Business Law Final Review

[Michelle Benitone]

LinkedInand 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

A business review is an evaluation of metrics and performance of a supplier program over the previous period. It should be linked to overall strategy and objectives and is the results of everyone's activities, interactions and contributions.

It ensures alignment and creates a shared perspective. By that, I mean clarity (what's done, what problems need to be solved and who's doing what) and trust (ideas, learning, commitment and accountability).

Make sure your client books a room, not just time in their calendar. I've delivered plenty of reviews in coffee shops and lobbies and it's not fun. Request the largest room available, so you're confident you have space for everyone if the number of participants expands.

A business review is about strategy. The purpose is to propel the program forward in a meaningful way. It's not the time to be learning about unexpected trends for the first time. You don't want to be unprepared and your client doesn't want to be surprised, especially in front of the boss.

A pre-meeting is vital to get aligned and deliver a successful Business Review. It helps you gather information, identifies objections, builds support and refines your approach. By the time of the actual meeting, your review will be cohesive and respond to the needs of your client.

Invite stakeholders familiar with the program and who can make a valuable contribution. Gather decision makers and strategic influencers. You'll have a meaningful discussion on program outcomes and priorities. It's also efficient. You'll gain agreement on tactics and identify (and overcome) obstacles before ending the meeting.

Don't keep participants any longer than needed. If they're only required for 30 minutes, relieve them of any commitment to stay for the duration. You will get better attendance, more engagement and a great reputation as a meeting host.

Send reminders the day before, or the morning of. Let your stakeholders know how much you're looking forward to their participation and how important their feedback is to the development of the program (translation: make them feel guilty).

If you've followed Tip #2 then you're already clear on what you want to discuss and why. Get these into an agenda, but be discerning: not every topic can make the short list. Focus on two or three primary drivers which are most impactful to your client - and which you have a chance of influencing. Keep a note of those other great ideas for next time.

Circulate the agenda and the business review a few days in advance and encourage feedback so you can fine-tune it. Assign topics if needed and make it clear to everyone the preparation required. You'll know the when, where and how, but only your client is going to know the why. It could reveal vital information that will influence how you approach the program.

So this can be tough, especially when you're the supplier, and you are telling the client to get off their phone. For an effective Business Review everyone must be present - in mind and body. When participants are on their laptops or phones it is frustrating, distracting and quite frankly, rude. Even David Cameron banned mobile phones from cabinet. So, if it's good enough for the Prime-Minister...

Now don't get me wrong, how you interact with your client and fulfil your products and services are very important. Discussions often reveal underlying issues that are part of a wider problem that may impact profitability and retention.

However, you only have 90 minutes to present the last quarter, agree on priorities for the next and the tactics to get there. A conversation about why someone was on hold for 20 minutes, or why their delivery was a few hours late could hijack your entire meeting.

Don't sweep operational matters under the carpet. They need your attention. Just not during the review. Set up another meeting for that purpose. For efficiency, I recommend before the review. You're already on-site, so it saves you a trip and the time will be controlled better as you'll have a hard-stop for the review. It also means you're leaving on a positive note after a thoughtful and interactive strategic meeting in which you spoke of all the great things about your clients' program, not all the problems.

If you've not scheduled it, don't get persuaded for an impromptu session. You'll be unprepared and also have no idea of how long it'll last. I've been tempted by the promise of a quick pit stop by someone's desk only to find 2 hours later I'm still there after word has spread that I'm around.

The Business Review is a perfect opportunity to share the success of your program. What has gone well and why and acknowledge the contribution of those who made it happen. Take time to recognise achievement:

I encourage you to think big. I also remind you to think small. Kaizen is a Japanese philosophy that embodies change for the better. Whether they are tiny steps or gigantic leaps, over time these will enhance the value chain and deliver meaningful outcomes to your program management. Approach discussions in your meeting using this methodology:

My former manager, Rebecca Pulham shared this wisdom with me many years ago and I've lived by it. When you are presenting recommendations, trends, data, observations - basically, anything - you must be able to answer those two powerful questions:

Then you are ready to implement your plan. Make sure you factor in regular reviews and keep your plan agile enough to respond to a changing environment. Be flexible and adapt if you need to. Like any forecasting, you might have got it wrong. Better to admit it earlier and adjust accordingly, than risk non-achievement and a lot of disappointment.

Who knew meetings were such a complex topic? Harvard Business Review has an entire portal dedicated to the subject. Hundreds of articles: from quick tips to in-depth research - all to help you be more effective in meetings.

American Business Review (ABR) is a leading academic business journal with a global audience of businesses, business faculty, and business students. Manuscripts published can be from any discipline or multidisciplinary as long as the ABR audience takeaways are addressed.

The American Business Review (ABR) is published by the Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, CT- USA. ABR is an open-access journal that is hosted on the BE Press/Elsevier Digital Commons publishing platform at the University of New Haven. See Our Story.

The Boundary Conditions of Optimal Contracting and Managerial Entrenchment: A Simultaneous Two-Equation Vector Autoregression with Exogenous Variables Approach for Chief Executive Officer Compensation and Firm Performance

Juehui Shi and Ngoc Cindy Pham

The South Carolina Business Review, with host Mike Switzer, focuses on news from South Carolina's business community with interviews of many small business owners and business leaders from around the state. South Carolina's nonprofits, including its colleges and universities are also regularly featured on the program, as well as many of the state's small business support organizations.

Harvard Business Review (HBR)[3][4] is a general management magazine[5] [6] published by Harvard Business Publishing, a not-for-profit, independent corporation that is an affiliate of Harvard Business School. HBR is published six times a year[3] and is headquartered in Brighton, Massachusetts.

HBR covers a wide range of topics that are relevant to various industries, management functions, and geographic locations. These include leadership, negotiation, strategy, operations, marketing, and finance.[7]

Harvard Business Review has published articles by Clayton Christensen, Peter F. Drucker, Justin Fox, Michael E. Porter, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, John Hagel III, Thomas H. Davenport, Gary Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, Vijay Govindarajan, Robert S. Kaplan, Rita Gunther McGrath and others.[8][9] Several management concepts and business terms were first given prominence in HBR.

Harvard Business Review began in 1922[6] as a magazine for Harvard Business School. Founded under the auspices of Dean Wallace Donham, HBR was meant to be more than just a typical school publication. "The paper [HBR] is intended to be the highest type of business journal that we can make it, and for use by the student and the business man. It is not a school paper," Donham wrote. Initially, HBR's focus was on macroeconomic trends, as well as on important developments within specific industries.

Following World War II, HBR emphasized the cutting-edge management techniques that were developed in large corporations, like General Motors, during that time period. Over the next three decades, the magazine continued to refine its focus on general management issues that affect business leaders, billing itself as the "magazine for decision makers". Prominent articles published during this period include "Marketing Myopia" by Theodore Levitt and "Barriers and Gateways to Communication" by Carl R. Rogers and Fritz J. Roethlisberger.

In the 1980s, Theodore Levitt became the editor of Harvard Business Review and changed the magazine to make it more accessible to general audiences. Articles were shortened and the scope of the magazine was expanded to include a wider range of topics. In 1994, Harvard Business School formed Harvard Business Publishing (HBP) as an independent entity.

In 2002, a management and editorial staff shakeup occurred at the publication after the revelation of an affair between editor-in-chief Suzy Wetlaufer and former General Electric CEO Jack Welch. The two met while Wetlaufer was interviewing Welch while researching an article for the research-based magazine.[11] Two senior Harvard Business Review editors left complaining the affair initiated during Wetlaufer's work with Welch for an article had broken ethical standards and cited an unfair office climate. Shortly after the resignations, Wetlaufer resigned on March 8, 2002 amid further rebuke by remaining staff.[12] Three months later, the publisher, Penelope Muse Abernathy, was also forced out.[13]

3a8082e126