<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:rssFeedStyles="http://www.lerougeliet.com/ns/rssFeedStyles#"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Eye of the needle? Why worry over your bottlenecks.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://berkonomics.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://berkonomics.com/?p=2717&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eye-of-the-needle-why-worry-over-your-bottlenecks</link>
	<description>Dave Berkus&#039; business insights</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:40:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael O'Daniel		</title>
		<link>https://berkonomics.com/?p=2717&#038;cpage=1#comment-88116</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael O'Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://berkonomics.com/?p=2717#comment-88116</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think a two-tiered approach is called for here.

1. Once processes have been put in place, and they work, and you have people you have faith in executing them, stay out of the way and let them do their jobs. But also set some rules up front as to when they should involve you, get your signoff, whatever, if unusual circumstances present themselves.

2. When launching a new product or a new process, then the CEO should be more involved -- not to the extent of micromanaging, but in agreeing as to what steps, if any, require his/her approval. Anything involved with messaging or branding, whether to customers, the media, or the public, I believe the CEO ought to have final approval, and commit to giving that in a timely manner. My policy always was that even if the CEO said, no, s/he didn&#039;t need to see something in the latter area before it went out, I made sure to run it by him/her anyway. That way there were no surprises.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a two-tiered approach is called for here.</p>
<p>1. Once processes have been put in place, and they work, and you have people you have faith in executing them, stay out of the way and let them do their jobs. But also set some rules up front as to when they should involve you, get your signoff, whatever, if unusual circumstances present themselves.</p>
<p>2. When launching a new product or a new process, then the CEO should be more involved &#8212; not to the extent of micromanaging, but in agreeing as to what steps, if any, require his/her approval. Anything involved with messaging or branding, whether to customers, the media, or the public, I believe the CEO ought to have final approval, and commit to giving that in a timely manner. My policy always was that even if the CEO said, no, s/he didn&#8217;t need to see something in the latter area before it went out, I made sure to run it by him/her anyway. That way there were no surprises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
