The Chemistry of Strategy. John W Myrna
Читать онлайн книгу.
decisions.
The Sectarian – the individual who sees their role as only representing the thoughts of their function, department, and/or people. Caroline, the Human Resources Director, saw her role as representing HR, and only HR. Whenever the discussion turned to areas other than HR, such as sales, production, or finance, she tuned out. She didn’t understand that her experience, insights, and perspective were valuable and required to shape the optimal strategy for the company.
I pushed her out of her comfort zone, requiring her to comment on each issue discussed. This drew her into the overall strategy development. As it turned out, she triggered one of the meeting’s “aha” moments when she commented on a production issue from her perspective.
The Theorist – the individual who won’t be around in three to five years to live with the consequences of the team’s strategic decisions. (As Lucius Annaeus Seneca pointed out over 2,000 years ago, “Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.”) This team had two theorists, Jill and Patrick. Jill had recently tendered her resignation, planning to move to a new company at the first of the new year. She had been invited to the planning meeting because of her expertise. She pushed back whenever we discussed any strategy that would require investments this year that could impact her year-end bonus. Patrick was a business colleague of Bill’s who served on the board of advisors and who kept pushing for risky strategies he had read about in the Harvard Business Review that could make the company millions – in the unlikely case that they would work for Friction PR. Failure would have no impact on Patrick, since he had no skin in the game.
At the end of the first day of the planning meeting, at my suggestion, Bill excused them both from attending the second day, since they wouldn’t be accountable for the implementation or suffer any consequences from a poor strategy. The takeaway lesson here is that your strategic planning team shouldn’t include “lame ducks.”
Building the executive team
Building a healthy executive team is a process. There is no magical alchemist’s stone that will do it. I’ve observed that team-building programs that are external to the work environment, like popular “ropes courses,” have limited impact. Too often attendees have told me that the behaviors learned in the woods stay in the woods and everyone reverts to the same old way of acting the next day. As with strategic planning, those team-building programs that integrate with the day-to-day execution of the business have proven to be far more effective.
Building personal relationships through the development and execution of strategy builds a healthy executive team. Working with hundreds of teams has led me to an understanding of the chemistry of success for strategic planning meetings. Here are the approaches proven to work:
Strategic meetings need a large block of uninterrupted time with flexible ending times.
Define the meeting type: Separate strategic meetings from tactical/operational meetings. Operational meetings need to have firm ending times so as not to impact other scheduled commitments. Strategic meetings need a large block of uninterrupted time with flexible ending times. You don’t want to be close to having worked through a major issue or decision when a team member has to leave to catch a flight.
Limit members: Limit the total number of team members in strategic planning meetings to between five and twelve people. With fewer than five, you don’t have sufficient heads in the business; over twelve and the dynamics of strategic discussions and decision-making break down.
Change members periodically: Have the fortitude to change the composition of the executive and planning team over time. Internal and external changes will periodically require new expertise and insights. This is a working group, and membership is not a reward for longevity at the company. Every member should have the attitude and aptitude to contribute to the strategic direction. Thinking strategically doesn’t come naturally to everyone, so allow sufficient time for people to sync with the requirements. However, once it’s clear that this is not the right role for someone, replace that person with someone who is better suited.
Use a facilitator: Always utilize a skilled meeting facilitator for strategic meetings. An external facilitator who commands respect, enforces the rules, and has the ability to move the group to consensus is essential. Facilitating is a full-time job that doesn’t leave someone with the time to be a full participant in the strategy discussions. Thus, the CEO should never be the facilitator.
Clarify roles: Clarify the roles of participants and the CEO. The role of the participants is to look at every issue as if they are the CEO; i.e., to focus on what’s best for the organization as a whole rather than themselves, their people, or their function. The CEO’s role is to shut up and first listen to all the members before stepping in to dot the I’s and cross the T’s.
Follow rules: Demand that members follow this set of rules for productive meetings:
1.Listen actively.
2.Speak up and say what needs to be said – there are no sacred cows.
3.Focus on solving problems rather than placing blame or being defensive.
4.Respect differences of opinion.
5.Avoid cheap shots.
6.Stay focused.
7.Add only new information to the discussion. Don’t flog a dead horse.
8.Permit only one discussion at a time.
9.Silence implies understanding and agreement.
10.Finish with consensus and commit to action.
Let’s look at each of these ten rules in a little more detail.
Rule 1: Listen actively
George Bernard Shaw is quoted as having said, “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” This is an even more dramatic condition between the various professionals in a company. For example, accountants attach a different meaning to the word “revenue” than salespeople do. (In fact, I’ve heard at least six different definitions in planning meetings.) Computer programmers use the phrase “finished” differently than anyone else.
I once said, “I believe in participatory management. I think we all should manage that way.” My colleague’s quick response was, “You’re wrong! I don’t believe in making a decision by voting, that is an abrogation of leadership.” I had to clarify that I meant that I believed everyone affected by a decision should have the opportunity to provide their thoughts and insights before I made a decision. I still had the responsibility to make the decision, just one that was better informed and more likely to be supported by people who were respected enough to have their opinions solicited ahead of time.
Listening requires an interactive dialogue to make sure that people actually understand what is being said. Active listening generates questions such as “What do you mean when you say quality is poor? Give me some examples.” “Why do you think we need an office in London? Who would be the customer?”
Rule 2: Speak up and say what needs to be said – there are no sacred cows
“Why do we pay a premium for being the first to purchase the newest piece of hardware?” Sally asked in the first strategic planning meeting she was invited to attend at Scientific Processing. The predominantly technical executive team was appalled by her question. One of the engineers’ responses was representative: “We are a technology-driven company. Our customers expect us to have the latest hardware. Why even ask the question?”
Sally persisted. “But we don’t seem to have time to utilize any of the new features for at least two years. Wouldn’t it be better to purchase a used machine two years later when it sells for a much, much lower price?” Putting that “sacred cow” issue on the table ended up helping the company move from losing money every month to making money every month. Shortly after the meeting ended,