Revised thoughts from my previous post.
In many organizations today, strategy has become increasing sophisticated as companies struggle with the complexities and variables in the market. We often believe that a complex environment requires a complex strategy; this is far from the truth. In practice, complex strategies become nightmares to execute because if it's difficult to explain, it will be nearly impossible to get an organization engaged and supporting it. A good strategy comes in layers with simplicity at the most visible point. When you can simplify your strategy so that nearly everyone's efforts can be aligned to it in some way, you can dramatically improve results sometimes in a short period of time. Simplicity makes strategy difficult to formulate and execute, not complexity. The more complex and detailed a strategy is, the more likely it will fail to ignite the kind of action that delivers results.
Everyone talks about the importance of aligning strategy with results and establishing accountability and metrics to drive performance, but how many companies actually do this? Based on informal discussions I've had with executives over the years, the anecdotal evidence would lead one to conclude that few companies actually achieve this degree of alignment. In my experience, one of the most significant challenges facing strategy practitioners and executives is translating strategic elements into operational plans down to and including front line employees. This process is made more difficult as the size of the organization grows. For example, a large company's strategy may seem abstract when they attempt to cram their entire strategic plan into something that is compiled and extrapolated from the many (often diverse) operating businesses. This kind of bottom-up/top-down process (much like a yo-yo) can result in a corporate level strategy that has no meat to it and could describe any number of companies by simply removing the company logo and replacing it with another. On the other hand, a plan may be very complex with lots of moving parts broken into an excruciating degree of detail. I've seen plans at the corporate level that came equipped with several dozen 'strategic objectives' that after propagated to the LOB level grew to so many objectives that it required an entirely new process to track them all. Really???
Another challenge is in the translation process itself. Even when there is a strong strategic plan at the company/corporate level, it often loses its impact as strategic objectives undergo a progression of translations when propagated. Many companies attempt to cascade objectives through their performance management systems, but without context, employees may not understand the significance of an objective with respect to strategic execution. Complicating the process is that managers often lack strategic acumen skills and knowledge and can therefore mis-translate an objective. It's very similar to the exercise most of us have gone through where a fact is whispered at one end of a line of people and passed along - more times than not, what was put in at one end isn't what comes out on the other. If your strategic objectives are that critical to your success (and they should be), wouldn't it make sense to ensure that those objectives are accurately and effectively communicated and applied throughout?
What can an executive or strategy leader do to improve execution consistency of their strategy? First, each organization is unique in many ways and culture and context are vitally important. What worked well in one group may not be a simple lift and reuse in another. There are however some basic principles to consider.
1. Wherever possible, leverage the diversity of your workforce in the strategy development phase. Employees across the wide range of skills, levels, and functions each have a unique perspective on the business. Engaging them directly can help you understand how particular strategy elements appear and are interpreted by others. Don't wait until you finalize your strategy to do this.
2. Find a strategic leader in each major part of the organization and ask them to be responsible for interpreting and translating for their respective areas. When you need something translated accurately, you don't typically pick someone who has a casual command of the language - you use an expert.
3. Don't consider communicating your strategic plan at employee briefings, all-hands, or other media forms sufficient to meeting the need. In fact, if all you do is brief the same plan you use at the executive level or with investors, you may be doing more harm than good. People want and need to see themselves in the plan. Therefore, care should be exercised to make the plan relevant and useful in the context of people's work.
4. Lastly, make sure people know where they can help. Connect the work they do with the direction and success of the company. Align performance management and reward systems in ways that allow people to see the direct path from effort to objective. Keep it simple.
Another challenge is in the translation process itself. Even when there is a strong strategic plan at the company/corporate level, it often loses its impact as strategic objectives undergo a progression of translations when propagated. Many companies attempt to cascade objectives through their performance management systems, but without context, employees may not understand the significance of an objective with respect to strategic execution. Complicating the process is that managers often lack strategic acumen skills and knowledge and can therefore mis-translate an objective. It's very similar to the exercise most of us have gone through where a fact is whispered at one end of a line of people and passed along - more times than not, what was put in at one end isn't what comes out on the other. If your strategic objectives are that critical to your success (and they should be), wouldn't it make sense to ensure that those objectives are accurately and effectively communicated and applied throughout?
What can an executive or strategy leader do to improve execution consistency of their strategy? First, each organization is unique in many ways and culture and context are vitally important. What worked well in one group may not be a simple lift and reuse in another. There are however some basic principles to consider.
1. Wherever possible, leverage the diversity of your workforce in the strategy development phase. Employees across the wide range of skills, levels, and functions each have a unique perspective on the business. Engaging them directly can help you understand how particular strategy elements appear and are interpreted by others. Don't wait until you finalize your strategy to do this.
2. Find a strategic leader in each major part of the organization and ask them to be responsible for interpreting and translating for their respective areas. When you need something translated accurately, you don't typically pick someone who has a casual command of the language - you use an expert.
3. Don't consider communicating your strategic plan at employee briefings, all-hands, or other media forms sufficient to meeting the need. In fact, if all you do is brief the same plan you use at the executive level or with investors, you may be doing more harm than good. People want and need to see themselves in the plan. Therefore, care should be exercised to make the plan relevant and useful in the context of people's work.
4. Lastly, make sure people know where they can help. Connect the work they do with the direction and success of the company. Align performance management and reward systems in ways that allow people to see the direct path from effort to objective. Keep it simple.
Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth. Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action. To learn more, visit www.connect2action.com or email at info@connect2action.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment