Strategic Execution Leadership 

Strategic Execution Leadership

 The secrets of success in strategic execution

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

Strategic execution is an intervention into the trajectory of performance of a business. It is an interruption of the current trajectory in order to improve or upgrade the direction to create more profitability and value in the business. Interruption in the trajectory of a business’s performance is neither something easily done nor an action to be taken lightly. It requires courage, skilled leaders and a series of well planned actions. Otherwise the intervention will hit too much resistance from the organization and will be abandoned or minimized. This is a common outcome, and the reason so many attempts at strategic execution fall short or are abandoned. Leadership is THE key ingredient for success in strategic execution.

Strategic Execution is an intervention made to improve the performance of a business. It is an interruption of the current trajectory in order to improve or upgrade the direction to create more profitability and value in the business. Strategic Execution is intentional actions designed to inspire others to accomplish extraordinary results and position the business in a more attractive, competitive position.

Strategic Execution

Strategic execution is intended to create a breakthrough for the business. That is, prior to the interventions made in strategic execution neither the competitive position nor extraordinary results were possible.   Strategic execution involves implementing discontinuous change and transformation, i.e., a change large enough to alter the form of the business, its performance and its position in its marketplaces. It is a substantive change that results in an appreciable difference in the competitiveness of the business. A strategic execution may or may not involve restructuring of the organization, but it should not in any way be thought of as synonymous with organizational structure change. Rather it is change in the fundamentals of the business, and will involve substantive changes in the level of ownership and responsibility by employees, engagement of people, increased velocity of actions, speed at which decisions are made, attention to the concerns of stakeholders, simplified work processes and burning passion for delivering results.

Consider the following phrase: We are great at developing strategies and plans …but lousy at implementing them.

How often have you heard this lament? How often do we come up with good ideas and then see these ideas shrivel because of poor implementation? We lament this situation not only because we see the lost opportunity, but also because we feel a kind of resignation that anything can really be done to change the way things go in the business.

The inability to implement effectively is what leads to low-quality products, obsolete technology, poor customer service, weak sales, poor returns on capital projects, failure to control operating costs…all the things that are described as the cause of shareholder value destruction. A manager once gave a great description of this when he said: “In our business, we have a lot of takeoffs but very few landings.”

This is a metaphor for starting many change initiatives but seeing most of them disappear and never be completed. Imagine an actual airport where you could see takeoffs and also see the landscape littered with the wreckage of prior “project flights.” Such a scene would not encourage flights. Past failed initiatives, likewise, do not encourage people to be excited about new initiatives.

So where is the good news? The good news is that this problem can be solved. You can improve your probability of success by learning the secrets of strategic execution. It is strategic execution that makes the difference between success and failure when a new initiative is launched. I am interested in you not having an organizational landscape that is littered with the wreckage of prior projects.

Countless studies have found that a majority of strategic executions fail to deliver the expected results. For example, in a 2006 McKinsey Quarterly online survey[1], only 38% of the global executives responding said that their recent transformations had been “completely” or "mostly" successful in impacting performance. About 10% rated their transformation efforts as “completely” or “mostly” unsuccessful.

In their classic book, Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Larry Bossidy and Ron Charan [2]assert that there are three key points to remember:

While I strongly agree with these points, I think it is important to add leadership. I say that these three points are a reflection of leadership being provided. Successful execution does not occur without effective leadership at all levels of the organization. Further, leadership must be provided over all of the time required for execution. A “dab of leadership” at the kickoff of the execution effort is not sufficient. Leadership must be provided over time and in the trenches, during the challenging days of implementation. Execution is more than a role of leadership. It is the essence of leadership.

My core message is that leadership is the key to success in strategic execution. I learned a wonderful expression called “full stop” from a British client. When a speaker reaches the end of a point or has spoken the essence of the communication, the speaker will say full stop. It means that what needed to be said has been said clearly and there is nothing else to say about it. There is no need to try and refine the point, as what has been said is as well said as the speaker can say it (and of course we all have had the experience of continuing to talk after the point has been made and finding that we “muddy up” clarity on the subject). Given that background explanation, please hear this statement: “The foundation for success in strategic execution is intentional, transformational leadership…full stop.”

Let’s look at each of these critical steps.

A transformational leader is someone who is capable of and committed to producing transformation in the business. Each transformation is different, and each has unique challenges. A transformational leader must be open to learning, wiling to taste bitter failure while in the midst of winning the war, be thrilled by the success of others and willing to be bigger than the circumstances. This person is quite serious about being and doing what is required to see that the employees in the organization are successful in bringing about the transformation.

A transformational leader is highly responsible. Common descriptions of transformational leaders are determined and responsible. The leader is willing to be responsible for actions and areas that are beyond formal accountability as part of the strong commitment to seeing the business produce exceptional results and succeed.

A transformational leader begins with self, and the willingness to make personal changes as required for the success of the business. That is, the leader is aware that he/she will need to go first in making personal changes. If the leader is unwilling to change, the organization is unlikely to follow. Gandhi sums this up well with “To change, first we must change ourselves”.

A transformational leader appreciates that they are the source of action in the business. If the actions of the organization are off trajectory or missing the target, the leader does not jump to blaming employees. Rather, the leader looks to see what he/she has missed or not provided. The leader sees self as source of the actions of others. This provides the leader with much greater access to altering the behaviors of employees.

Strategic execution requires intentionality. That is, a leader being intentional about achieving the results. This brings clarity and focus on what is required for success. They are focused on accomplishing the task at hand. Many executives are unaware of the demands that strategic execution will place on them. In particular, there is a demand to be an intentional leader. This not only includes ways of being and acting on the executive’s part but also that executive’s ability to inspire employees throughout the business to also to be leaders. Discontinuous or transformational leadership actually calls for leaders to emerge at all levels of the organization.

Leadership should not be taken for granted. Most executives are interested in being thought of as a leader. While many are interested in having a reputation as a leader, a much smaller number are willing to do what it takes to be a leader. Most executives lack the capability and willingness to do what is needed to inspire employees to achieve a transformation in the business. Leadership is demonstrated in strategic execution, and pretenders or pseudo-leaders are revealed.

Strategic execution is executives’ and managers’ most important accountability. While that may sound obvious and simple, it is not. Usually executives are burned-out by the time execution planning begins. It is easy to understand how one is distracted and fatigued by the process of planning and negotiating an acquisition or alliance, of developing a new strategy that meets the expectations of the board and investors, developing the concepts for being a world class operation, developing a growth strategy, restructuring a business to improve performance is completed, etc. After all that time and effort it is understandable that the gory details of execution planning may seem too much to face. While it may be understandable, it is nonetheless the job.

Imagine that you took a group to a very expensive and famous restaurant for a special dinner, and the waiter came out and explained that service would be slow tonight since the chefs were fatigued from planning the menu that they would not be cooking tonight and had delegated the final tasks to the busboys. How would you react? Yet that is precisely what happens on a frequent basis in companies. Execution is THE job.

• It is not thought to be important – there is a common belief that the hard work is developing the strategy, and that implementing will be so easy that it is like “falling off a log”.
• Execution planning is thought to be a continuation of strategy development. There is a common belief that the approach to planning the execution is simply an extension of the strategy. While this may seem logical to you, it is not what happens in reality.
• Leadership in execution cannot be delegated. The number of people who are involved in providing leadership will be dramatically expanded,
• Leaders lose focus or steam. The leaders’ continued focus and intensity is required for engaging others and in keeping an eye on how the implementation is progressing. 

Just because a person has degrees from impressive universities and has had important positions in the organization, does not mean that a person can actually THINK STRATEGICALLY. I am still amazed at the number of managers who are in important positions and have a limited capacity to think strategically. They may be good at memorization, impressive in their capacity to recite numbers, recite popular management theories, be charming people, etc. However, they are weak as strategic thinkers.

Strategic thinking begins with clarity on the intended outcomes. These outcomes should be compelling and position the business in a favorable manner. The leader(s) guides the team in articulating and refining a strategy to create value for the business. 

Strategy is classically defined as an implementation plan to give the business the best competitive advantage and position from which to create shareholder value. The key element here is creating value for the business. While it may seem obvious to you that the intended outcome for a business strategy is to create shareholder value, it is worth repeating this assertion. It is surprising how many strategies do not have value creation as the expected and probable outcome.

Strategic thinking is shaped by the values of those who are participating. In developing a strategy, there are numerous times when the values of the company come into question. It is often the “proving grounds” for which values are authentic for the business. In guiding a team in development of a strategy, the leader will often be required to remind the team of their purpose. Their purpose is to create value for the shareholders. 

The best evidence of strategic thinking is the level of inquiry used in deliberation. The leader’s role is to model inquiry. Modeling inquiry means to continue to explore which questions will provide the best insights into the business’s situation. The role of the leader is to seek to ask the really good questions and not be caught up in trying to answer the questions. There is a natural pull to want to find the right answers. Yet, the process of strategic thinking is driven more by the quality of the questions than the rightness of the answers.

• What do our customers really want and what are they willing to pay us for producing?
• How do our products and services compare with those from our competitors?
• What myths do we have about our products, services, and organization?
• What is constraining our growth?
• What capabilities will be essential for success in this business, and do we have them in our business?
• Do we do anything better than our competitors? If so, is this difference something that we can be rewarded for in this market?
• What is driving the demand for this product and service?
• Is this business worth more to someone else?
• What would happen if we combined our business with some other company?

The leader’s role is to see that others in management are asking these difficult questions, and many others. All of these questions are designed to confront the truth about our current situation. 

The leader must model openness to strategic inquiry, and this includes an openness to be challenged about assumptions, beliefs, biases, and points of view. If the senior executive has strongly held assumptions about the business and is unwilling to challenge these - and have them challenged by others - it is predictable that the level of strategic inquiry will be diminished. The consequence of this diminishing is that the probability of success in strategic execution is also diminished. The question to be asked is, “What do you consider off limits or off the table for discussion?” If the range of assumptions is not open to question or is too large, the probability of success plummets. The tough question to be asked is this: “What makes you think you can be successful, given your and your team’s unwillingness to have a frank, if not stark, look at yourself?”

The subjects that are off limits often appear to be a myth about the company. It appears that the managers are unwilling to engage in an authentic inquiry about these myths because if they did, they would have to confront some very unpleasant realities. Rather than confronting the myths with a data-and-fact-based discussion, the managers fill the room with generalizations, half-truths and ideals. The sad thing about myths is that they block the team from seeing the strategic alternatives that are available to a business once it confronts its situation and commits to find a way to improve it.

A final test of the quality of strategic thinking is, “Does it lead to a context of possibility?” Do those who are discussing the strategy become excited about what it will make possible for the organization when it is implemented? Terms like “wow”, “this is incredible”, and “I can’t wait to get out there and implement” are all signs that the strategy creates possibility for those in the organization. A German philosopher once said - and I paraphrase him here - “I’d rather be a student of possibility than own all of a country.” Leaders who succeed in leading a successful strategic execution are definitely “students of possibility.” They create, both in their being and in their words, a context that says, “This thing that we have never done before but that we are now going to do is possible! 

4. Leadership Is Intentional: Success Is by Design and Not Left to Chance

Perhaps the biggest mistake that is made is assuming that implementation will naturally occur. There is a myth that if we have a good initiative / strategy that everything else will just fall into place. You may be thinking, “Oh, surely that does not really happen.” Incredibly it does. What is missed so often is thinking about HOW implementation will occur. I say that the implementation must be designed with as much attention as the original strategy.

Let me give an example about the fallacy of assuming implementation will naturally occur as result of a design. Several years ago I purchased a home on a bay. It has a large yard that slopes down to the water. Virtually no landscaping had been done, and the yard was not particularly interesting. However, I saw a possibility for a great yard and begin developing a landscaping design. I worked with a very creative landscape architect, and together developed a wonderful scheme. While the scheme was interesting, it was in reality only colors and lines on paper. While I had fantasies about how the yard might work, having a plan or scheme actually did nothing to the yard. It would have been foolish for me to assume that the new design would “naturally occur”. What was going to naturally occur was already there, so if I wanted something substantially different I would need to assure that interventions occurred to interrupt what was “naturally occurring”.

Too often in business we expect that substantial changes will naturally occur simply because we have a picture in mind of what could be. We confuse our fantasies about how a strategy could work with what will be required to actually achieve the intended result.

 A team of IT specialists and consultants develop a new software package that will substantially impact how customer orders are placed. The team that developed the software has naturally been more concerned with technical functionality and reliability, not what it will be like for an employee trying to use this program on a crazy Friday afternoon when customers are scrambling to get orders placed and screaming at you. The IT team does not have those concerns, and yet the employees being asked to change how they do work definitely have those concerns. During the “roll out” the IT team brags about all the technical “bells and whistles” and completely misses the concerns of the customer service representatives.

A program to implement “World Class Manufacturing Metrics” is launched with great fanfare, and yet little thought as to how to actually implement the changes what would achieve the metrics. The corporate staff group which purchased the program from an outside vendor seems to think that all the people in the facilities need to do is “simply follow the directions”. There is no apparent thought given to unintended consequences that could occur while “just following the directions”, no thinking of what impact the changes in flow or process could have on the people or the facility. 

Inside out thinking is natural and predictable, and yet it makes implementation more difficult than it needs to be. What happens is that it unintentionally “postures” the intervention for those who will be affected and involved. They make it look very good, yet leave the details for implementation to those who are to be affected, without giving them assistance, credit, or resources. While it is likely unintentional, those who developed the design leave those who will be affected in a “lose-lose” situation. If those on the ground fail to implement the changes effectively they will be blamed. If they act heroically and pull out a miracle, those who developed the design will get the credit and those who implemented it will be blamed for not thinking of this sooner.

Inside out thinking leaves those who matter in the predicament of having to figure out how to actually get something implemented. As a metaphor, there is a river separating those who developed the initiative from those who will be affected and involved. On one side of the river are the “developers”, similar to a band of salesmen who are shouting out all the benefits, as well as making veiled threats of what will happen if you do not adopt this new action, program or etc. While the “sales people” strut up and down the bank of the river calling out to the employees and customers on the other side of the river, they do nothing to assist them in getting across the river. Effective execution planning looks like contractors who are busy building the bridge across the river so that the employees can readily cross over and partake in the new “goodies”.  

 

B. “Pushing Rather than Creating a Pull”

Strategic execution wants to be “pulled” into the organization, rather than pushed. Creating the pull is a key element of planning the implementation. Pull is created by factors that make having the new processes or tools occur as a “gift” to the employees rather than as a threat. I find that having employees committed to producing a result that they currently do not know how to achieve is the best way to create a pull. In this case the employees have already seen the importance of the improved performance (altered performance trajectory) and are busily looking for how to accomplish the change.  

Implementing transformation requires clarity in accountability and responsibility. Further it requires many stepping up to be responsible and to take ownership for the transformation. 

 

As we discussed earlier, it is common that executives view their role as finished when the strategy (or acquisition, alliance, restructuring, etc) are approved. Nothing could be further from the case. The job of executives as leaders has just begun. The easy part is over, now it is time to move on to the hard work of implementation. Let’s look at specific areas that need leadership.

 

 

C. Clarify Accountability, Responsibility and Ownership of the Plan

The leaders have accountability for success in all stages of execution. The execution plan should be worked on or polished till all involved have a strong sense of clarity and ownership of the plan. The essence of developing a plan is thinking through the known factors that will need to be addressed and included, as well as anticipating what may come up that will need to be dealt with. In developing a plan I think that it is essential to begin with the outcomes. That is, clear articulation of the outcomes that are to be achieved in the future. I like to use a visioning exercise to have those developing the plan be able to stand in a future in which the results are achieved, and not be affected by the current context. That is essential is because otherwise they will think from the present set of problems and circumstances, and unwittingly evoke the current context on the entire planning process. If the plan is developed as a solution for the problem created by the current context, it can be predicted that the plan will actually deliver a reinforcement of the current context in the future. This is the best way I know to assure that no meaningful or lasting changes occur. It is the antithesis of sustainability.

 

D. Identify the Magnitude of Change

It is essential that leaders appreciate the differences between the types of change: continuous and discontinuous change. The two types of change require quite different approaches to implementation. In incremental change, the executive’s role is to be an encourager and supporter. Said in the language of sports, the executive’s role is to be a fan sitting in the stands supporting the team. In transformational change, the executive is a player/coach. There are times when the executive is on the field actively engaged in the game at other times, the executive is on the sidelines being a coach but still actively involved in what the players are doing in the game on the field. I point this out because too often I have seen executives involved in transformational change who seem to think that their role is to sit in the luxury boxes high up in the stadium rather than being engaged with what is going on down on the field.

What amazes me about this phenomenon is that on a number of occasions I have had conversations with executives about the nature of the challenge their business was facing and they would tell me that this is a bigger or different challenge than their organization had ever faced. These executives would tell the people involved that this was a very different situation that would require creativity and innovation. However, when the executives were presented with implementation plans that seemed out of the ordinary or unusual, the executive would balk. What was happening was that the executive was saying, “Bring me solutions to this different problem,” all the while expecting the solutions to look like those used in the past. In essence, these executives are expecting techniques that worked on continuous levels of change to be effective also with discontinuous or transformational levels of change.

 

E. Planning for Breakthroughs and Breakdowns

The demonstration of a brilliant strategic execution in laying out a plan for achieving advantages in the eyes of customers, and then implementing in such a way as to realize that advantage for the customers. Rather than going for competitive advantage in the eyes of the customer, too often businesses settle for strategies that are inadvertently designed to deliver a “me too” position with customers. While it is seldom said this bluntly, that is what actually gets designed as a consequence of the manager not insisting on strategic inquiry and a plan to achieve competitive advantage. Without some unique positioning that gives the business a perceived advantage with its customers, it is difficult for the business to achieve or create value. Value creation comes as a result of being rewarded by customers for the unique attribute of the product or service. In commodities this attribute is price, and even then the company with the best positioning has the lowest price from the customer’s perspective. In thinking about low cost competition, it is essential to remember that it is the lowest cost to the customers and that is not always the lowest price at the point of sale by the company. Positioning will lead people in the business to think from the perspective of their customer, or the outside in view, which is essential to success. The notion of competitive position has been around for years, and yet is still ignored. 

 

It is desirable that the implementation plan also spells out the major improvements or breakthroughs that are to occur. This gives the plan the sense of credibility that is essential. The plan also needs to include short-term actions that will drive meaningful and measurable improvements. If a plan begins implementation and there are not signs of improvement and progress, the team and those around will begin to question the wisdom of the design. While a strategic execution plan is designed to give the business a unique position with its customers, it must also contain tangible improvements in the short term. Often these are improvements that can be made with little disruption and expense. Often they are actions that should have already been taken but for some reason have not. The best source of identifying these short term actions is to ask the front line employees what actions they can see that would most demonstrate the commitment to success of implementation. Often there are tangible actions that will demonstrate the commitment to action and that in fact something is different or has changed. A couple of examples, moving obsolete equipment out of the production area, dealing with a shipping department that has been troubled for years and yet no one would address, or painting the employees lunch room.

The expectation that breakdowns are desirable, predictable and will occur is essential for planning strategic execution. It should be anticipated that there will be breakdowns. Any team should count on having breakdowns and should look at these as the opportunity to drive for discontinuous changes. The incremental improvements may be enhanced by breakdowns, while discontinuous changes must have the breakdowns.

 

F. Planning from Results to Action

The execution plan should describe specific actions and do so in a manner that is explicit. Effective planning begins with results that are to be achieved and then identifies the specific actions that will make implementing the changes both exciting and safe. Safe may seem like a strange word to use with exciting, but that is what is required if employees are to be fully involved. They need to know that their physical, emotional and career safety is being treated as utmost in importance as part of executing the strategy. If employees see that their well-being is not treated as important, they can be expected to do only what is required and little else. When employees see that there is a strong interest in their well-being, they are much more likely to become passionately involved in helping improve the well-being of the businesses. Actions speak louder than words. It the execution plan has an explicit statement of actions, and who will be accountable for seeing that specific results are accomplished, there is much greater likelihood of success in delivering the expected business result. It is also important that as a part of developing and communicating the plan that attention is paid to making explicit the reasons why the actions are needed, and how this will benefit the business, the employees, the customers, and the community. 

 

It is critical that the implementation plan be detailed enough so that the employees can see that the plan assumes success in execution. It needs to be the essence of success that is waiting to unfold as a consequence of their involvement and participation. In thinking about how employees see the implementation plan, it is as though they are being asked to consider a challenging if not dangerous mission. As they think about their questions and areas of concern, paramount on their mind are questions like: “Does this seem like it will work? Will I be safe and successful if I sign on for this mission?” Too often managers approach strategic execution as if they are officers in the military and can give commands that will be carried out without question. Employees have no such forced commitments or loyalties, even though managers may pretend that is the case. Employees may feel trapped in a job because of their financial obligations and life circumstances, but they often are not trapped. I have seen many situations where the implementation plans were not well thought-through and employees found other places of employment. Of course, when a couple of employees leave for “better jobs,” the myth that “we are stuck here” evaporates.

 

Execution plans should be designed to lay out pathways from the present situation to the future; that is their purpose. However, often that is not the case. Too often they are explicit about what will happen in the near term and then become very vague about how the back half of the implementation will actually go. Needless to say, these types of plans are not very engaging. Consider what you would think if you were boarding a plan in Los Angeles to fly to New York. The pilot comes on and gives the current weather in New York, describes any anticipated challenges that may be encountered along the way and an estimate of the time of flight down to the minute. That communication gives the impression that the pilot is capable and has designed a plan for getting the plane to New York safely, that is, the plan is designed to achieve success. Contrast that with a situation in which you board a plane in LA and the pilot says, “Welcome aboard; we should have a groovy time today” and although he has never flown east of Colorado, he thinks that he will have no problem finding New York since he has seen photos of it and there are many tall buildings.

 

G. Breakdowns Are Desirable and Should Be Predicted

Breakdowns are the door to or access point to what needs to be addressed if the business is to execute its strategy. Strategy could be thought of a like a golf game. All of the players have clubs. Some have clubs that are better suited to them, and at the end of the day what matters is what the player does with the clubs. Improving what a player does with the clubs comes from much practice and coaching. Addressing what does not work on the practice range is essential for improvement as a golfer. The same principle applies to business teams that are implementing a strategy. It is working on those areas of surprise that provide the opportunity. Being open and candid about how it is working is also essential.

 

Perhaps the greatest challenge in planning execution is to keep a fresh eye on what has been planned. It is essential that those doing the planning are an “opening” to discover the faulty assumptions, calculations, and unlikely-to-happen aspects of the planning. The most vexing element in planning is anticipating the breakdowns that should and/or will occur. I find it useful for those planning to identify the breakdown that should occur, to estimate when they should/will occur, as well as what resolution will be needed, should be devised, or invented. It is ironic that when I ask teams to do this, they can actually see which breakdowns should occur if the implementation is to be successful. Too often management’s thinking about a plan is that it should go as planned. Yet wisdom is that we should be smart enough to have a good plan and be smart enough to change our plan once we get in the midst of implementation. What makes even smarter teams is to ask them to explore continually what has been missed. The asking of what is missing will provide access to the breakdowns that are occurring or will occur, which, in turn, gives access to the actions that will make implementation successful.

 

6. Continuous Communication and Engagement of Employees

Executions succeed or fail based in large part of the actions and commitment of employees. When employees are passionately committed to successful implementation, they can produce extraordinary results. Conversely if the employees do not believe in the message or messenger they are less likely to become involved and the execution is less likely to be successful.

A. Avoid Perception of Execution as Exclusive and Secret

Often strategies are developed in private. Executives, managers and consultants work intensely together to develop concepts that, if applied, would result in a significant gain for the business. Usually these deliberations are conducted behind closed doors and often in remote locations. The logic for the secrecy is that we do not want to upset the organization nor tip off our competitors as to what we are contemplating. While this may be a noble purpose, it seldom works. First, it does not work with employees because they soon hear via the rumor mill that something is afoot. It does not work with competitors since often they are having similar deliberations and are asking many of the same questions. A well-executed average strategy is better than a brilliant strategy that is poorly executed. Another way of looking at this is that your competitors cannot respond to your strategic moves unless they have figured out your implementation plan. The crucial questions are: “Can we implement this strategy, and what will a well-executed strategy make possible for us?”

 

B. Communications

Communication is to implementation what oxygen is to breathing. Most people do not think about oxygen until they do not have enough. The same goes for communication. Mistakes made in strategic execution usually come from wanting to avoid difficult conversations and misunderstanding the need of employees for more information on what is being done and what the consequences of the strategic execution will be on their job and their work.

 

Ironically, communication is one area in which the being of the executive, managers and team heads is most critical. If others experience the executive as being a transformational leader, the actions that follow will be intense and swift. If others perceive the executive to be arrogant, disinterested or non-trustworthy, implementation actions will be slow and painful. There is a classic phrase:

 

“I cannot hear what you are saying because who you are being speaks so loud”

 

The leaders must assure that the conversations regarding planning the execution are authentic, clear, inclusive and public. If large scale changes are required, it is essential that the employees be in communication with their supervisors, team leaders, informal leaders, and when applicable, union leaders about the rationale for the changes and what these changes will mean to the employees. Each employee will start listening from, "What does this mean to me?" Only when that question has been sorted through with whatever information is available can the employees begin to think of ways to be involved and support the change effort. There must be an open invitation for the employees to learn and participate if there is any hope of getting the desired level of involvement.

C. Example Set by Managers and Supervisors

One hazard that the leader must watch for are inauthentic managers who will say, “Yes, we can do that,” and yet behave as though they have not actually thought of how they will go about meaningful implementation. They were being agreeable in a meeting. There are a number of colorful expressions to describe this behavior, most of which are so colorful that I cannot put in print. For this discussion, I will use the term “Eddie Haskell” to describe this behavior. You may remember the character on the TV sitcom “Leave It to Beaver”. Eddie Haskell was notable for his overwhelming lack of authenticity, disgustingly ingratiating behavior to authority figures and despicable behavior to little people when the authority figures were not around. In corporations there are many Eddies who will say, “Yes, we can do that" in a meeting and then walk out of the meeting and behave in an entirely different manner. I suspect you may be thinking of several Eddie Haskell’s in your organization. While the Eddie character is a fictional character in the Beaver show, there are a stunning number of Eddies in the business world. 

 

Once the purpose and values of the managers are sufficiently in line to explore the appropriateness of the strategy and what will be required to execute, the next step is to examine the strategic context that is in existence and will need to be created for successes in execution. 

 

D. Clarity of Pathways of Implementation

Employees are critical stakeholders as they will be intimately involved in strategic execution. Employees will want to see a clear description of the direction the business is taking and how this strategic execution will be managed. Employees must see that the pathways of implementation are well thought through. Of course, they must also see that the dots will connect, i.e., this will work. The direction to be provided should be detailed enough that the implementation makes sense and will build confidence. Employees will also be concerned that the capabilities required for execution are either in place or will be provided well in advance of when they will be needed. Employees will undoubtedly have heard about prior attempts at implementation when the capabilities and resources were not made available, and created a huge burden on them.

 

Once employees appreciate the thinking behind the strategy and understand what it will mean to them, they will be strong advocates for success in execution of the strategy. Prior to receiving this direction, employees probably are mild to moderately resistant to becoming involved in strategic execution. This is in part due to their having watched previous attempts at implementation be poorly executed. They are not thrilled at seeing yet another train wreck heading their way, unless they can see for themselves where the strategy is headed and that it can be implemented. Once they are confident that it can be executed then the question shifts to the willingness of management to act in such a way as to assure that it will be successful. Managers who begin the talk on execution by covertly blaming employees for prior failures in implementation will not get their support. Also, beginning the communication by describing how different this time is from the previous times is also not a good sign, as most of the prior attempts at strategic execution opened with similar assertions. The statement that “this is different” is actually the same of “here comes more of the same”.

7. Never Stop: Clever Adaptation and Coordinated Action until the Results Are Achieved

There is an old military quote that is applicable to strategic execution. “Only a fool goes into execution of a strategy without a plan, and only a fool refuses to modify and upgrade the plan once execution begins.” It could be said that strategic execution is acting to implement a thorough and thoughtful plan.

 

To use a military concept, strategic execution is the arena in which officers and soldiers in the field implement the strategy that was created by the generals. Even with the best design and planning from the very beginning, unforeseen problems arise in implementation that have to be solved “in the field or on the ground.” This means that there must be leadership at the top, and there must be leadership among all employees in order to invent solutions to new and unprecedented problems. No general today plans a campaign and then goes on to other tasks. The general stays engaged in leading the campaign and inspires the women and men carrying out the general’s plan to be leaders in the day-to-day implementing of the general’s campaign plan.

 

This same kind of leadership is what is required of those who plan the strategy for a discontinuous change if victory is to be achieved. Just as “no battle plan ever won a battle,” so is “no strategy is valid until it is executed”. The skills that are required to implement a strategy are what make business exciting and rewarding.  The heroism of employees in finding ways to make things happen is what carries the day. All of this occurs because of the intentional type of leadership that is provided by executives that makes it safe for employees to step up and contribute, i.e., to be leaders themselves. 

 

Conclusion

Success in strategic execution occurs as a consequence of good strategic thinking, designing of a do-able plan, engaging employees at all levels of organization, and tenaciously sorting through the breakdowns and surprises until the results are achieved. It begins and ends with leadership. No leader, no success in strategic execution.

 

© Copyright 2010 King Chapman & Broussard, Inc. All rights reserved. 

---

[1] Organizing for Successful Change Management: A McKinsey Global Survey. The McKinsey Quarterly. July 2006

[2] Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. Crown Business. New York, New York, 2002

• Currently 5/5

Rating: 5.00 / 5.00  - Awesome!
1 ratings

•  del.icio.us •  digg •  facebook
E-mail this article to a friend (requires login).

 

For additional information on this KCB Publishing article, please contact:

Bob Chapman, Ph.D.

Source: Bob Chapman, Ph.D.

Related Documents:

Content Tags: kcb publishing •

 

Other Recent Articles:

• Foundational Commitments - the Leader's Source     18-Aug-10
• Strategic Execution Planning     19-Jul-10
• Strategic Execution Leadership   12-Feb-10
• What Leaders Do to Inspire Others to Act   12-Feb-10
• Engaging the Workforce with Business Acumen   10-Feb-10
• Authenticity (excerpt from Foundational Leaders, a book by Bob Chapman, Ph.D.)   24-Sep-09
• Distinctions of Leadership (excerpt from an upcoming book by Bob Chapman, Ph.D.)   24-Sep-09
• Building Your Management Team into a Leadership Team   25-Aug-09
• Context: A Short Conversation (excerpt from an upcoming book by Kevin Cullen)     16-Dec-08
• Chartering a Breakthrough (excerpt from an upcoming book by Kevin Cullen)     16-Dec-08

Return to Leadership Development Articles Search