communities are well aware of these technologies and expect great results from them. But many companies put too little thought into the development of dashboards.   Although the business value of displaying key performance indicators (KPIs) in a dashboard format is widely accepted, the circumstances under which such a tool delivers the most value are not widely understood. Vendors make the problem worse by promising results in just hours or days. Clients considering buying or building dashboards frequently say to me, "I need a quick way of presenting strategic performance indicators for my top management." The demand by business managers to receive a dashboard -- any dashboard -- as quickly as possible is often shortsighted and counterproductive. But the request provides an opportunity to get it done right. Finance and IT must argue against moving forward with incomplete, poorly considered dashboard initiatives because the failure of such a project could harm the prospects for future business intelligence and CPM efforts. They must be prepared to redirect the "Just give me a dashboard!" demand into a more constructive discussion. Learning From the Past The demand for better management information hasn't changed much over the past two decades. In the 1980s, executive information systems (EISs) attained great popularity by promising to meet executives' need for accurate data about the performance of the business. Unfortunately, most EIS systems failed because their maintenance was too expensive to justify for the relatively small number of users who valued the information they provided. Their usefulness was limited because they were not integrated with the company's other reporting streams. Management viewed them as offering just one more set of data that had to be reconciled with other metrics and observations. As a consequence, these systems seemed to complicate matters, rather than providing clarity for decision-making. The business need for quality information hasn't changed appreciably since EISs were popular, but two circumstances today boost dashboards' value. First, the business case for dashboards is easier to make. The technology required for a dashboard is much less expensive than EISs were, and today's dashboards are much easier to deploy to a large number of users, which mitigates the risk of running a pilot project. Second, dashboards today have the potential to truly simplify information for senior management, instead of adding to the confusion. The methodologies for managing performance are much clearer; they include the Balanced Scorecard, Six Sigma, and activity-based management. These concepts help companies identify the metrics executives actually need and avoid inundating them with information they don't need. Setting the Right Scope Unfortunately, the failure of EISs 15 years ago seems to be far from the minds of managers demanding dashboard solutions today. Most of those who lived through the EIS craze have forgotten the lessons learned, and younger managers were never exposed to them. Inquiries about today's dashboards sound very similar to requests for EIS systems two decades ago. The wrong response from finance and IT could doom a dashboard to the same fate as its predecessors. One problem with many dashboard projects is that although executives ask for a "strategic" tool, they also want it to be "simple" -- and they want it immediately. They usually allot a very small budget to the project, as well, because they don't want to fund an expensive business intelligence initiative that may not generate ROI. This attitude leads to a misalignment between expectations that are high and strategic in nature and results that are limited and tactical. Another common problem is that executives seek individual metrics that seem important, rather than developing a system of metrics in a complete Balanced Scorecard framework or strategy map. Managers who are impatient with the timeline required to design a quality dashboard end up with metrics that don't present a clear picture of corporate progress. In addition, many dashboard project managers avoid sharing results with the broader management team and keep costs to a minimum so that they can sail along below the organization' s radar screen. This is a valid strategy for initially testing the applicability of the dashboard concept, but if the initiative doesn't graduate beyond a "proof of concept" style project, the resulting system will not provide optimal performance. Companies focused on implementing the fastest and cheapest solution possible are not helped by CPM software vendors that encourage use of their products to complete a dashboard within a week or to choose KPIs within a few hours. Defending Against Misguided Managers Even when senior managers approach dashboards with skewed expectations, finance and IT staff should embrace their desire for such a system. A request for a dashboard is a sign that executives realize they need better management information. The resulting project can be an excellent test of which corporate data is readily available at high quality and which data is entered manually and fragmented. The project team can use a strategy map to evaluate how complete and predictive a company's management information is. In that sense, the dashboard initiative itself can function as a performance indicator by showing the auditability, speed, quality, and alignment of the information that's reported to top management. Assuming that some trouble spots appear in the review of the quality of management data, the dashboard development process should include the following activities: Properly define corporate metrics. Defining the right metrics is a collaborative process, and the discussions it entails can lead to a common understanding companywide about which KPIs are most important and how they relate to one another. The process starts with the executive team clarifying corporate strategy, determining the contribution that business units will make to that strategy, assigning project "owners" to supervise performance, and agreeing on a set of KPIs. But executives' definitions of metrics should allow room for clarification and refinement. Metrics shouldn't be imposed from the top down, either by management or by outside experts. That's a recipe for setting unrealistic targets, which almost always leads to failure because staff will find ways to evade performance measures they oppose. In contrast, when all of an organization' s stakeholders engage in a collaborative process that is initiated and led by management, then facilitated by a project team, they create conditions favorable to operational alignment throughout the company. And, after all, operational alignment is one of the objectives of a management dashboard. Over time, companies should improve on their first set of metrics, refining the KPIs through a process I compare to peeling an onion, so that they eventually reach the core of the matter. Metrics that are not linked to objectives -- and objectives that are not linked to strategy -- are not useful. The groundwork required to select the right set of metrics is an integral part of any dashboard implementation project. Consider metrics holistically to ensure you've selected the right ones. Organizations that don't use a framework such as the Balanced Scorecard to make sure their set of metrics is coherent can't expect to achieve value other than anecdotal indications of performance. To be predictive, metrics must be considered in the context of a strategy map, a cause-and-effect diagram of the relationships among objectives -- or, at a level of greater detail, among KPIs. Without a strategy map, a dashboard is nothing more than a means of visualizing uncoordinated metrics. Give data management as much attention as it needs. Dashboards are always easier to create for companies that have already implemented a solid data warehouse infrastructure. This simplifies the integration of the needed data and its aggregation to the relevant levels. The dashboard is, after all, nothing more than the most aggregated level of corporate data. Some vendors' software demos assume that customers have a good grasp of the KPIs that would be most beneficial to their business and that all the necessary data is already available and is both integrated and cleansed. This is seldom the case. Eighty percent of the effort behind most scorecard or dashboard initiatives consists of defining the metrics and finding the right data. In this regard, the lack of a budget for a dashboard initiative can actually work to a project team's advantage. Low funding may direct attention to the organization' s need for a comprehensive business intelligence and data warehousing strategy. The result of an effective business intelligence strategy is that the top layer -- the performance indicators in a dashboard -- can be automatically derived from the lower levels of information that the company already has available. All of the necessary data is there; the dashboard project simply aggregates it to one more level. Gain the buy-in of managers throughout the company. The support of middle managers is crucial for translating a CPM strategy into action. The people in this layer of the organizational chart are responsible for the activities that bring corporate strategy to life. In my experience, whenever a CPM data-visualization tool provides basic drill-down capabilities, usage at the middle-management level takes off. The drill-down of KPIs into relevant breakouts provides tactical information that convinces middle management of the dashboard's value. Yet middle management is often the group within a company that most actively resists CPM.. Business managers frequently fear that new reporting mechanisms will somehow expose them or threaten their power. One strategy for obtaining their buy-in is to cite the pressures that surround corporate compliance audits. Sarbanes-Oxley provides plenty of justification for simplifying reporting streams into "one version of the truth." Dashboard project leaders can also put the matter to managers in a more positive light by building a business case for sharing management data with many different stakeholders. Before the organization can assemble such information, all contributors of corporate performance data will have to examine their processes and develop controls to ensure that the information is accurate and timely. Putting together a top-quality performance management dashboard isn't easy. Managers often expect a new tool to be a panacea, when technology actually is the least of their problems. The key to success is strategic alignment -- one version of the truth, with dashboards thoroughly integrated into management processes. The best dashboards are free; they're nothing more than the last step of aggregation of a well-defined set of metrics and management reports. If management demands a dashboard, treat it as a chance to pursue a complete business intelligence strategy. Frank Buytendijk is vice president of corporate strategy for Hyperion. He helps drive strategic direction for Hyperion worldwide. Before joining Hyperion in early 2006, Buytendijk was a research vice president with Gartner.

.

__,_._,___

---

Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta! Click here.

Time & Motion Studies The idea of a Time and Motion Study is often still associated with production lines and manufacturing industry. It gained a bad reputation as a source of disagreement between "management" and "workers". However if used properly it can be of benefit to modern companies and their workforce. This is a massive field - what follows is a brief overview. Factory Life in 1898 History Scientific Management Time and Motion studes have their roots in the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor who in 1911 published his famous article "The Principles of Scientific Management". Essentially this involved getting the best person for each job and training them to do it the best way possible. Although Taylor believed in cooperation between management and workers, "Taylorism" can be seen as formalising the management/worker divide. Management would be responsible for deciding how things were done with workers simply doing what they were told. It was seen as dehumanising, reducing skilled workers to the status of mechanical parts and resources. Gilbreths Time and Motion study was refined in the early twentieth century by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. The Gilbreths' preferred "motion study" to Taylor's "time study", however the term "Time and Motion" has tended to stick in popular terminology. The Gilbreths studied the actions taken by workers at certain task with the aim of streamlining the processes involved. One of their most famous experiments involved analysing the work of bricklayers and significantly reducing the number of "operations" involved. This change benefited both employer (increased productivity) and employee (decreased fatigue). Therbligs The Gilbreths developed a categorisation system for the different basic activities which went to make up a task. These were called Therbligs (an anagram of "Gilbreths") . The basic Therbligs numbered around 15 (the system developed over time) and included such actions as "find", "select" and "rest". Each of these was represented by an icon, for example an eye for "find". The activity of a worker could then be plotted on a Simo Chart ("Simultaneous Motion Chart") for optimisation.   Hawthorne Effect One problem for Time and Motion studies is what is known as the Hawthorne Effect (named after a factory not a person). This in essence says that employees change their behaviour when they know that they are being measured - the mere act of performing a study can improve performance. It's a form of "observer effect" akin to a productivity placebo. The Hawthorne Effect also showed that productivity tends to improve whatever changes are made, then return to normal over time. This recognises that workers are human beings and that knowing they are valued can in itself inspire better performance. The Hawthorne Effect doesn't undermine the value of Time and Motion studies but does emphasise that people are the most significant element of any workplace.   MTM The original Time and Motion Study concepts led during the twentieth century to the development of Predetermined Motion Time Systems (PMTS) such as Methods-Time- Measurement (MTM). This was released in 1948 by Maynard, Stegemerten, & Schwab and is today found in three versions: MTM-1, MTM-2 and MTM-3 Mutual Benefits In the"bad old days" of industrial relations, Time and Motion studies were often seen as a tool for the management to exploit the workers. The Time and Motion study - sometimes carried out in secret - could be used to pressurise people to work harder or lose their jobs. It's not surprising that many workers came to resent the whole concept of time & motion. It needn't be that way. Modern analysis methodologies and software packages have little in common with the old image of a "Motion Man" timing workers with a stopwatch. A Time and Motion study carried out openly with full buy-in from all concerned can be of mutual benefit. Improvements can be made to working conditions and methods that both improve productivity and make working less stressful or reduce fatigue. Perhaps the best way to ensure full cooperation is to ensure that any benefits of the study are shared between company and workforce. If efficiency improvements are identified then the gains can be shared between shareholders and workers, with the latter benefiting from greater wages or shorter hours. Unfortunately too many companies today still see a Time and Motion study as simply a way to increase profits with no benefit returning to the workforce who are ultimately responsible for those profits.

.

__,_._,___

---

Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta! Click here.

Cause & Effect Diagram

Cause & Effect Diagram The cause & effect diagram is the brainchild of Kaoru Ishikawa, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process became one of the founding fathers of modern management. The cause and effect diagram is used to explore all the potential or real causes (or inputs) that result in a single effect (or output). Causes are arranged according to their level of importance or detail, resulting in a depiction of relationships and hierarchy of events. This can help you search for root causes, identify areas where there may be problems, and compare the relative importance of different causes. Causes in a cause & effect diagram are frequently arranged into four major categories. While these categories can be anything, you will often see: manpower, methods, materials, and machinery (recommended for manufacturing) equipment, policies, procedures, and people (recommended for administration and service). These guidelines can be helpful but should not be used if they limit the diagram or are inappropriate. The categories you use should suit your needs. At SkyMark, we often create the branches of the cause and effect tree from the titles of the affinity sets in a preceding affinity diagram. The C&E diagram is also known as the fishbone diagram because it was drawn to resemble the skeleton of a fish, with the main causal categories drawn as "bones" attached to the spine of the fish, as shown below. Cause & effect diagrams can also be drawn as tree diagrams, resembling a tree turned on its side. From a single outcome or trunk, branches extend that represent major categories of inputs or causes that create that single outcome. These large branches then lead to smaller and smaller branches of causes all the way down to twigs at the ends. The tree structure has an advantage over the fishbone-style diagram. As a fishbone diagram becomes more and more complex, it becomes difficult to find and compare items that are the same distance from the effect because they are dispersed over the diagram. With the tree structure, all items on the same causal level are aligned vertically. To successfully build a cause and effect diagram: Be sure everyone agrees on the effect or problem statement before beginning. Be succinct. For each node, think what could be its causes. Add them to the tree. Pursue each line of causality back to its root cause. Consider grafting relatively empty branches onto others. Consider splitting up overcrowded branches. Consider which root causes are most likely to merit further investigation. Other uses for the Cause and Effect tool include the organization diagramming, parts hierarchies, project planning, tree diagrams, and the 5 Why's.

.

__,_._,___

---

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

How Real is the Green Supply Chain?

How Real is the Green Supply Chain? by Dan Gilmore  I have held off writing about "the Green Supply Chain" and Sustainability for a long time, but here we go…As usual, I will probably get myself in a little trouble.. My "First Thoughts" on the subject – and what are to me the two key questions related to Green – are in this column. More over time. Let's be clear upfront that in developed economies virtually 100% even of corporate executives, many environmentalists may be surprised to know, want a clean environment. All anyone has to do is visit Hilton Head Island, Yosemite National Park, or any of hundreds of other fantastic places and who could want anything but a wonderfully healthy ecosystem? The story is different in many developing economies, which is where we were 100 years ago. Still, as with everything in life, there are trade-offs. We could outlaw cars tomorrow and get rid of a huge chunk of our carbon emissions, but of course only a few on the fringe would opt for that. And by the way, that might lead to a resurgence of horse-based transportation, which would have its own, shall we say, negative environmental impact (more on that theme in a bit). The point is that clearly not every Green decision is worth the trade-off. Undoubtedly, in this environment, where Green is all the rage, it's hard for any company or individual to swim against the tide – and probably no one should. But I also get the sense right now that in many companies and circles if anyone was to actually suggest there are trade-offs to be considered, it might be a career-ending move, or make it appear you are some greedy, smog-loving cretin, which is nonsense. Some points worth pondering: It's no wonder many CEOs are at least publicly on board. When Fortune magazine named GE the world's most respected company a few years ago, it cited CEO Jeff Immelt's focus on Green as among the key factors. Other CEOs were watching, and would love to have themselves and their companies recognized in the same way. It's clear to me at least that much of the corporate support for Green is as much for the potential to sell new products/technologi es as it is about saving the planet. As we recently reported, for example, a McKinsey survey found that 37% of manufacturing executives surveyed thought the risks and opportunities from the Green movement were roughly balanced for their firms, and another 21% thought the opportunities far outweighed the risks. So, you should take some of the Green rhetoric coming out of corporations with a grain of salt. (See Talk is Ahead of Action on Green Supply Chain, According to McKinsey Study.) GE may truly be interested in Green, but it's also happy to sell new, more expensive light bulbs and a new class of power generation equipment. I don't like some of the coerciveness of the whole movement. I don't fully understand it, but there is something partly troublesome in the Carbon Disclosure Project's heavy hand in co-opting large investment banks to help pressure corporations to report carbon emissions, and sets in place a number of slippery slopes. There are many obvious improvement areas that in retrospect should have been "No Brainers." Were transportation and packaging materials ever really so cheap that companies could afford to ship excess cube and pay for extra paper and plastic that were simply superfluous? I am confident that in the majority of cases, the return for the effort in improved packaging was always there, but was a treasure right in front of us that we just couldn't see. Nothing but positives here. The interest in being Green obviously has been helped by the incredible rise in transportation and commodity costs. Whether you put a Green wrapper on it or not, taking out miles driven through network redesign, packaging changes, collaboration, etc., is just smart business right now. We have to be very careful, however, to avoid knee-jerk decisions and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Easy example – certain cities banning plastic grocery bags in favor of paper, when it turns out - in total -the plastic is actually much more favorable to the environment. But there are many more examples. Most of us are aware, for instance, that the push for ethanol as a fuel has in part led to surging food prices worldwide, as demand for corn for energy purposes drove up the price for corn, led farmers to plant fewer soy beans, etc.  But it goes further than that. Farmers around the coast of Lake Erie in Ohio, for example, had been receiving some modest government incentive for leaving land fallow. Now, they find it more profitable to plant corn again. The result: the lake is being damaged by severe run off from the chemicals in the fertilizer that the farmers are now using again near estuaries. To me, though, there are really two key questions. First, will the consumer, or business customers, really pay more for the environmentally friendly product? I really haven't seen much data either way. One thing we absolutely know is that neither the consumer nor business will pay more for the "Made in the USA" product – but we think they will do so for the environmentally- friendly ones? Some segment, probably at the high end, likely would, but I am not sure how many beyond that, if offered a real choice. The implication of that, if it is accurate, is that Green improvements have to be at least cost neutral, and/or Green products must be mandated by government or Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc. Second, how will companies actually make Green decisions? My favorite example – what if there is a more environmentally- friendly industrial adhesive that will cost a couple of cents more a pound. Will a company buy that product instead of the regular adhesive? What if the raw material cost is the same, but manufacturing has to run the packaging line a bit slower because of slightly reduced performance? The real issue is what framework will be put in place for making such decisions. Does the procurement manager have some guidelines in place that says you can increase supply chain costs under these circumstances or within these limits for a given level of Green improvement? How can any company manage these trade-off questions across potentially hundreds of decisions on a regular basis? Will it really be willing to increase supply chain costs to be more Green? And should the adhesive supplier put R&D into making the more Green product instead of reducing the cost of the current one? I was at a recent conference and asked a new VP of Sustainability at a large consumer goods company these very questions. It was clear he wanted no part of an answer, and blew me off with some non-response about things will evolve. But that said a lot to me about the true state of affairs right now. That's my perspective. As always, I am just trying to get at what's real.

.

__,_._,___

---

Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger.

Do You Have Great Job Designs?

Do You Have Great Job Designs? By Kevin McManus Most organizations have job descriptions, but many fail to specify in those one or two page documents how time on the job should be spent. It is more often the case that expectations are listed along with regular job tasks, but no reference to the percent of time that should be used in these areas is provided. Why are time percentages necessary? Time percentages are necessary for two reasons. First, time and money are the two main things we spend on the job each day. In turn, when we spend our time in areas where we don't need to, or in areas that don't give us that much performance improvement leverage, we are creating waste. Second, most people do not do a very good job of tracking how they spend their time each day. This is especially true if you work in a crisis focused environment - as you get caught up in a crisis, your emotions overwhelm your mind's ability to keep track of time. Similarly, if you are intensely focused on performing a task, it is difficult to track the minutes and hours that go by. Over the years, most organizations have invested a lot of time and money in defining how time is spent on the front lines. As an Industrial Engineer, I personally measured down to the tenth of a second how long it should take to do such work. On occasion I would be asked to take a similar look at a middle management level job, but this practice was much more the exception than the rule. I believe that we have reached a point in the evolution of business where we have nickel and dimed the front lines to death. At the same time, we have largely ignored the time efficiencies of management, with this ignorance becoming greater the higher up you go in a given organization. What are we assuming here? Are we assuming that because we pay these people so much money, they should and do make sure that they are spending their time in the best way possible? Think about it! If you aren't spending enough time with people and on projects, you can't improve. It's that simple. Do you need great job designs? Do You Like Fighting Fires? My business learnings have led me to realize that every person in an organization spends their time on two types of things - processes and projects. As you go higher up in a company, you will find that a greater percentage of job time is spent on projects - or at least it should be. Managers spend a lot of time in meetings for example. A meeting is either project focused or process focused. Some meetings are training oriented, but in every case the training focuses in either on process improvement or personal development (which is a project). Do all of your managers know what percent of their time they spend in meetings? Are they working to make these significant time investments more value added? A lot of managers and supervisors thrive on 'living in a crisis.' Their self esteem is largely rooted in solving problems. Fewer managers enjoy working on projects. Some do realize that true process improvement, which requires the implementation of one or more projects, helps eliminate the potential for crisis, but they just can't find the time to work on them. They're too busy fighting fires! In order to move towards higher levels of performance, you have to shift your time expenditures from processes to projects over time. At first, the projects will be directed at putting out the fires for good. Once the majority of the fires are put out, the project focus can shift to benchmarking other high performers, developing skills, and defining and implementing innovative system changes. I think you see the potential dilemma however - if you can't put out the fires for good, you can't expect to go a whole lot faster. Are You Hiring for Excellence? If I had to pick one process that has the greatest effect on an organization, I would select the hiring process. A lot has been said about the need to shift cultures in order to reach higher levels of performance. While that is true, we often fail to realize that the hiring process, more than any other process, serves as the primary driver of culture, and in turn, organizational performance potential. When an organization hires its first employee, it creates its culture - after that, it is all about shaping that culture. We would like to think that leadership, training, and meetings can serve as the main drivers of performance improvement, but if you really think about, the hiring process is what determines the fate of your business, school, or team. This is particularly true in this day and age, when it is much more difficult to get rid of those problem employees that 'somebody' hired. Additionally, most supervisors will tell you that employee problems take up much, if not a majority, of their time on the job each day. The cost of a weak hiring process is both astronomical and long lasting. Do you hire for excellence? Some Simple Questions Who makes more per hour, a front line employee or a manager? Does this wage rate increase or decrease as you move upwards on the organizational chart? Who in your company measures their personal time use on an hour by hour basis, or has it measured by someone else? What are the reasons for measuring the low wage rate people to a high degree and only measuring the people that make a lot more money per hour only at times, if at all? Would it help if you chose to make some changes in your time measurement practices? These questions are important to consider if you desire to have a high performance workplace. You should also question the logic behind the two tables shown at the right if this is your goal. In high performance workplaces, people spend more time working with others than they do working alone. If you are going to be working more with others, shouldn't you all be holding yourselves to the same set of time monitoring and usage standards? Would You Like Some Help? Over the past 20 plus years, I have helped set up and manage job design systems in five different companies - both small and large - in the manufacturing and service arenas. This experience has helped me discover value added, simple ways to set up systems for measuring personal effectiveness and helping each person get more out of the time they invest at work each day. Failing to 'put out the fires for good' is the primary power restrictor for this power system - these tools help you both eliminate that barrier and move forward more rapidly towards higher levels of performance. If you are interested in the job design systems and tools that I have to offer, send me an e-mail at kevin@greatsystems. com. Better yet, give some thought to working further with me to help you improve your job design system through my interactive job design improvement workshop. It's a one day experience that will change the way you do and measure work forever. Keep improving! -- Kevin McManus, the Systems Guy

.

__,_._,___

---

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

Time and Life, Bit by Bit

Time and Life, Bit by Bit By Drew Vics Looking out through my picture window during a recent winter storm, I felt like I was in a giant snow globe. Big, fluffy snowflakes were falling, covering everything with a nice wintry blanket. Ah, how nice. I love snow.... all two feet of it in my driveway!! Now don't get me wrong, I really do love snow (send more!) but it does take its toll — my back was a bit sore, and it grew more difficult to keep my eyes open as the day carried on. I slept like a rock that night. It could have been worse, I could have totally wiped myself out by trying to shovel it all at once. We do it all the time. Bite off more than we can chew, or grow impatient and try to rush through, or into things. We can apply this to other areas of life as well. If we rush through things we can end up suffering in the long run. You know how I handled the snow? Bit by bit. Little by little. I went out at 7 am and shoveled the first 9 inches. Then my wife and I went out two more times that day to take care of the rest. I learned this "technique" from my father. When I was younger he always had me outside clearing the driveway with him, against my best (punk) judgement at the time. We'd go out at regular intervals to "keep ahead of it" as he said. Smart. Now, how many times do we not think to "keep ahead" of things in our lives. I don't know about you, but I do it all the time. I want things done right away, I can't stand waiting. Lately, I've noticed my attitude changing a bit. I'm still impatient in some respects, but I'm more patient with myself. I'm the one who needs developing, and that takes time. If you feel like you're getting nowhere, even wasting time, take heart. Life isn't meant to be lived in one day, or even a week. Life is development, learning and experiencing. Don't waste life by worrying about time. Live life by using time. Bit by bit.

.

__,_._,___

---

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

Perfectionism - The Dangerous Trap!

Perfectionism - The Dangerous Trap! By Allie Ochs   Just when I have something figured out, along comes another how-to-article telling me how to be or do something better or even change my entire life. No matter where I turn, I am constantly reminded that I am not good enough in more ways than one. I am not smart enough, not rich enough, not slim enough, not efficient enough, not pretty enough, not powerful enough, not "with it" enough and probably "out of it" altogether.   That's me and it gets worse. In line with our education economy, yesterday's perfect diet is banned today and my car of the year was just recalled. My time-management is out of date and my writing achievements fade against the big authors. Yes, I am my own worst critic. Growing up with perfectionist parents didn't help either. It wasn't until their seventies, that my father could tolerate fingerprints on his freshly washed car and that my mother learned to enjoy a meal without matching table d?cor.   Perfectionism is driving us up the wall or around the bend and neither direction is desirable. No wonder half of the population is on Prozac and the other half copes on some other crutch. We live under constant pressure to be perfect and expect nothing less from others. Intensely glued to information that helps us conform to some perfect ideal, we learn less about ourselves. Detached from the core of who we are, we show up with fabricated selves to gain approval.   There is quite a difference between aiming for a successful life or relationship and trying to achieve perfection. Contrary to popular belief, perfection is not required to succeed in love and life. In fact, the perfectionism- trap has serious negative consequences:   We feel our accomplishments are never good enough We don't achieve personal satisfaction We value people based on their achievements We believe doing our best doesn't cut it We take mistakes personally and hesitate to try again We are afraid to show our flaws We are vulnerable to rejection We do what we should, not what we want We set impossible to reach goals We are hard on others and ourselves We expect perfection of others We develop a obsession with perfectionism We feel we never measure up We fear failure in relationships and have difficulties being intimate We don't pursue a relationship out of fear it might not be perfect We become critical of our partners   To sum it up, we believe that unless we are perfect success and love will evade us. The biggest cost of perfectionism is our neglect of the humble core within and our failure to claim a life in alignment with our true self. Instead of focussing on our qualities and all that is right with us, we are busy fixing everything seemingly imperfect. Driven to live up to the perfect ideal we become pretentious, self-promoting, critical human beings. Because of our focus on achieving goals, we never enjoy the journey of getting there. As a result we lose the irreplaceable moments of relating to people and doing things.   Webster defines perfectionism as "a disposition, which regards anything short of perfect as unacceptable" . The torment for perfectionists is that they never find anything perfect, simply because perfection does not exist. Instead they suffer from social and personal anxiety and strained relationships. To find peace, accept ourselves and nurture the best in us, we have to overcome perfectionism and:   ·Use our mistakes as opportunities for growth ·Set goals in line with who we are and what we want ·Accept ourselves as human beings with flaws ·Give a little less than 100% and still experience success ·Enjoy the journey instead of just focussing on the goal ·Recognize that anxiety arises when we set unrealistic goals ·Understand that we get more done and feel better about ourselves if we don't strive for perfection. ·Give up the irrational belief that relationships must be perfect ·Stop second guessing ourselves ·Be compassionate with ourselves and our partners   Thousands of people give less than 100% to a goal, but 100% to the journey and succeed. Everyday people don't give all they've got, but still get done what they need to. If we try to give 100 % to everything we do, we never get enough done. Perfectionists operate on the assumption that unless they can give 100 % to a task, they won't even start. As a result, they become occupied with trivial details and put off tasks until they can make a 100% effort. Perfectionists tend to be procrastinators with endless to-do lists and dreams put on hold until "some day."   When it comes to relationships, perfectionists don't do that well either.. Single perfectionists keep on dating without making a choice, thinking someone more perfect will be around the corner. When they are in a relationship, the fear that it might not be perfect, keeps their relationships from progressing. Even when they finally settle with a partner, second-guessing their choice and being critical of their partner ensures frustrating relationships. Compromise in love as well as in life is difficult for them. Perfectionists pay a high price for the misguided belief that choosing the right love partner will guarantee a perfect relationship.   The entire perfectionist- trap becomes a vicious cycle in life and love. The more we attempt to be perfect in every area, the more anxious we get. This anxiety is coupled with a feeling of always falling short or behind. Consequently we concentrate on what is wrong with us or what we didn't do. While doing our very best is admirable, more often than not, doing a good job is enough. The truth is that we are always half-cooked human beings in transition. Nobody will love us any more just because we are more perfect. We are being loved for the passion and spirit we bring to the table as genuine human beings.

.

__,_._,___

---

Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger.