The Chemistry of Strategy. John W Myrna
Читать онлайн книгу.
alt="images"/>The Frog
Let’s look more closely at each of these negative meeting archetypes one by one.
The Absentee – the individual who is present physically but “somewhere else” mentally. Manuel’s head was bent down to stare at his smart phone while he read and responded to emails. He would periodically step out to take or make a phone call. At best, he was half-listening to the discussions, only contributing when asked to comment. Even after I drew the line and insisted that every cell phone, pager, and iPad had to be turned off, Manuel appeared to spend most of his time mentally focused on things happening outside the meeting. (He was staring into space, had us repeat the question whenever he was called on for an opinion, and filled his notepad with stuff unrelated to the discussion at hand.)
Manuel was not invited the next time the executive team met to plan strategically. He was strictly a tactical thinker and Bill needed strategic thinkers for these meetings. Eventually, Bill ended up transferring executive management of Manuel’s department to a true executive, allowing Manuel to focus on what he did best – operational excellence.
The CEO – the leader acting in his “Chief Executive Omniscience” mode. Most CEOs are highly intelligent and very intuitive, able to quickly anticipate where any discussion is heading and likely to supply a conclusion to save everybody the time of figuring it out for themselves. Bill fit this profile and acted just this way. Unfortunately, whenever the team had reached a conclusion this way in the past, team members saw it as Bill’s decision rather than their own. Whenever an implementation issue came up, they put the monkey on Bill’s back to “fix his decision.” In addition, like many entrepreneur CEOs, Bill was notorious for the sheer volume of topics he could raise in one meeting, intermixing the major strategic with the minor tactical. Over time, the executive team members had unconsciously tuned out the noise, which ended up sounding like “blah, blah, bonus, blah, blah, fired, blah, blah, blah… “
I had to enforce the rule that in every discussion during this two-day strategic planning meeting, the CEO would speak last. This enabled Bill to judge how well people truly understood the points of view he had communicated in the past. When Bill did speak, everyone listened intently, since they understood he would be providing new information or correcting a misconception.
Bill’s participation in the planning meeting was essential. Actively listening to the discussions enabled him to understand not only what the team members wanted to accomplish but why. He was more supportive of the resulting strategic plan because he knew what alternatives had been considered. While not initially comfortable in the role, he acted as a participant rather than a problem-solving, time-saving omniscient individual.
The Consultant – the individual who never commits to a team-developed decision. Every time it looked like a decision was about to be made, Ed would pipe up with a comment like “Let me play devil’s advocate and outline how we could fail.” As if the devil needed an advocate to restate obvious hurdles that everyone in the room already recognized! This would put him in a winning position no matter the ultimate outcome. If the decision turned out to be successful, he would enjoy the triumph of having been part of the team. If it should fail, he could say, “I warned you we shouldn’t do that.”
I short-circuited this lack of accountability by making it clear that there never is 100% information or certainty when you make a strategic decision, but it’s necessary to make a decision and commit to following through. Ed was forced to go on record as supporting the decision. Remember, a strategic plan is not a plan until the executive team leaves the meeting with consensus and commitment. (Consensus means that even if a team member might have made a different decision if it were left entirely up to him, he agrees that it makes sense for the organization and he will commit to support it.)
The Frog – the individual who is so new to the organization that they and the team assume they have nothing to contribute. They expect to listen much and contribute little. However, new employees, especially those who have been on board less than 90 days, are a valuable asset. I like to call them “fresh frogs,” based on the old wives’ tale about how a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water will jump out, but a frog put into lukewarm water that is slowly heated up will become a cooked frog. Extending the metaphor to the corporate world, the other members of the executive team have been in the pot for years and may not even realize the water is boiling.
I asked Marcos, “What is the stupidest thing you saw when you joined the company?” When he paused to ponder this question, I piped up, to the team’s laughter, “The list is so long, he’s trying to pick the most important one.” I explained to the team that when you interact with a fresh frog, you need to resist the urge to quickly explain things. It’s more valuable to ask the fresh frog, “Why do you ask that question, what do you see that we don’t?” After that, the other team members would stop and listen attentively whenever Marcos spoke up.
The Politician – the individual who tells everyone a different story behind closed doors. Jack tells Joe, “Just between us, Jolene is an idiot and I don’t have any confidence in her ability.” He tells Jolene, “Just between us, I don’t believe Joe appreciates your hard work.” He avoids any meetings where Joe and Jolene would hear the same story from him. The Friday morning of the planning meeting, Jack actually phoned in to say he wouldn’t be attending since he had finally scheduled a sales meeting at the Mexican consulate. Bill told him to get his sorry butt back to the company meeting. Strategic planning was important stuff and he wasn’t buying Jack’s story that the meeting with the consulate had to be held now.
I prodded Jack during the strategic planning meeting to respond with substance. His backup strategy (if he couldn’t tell everyone a different story) was to try to get away with issuing meaningless platitudes when speaking in front of the entire team. He found he couldn’t sustain his political behavior when he was constantly forced to go on record in front of everybody.
The Provocateur – the individual who never considers an issue closed, a discussion concluded, or a decision final. As often as not, when the group accepts his passionately made suggestion, he immediately comes out against it. He appears committed to perpetuating a frenzy of uncertainty and inaction. On the second day of the strategic planning meeting, the Friction PR executive team began to set the agreed-upon strategy to paper. Julian, this team’s provocateur, immediately tried to reopen each decision. “The strategy has us growing too fast. The targeted profit margin is too low. How will we develop new products when we can’t even get today’s products working?” On and on he went.
Never do something stupid because of something written on a sheet of paper. The written strategy is a communications tool, not a license to do stupid things.
Patiently but firmly, I reminded Julian of the pledge he and the rest of the team had taken at the start of the meeting: “We will never do something stupid because of something written on a sheet of paper. The written strategy is a communications tool, not a license to do stupid things.” I reinforced the chemistry of strategy formula of what we want the future to look like, why we want that future, and how we change the status quo to achieve that future. “We can’t begin moving in a direction until we decide where we want to end up,” I said. “Rather than flailing, we will make adjustments along the way. Asking and answering how is what action planning is all about. This is the next step after providing answers to the questions of what and why.” Over time, Julian was able to productively