But the distinction here matters a great deal to careers — those in functions that can be demonstrated numerically to be directly related to something quantifiable (“profit centres”) have very different careers from those whose contribution is harder to quantify. Because when promotions and other rewards are decided, numerical evidence matters for the first, but politics for the second.

Ultimately it is all down to politics anyhow, because what matters to business success is good calls of judgement, but what matters in politics is arguments and strength of proof, and any (even dodgy) numerical “proof” is stronger than any (even good) “call of judgement”.

Sure calls of judgement have to be based on quantitative evidence as well or mostly, but evidence tends to be backwards looking and incomplete, and a lot of business is about making the right bets about the future and taking into account non obvious factors.

First, that’s not a priority — it is a goal, a goal that is reached as a *consequence* of setting priorities right.

But what are you selling? Purchase orders or repeat business?

People who think that sales is the most important department as a rule assume that the company is into trading, and the only think that matters is closing, as only each trade matters. Then manufacturing, delivering, supporting, etc. don’t matter that much — all that matters is to get the purchase order, and then the next and then the next. These companies regard themselves as anonymous traders.

Companies that make money by selling customer satisfaction and repeat business know instead that selling is just one step and “closing” is misnamed, and all departments matter to making money.

Similarly companies where what they do or sell is less important than cost control and efficient capital allocation think that what matters most is finance; they regard themselves as lenders and investors.

As to priorities, the priority is addressing whichever bottleneck is most significant; if selling is a bottleneck, then sales becomes a priority, if capital is a bottleneck than finance becomes a priority, if production is a bottleneck than operation is the priority.

This in theory — in practice in many organizations the priority is whatever validates the career and hold onto power of existing top management. If the CEO got his job for his sales background, he will hardly diminish the value of his background by making engineering a priority, whether unconsciously or consciously.

Currently most USA executives think that sales is the bottleneck, and everything else can be sourced from India or China for very cheap; this idea is based on the certainty that those little yellow or brown monkeys will continue to do everything very cheaply for their betters in the USA and will never start selling directly their stuff under their own brand names in the USA, just like those funny slitted eye japanese never did either .

Other close contenders are: R&D, Manufacturing (if a manufacturing company) and Marketing. It is important that other functions understand this. Our job is to support the business so that these critical functions can do their job well and make money.

I understand the idea of team and everyone bringing something to the party…but I’m having trouble shaking the whole money concept. Meaning, if you don’t have money…you’re not going to be in business. Just sayin’. And wouldn’t that give preference to revenue generating departments?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Regarding your tweet about Finance being the most important department. Doubtful, going back to the sports analogy, is the scorekeeper EVER the most important person? (just kidding)