
This week we are going to start a series about the lessons you can learn from pizza. We’ll start by looking at the “best “pizza and decision criteria.
Let’s start with a simple, yet important question 😉 What is the best pizza? Why is it the best pizza? What criteria did you use? Did you base it on price, fresh vs. frozen, New York vs. Chicago style, the sauce, the availability of toppings, how good of a leftover it makes, the cheese, the best deals, dine in vs. carry-out, or some other criteria? I’d assume that if I asked you the question using different criteria you’d give me different answers about which pizza is the best. For example, my favorite deep dish pizza, Roselli’s, is different from my favorite frozen cheese pizza, Home Run Inn.
Now assume that your team needs to decide what the “best” pizza is and you’ll have to defend that decision to others. How do you make that decision? Would you leave it wide open or would you try to establish some kind of decision criteria? I’d imagine that you’d have to discuss and align on the key variables that you’re going to consider. Having this decision criteria makes the decision more objective, focused, and easier to make.
What does a series of questions about the “best” pizza have to do with anything? This story isn’t about pizza, it’s about how to try make an objective decision. When I first asked you, “What is the best pizza?” you used your own criteria to determine what best is. This is fine, UNTIL you have to align as a team. Then, the team needs more clarity around the decision criteria to help focus the conversation and drive a decision.
Maybe your teams don’t make decisions about pizza on a regular basis (maybe they should). However, they probably make other decisions like: What is the best HCP campaign? What should the Payer value message be? Which concept is best for Consumers? How successful is ____ tactic? These decisions don’t have clear cut obvious answers. How often have you been involved in decisions about these types of things that swirled and swirled and swirled, because the group didn’t have clear decision criteria? I know I’ve been there. When there aren’t clear decision criteria then any opinion can be “good”, so there’s no way to judge one thought vs. another. In these cases it is often the person with the most seniority, the person who talks the most/loudest, or the person who won’t stop talking or listen to other viewpoints that eventually “wins”. That’s not a good way to make a decision. However, once you finally have clear decision criteria, then you have something you can measure against. This removes a lot of the subjectivity, so the group can have a more objective conversation. In my experience, I’ve found that the more clarity you have around decision criteria, the easier it is to make a decision.
The challenge: Are you establishing AND communicating the decision criteria you’ll use to make a decision?
Have a jolly good day,
Andrew Embry








