347-878-3837

Uncategorized

Here are articles on Uncategorized

Linking Vision, Strategy, and Tactics

You’re so proud of your new vision statement. It sounds nice. Inspiring, even. But the vision is useless unless it can direct action.

Your vision lays out a destination; your destination guides your strategy; and strategy chooses action. It’s action that leads to success. In those moments of action, having clear direction is crucial for building momentum. If your organization is like most, you spent weeks debating every word crafting your vision, mission, strategy, and goals. But no matter how lofty, if they aren’t created in a way that provides direction, those statements are little more than high-priced indulgences.

Every company means something different by the words “vision” and “strategy.” One person insists that “Provide our customers the highest possible quality widgets” is a vision. A friend takes one look and assures him, “That’s a strategy.” Here are some useful definitions that will help you decide if you’ve set a direction that can truly get traction.

Envisioning the future

Vision is timeless. It’s based on who/what you want to do. It’s why you’ve got an organization in the first place. It must be specific enough that everyone can use it to decide if their work is moving the company forward. Progress towards the vision must be measurable. A vision is independent of specific competition, and while it may mention the customer, it must guide even someone who doesn’t know the customers’ mind. The best visions imply whom the company serves, what it provides, and what distinguishes it from other companies providing the same products and services. Vision sets the broad direction. It says, “Go west, young man.”

Wrong: We will provide exceptional products and services that our customers value.

This vision requires knowing the customers’ mind in order to understand what the company provides. It doesn’t distinguish what is unique about the company, since presumably everyone in the market produces something customers value.

Right: We will help boat owners everywhere navigate new seas with geographically based directional products and services.

This vision tells us the market, the product (navigation products and services), the distinguisher (geographically based), and the progress measurement (delight).

The strategy thing

Strategy links the destination (vision) with current reality. Strategy applies to the whole company, and answers the question “How will we reach our vision, given current market conditions, competitive scenario, regulatory environment, etc.?” Strategy is narrower than vision, but broad enough to guide companywide organization structure, hiring, capabilities that must be developed, and so on. Strategy says, “We’re going west, but we ran into this grand canyon. We can go around to the north or south. Let’s choose south.”

For example, a company may have a vision to “provide scientifically proven technology to solve the medical needs of consumers and hospitals.” In the 1950s, the strategy may be doing in-house research, hiring and developing scientists, and a compensation program based on discovery. In the 1990s, the same company may have a strategy of acquiring small drug-making companies and buying and protecting patents from other companies. Both strategies will reach the vision, but they are appropriate for different competitive environments, and they have different organization structures, different financing options, and different operational characteristics.

You know you have a strategy if you chose your current path from many alternatives, all of which would have reached your vision, each of which would have required hiring different people and building different systems. If you didn’t consider many alternatives, or you didn’t choose your alternative considering your competition, your vision, and your current market conditions, then you probably have a tactic, not a strategy. If you can execute your strategy with your current people, reward systems, and organization structure, then it’s not a strategy, it’s a tactic.

The tactics

Tactics are limited in scope, typically just to a part of the company. They’re shorter term than a strategy. They involve executing given the existing capabilities and resources of the company. Unlike strategy, tactics generally work within the current organization structure, rather than changing the organization. Tactics say, “We’re on the south path. Let’s travel two miles today.” Your tactics probably won’t work unless they’re generated from a strategy that lays out a consistent philosophy for how your company will compete/win/attract customers in today’s market.

My article on giving your organization serious traction

“Flashpoints” are those moments in time when traction and momentum are built. For example, a flashpoint in creating a quality-driven organization might be when the CEO refuses to ship a poor-quality product, even though it will hurt quarterly numbers. Flashpoints always happen during a tactical action. That’s why you need a vision and strategy—without them, people at the flashpoint won’t have the guidance to ensure they can move the company forward in that moment of traction.

Your strategy also helps you find flashpoints. If your strategy involves locking up important distributor relationships, your flashpoints will involve reputation and relationship building, creating the perception of value to the distributors, and establishing negotiating leverage to capture an exclusive relationship. If your strategy is to be a low-cost provider, your flashpoints might be times when opportunities for efficiencies arise, or incidents where you can encourage a “continuous improvement” mindset in your team.

At the end of the day, your vision and strategy only exist to drive tactics. And often, the most significant tactics are those flashpoints whose effects are far-reaching. When your vision sets direction and your strategy ties it to your current situation, they provide a compass for everyone in your organization to follow for years to come.

© 2004 by Stever Robbins. All rights reserved in all media.

See other stories in this series.

Give Your Organization Serious Traction

When we’re getting traction on something new, we typically have a week’s worth of work to do, and an hour to do it. The International Labor Organization says Americans win the prize for the most overworked people in the world.1 We’re productive, not because we work well (Europe matches our hourly efficiency) but because . . . we just work more hours. That means we’re working hard, but not smart. By working smart, we can still produce and also have a life.2 The challenge is pouring time and energy strictly into what really matters by exploiting your moments of truth.

Begin at the end

Most of our time at work is wasted. Only some of what we do moves the business forward. The rest is plain, old-fashioned bureaucracy. But you can’t know what moves the business forward unless you know where “forward” is.

In your search for moments that matter, keep your highest end goal—your vision—constantly in mind. Think golf—the secret to a good golf game (so they tell me) is not aiming at the ball; it’s aiming past the ball. Be guided by the direction, not the specific next step. We often get caught up in aiming at the ball. For example, many executives aim for shareholder wealth. Bad idea. Shareholders get wealthy when customers pay good money for products that solve real problems. Aim for that. Your vision proclaims how you plan to satisfy customers. Do that well and the money will follow.

The measurement moments

Some of your most important moments are when you have the chance to gather key information. A trip to a competitor’s plant, for example, can be an excellent opportunity to spot best practices and gather competitive intelligence. For a financial analyst, the critical moment may be the chance to hear a CEO speak on his or her company’s future plans.

You need to know what information is critical and also how you’ll use it when you get it.

As you prepare for measurement moments, know what information you’ll ignore. Then ignore it. We’re so awash in information that it’s tempting to collect it believing that any knowledge is useful. Nothing could be less true. Lots of access to the wrong information obscures what really matters. Financial markets are a great example. Tracking a company’s stock price—a common pastime—is often a source of bad information. The stock’s daily rise and fall promotes emotional decisions that are better made with careful thought and deliberation.

You need to know what information is critical and also how you’ll use it when you get it. Then when your Moment arrives, you’ll know what to look for, you can go for it, and then spring into action. I’ve seen marketing departments get a critical chance to talk to customers. They wanted information about a customer’s buying behavior, but didn’t think about how their questions would gather that information. So they asked about brand recognition instead. Is brand recognition important? Probably so. But they missed the chance to gather and use the information that was really critical.

The decision moments

Often, a decision will be a Moment of Truth. In the moment that something triggers the need for a decision, you must to be ready to move.

Decisions are rich events. Your values get expressed through your decisions. Decisions communicate your priorities to everyone (including you!). Depending on who’s involved, the decision can also be building political capital among those who take part.

Taking the best advantage of a moment of decision demands that you have the information you need for the decision, the people involved, and the means to communicate and act on the decision. You also need to know when to trigger the decision.

Shell Oil’s famous scenario planning of the early 1980s is a great example of identifying and acting on moments of truth. One of Shell’s scenarios was exploring the fall of the Soviet Union. Early on, they identified Mikhail Gorbachev as a pivotal player in the USSR’s future. When he rose to power that triggered Shell to act on its scenario to prepare for the opening of the country. Thinking through their strategic decisions ahead of time gave them a huge lead when the time came to make those decisions.

Your critical decisions will change over time, which makes preparation an ongoing project. A young software company was deciding how to spend far-higher-than-expected profits. One manager asked if higher sales figures came from growing market share or from losing share in a market that was growing overall. Alas, the marketing manager hadn’t prepared that information. Product plans were made without that information, and the company didn’t get traction in the evolving market. If you’re going to be prepared for your decision “moments of truth,” know what information you’ll need to make the decisions and arrange to have it at your fingertips.

Future moments

Shell’s scenario group wasn’t just finding triggers; at a deeper level, they were finding issues with long lead times and addressing them soon enough to do something smart. Do you know what you need in place this time next year? Five years from now? Two weeks from now? Sometimes you need concentrated efforts now to prepare for crucial events much later.

Relationship building is a long-lead-time activity that can be crucial. If you’re going to be entering a new market in a year, now is the time to start getting to know the key influencers, industry reporters, and main distributors. When the time comes to enter the market, you’ll be able to jump right in with credibility, having already started building the relationships you need.

SoftSoap’s rise to market dominance is a great example of a long-term moment. The SoftSoap creators realized that competitive products would need plastic pumps for the liquid soap. So SoftSoap bought up the world’s supply of plastic pumps, forcing competitors to wait a year until more pumps could be made. By imagining the future and understanding the long-lead-time issues, a single purchase event became the moment that gave them a year’s head start in their market.

As important as it may seem to create that great new logo for the product, don’t do it!

Infrastructure investments are moments that lock in commitments that can make or break your future. A CEO recently confided that his company can enter a new market and hit 26 percent profit margins within three months. Unfortunately, the company overinvested in too-large plants early in the game—assets that are such a drag the company may still fail. When you have a moment of decision or implementation with huge long-term consequences, it’s worth the time to focus on making the right decision.

Look across all business areas

When you’re searching for your most important moments, remember to consider the entire business. We often think first of areas we know well, and forget others. But the best leverage points rarely cluster in one functional place. Sometimes you may focus efforts on finishing development for a trade show. Then, emphasis shifts to landing a key distribution contract. Next, your most important moment may be when your first reviewer receives and uses your product. Your job is aligning all your efforts behind each moment so you squeeze every bit of value from your significant events and decisions.

Moments that don’t matter

Your goal here is really to tease out the moments when your actions really matter, and concentrate on those. That’s only half the battle, however. The biggest challenge can be in dropping efforts on the moments that don’t matter.

Human beings have a weird habit of creating projects and initiatives that never die. Once something is under way, we want to keep it alive no matter how useless it is. Resist! As important as it may seem to create that great new logo for the product, don’t do it! Face facts: The logo won’t make or break a product launch. A product that doesn’t solve the problem, will. Be ruthless about putting limited resources—including your time—into only those moments linked directly to success.

Concentrate on high-leverage moments

Remember our goal is achieving more by doing less. You may identify more moments of truth than you possibly have time to pursue. Choose between them by putting your efforts where the leverage is greatest, where you get the biggest bang for the buck.

Leverage is simply the biggest return for your effort. If you have three public events you can speak at, one to a group of customers, one to a group of the most influential industry distributors, and one to your local bridge club, chances are that the distributors will be your best bet. Why? Because if ten distributors are impressed, they can help you reach thousands of others.

At the end of the day, results matter—not efforts. When an important initiative isn’t gaining traction, or when you’re starting something new, the secret lies in “micro-focusing” on the moments that make a difference. If you know where you’re going, you can put your effort into just the measurements, decisions, and long-term important initiatives that will let you move ahead with results and not merely hard work.

© 2004 by Stever Robbins. All rights reserved in all media.

See other stories in this series.

Making it Right with Wronged Employees

QuestionAn executive team laid off a group of employees here in Canada in order to outsource to an Asian country. They can’t find talent in the new country, work has stalled, and management tries to cajole laid-off employees (all talented, experienced peak performers) to return. The laid-off employees demand a written apology from the management and request that some executives be fired.

My question: Should upper management issue an apology and suck it up and try to get their best talent back?

AnswerThis is a Moment of Truth for your upper management. What they do will send a clear message to the company. Before we explore what to do, let’s explore how management arrived at this difficult place.

The employee point of view

You’re a talented, experienced peak performer. You’ve been working hard and keeping a project progressing smoothly. One day, you get a notice that—through no fault of your own—you’re laid off because someone wants to move your group to another location.

Do you jump with joy, exuberant at the gloriously superb business decision made by upper management? Doubtful. You probably feel upset, resentful, unappreciated. You might even feel personally affronted, as if you were being treated like an interchangeable cog in a machine. The message you received: You’re not unique, you’re not valuable, and you’re quite replaceable (or even . . . “fungible”).

The management point of view

You have a group that’s doing great. It is full of talented people, making progress. A business issue comes up. Perhaps you want to locate that group nearer a supplier. Or maybe you want the project to take place at a cheaper facility. Possibly, you’re just empire building and want to consolidate your empire. You decide to disband the existing group and reform it in a new location. It should be a simple matter, you think, to find people to run the group in the new location.

• • • •

Managers are thinking of the business. They’re thinking tasks, processes, locations, efficiency. They’re thinking everything but people. The employees, being people, are taking the move personally. Whether or not it’s meant personally, that’s how it’s coming across. (Note: when someone’s project is canceled or they’re laid off, they always take it personally. Trust me.)

If a highly visible manager made this decision, the company is also making a statement that it cares more about efficiency, consolidation, etc. than people. True or not, the loud-and-clear message is that employment is about transactions, not about loyalty or commitment. The laid-off employees got that message loud and clear, and their return is a clear negotiation.

And what are they asking? They don’t want more money, bonuses, or vacation time. They want an apology. Apologies are what people want when they feel they’ve been wronged. We can debate whether or not the layoffs were wrong, but the feelings they evoked are real. If the employees feel wronged and an apology will fix it, my advice is to apologize and get on with life.

Apologies aren’t fatal.

Maybe the executives think it unfair to apologize when they don’t think they were wrong. That’s not the issue. The employees thought it unfair to be laid off for doing a good job. This isn’t about fair; it’s about feelings. Apologies will fix the feelings. Has anyone (think: significant other) ever wanted your apology when you knew you were right? You refused, and maybe even won the argument. You got to be RIGHT. And did it strengthen the relationship? Of course not. Would saying “I’m sorry” and letting go of being RIGHT have fixed the relationship? Of course.

Maybe the executives fear an apology because deep down, they feel they screwed up and don’t want to admit it. In this case, it sounds like they were wrong and badly bungled a situation. All I can say is, “Get over it.” Have them hire a coach or, if it’s really deep-seated, a therapist. If they can’t admit their mistakes, they can’t learn, and that will eventually doom the business.

Maybe the execs fear that apologies will undermine their leadership. They may believe that leaders must appear infallible, that apologies are admissions of failure and must be avoided at all costs.

Nonsense! If a leader screws up, it’s no secret. Everyone knows. The secret is that screwing up and handling the recovery well can actually strengthen a leadership relationship. A good recovery acknowledges the problem, addresses feelings, and gives reason to believe the future will be better: “I really screwed up by thinking I should consolidate the group on the West Coast. I didn’t value the people in the existing group, and I didn’t honor their contribution. I’m very sorry. In the future, I will do my best to make decisions taking the people into account, and not just the business.”

Firing might be the solution

The employees want someone fired. If all they want is revenge, don’t do it. Firing for revenge sets an ugly precedent—almost as ugly as disbanding a group of high performers without preparing for the consequences. But might there be other reasons for this (admittedly extreme) request?

Consider: The executives laid off people whom you characterize as talented, experienced peak performers who were doing their job well. Yet they didn’t make sure that they could replace those people, and obviously, the way they were laid off left the employees angry and resentful. In short, the executives failed miserably at their own jobs.

To me, an outside observer, the message is that it’s perfectly OK to lay off peak performers who are doing their job. Yet it’s not OK to fire executives who don’t do their jobs. In this case, keeping the executives sends a clear message that worker excellence is valued less than executive incompetence, and firing incompetence is generally regarded as a good idea.

So you need to decide: In your company, should business needs trump individual emotional needs? With the original layoffs, the answer was clearly Business Wins. If you want to be consistent, analyze the situation without regard to the people. You have a stalled project that can be resurrected with an apology and a firing. What’s the project worth to the company? What’s the executive worth to the company? Abandon the one with least value.

You can always decide that taking people into account makes sense. Personally, I put human needs above business needs, and I’ve found that it builds incredibly loyal, dedicated teams. Either way, consistency is important. If you take people into account when the people are executives, and take business into account when the people are of lower status, you’re really just engaging in nepotism and privilege. Many, many businesses run that way, but it isn’t going to build a committed, loyal, inclusive culture. If you want a strong company, choose your standards and make them consistent throughout.

Strengthening the group

It seems that everyone in this situation is framing this as a conflict. Yet at the end of the day, everyone shares a common goal: to build a successful company that can keep everyone employed and happy. It’s important to get the group back together and moving forward. After apologies and re-hirings, why not use this as an opportunity to reorient the group around the common goal?

This is an emotionally charged situation that has brought up many issues including politics, business decisions and their impact on people, and whether layoffs and firings are the best solution to business and interpersonal problems. Consider getting everyone in a room (perhaps with a professional facilitator, if feelings still run hot), with one agenda: uncover learnings for everyone involved about how better decisions can be made, how feelings can be managed, and how executives and employees can better understand each other’s point of view. Learn from your successes as well as your failures—go beyond this layoff/rehiring situation as a source for learning and also consider similar decisions that went smoothly.

At the end of the day, your question is about people, not policy. If the original layoffs had been planned with attention to the feelings and needs of the people as well as the business, life would be a lot easier right now. As it is, there is emotional cleanup that must happen before the organizational cleanup begins. An apology is a small price to pay. Firing is a high price, but your organization has already said by example that business needs trump individual needs. If an executive’s continued employment is all that’s standing in the way of resurrecting a necessary project, it may be time to relocate that executive, even if she’s a talented, experienced peak performer.

© Stever Robbins. All rights reserved in all media.

Election 2008: Blech. Where’s the wisdom?

I’ve been watching the election with bated breath. Well, ok, I’ve been watching it mainly with a feeling of disgust. There’s been hour after hour of talking heads evaluating the horse race and ignoring issues. Or at best, they whine about how the media is ignoring issues… while they—also the media—ignore all issues except whether the media is ignoring issues.

The scary part is the vapidness of the whole race. All of the candidates seem to be smart people. They can form complete sentences (most of the time), and they can combine the sentences into paragraphs. So already, they’re better than some of the gems we’ve had in the White House in times past.

But at this point, I’m truly scared. We have multiple crises in the U.S.: economic, environmental, and educational, to say the least. We need serious policies to address these problems, and policies that measure outcomes and change in the event the policies aren’t doing what we want them to do.

That would seem like common sense, right? Implement a policy and if it doesn’t work, change it? But we don’t operate that way. Most policies seems to be set ideologically, with little or no outcome monitoring. In the rare cases we do measure an outcome, we choose sloppy measures that can often drive more harm than good. (See: “No Child Left Behind” and “Test Scores” and “Teaching to the test rather than teaching children to think”, respectively.)

The current Presidential election is proceeding with the same utter lack of thought. No one’s asking what skills a President should have, how to measure the skills, and then examining the candidates against that measure. Instead, we’re just collectively blustering, slinging mud, and basically blathering on like idiots.

What I want in a President is wisdom. I want a President who is thoughtful, who seeks out a variety of views, and who makes decisions that seem appropriate for the circumstances. I don’t want someone who simply knee-jerk follows the party lines–the parties aren’t particularly competent, in case you haven’t noticed.

I would judge that by watching the way a candidate runs his or her campaign. I would look at the decisions he or she makes, who they talk to, whether they talk about the issues, policies, and solutions, or whether they stay solely on the “character” issues. (Yes, character is important. But it’s only one piece of the puzzle. I want character and competence, but the whole competence question seems to have vanished, except as an attack on character.)

So … we’ll get the politicians that our system selects. And we’ll get the politicians we deserve. By definition. I simply fear that what we deserve may not be the path we’d want.