In my long corporate life, I faced this time of year with a mixture of anticipation and dread.

The anticipation came because raises and bonuses were doled out in January and February. The dread was that I had to meet with my manager or supervisor to get my annual performance review. (It was never clear if these meetings were more painful to them or to me.)

Having been on both sides of the review, I know that many of the meetings were neither helpful nor satisfying.

Why? There is the usual fallacy that feedback given once a year (versus frequently) is effective. (Have you ever noticed that the once-a-year variety is often focused on what happened in the last month?) Another common failing occurs when the review meeting is a one-way communication. That is, the manager “announces” to a passive employee the corporate numerical judgment of the employee’s performance. What about those numbers? You know, the manager gives you a score in each performance area. They tell you that your organization skills are a four. Meanwhile, your innovation rating is 3.75. What do you do with such scores? We could go on and on about the weaknesses of these systems. My blood pressure is being to rise just recalling those days. Repeat, must be calm …

Still, the ideas behind the annual feedback cycle are laudable.

One principle is that the employee deserves honest feedback about their performance. It is even better to have an ongoing feedback dialog throughout the year. Secondly, it is equally important that the organization declare what is important. Many times, the definition of performance categories and scales for the performance signal what is important. Ideally, the categories are highly tailored to specific jobs. That way, the feedback is far more targeted and (potentially) useful. When done well, the review transmits useful information in both directions.

What would a good review for a competitive intelligence person look like?

This is the review that I would give if I was the strategy manager (customer of competitive intelligence) and the one I would like to get if I was the competitive intelligence manager. It contains a difficult set of questions. They are difficult because they are intended to focus on value and impact versus activities and tools. There are 10 fundamental performance areas abd 50 questions to discuss.

The archetypical strategy story goes something like this …

“A small gathering of senior leaders is convened at a secluded site. The atmosphere is serious. An important decision is needed. Everyone there knows the competitors. They are attacking. Some of their attacks have been beaten back. As for the others, well, that is why the meeting is so urgent. The leader stands to speak. We must counterattack. Our stockholders and employees depend on our decisions. The organization must be aligned around a common strategy. What is that strategy to be? So many actions, priorities and resources must be congruent with it. It is time to act. Here is what we are going to do.”

When this scenario (or one like it) occurs, some days or weeks later various parts of the organization get their new assignments. Sales must target new customers. Perhaps their incentive programs are adjusted to reflect the new priorities. Marketing must adapt the product line messages to feature new attributes of the augmented product. Engineering must invest in different technologies to support new product features. Meanwhile, competitive intelligence gets new marching orders to track and report on new competitors and markets.

This is top-down strategy development. Sometimes this works spectacularly well.

I was reading through the news the other day and came across the Time Magazine website. Time has posted an exhaustive set of Top 10 lists covering the past year (The Top 10 Everything of 2009). For instance, there is a list for the top 10 songs, a list for the top 10 movies and a list for the top 10 new species (glad someone is counting and ranking them!).

There are also lists about negative things. For example, there are the top 10 political gaffes, the top 10 worst business deals and the top 10 awkward moments. It is fun to read such things because  mistakes often standout as much or more than accomplishments. The mistakes are sometimes funny, occasionally painful and almost always useful for learning (even when we did not make them ourselves).

It has taken me a long time to value mistakes in my professional life appropriately. Although they can still make me feel bad and they are never my goal, I finally have accepted that they are the inevitable but needed fuel for improvement. Why not embrace them, learn from them and move on? Thus, my new motto has become:

Try many things, fail fast, learn quickly and succeed sooner.

In that spirit, here are my top 10 competitive intelligence mistakes. (Perhaps I will write my top 10 successes later.)

A CEO faces a decision about whether to make an investment in a new product line that requires significant capital. Does he need any competitive intelligence?

A General Manager must decide the complete range of activities to implement to enter a new market segment. Does she need competitive intelligence?

The Marketing vice president struggles to clarify the winning proposition for the key brand of the company. Does his organization need competitive intelligence?

It is easy to answer “yes” to these scenarios. Each decision-maker faces choices that affect their organizations and, ultimately, influence their chances for success. However, the choices are rarely simple. For example, favoring one approach means that another must be deemphasized leading to disruptions in the organizational roles and responsibilities. Changes often imply new investments, processes and skills. These things cost precious money, time and energy that must be deducted from a finite “bank” within the company. Moreover, other stakeholders assert their importance along vectors independent of competition. For instance, owners, regulatory agencies, communities and others regularly inject their priorities into the mix considered by senior managers.

Since competitive intelligence is only one of the voices in the mix, how can it be effective (and not be unwisely drowned out)?

Here are three ideas to consider.