Communication skills are dynamic and in the business environment they are very difficult to measure and are often undervalued. Effective communication not only minimizes time, cost and workflow, it also leads to increased client satisfaction. Communication includes tone, style, and format and is most often the determining factor in failed audits. Here is the problem; people communicate differently from one another and often times are polar opposites. Below are a few thoughts on communication protocols and communication styles.

A strong service delivery methodology lays the foundation for an audit team to communicate consistently and effectively across all engagements. Key steps that include a scope meeting and standardized documents like the scope memo create structure and are tools of communication between the audit team and business owners. For example at an audit’s inception the audit objectives, high-level procedures, and deliverables are documented and agreed upon. With a clear understanding held by both the audit team and the business owners the likelihood of the audit succeeding is vastly improved.

Communication style includes format and tone and is the second key to executing audits, especially Internal Audit audits. In most instances a formal report is written and presented to executive management, the BOD and possibly the actual business owners. However, at each level there is a different style of communication with varying amounts of detail. For example, typically during the course of an audit smaller findings are not included in the formal report. These informal findings often times are communicated verbally to the business owner, but not necessarily to executive management and probably never to the BOD.

Be careful with Email! Email is not the preferred method to communicate issues, especially technical issues. First, let’s not confuse email with a formal written report. The processes to write an email compared to an audit report is the difference between making a paper airplane and a real one. Emails are also more difficult to control. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen simple issues turn into catastrophes because either an email was written in haste or misunderstood. Often times it was a combination of both. As an auditor a little courage must be exercised to pick up the phone or conduct a meeting to discuss issues face to face.

Without the proper protocols or effective means of communication Internal Audit projects can become painful experiences for both the auditee and the auditor. With them, sucess is more likely and easier to achieve.

Alright, I admit it, I didn’t think that I would get myself excited about these resolutions but to my surprise, they are keeping me busy.  I can honestly say that, with a smile on my face, these goals have already impacted my personal and professional lives.  Here’s how:

1. Invest in my Network – Following my own advice, I responded to a friend’s introduction to a job seeker with the invitation to meet and discuss his search.  I took the rational approach that I can’t recommend anyone I didn’t know or at least had met in person.  After meeting with him and confirming my original thought that he was someone I could recommend to my network, I got to work and facilitated three good leads for him that may lead to a specific opportunity but will certainly strengthen his network.  I have followed up on two other ideas to introduce good people into my network and “pay it forward” with solid opportunities for them to follow.  Regardless of what I get back in tangible leads or opportunities, my return to date has been simple.  I feel better about myself.  The rest will come in due time, if it comes at all.  At this point, the smile on my face doesn’t require much more support to stay there all day.
2. Ask the Question – OK, it may be a form of self-promotion (I have told several people to check out this specific resolution on my blog) but I have used this resolution at least a half dozen times including twice this morning.  I go into my enthusiastic “rant” that the only way to get a “yes” is to ask the question (bringing up the Wayne Gretzky quote that “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take”) and I get immediate buy-in.  Without knowing it at the time, the statement crystallizes a logical and simple default that has worked wonders for me over the last three weeks.
3. Be Prepared – Nothing has really changed in my life over the last month on this one.  My scout training has always kept this default in my everyday life.  I hope that it is for others. 
4. More Balance, Less Juggling – I still haven’t worked out in January (I’m hoping to head to the gym tonight!) but I’m trying hard to keep this balanced approach front and center.  It is a bit harder at home with overactive 5-year old twin boys and a barking dog but my wife and I certainly see this default as the ultimate goal and continue to strengthen our partnership in being on the same page in getting there.  At work, I continue to work with my team and get them more responsibilities that, in the end, will create greater team balance and less fire drills.
5. Enjoy the Moment; then Move Forward – I’m working on this one as well.  No real specific successes in the last few weeks to savor other than the smile on my boys’ faces, the twinkle in my wife’s eye and the soulful enjoyment my dog gets in trying to give me a kiss.  I’m loved at home and respected at work and I have been enjoying these special moments knowing they will continue to come with hard work and appreciation for what I have.  Philosophical; yes.  Sappy; maybe.  The right way to live each day; absolutely.

More to come; let me know what you think.  Email is jorlando@frankrimerman.com.  Remember, “there are no stupid questions.”

I’m not in the habit of sticking to my personal resolutions each year.  The list always seems to be the same (lose weight, exercise more) and the effort usually breaks down by the middle of January.  However, this year, I’m refining my list to one that is both personally and professionally focused and includes goals that I can get excited about and embrace throughout the year.  Here it goes, my top five resolutions for 2010:

1. Invest in my Network – Having been on both sides of the “job transition” table in my career, I know how tough it is to find a job when you don’t have one.  My goal is to leverage my personal and professional network to sniff out opportunities where I can recommend good people who are currently out of work or looking to move on to new challenges.  What better return can you have on “investing” in your network than putting a qualified friend or previous co-worker in touch with a personal or professional contact who is looking for good people to hire?  A positive recommendation can strengthen the relationship and only make you look better to that individual and his/her firm.  The investment has risk (there may not be a match or, once hired, they may leave for another job after 6 months) but if you spend the time to think through the circumstances and potential for a match before you make the connection, the downside is minimal.  I successfully buy gifts the same way.
2. Ask the Question – While I try to live by the rule a high school teacher instilled that “there are no stupid questions”, reality has set in over the last 25 years and I found out that the world is full of them.  And sadly, there are answers to these stupid questions.  Sign up for a twitter account to find out the answer to that all-important question; what is Paris Hilton really thinking about today?   The trick to “asking the question”; having the confidence to ask it and not being afraid of “no.”  Can we set up a time to meet to discuss our firm and services that may be right for your company?  Are there any clients who you would feel comfortable recommending me and our firm?  What can we do to help you?
3. Be Prepared – Yes, the Boy Scouts of America motto.  As an Eagle Scout (once a Boy Scout, always an Eagle Scout), I sometimes live my life like I’m preparing to cook dinner over an open fire.  Have a menu and a plan but be prepared for anything and adapt to the conditions.  Preparing for any situation requires a combination of flexibility, confidence, humility and perseverance.  It doesn’t require thinking through every scenario in our head to the point of being overwhelmed.  This advice to myself means going into a meeting with an agenda, goals and planned takeaways but having the ability to ride the wave of conversation and go off point every now and then when needed.
4. More Balance, Less Juggling – I believe that balance requires an understanding of the big picture and juggling requires a focus on everything at once.  Watch a five year old ride a bike.  When they stop focusing on pedaling, steering, stopping, ringing the bell and looking ahead all at the same time, they move away from the requirements of the task and start riding the bike.  I continue to believe that balance in life requires a step outside the box, a walk around the block and sometimes a soundtrack to sing along to as we work and play.  There will always be deadlines and fire drills at home and work that make life hectic; understanding the big picture allows us to take a deep breath, ride the bike and have some fun.
5. Enjoy the Moment; then Move Forward – Success is a series of little victories that guide us down a path we hope to follow.  I often see these little victories as a means to a bigger end.  What I don’t do as often as I should is enjoy the victory before I move on.  I don’t think that it is selfish or inappropriate to do something extraordinary and then step back and tell yourself; “good job.”  These moments should be savored and they are the glue that makes our eventual success stand the test of time.  And the best victories are the ones we share with friends, family and co-workers.  Moving forward should focus on the “end” but recognize the “means” as the breeding ground for confidence, fun and eventual success.

That’s it.  I will let you know how closely I stick to these over the next 12 months.  May we all have a happy and healthy 2010.

In 2010, SOX as we know it may undergo a dramatic change.  There are two pending events about the Act that directly impact who it affects and how it is administered.  The first may eliminate a large number of companies that need to comply with the section 404(b) of the Act; the other may restructure the Act all together.

The first topic deals with businesses below $75 million in market capitalization and their requirement to comply with section 404(b), the requirement for independent auditors to attest the effectiveness of management’s assessment of internal controls.  In October 2009, the SEC once again extended the deadline for non-accelerated filers to comply with section 404(b) to June 15, 2010. This deadline, though extended numerous times in the past, is said to be the last extension.  However, due to recent legislation passed by the House Financial Services Committee, non-accelerated filers below $75 million in market capitalization may be exempt from 404(b) permanently.  There is still a long way for the amendment to pass the full House and Senate, and as with any anti-regulatory legislation, there are numerous pros and cons that come with it.

The pros are clear, if passed this piece of legislation will provide financial relief to smaller businesses from a requirement that has already been extended a handful of times and that provides a disproportionate cost.  A recent SEC Advisory Committee report noted that in 2004 companies with revenues over $5 billion spent .06% of revenue and companies under $100 million spent 2.55% (SEC report pages 33-34.) The cons are also compelling. The proposed amendment may reduce investors’ confidence in and increase their chances of fraud.  These combined may reduce investor activity in small public companies and further reduce their chances to raise capital. 

The second, more controversial topic is the Supreme Court case Free Enterprise Fund v. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.  At issue is whether or not the PCAOB created by the Act is constitutional.  The main argument of Free Enterprise Fund is that since the SEC appoints the board members, the President does not have adequate control over the Board as the Constitution requires of all Executive Branch agencies (i.e. violates the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches).

Supporters of the Board say that the SEC has long since used the services of private self-regulatory organizations similar to the PCAOB such as the New York Stock Exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  They claim the Board is not an independent agency, but rather an entity that functions under the complete control of the SEC.  People for the reform of the Board, such as the Free Enterprise Fund, say that the Board is in fact independent from the SEC because the SEC can only remove members for cause as oppose to at will. A recent Wall Street Journal article sheds more light on the subject.

The impact of the potential changes is debatable.  However, it does open a Pandora’s Box to allow legislators a chance to create additional amendments to the Act, such as shielding banks from the fair value accounting requirement.   

The decade started with the bursting of the dot-com bubble and a litany of corporate scandals that led eventually to the creation of SOX.  2010 is lined up as a pivotal year to how U.S. public companies operate.

In my previous blog post I wrote about Internal Audit’s (IA’s) effectiveness. As a follow up, I thought I would write about a related topic, value. Just as IA varies between companies, so does the definition of value. IA’s value is situational and it changes as IA matures, varies by industry, and is directly related to a company’s risk appetite. Examples of value include; realized (or identified) financial recoveries/savings, increased productivity, more informed corporate decision making, and compliance with policies, procedures, laws and regulations.

Because each IA department’s value is situational it’s virtually impossible to describe all the potential definitions. Here are a few examples.

Fraud prevention. Take for example a multi-national company with business units in emerging economies; fraud prevention or strong anti-corruption practices is what may add the most value. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is not new, but with fraud cases (both in numbers and in value) on the rise it’s a focus of our government (e.g. Department of Justice, FBI, etc). The cost of potential fines and prolonged investigations is potentially very large, but also think about the impact to a company’s corporate image and eventually its stock price. Here is one recent case example from the Department of Justice (DOJ). IA can provide a perspective on the effectiveness of the compliance control environment and help prevent problems from occuring.

A common understanding of risk. Compare the situation above to a small retailer that has just created IA. The completion of a risk assessment is a building block to a successful IA department. The risk assessment process includes multiple interviews with key process owners using established risk rating criteria to create a comprehensive risk profile. The value: knowing what the key processes are to achieve the company’s strategic goals and having a common understanding of risk among the many stakeholders (executive management, process owners, BOD, etc).

Training. Whether it’s a store audit program or a FCPA compliance review, a successful compliance audit program should be designed to provide more than a perspective on the level of compliance. It should serve as a training opportunity for all of those involved. When a non-compliance issue is noted, it’s the perfect opportunity for IA to communicate what is wrong, what’s correct, and the most important, provide a perspective to why compliance is important. Employees are stretched thin (especially in times like these) and the importance and reasons for compliance related processes is often forgotten or lost in translation.

The word value is nebulous. What adds value to one stakeholder can be virtually useless to another and it’s up to the CAE to work with his/her stakeholders to co-develop the definition. Feedback from internal business partners, the audit committee, senior management, and peer departments, provides a comprehensive perspective from which the CAE can tailor to their specific situation. By co-developing the definition of value IA awareness is increased across the organization and the department’s vision is further vetted. So, what is your IA department’s value?

As far back as 2007 (almost two full years ago!) when a bailout meant borrowing $1,000 from a buddy, the New York Times estimated in an article that “it is estimated that 1,000 people each have more than $5 million worth of Google shares from stock grants and stock options.”  At the time of the article (November 11, 2007) the stock price hovered around $665 per share.  It currently trades at around $575 or a decline of approximately 13.5%, which brings that $5 million down to a paltry $4.3 million.  However, over the last 12 months, the stock dipped to as low as $250 a share so hopefully these same employees got more options at lower prices to help soften the blow.

At the time, there were over 16,000 employees at Google, half of which had worked less than 12 months at the company.  Imagine if you worked at Google as one of the “unfortunate” employees to have options worth only $1 million.  I could see walking the halls with some of these thoughts going through my head;

1. Why are these people still working here?!
2. What possible incentive do any of us have to come into work every day?
3. Does this financial security put the company at risk when any one us us can just “retire” at any time?
4. Was Notorious B.I.G. right; mo’ money, mo’ problems?

I (and I’m sure many others) could also look at this situation in a much different way;

1. I work with “partners” who want me to have skin in the game and are incented to see the entire company succeed.
2. We are in control of our own financial destiny; as the company rises, we rise along with it.
3. My role at this company is a career and not a replaceable job based solely on salary.
4. I will do everything I can to spread the good word of our company to the rest of the world.

I am a big fan of stock option plans and not for the obvious reason that our practice is hired to value the per share common stock values of private companies for the purpose of granting options (IRC 409A).  I am a big fan because strong, professional managers gravitate towards companies that share the upside of growth and prosperity with their employees.  As simple question; would Google be Google if its stock option plan didn’t trickle down to every employee?  Said another way; what makes Google a market leader?  Answer: its people.  I strongly believe that in a hiring situation where a strong candidate has two similar opportunities, he/she will always pick the one with the better stock option plan and not for just for the financial upside but for the simple fact that top management wants its employees to share in its good fortunes.

On the flip side, in the current market environment where struggling firms need professionals with the ability to turn around a difficult situation, the upside (i.e. lower strike prices on options and possibly more actual share grants) is even greater.  Clearly, within the technology industry in San Francisco, Silicon Valley and the South Bay, option grants influence hiring decisions and strong management teams for both quantitative and qualitative reasons.

However, these plans don’t come without risk.  Anyone who has worked at a public company whose stock is going in the wrong direction knows the impact stock price has on employee morale.  It is sometimes the last straw for employees to jump ship (“my options are out of the money anyway”).  These logical responses fueled by simple human nature may lead to high turnover, poor work quality and low efficiency, which can spiral an already bad situation to one beyond repair.  Add in the nebulous nature of private company stock options where exit opportunities aren’t a matter of calling your broker and you can see why some industries don’t employ these plans at all.

Over the next few blogs, I will discuss this topic within a predominantly family run industry that has little to no support for these plans: the wine industry.  With very few public companies and an industry predominantly comprised of multi-generational, family run wineries, these plans may not make sense.  Or do they?

The economic downturn has produced a lot of stress on companies for obvious reasons, but there is one significant risk that companies often overlook: fraud.  A recent study from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) found that employee fraud has risen in the last 12 months and that financial pressures were the biggest contributing factor.  The recession has given employees as well as managers in key roles the opportunity, motivation/pressure, and rationalization to commit theft and fraud.  However, the problem isn’t just identifying fraud; it’s knowing what to do once it’s discovered.

And, when fraud is discovered often times there is no one to turn to.  The FBI Financial Crimes Section at the moment has over 400 corporate fraud cases that they’re working through and pursuing only 3-6 new cases per month.  They are primarily focused on significant fraud against individuals, businesses, and industries, or organized crime activities that are international, national or regional.  State and local police departments are very busy as well.  I was recently told by a client that the police department from a large city (a population over three million) would not take her case if she couldn’t provide hard evidence worth over $40,000.  Translation: the skill set to execute the Internal Audit function just expanded to include forensic accounting, internal investigations, financial fraud investigations, SEC enforcement matters, and extensive compliance reviews.

Again, the factors that lead to fraud are opportunity, motivation/pressure, and rationalization.  The opportunity to commit fraud can consist of workers being stretched out to cover more roles, giving them more access to more areas of the company and fewer supervisors to oversee operations.  Smaller businesses are more prone to the opportunity risk as they have limited resources to provide adequate segregation of duties. Motivation can spring from anywhere, but in times like these the pressures of the recession, a spouse’s job loss, or a reduction in pay are sufficient motivators.  People can always rationalize their wrongdoings when there is enough pressure and stress to skew their sense of logic and ethics.  Despite these factors there are ways for any business despite their size to prevent or detect fraud and ways to appropriately recover your losses.

The first and cost effective step to help safeguard your company is to develop a good control environment.  By developing comprehensive policies and procedures, setting good examples of actions and accountability from the top down, establishing an anonymous whistle blower hotline, and a clear organizational structure, a company can reduce the threat of fraud.  The next step is to implement a system of internal controls to further limit the risk of fraud.  This usually consists of the following five areas: segregation of duties, proper authorizations, adequate documentation and records, physical controls over assets, and independent checks.  These two steps are a great start to preventing and detecting fraud and keeping your company afloat in a time of uncertainty.

In a time of recession the need to find ways to address fraud proactively and cost effectively is a key priority.

Here are some links for more information on this topic:
The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Main Website
IIA Upcoming events (Fraud)
IIA Fraud resources
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) Main Website
ACFE Upcoming events

I would imagine that business valuation proposals start out the same way as other service related assignments;

     1. Define the scope;
     2. Estimate the process by which you will arrive at a conclusion;
     3. Figure out a budget of time needed to complete the work; and
     4. Determine a range of fee to bid the work.

The work is then won on reputation, brand, recommendations, fair pricing and other key qualitative and quantitative inputs that clients use in making a decision to go with one firm over the other. Sounds fair, right? Yes, if you compete in an ideal business environment where the price is not the number one “utility” that differentiates service providers. But, at the same time that business valuation evolves its status as a profession, disruptive competitors have won recent battles by focusing on a low price, high volume approach.

I have found that unless there is a strong recommendation from an auditor, board member, investor, lawyer or other advisor for getting our firm involved, the sale process will almost always default to our fee and there is always someone out there that is lower. I believe that in the world of selling, it is always easiest to defend the lowest price, especially if you argue that there is no correlation between price and quality. So selling a higher fee for a product that may be perceived by the buyer as a commodity is simply a tough sell.

As I mentioned in my last blog, in addition to selling the quality of our platform and brand, we frame our service as part of a bigger solution and focus on “all-in” fees. This focus allows us to fight a perception of fundamental valuation as a commodity and introduce the real and time related costs associated with a lack of quality. In doing so, our argument is based on a simple assumption that more often than not, you get what you pay for. This assumption may be unfair to some service providers who provide good work at lower fees, but it is based on my experiences with auditors who bring us into a situation after they have kicked out a low-cost provider’s work product for a lack of quality.

So, now back to ROI. We make a simple case for a higher ROI for our solution by first highlighting the investment in fees (tangible) and management time (intangible) instead of focusing on the return. In most cases, the return for such an engagement should always be the same; sign-off on our valuation and the assurance (or rather insurance) that our report will stand up to scrutiny of current (Board and auditors) and future (the IRS, the SEC) readers and reviewers. So if the return remains relatively constant regardless of the provider, the focus on “all-in” fees clearly drives the ROI. Any firm with a high quality product and strong audit relationships should be able to win this argument on all-in fees.

Case in point; a low-cost provider who is NOT kicked out of a situation by an auditor will eventually get audit sign-off. However, the means to that end will involve significant (and at times uncapped) fees that the auditors incur by getting their valuation team comfortable with a low quality valuation. My last blog mentioned that these reviews more often than not take the form of “replicating and reconciling” rather than testing. Therefore, when the audit firm is not comfortable with the quality of a valuation report, the client is, in effect, paying for two valuations and the additional step of reconciliation. I have heard from clients that their review fees have been a multiple of the original valuation fee.

So battles may be won on price but in the end, the war is won on quality and focusing in on all-in fees. The takeaways here are simple but strong;

     1. Good work at fair prices creates opportunities to do more good work;
     2. Any service that depends on the knowledge of an expert is not a commodity; and
     3. If a low price sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Two important questions asked by management in today’s economic climate are, “How do we know if our Internal Audit (IA) department is functioning effectively?  Is it providing the most possible value?”

A good place to start is a review of the Internal Audit department infrastructure.  The infrastructure includes the department’s roles and responsibilities and its authority.  IA should be independent from management with direct access to the audit committee.  Typically, the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) reports administratively to the CFO and formally to the audit committee chairman.   The IA charter provides formal clarity regarding the department’s authority to access company records, execute the annual audit plan, and the department’s vision.  The charter should be reviewed and approved by the audit committee and the CFO at least annually.

Other key questions to evaluate IA include:

• Are audits conducted in compliance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Audit?
• Does IA have a quality assurance program and are the results reported?
• Has an external quality assessment been performed in the past five years?
• Is there an audit client feedback process?
• Does IA have the tools and resources it needs to complete the annual audit plan?
• Has the IA team acquired professional designations to demonstrate competency?

If the answer is yes to all of the questions, chances are the IA department is on the path to create value.  Nos identify areas for potential improvement that could lead to positive change for both the department and the organization.

As an investment banker, I was never subject to external review of my work other than the public’s response to the value of an M&A deal or IPO pricing.  However, as a fundamental valuation expert, external review is an important and respected part of the process, specifically when an opinion of value is used for financial reporting purposes.  Over the past few weeks, I have had the unique opportunity of being on both sides of an audit review and found the experience both interesting and challenging.

The process of audit review of valuation reports is one of identifying and reconciling “red flags” in terms of both inputs and outputs.  Is a subjective input supported by quantitative analysis and management discussion?  Does the conclusion make sense relative to prior valuations, company growth, increased market concern or the decline in public markets?  The ASA’s culminating Business Valuation course (BV204) focuses on the reconciliation of methods and making sense of an answer.

In support of our audit team, I recently reviewed two reports that opined to values of common stock and found myself asking the same questions I ask during an internal review of our own valuations.  My recent experience in creating and responding to these questions left me with the following takeaways;

1. Tone defines the question.  Reviews go much easier when the reviewer doesn’t go into a review discussion with a strong opinion of what the value “should” be.  Once that feeling of “this is what I think you should have done” comes across, I start to become defensive and the conversation starts to get terse with “yes” and “no” answers.
2. Stay away from asking too many questions.  The most frustrating reviews for me have been when the auditors ask every question from their template without reviewing the report and answering and eliminating these questions prior to a discussion.  For me, the most frustrating response to a review question is “see page xx of the report.”  That response leads me to believe that the auditors have not read the report and just reviewed the exhibits.
3. The wording of the questions means everything.  My worst experiences with review from the valuation expert side occurred when I felt like the word “dummy” should have been at the end of every question.  I have always used the term that valuation is a “grey science;” not black and white.  I also believe that if you put 10 valuation experts in a room with the same information, they will come up with 10 different but defendable answers.  If a question is worded in a way that makes the assumption that the conclusion or input is wrong, the eventual conversation will more often than not head south from the start.
4. The goal on the audit side is comfort.  I believe that in order to get comfortable with a report, you need to ask quantitative AND qualitative questions.  You should ask about a cost of debt but also ask how the conversations went with management and if the expert talked to other groups within their firm or colleagues about key inputs.  I also believe that the goal on the audit side is not to run up fees, ever.  I may do some quantitative testing if my comfort level is low about a certain input but I will never default to recreating a valuation and testing for materiality or how different my valuation is from the one I am reviewing.  That process just reinforces the “dummy” experience above when I feel that the audit review team needs to recreate a valuation in order to get comfortable.
5. Leave on good terms.  I know that I will never be on the other side of a review with an independent valuation firm that is not part of an accounting firm.  Still, a simple thank you for walking me through your report and “I appreciate your time” goes a long way in creating a strong on-going relationship.
6.  Picking up the phone does wonders.  I find that calls, not emails, work the best in communicating with each other.  Context and tone are left for interpretation in email and phone calls break through any mysterious intent that may be hidden in emails.
7. Preventative maintenance does wonders.  Knowing that a report will be reviewed and having a call between the two parties PRIOR to a valuation makes for a much smoother process that eventually will benefit the client in terms of speed of process and “all-in” fees for the valuation or the cost for the valuation plus the review.  Strong relationships within the industry have a way of negating all of the negative possibilities above.

In the end, reviews benefit everyone involved and they don’t need to be painful.  But when they get painful, it can be the worst part of the day.  I try to keep an open mind to review and find that this “high road” works the best for everyone involved.