King Chapman & Broussard RSS Feed

Choosing to Lead

Bob Chapman - noemail@kcbcg.com — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:00:00 GMT

Leadership Begins with a Strong Personal Commitment to Being a Leader for Others

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

Choice is Essential. Each person who is to become involved in leadership should have the freedom to choose whether or not to take on this role. Inspiring others requires a clear personal commitment to being a leader. This commitment comes through choice. That is, having made the choice to lead and having done so wholeheartedly. While at first this may seem like a small point, it is not. A person who chooses to accept the opportunity to lead brings authenticity and freshness to the role. In contrast, people who feel “nominated for the role” or for whatever reason have not freely chosen to take on leadership, will communicate that to those around them. A “reluctant leader” will not inspire others and further will be perceived as a “non-leader”.

This may seem counterintuitive, as often people are in positions where involvement is expected. Nonetheless, it is a mistake to assume that someone is committed to becoming a leader simply because of the position they currently hold. In many cases persons in higher ranking positions are often the most resistant to changes that will occur as part of the strategic execution. Often I find myself in conversations about this dynamic and hear an executive or manager say, “But they should be committed.” While the point may be valid, simply because someone should be committed does not in any way mean that they are or ever will be committed.

“Commitment is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism”

Abraham Lincoln

Commitment Is an Act of Volition or Choice

Commitment is not something that one can be forced into. People will momentarily act based on direction or threat, but that does not mean that they are committed to continuing the actions once the direction and threat are removed. So it is with leadership. Leadership is a choice that must be made by each person. Further, like any commitment, it is a choice that one gives oneself to on a day to day basis. Leadership is not a position or title. It is a condition in which one commits to influencing and inspiring others to act in ways that will produce extraordinary business results.

The question then is how one chooses to become a leader. I think the following questions are a good place to start:
Do I feel free to say no? Can I decline to be a leader in this situation?
Which of my personal commitments compels me to take on this role of leader?
Have I confronted the realities of the situation I am facing, as well as, the possible to probable consequences of my stepping forward as a leader?
Am I willing to face these possible consequences and continue on?
Am I willing to be of service to others?
Am I willing to deal with the “milk of human kindness” that is often poured out on leaders?

Coming to a personal answer for each of these questions will provide clarity on a personal willingness to be a leader. Choosing to be a leader in an execution project is essential, since choice is a crucial element in transformation. All those who are involved should do so because they want to be involved. No one should be coerced or forced into involvement:

If a person feels like they do not have a choice in the matter, they will say yes to participation and yet not be able to fully commit. Often they adopt a context of “I was forced”, “I didn’t have a choice”, “They made me do it”, etc. All of those contexts are weak and result in weak leadership.

If a person is not participating as a consequence of choice, they will not be successful. They will find it very difficult to create and exhibit the level of commitment required for effective participation. Personal involvement will become increasingly challenging and difficult to the point that it evolves into dread, frustration and sabotage of the transformation.

Choice to Confront the Challenges in Execution and Transformation

Strategic execution and transformation of a business means literally changing the very essence of the organization. This change is necessary to allow the business to succeed and thrive. It is by definition a large scale change. In addition to being large, it is also difficult. Many organizations need to transform but only a few actually accomplish the transformation. Most fail to achieve the promise of the possibility of transforming their organization. That is, only a small part of the possibility that was present for improving performance of the business and impacting the organization is accomplished. Rather than accomplishing a breakthrough in business performance and becoming a transformed organization, most settle for a compromised level of business improvement and a watered-downed version of the envisioned organizational change.

Strategic Execution is very challenging to the leaders because transformations are caused by the leaders and accomplished because of the actions of people throughout the organization. The challenges of leading a transformation should NOT be taken lightly. Too often I see managers who say all the right things but appear to be unwilling to do what is needed to achieve the transformation. This includes being willing to:

Ask people of a lesser rank to step up and take the actions to accomplish the transformation.
Challenge yourself to change.
Challenge yourself to grow as a leader and a person.
Challenge yourself about your issues with control, engagement of others, risk and trust.
Challenge what you think you know about the business. Be open to other points of view and to the possibility of discovering that the business is not exactly as you have previously considered it to be.
Challenge prior decisions that you have been made, especially those you were involved in making.
Question processes that you like and may have helped create.
Relinquish your “right answers” for how the transformation can be best be achieved.
Let go of the informal privileges of your position in the organization, e.g., being deferred to when you give an idea and wanting to have the last word on any subject. Are you willing to “check you title at the door”?

Leading a Transformation Requires Developing Other Leaders

Being a leader includes being a mentor and sponsor of others. It requires standing on the sidelines like a coach watching others playing the game. It involves resisting the temptation to want to run on the field and jump into the game.

One Leader Can’t Do It Alone

One leader cannot transform an organization alone. The leader will need much help, and, in fact, will need many others to step up and lead. A transformation requires a cadre of leaders. These are people throughout the organization who step up and provide leadership at the moment it is required. It is interesting to me that often the leadership comes from unlikely persons in unexpected roles. A phrase that captures this is, “Look for leadership where you do not expect it, and do not be surprised when you do not get the leadership from those of whom you have the highest expectations.”

Promoting Leadership by the Front-line

I have observed that the most inspirational leadership often comes from non-management employees. These front-line employees are closely involved with the customers, makers of the products or providers of the services. The passion they bring to their work is amazing, and the challenge in leading a transformation is to unleash it. You may be thinking, “Well, that may have been the case in other companies, but you haven’t seen the dolts that work here.”

I suppose there is always a first time, but I’ve yet to see a company that did not have front-line employees who step up and provide outstanding leadership. These employees turn out to be the most amazing employees when they are encouraged to lead. When I am told about employees who are dolts, I have a very good read on the type of management that has been provided, as well as the absence of leadership as the source. By that, I mean the “dolt” is in management, not the front-line.

Leadership is More Than a Title

Leadership is needed from the management positions. If you are in a management position and cannot in good conscience commit to the transformation and choose to be involved, your duty is to make this public and find some other role to play where you are not being asked to participate in leading a strategic execution and transformation. If you say you are willing to be a leader and then do not follow through, you are creating a problem of integrity that will hamper the efforts of other leaders.

In many companies the term leadership is included in the position title. There has been an interesting increase in the use of the word “leader” in job descriptions and names of management teams in companies in the Western world. This is our regional leadership team. This is our lead geologist. She is our group leader. Even so, that means nothing when it comes to being a transformational leader.

While the use of the title leader has increased, I see little evidence that the number of leaders or the effectiveness of leadership has actually increased. That is because being called a leader and being a leader are worlds apart. It is only those folks who are being a leader, as contrasted to those folks who have the title of leader, whose companies achieve the transformations they must have in order to be successful.

Dealing with Colleagues and Friends

It would be advantageous if the leader could look at her/his direct reports and know that this group was in full support of the change effort and actively involved in becoming effective leaders on their own. While that would be advantageous, it virtually never happens. Rather, the most difficult group of employees to engage in the transformation is usually the direct reports of the leader. There is usually considerable resistance to the direction that the leader is attempting to take the organization and personally to the leader.

In a cartoon called Pogo, there is the classic saying: We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. It seems that in the world of organizational transformation we could modify that saying to be: You will meet the enemy and the enemy is your direct reports. It is a major mistake for a leader to assume that the direct reports are on board, regardless of what these direct reports say.

It is much easier and politically correct to blame the failed change effort on the employees, rather than a lack of courage in managers.

Conclusion

Choice is essential to successful leadership in strategic execution. There is no question that achieving a transformation is challenging. At the same time it may also be the most exhilarating experience in a person’s career. Many leaders that I have worked with look back on the challenging times in leading a transformation as among the highlights of their work life.

14-Feb-11 10:00 AM

Safety Culture

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:00:00 GMT

Buzzword or BuzzKill?

Recently, we have heard the term "safety culture" used frequently in the popular press. News reports on the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill often raised the term "safety culture" in trying to assign a reason for the disaster. As we have listened to reporters and people on the street talk about safety culture, we wondered how they were using the term and what it means to them. Is it just another industry buzzword? Or, could a deeper understanding of this phrase make a difference in countless companies' safety records?

E.Vironment professionals and their associates at King Chapman & Broussard have worked diligently to study and improve safety performance in energy companies and other industrial settings. This includes upstream and downstream oil companies as well as chemical companies where worker safety is a fundamental concern. As a result, we are launching a series of Benchmarks on current topics related to sustained safety excellence. In this first Safety Benchmark, we address the importance of a recognized and supported safety culture.

This Benchmark will examine safety culture from a disciplined point of view, to see if there is anything of value that can be learned by those who manage and work in industrial settings where safety is such a powerful focus.

Comprehending Culture

According to The Oxford English Dictionary,¹ the word "culture" in the English language includes the following definitions:

Cultivation – a cultivated condition. This includes cultivating and development of the mind and practices....by education and training.
Training and development of the mind, tastes, manners.
Condition of being trained and refined.

If we apply those definitions literally, the term "culture" means to be cultivated, developed and trained so that it becomes a condition of being for the individual. In this case, we could infer that the goal of a safety culture is to cultivate, develop and train so that each individual increases the capacity to be safe.

The term "culture" also has unique meanings in management literature. In their pioneering work on Corporate Culture, Deal and Kennedy defined organizational culture as "the way things get done around here.²" It is the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people in the organization that control the way they interact with each other and other stakeholders. The sharing of these values and norms occurs through actions/non-actions and conversations/non-conversations.

The concept of a safety culture first gained prominence in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in April 1986, which drew attention to the impact of managerial and human factors on the outcome of safety performance. This phrase was introduced as a means of explaining how a lack of knowledge and understanding of risk and safety by the employees and organization contributed to the disaster.

Using the term does not ensure understanding the consequences. In the early 1990s, Bob Chapman, currently Managing Partner for King Chapman & Broussard, Inc., taught a leadership and strategy course in Moscow. Participating in this course were several key officials from the Soviet ministry that built and operated Chernobyl. Chapman had several intriguing conversations with these men about how badly the accident reflected on the quality of their plant design and operations. Ironically, their response was to blame one individual, rather than to identify larger cultural and systemic issues.

Although the safety culture concept is still largely misunderstood, there are a number of common characteristics. We believe that a safety culture is one in which beliefs, values and attitudes about people's safety, health and well-being are shared by – and demonstrated by – an entire group. A desired safety culture is one that promotes safety, high performance and responsibility for all.

"Changing a culture begins with leaders clarifying the organization's values," maintains Chapman. "This change cannot occur until leaders are acting consistently with those values. Critical to these actions are the conversations in the organization that seem to question or undermine the organization's commitment to safety."

Safety Talks

The culture of an organization is passed along through conversations and actions. "In fact, safety culture lives in employee discussions," explains Paul Pizzi, Managing Partner of E.Vironment. "Establishing a desired safety culture requires changing the conversations around safety."

While top managers provide a visible leadership role, safety culture change ultimately occurs by modifying the interactions between hourly workers, front-line team leaders and supervisors. Sustainable change in safety culture will not occur until there are dramatic changes in these conversations.

Desired safety conversations should include maintaining proper balance between safety and production. Among workers there is often a belief that "management talks about safety but all they really care about is production." This conversation needs to be challenged and clarified. In addition, it's important for line supervisors and managers to engage employees in discussions addressing situations that might involve taking unsafe shortcuts. Employees should also talk over the realities of "real work" versus company policy.

"When we speak about changing conversations, it should be noted that what is NOT said is often more important than what is said," explains Chapman. "In changing and maintaining a safety culture, it is essential to identify and discourage those conversations that are considered 'off limits.' While it may seem ironic to talk about 'unsafe conversations about safety,' at the end of the day those are the most important elements to change if we want to enhance the safety culture."

Committing to Safety

A safety culture does not consist of a binder of policies on a bookshelf. Rather, it embodies the organizational values that shape behavior and lead to safe or unsafe acts. As a result, changing a safety culture begins with aligning the values of the organization.

"Alignment begins with top managers articulating their commitment to safety, behaving consistently with that commitment and ultimately taking actions that demonstrate their commitment to safety," explains Pizzi. "In talking about the apparent conflict between increased production and improved safety, it's important to eliminate the perceived 'either/or' between production and safety."

CEOs can jump-start the alignment process by talking to employees and contractors personally about their commitment to a safe work environment, ensuring that they both understand that they are key contributors in the safety performance equation.

"For example, a CEO could say 'I want every person working here to go home in as good a condition as they did when they came to work,'" explains Chapman. "Or, they could even personally authorize anyone working on a production unit to shut it down if they perceive an unsafe condition."

These communications are most effective when an executive's compensation is tied not just to the performance of the business unit, but to the safety performance of the entire organization. When management compensation is affected due to unacceptable safety performance, it sends a strong message throughout the organization about the safety culture.

Along with personal communications, executives must also "walk the talk," by translating their words into actions.

"When we interviewed the CEO and senior management team of an integrated oil company last year, every one of the executives in a large business unit spontaneously mentioned the unwavering commitment to safety of the executive vice president in charge of that unit, as evidenced by his actions," remembers Pizzi. "His actions made a powerful impact on everyone around him."

Business Impact

Safety culture has dramatic impacts on businesses beyond the obvious avoidance of catastrophic failures like the Deepwater Horizon drillship disaster. A business will prosper when its culture promotes employees being alert, accountable and acting in a responsible manner for the safety of their colleagues.

In a company with a positive safety culture, each employee will be engaged in the importance of safety and feel empowered to ask questions that further encourage them to deliver results safely.

An organizational culture that promotes being safe will also promote being responsible for effectiveness and quality. Improved performance will occur as employees commit to excellence in both safety and production.

For more information
For more information on safety excellence and development of a safety culture, please contact Paul Pizzi (paul@evironmentgroup.com) or Bob Chapman (BobC@kcbcg.com).

Bob Chapman

Bob Chapman is the Managing Partner of King Chapman & Broussard Inc. in Houston, Texas. KCB consultants are thought leaders in corporate transformation, which may include safety strategies, implementing safety leadership and building safety cultures. Executives trust KCB to guide them in implementing solutions to complex business and organizational challenges. KCB's consulting often links improvements in safety with breakthroughs in business performance and leadership. Bob has consulted to energy and natural resource companies in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. He is a business writer and speaker. He has published four books including, most recently, Foundational Leaders: Cornerstones of Strategic Execution (2009).

Paul Pizzi

Paul Pizzi is a Managing Partner of E.Vironment and heads the firm's Strategic Management practice, which includes Senior Management Alignment, EHS Function Optimization, Business Risk Management, Process Safety Management, EHS Management Systems and EHS Auditing and Compliance Assurance. He works with senior management and EHS leadership of leading chemical and energy companies in shaping their short- and long-term EHS direction and strategy and in understanding the business impacts of emerging EHS issues. Paul has advised the management of global leaders such as Dow Chemical, BASF, LyondellBasell, ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil, Anadarko and Marathon.

8-Feb-11 3:00 PM

Charter Development

Cindy Trahan - noemail@kcbcg.com — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:00:00 GMT

What is a Charter?

A charter is a document which outlines a project, including its purpose and outcomes, and gives direction to the project team. It functions as a project road map and plots the areas to be worked on, the targets, and the milestones.

Writing a Charter

There are four main areas to consider in chartering teams.

First, although executives charter task teams for a set of purposes, they often do not reveal the entire set. Instead, they give the team only the most obvious and rational purpose among the set of purposes. Consequently, many of the unspoken expectations for the team are not met. The charter makes explicit all expectations for the team, i.e. it makes public or reveals the entire set of expectations, including those that are unspoken.

Effective chartering recognizes that team actions always have multiple consequences in an organizational system. If the initiating executive overlooks some of the consequences that will be evoked by task force efforts, he/she may be forced to set boundaries after the fact. Retrospective boundary setting always has a demoralizing effect on team initiative. The charter identifies the areas that will be impacted (the scope) and all boundaries in advance.

Another phenomenon related to the charter and origination of a team is a natural tendency to view “softer” and new corporate processes as irrelevant to the business task at hand. Consequently, study or implementation teams frequently are not required to consider “people processes,” such as quality efforts, a new corporate vision, or a stated set of values, as necessary variables when recommending a sound critical path for implementation. The charter attaches equal importance to people and process in an examination of the business processes.

Finally, teams are often poor at either initiating themselves or – more to our interest and purpose – ending themselves. The responsibility for disbanding a team and for deciding that the work has been completed best resides with the person or persons who commissioned the effort. The charter stipulates at onset the date and expected outcomes for the team. This enables the establishment of measures and timelines for successfully completing the work and for the team disbanding.

For all of these reasons, a letter of charter must be comprehensive. To be effective, task teams must be able to form a direction from and continually refer to the charter letter.

In review, a charter letter should include:

As complete a set of purposes as possible
Important people processes
Scope and constraints, limits, or boundaries
Time frames and expected outcomes

Charter Elements: Use the following list to identify the key elements of a charter:

PURPOSE

Clear and concise. Answers the question: What is the purpose of the project?

Questions to consider:

Why are we doing this?
What difference will this make to our business?
What difference will this make in our operation?
Why do you find this is exciting to undertake?
Why would others from your group, your crew, the union, and from management find this exciting?

SCOPE

What is the size and scope?
What part of the organization will be impacted?
What resources will you need in terms of time, money, and equipment to make this happen?

CONSTRAINTS

What constraints or boundaries will the project be inside of? What are you limited by?
What rules, laws, guidelines, and contracts must you operate in, e.g., bargaining agreement, capital expenditures, existing operating budget?

IMPORTANT PEOPLE AND PROCESSES

Who will we need to involve? Who are the key people and major players that will impact the project and be impacted by the project?
What are the key processes, what impact will they have and how will they be impacted?
Whose work will be changed?
What operating or production processes might be impacted by this?
Who is the lead for the project? Who is the sponsor or champion for the project? Who specifically or what kind of people will be on the team?

TIME FRAME

What important milestones along the way must occur in order for the project to be completed on time?
By when will milestones be accomplished?
What steps need to be completed by certain dates for this to work?
When and how will the progress of the project be reviewed?

OUTCOMES

What are the outcomes that will be produced and by when will they be produced?
How will the results be measured? What are the metrics for the project going to be and what are the values in each specific area to be achieved?
What is the impact (in terms of $ saved, time saved, % improvement in quality, # accidents reduced, increase in $ value of our products) on the operation?
By when will these results be achieved?
How will someone from outside of your project be able to measure your success?

Maintenance Charter (Sample Charter)

Purpose

Achieve Availability and Reliability with maximum cost effectiveness.

Scope

All Employees

Constraints

Collective Bargaining Agreement
Budget / Resources
Continuity of Daily Plant Operations

Important People and Processes

Plant employees
Sponsors: Larry
Team Leader & Team members

Timeframe/Milestones

Team conducts first work section by 01/1/05
Review Gap analysis complete by 02/15/05
Recommended implementation plan completed and necessary training elements for employees given to SLT by 03/01/05.
First review and progress status by 03/18/05
OSHA incident rate <1.0 by 06/30/05
Safety Performance Index
(SPI) >90% by 05/30/05
(SPI) >93% by 07/30/05
Plant Availability
(EAF) of >80% by 05/30/05
(EAF) of >83% by 07/30/05
Equivalent Forced Outage Rate
Unit #9 EFOR of <15% by 05/30/05; 10% by 07/31/05
Unit #7 EFOR of <15% by 05/30/05; 10% by 07/31/05
$400K reduction in expenditures (O&M budget) by 07/30/05
Complete attainment of a 90% Maintenance Performance Index by 07/30/05

Outcomes

OSHA incident rate <1.0 by 06/30/05
Safety Performance Index (SPI) >93% by 07/30/05
Plant Availability (EAF) of >83% by 07/30/05
Equivalent Forced Outage Rate
Unit #9 EFOR of <10% by 07/31/05
Unit #7 EFOR of <10% by 07/31/05
$400K reduction in expenditures (O&M budget) by 07/30/05
Complete attainment of a 90% Maintenance Performance Index by 07/30/05

Well Delivery Process Charter (Sample Charter)

Purpose

Implement a consistent Well Delivery Process that contributes value to the organization through improvements in efficiency, performance and safety.

Scope

All well construction activities.

Constraints

WDP will align & interface with GDCMS, AFE, Value Navigator, E3, EHS, Contractor Mgmt, & other relevant processes (see GSC)

Important People

All employees and contractors; Exploration; Developments; Production; Global Supply Chain, Vendors;
Sponsor: Mike
Team Leader: Larry
Team Members: Kim; Howard; Steve; Jonathan; Tommy

Important Processes

GDCMS, WCECP, AFE, Value Navigator, EHS, E3, GSC

Timeframe and Milestones

WDP design & deliverables complete – 8/7/09
WDP approved by GDCLT & EPLT for roll-out & implementation – 8/14/09
Communication & roll-out to all stakeholders complete – 9/14/09
WDP orientation & training complete – 10/31/09
Performance tracking & reporting system complete & working – 12/31/09
Audit confirms level of usage of WDP by regions & stakeholders – 1/31/10
Functional audit & process refinements complete – 3/31/10

Outcomes

A TRIR of .4 or less
Top quartile D&C performance compared to regional benchmarks
Reduce GDC average NPT by 50% (specific regional targets will be set)

Implement Supplier Relationship Management System (Sample Charter)

Purpose

To simplify and automate procurement through a single analytical framework

Scope

Supply Chain Management, Operations, and self-service procurement for Corporate areas

Constraints

None

Important Processes

Utilization of current contracts management and EZ Buy systems.
Integration and management of current supplier relationships.
Integrate strategic practices for supplier qualification, negotiation, and contract management

Important People

Jesse - Sponsor
Melinda – Team Leader
Team members – to be determined

Timeframe and Milestones

Form team and kick-off project – Oct 31, 2006
Planning and Approval – November 2006
Design – December 2006
Development – January 2007
Test – February 2007
Train and Deploy – March 2007
Implemented – March 2007

Outcomes

Complete implementation of Supplier Relationship Management within a 24 week period by Mar 31, 2007
Increase number of e-procurement system users to 250 by Mar 31, 2007.

Safety Team (Sample Charter)

Purpose

That nobody gets hurt

Scope

All Work areas; All Employees.

Constraints

Budget
Collective Bargaining Agreements
MLT charter

Important Processes

JSA
Pre job check list
SOAR

Important Steps By When

Kick- off Week of Jan. 22 01/26/2007
Team identified and enrolled by Jan. 19th 01/19/2007
Safety Strategy design by February 15, 2007
Review and approval of Safety Strategy design by February 25, 2007
Education and training in New Safety Strategy complete by March 15, 2007
Total Implementation of new Safety Strategy design by April 15, 2007
Quarterly adjustments of Safety Strategy scheduled by April 15, 2007

Important People

Mike – Sponsor
Doug – Team Leader
John – Team member
Larry – Team Member
Mary – Team Member
Casey – Team member
Ralph – Team member

Outcomes

Achieve Safety Incident Rate Less than or equal to 0 percent 03/31/2007
Achieve Safety Incident Rate Less than or equal to 0 percent 06/30/2007
Achieve Safety Incident Rate Less than or equal to 0 percent 09/30/2007
Achieve Safety Incident Rate Less than or equal to 0 percent 12/31/2007

19-Jan-11 1:00 PM

Spotting Project Leadership, Anywhere at Anytime

KCB Publishing - noemail@kcbcg.com — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:00:00 GMT

by Jonathan George

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

- Dwight Eisenhower.

As an executive you know the value of choosing to do projects that provide the most benefit for your investment dollars. But how about the person you choose to lead those projects? Picking the right person for project leadership can be as important as picking the right project. The success of any project does not come by accident. Strong leadership makes strong projects. When selecting the leader, be cautious of the “obvious choices.” Look throughout your organization for someone with great credibility, courage, willingness to ask the hard questions and “walk the talk”, and with a strong commitment to achieving the project outcomes. We have put together some key observations which have proved helpful with project leadership selection.

Taking Inventory of Leadership

You are set to launch a critical project that will alter how people work in order to accomplish its goals. Within a fixed period of time, you need to see an increase in productivity without an increase in costs. Sound familiar? If so, then the next question you might have is, “Who do I get to lead it?”

The easiest place to search for a leader might be along specific lines of accountability within management and determine whose area the project most affects. Or, you might weigh experience or tenure into your decision. While these are sound factors, consider opening the possibility of project leadership to staff outside of management. In doing so, you might find that there are leaders everywhere within your organization.

It’s All in the Set-up

Before you begin that important task of determining the project leader, ensure that you have properly formalized the project. A common tool used for this step is called a Charter. The Charter is a document that guides the team from start to finish and includes, at minimum, the following details:

Project Purpose: formulate a clear and concise statement for the project’s existence.

Scope: specifically identify the areas the team will focus their efforts.

Constraints: set the boundaries for the team for what they can and cannot work on within the scope.

Important People: identify those people who will be directly and indirectly affected by the efforts of the team.

Important Processes: determine the business processes that this project will impact.

Timeframe: document the start and end dates of the project and any major milestones between.

Outcomes: establish the specific, measurable targets of the team that are to be met by project termination.

Where to Look for a Leader

Now that the project is chartered, it’s time to seek out its leader. When making your selection, consider including the front-line personnel. These men and women not only offer a wide range of experience, they are often the ones most impacted by major projects. By offering front-line personnel a chance to lead, you are likely to get this important group to buy-in to the changes and implementation that are inherent in large-scale projects.

Given their positions, they can spot opportunities for improvement quickly and understand the impact up and down the value chain. Additionally, they readily recognize obstacles that can impede implementation, sometimes before they even occur.

What to Look For

Leading a substantial organizational project requires skill sets such as an ability to govern a team, prioritize ideas and actions, track results and provide timely communications with the project’s stakeholders. Essentially, this role involves a great deal of thought and planning - someone who can wear many hats and who can keep their eye on achieving results.

When choosing a project leader, there are qualities and traits that you will want to seek out among your staff. Let’s examine a few important characteristics in detail.

Inspired and Inspiring

Thomas Edison once said, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.” But, we are not talking about genius here. When leading a project team, it requires an equal amount of inspiration and hard work. When faced with the challenges that will naturally arise in stewarding a project team, you’ll want a leader who is “fired up” by the results the team is mandated to produce.

It’s important also not to discount the project leader’s own personal reward for the completion of a successful project. When they can see their own aspirations fulfilled in the project, they are more inclined to see the project through to a productive end.

You should ask yourself, “Can this person inspire and engage the team?” A team trusts their leader to guide their actions and govern the meetings. If trust is an issue, then no matter how motivated the project leader is about the project, you’ve already started at a disadvantage.

Accountable

The attainment of project results is met through the effective and efficient actions of the team. Given that the team is accountable for the results, it goes without saying that the team’s leader is accountable to commission the team’s actions. Particularly for major organizational projects, there is little or no room for excuses and reasons for why a team would fail to meet its goals. You’ll want someone at the helm who accepts the challenges and will hold himself/herself and the team to account that the objectives get met.

Collaborative

If the project outcomes are lofty enough and the “at-stakeness” is clear enough, this calls for a team effort to win. The project leader needs to rely on his/her team to determine the possibilities, opportunities and actions that will achieve the project outcomes. If the person considered is a more “command-and-control” personality, chances are they will not engender team alliance. Consider a project leader who can foster collaboration and continually be able to true-up the team’s line-of-sight toward the project’s intended targets.

Coachable

Let’s go back to that quote by Thomas Edison, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.” The majority of genius is inherent in hard work. A project leader should expect to navigate their day-to-day responsibilities, starts and stops within their team and demands from their project Sponsor. It’s in the managing of these challenges that they mature as leaders. A successful project leader needs to accept his or her own limitations and be willing to ask for help. Further, they should be willing to accept help as needed. They need a “coach” – someone who will keep them focused on the outcome, and they need to be "coachable".

Willing to Lead

One major downfall intrinsic in many organizations is forced or reluctant leaders. A person can be committed to a project and want to participate, but not as its leader. Either because they currently lack the skills to empower the actions of others or are not inclined to be developed in that role, they make for poor team leads. Give the prospective leader a choice to lead or not.

Having said that, if they’ve accepted the charge of the team, provide few “off ramps” for them to exit that capacity. The leader commits to the project for its duration and is willing to guide the team through its cycle of challenges. To that end, they’ll expect your public stand that they will have the resources and support necessary to succeed.

Why it Matters

The fulfillment of a project’s outcomes clearly has benefits to an organization’s bottom-line. But, there are other benefits relative to leadership development and ownership of business results.

Development Opportunity

In a traditional work environment, excellence is paid off by promotion. However, it’s typical to find dissatisfied individuals in positions of management having come out of front-line positions where they did well. Why is that? It’s possible that while they were top in their field, they are not managers or supervisors per se. They do well with equipment, but managing people is an entirely different dimension that some are just not cut out for. Before sending that slip to HR to promote an individual, consider them for an important project that has tremendous impact on their area of expertise. In doing so, you have a ready-made, short-term vehicle for determining the person’s readiness for that next important rung on the organizational ladder.

Develop Bench Strength

There may not always be a position to promote an individual to but there can always be a project that offers leadership opportunities. By looking to the front-line for project leaders you’re opening the possibility that most anyone can develop as a leader. Consider your organization as a haven for true leadership anywhere, at any time.

The Power of Ownership

Think about your favorite sport. Who would you say are most impacted by victory or loss: the fans or the players, owners or coaches? The same holds true with major projects. The more actively engaged the employees are in the project, the more likely they have invested their time and energy in its accomplishment. When given a chance to participate through short-term projects, you’ll find staff taking ownership in the results.

Selection Process

Sometimes, it’s fairly obvious who you’d want to serve in a project leadership capacity. Other times, it’s not so apparent. Begin by developing a short list of possible candidates. You may want to counsel with your direct reports, supervisors, or colleagues for input with this exercise.

The following rating system based on the characteristics we’ve identified may prove useful in this process.

On a One-to-Seven Scale, rate the candidate. (1 – Lowest Rating; 7 – Highest Rating)

After you have completed this evaluation, review your responses. For example, average your responses and eliminate those nominees that did not score above a 4. This does not mean that they will not be considered for future projects. With a little work in those areas where they scored low, they can aspire to being great leaders in the projects to come.

The Invitation

Now that you have narrowed your list to the top contenders, it’s time to make a formal invitation to lead. Your objective is not to “sell” them on the project, but to have a dialog about how stewarding the project can be a fulfillment of their own vision and aspirations. Here are some useful recommendations to guide that conversation:

Meet face-to-face. If at all possible, conduct the meeting with your prospective leader face-to-face. This is not a conversation you want to have by e-mail. Unless it cannot be helped because of time and distance, neither do you want to have the discussion by phone. You’ll want to look into the whites of their eyes as they commit to the important role of leading the team as much as they’ll want to look into yours as you commit to their success.
Plan the dialog. Give the conversation some thought. You want to be the example of preparedness for your prospective leader as you will expect of them. The following are some talking points you might want to include:
- Overview of the Project - Provide a high-level view of the project. Connect the dots for them about the project’s importance to the organization.
- Selection Process - Why they were chosen as a possible leader. Discuss what you see as possible from this project and what’s in it for them.
- Expectations - Make explicit what you will expect of them and what they can expect from you. If there is a Charter, walk them through it. Ensure their understanding of its purpose, outcomes and timeframes.
- Next Steps - Gain their acceptance or a date when they will give you an answer. If they accept, schedule a time that the two of you can formalize the detailed milestones, select team members and a date for launching the team.
- Conclusion - Be sure that all their questions are answered. Thank them for their time and acknowledge their contribution to the organization.

Summary

Selecting the right person to lead a project with enormous importance to your company is as important as planning and developing the project. You want a project leader who’s inspired, accountable, coachable, collaborative and willing to lead their team to a successful completion. Often, the focus turns to management to serve in that capacity. But when you broaden your perspective to include anyone, particularly front-line personnel, you open the possibility of spotting leadership all throughout your organization.

23-Nov-10 2:00 PM

The Conundrum of People in Mergers & Acquisitions

Ben Henry - noemail@kcbcg.com — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:00:00 GMT

By Ben Henry

Business literature is full of studies and stories about how M&A’s failed to deliver promised shareholder value. It is often cited that over half of M&A transactions fail to create value. How is it that these stories and statistics are readily available to very smart people and yet the failures continue? What is it that makes M&A success so difficult? It comes down to actions and inactions of people or the “Conundrum of People in M&A”.

Conundrum – A puzzling question or problem, an enigmatical statement.

The puzzling questions are: Why do very smart business people who have access to the statistics and stories about failures in integrating M&A continue to act in similar ways? What makes the people aspect of M&A so enigmatic?

Mark Feldman and Michael Spratt wrote an intriguing book on M&A called Five Frogs on a Log. The book opens with a question. Five frogs are sitting on a log. Three decide to jump off. How many are left?

The answer is five, because deciding to do something is different than actually doing it. This riddle points toward the behavior of managers in M&A, which is where the conundrum of people begins. Managers may know or see what is needed, and yet, for a variety of reasons, are unable or unwilling to act. Given the inaction of managers, is it any wonder that employees also do not act in ways that would make the M&A more successful?

Consider that M&A is fundamentally about people. In business we talk about M&A as the acquiring of fixed assets, future cash flow, brands, etc. Yet people are at the heart of what makes M&A successful and in many cases, not successful. People are the conundrum that make or break M&A.

Conundrum of Executives

M&A ultimately involves many different people and stakeholders of a business. The first involved are usually the executives from the two businesses that are involved in making the deal. Ironically, executives from both sides of the transaction are pulled by a tidal wave of challenges and emotions. For those involved in selling, there is often a sense of uncertainty if not loss. For those on the buying side, there is often more elation and serious risk. Many an executive’s career has been sidetracked by failed transactions. In the flurry and passion of the negotiations it is easy to encounter situations and make decisions that in hind-sight were flawed. See if any of the following are anything you have ever seen:

Our emotion took over during the bidding – Too often competitiveness, ego and pride take over and the negotiations become a “macho event” where emotions dominate and a “win at all costs” attitude prevails.
Our analysis went from evaluating the probable value of the deal to justifying the deal we want to make.
We paid too much – Paying too much is a “deadly mistake” that is hard to overcome.
We failed to take our own advice and ignored warning signs – Ignoring clues about the actual condition of the assets/business that is being sought is often a major mistake. Too often the buyer is looking through “rose colored glasses” and misses clues that the business is not in as good a shape as the seller has described.
We made the deal for the wrong reason – We were unable to grow organically, and we thought combining with a competitor would make us stronger.
We made the deal based on belief in our strategies, yet those strategies had not been properly challenged or vetted. We acted prematurely.
We overstated the expected synergies; the best case became the base case.
We underestimated the complexity of integration.

Conundrum of Planning the Formal Integration

The most common failure we see is that the integration process is not designed or carried out well. From our observations of actual cases and a review of relevant business literature, we believe the ultimate success of M&A is most often linked to the quality of the integration.

Too often the executives who negotiated the deal are “fatigued” by the time the deal closes. They have often been locked away in meeting rooms and are eager to get back to their other duties. Consequently, they withdraw at the very time they should be getting more involved. This pulling back is evident in their effectiveness in communication. Powerfully effective communication is a leadership priority and must be received by all employees. Signals that this is not happening include:

Leadership messages are unfocused.
Politicking is excessive.
Key employees leave.
Different cultures clash.
An overall lack of transaction clarity in outcomes, expected actions, direction, purpose, planning, and particularly in the desires of both sides of the deal is apparent.

As the deal enters integration, these “communication signals” often predict failure to employees and other stakeholders. It is critical prior to launch of formal integration to make sure that leadership communication is set up to counter these common problems.

Also there is a false sense of simplicity about integrating acquisitions. Sometimes there is an actual disconnect as leaders assume the deal is done at closure. They question why employees seem to be less productive than they once were. They cannot see why an employee still has a job but is not happy. Possibly, leaders may not know how to add value during integration, may be defensive about holding on to an old culture, and may see integration as a more technical challenge, not as a way to gain the hearts and minds of all employees in a common purpose.

Conundrum of the Second Phase of Integration

Perhaps the biggest mistake made is to assume that integration is successful when the formal steps are completed (new signs, change business cards, trucks are painted the new color, etc.). Simply because the sign in front of the facility has been changed, it does not mean that people who work in that facility are committed to the new company. No, it simply means that the sign has been changed. A conundrum of people is that they are shaped by their commitments.

“Changing the name on sign of the building in which I work

has little, if anything, to do with my commitments.”

People change their commitments only when they are confident that it is in their best interest to do so. Until then, little meaningful change will occur, even when people appear to be compliant. While we had seen this behavior, we did not fully appreciate it until our firm was commissioned by a CEO to investigate the keys to successful post-acquisition integration. We interviewed a number of executives and employees in companies that had either made acquisitions or had been acquired. We found that in those situations where the acquisition integration was successful, the companies had taken actions that went well beyond the formal integration. They realized that there was a second stage of integration where the focus needed to be on winning the hearts and minds of the people from both companies. We discovered that until the employees are committed to the future of the combined company, the probability of integration success is limited. As you can imagine, the second stage of integration is about winning the “hearts and minds of people”, the focus being on creating a future that calls for commitment. Building commitment comes through strong leadership at all levels of the organization, collaboration, communication and engagement of people. That does not happen by accident, but rather requires discipline and intention.

Create a Successful Integration

If over half of all M&A deals do not succeed as planned, what can be done to improve the chances of success? First, strong leadership and communication is essential. People ultimately choose to commit to a company because they believe in the leaders with whom they interact. They will not commit simply because the company has a famous CEO, unless they are working directly for that CEO. What the employees see from managers one or two levels up and also from informal leaders will be the single strongest communication about what the new company intends to do and what it stands for.

Formal communication is a major challenge in M&A. We have repeatedly heard executives say, “We communicate more than ever, and yet it was still not enough.” There were too many employees who did not get the information they wanted and did not understand the message. We think that it is very unlikely that you can communicate too much during an M&A, recognizing that there are circumstances which prevent full disclosure of the deal.

It is particularly important to keep all people involved in understanding the value-added business outcome of the transaction. The formal integration process sets the tone for what is to come and is the biggest single communication to the entire organization about the future. Acquisitions win or lose on the degree to which the people on both sides feel their future can be met or fulfilled in the “new” company. We call this “Integration of Commitments”. Without the commitments of people in the acquired company, it is predictable that the combination will fall short of expectations. Effective leadership will demonstrate its understanding of this commitment through the introduction of useful steps in assuring integration success. Examples include:

Organizing

Management should select and support the right integration manager, someone who is brought into the deal early on, is seasoned in understanding people issues and can help choose and manage an integration team if necessary.
Insist on senior management in the process of communicating.
Seek expert assistance in creating and clarifying the message.
Inject speed through the decision and action processes.
Conduct a culture assessment in the due diligence process.
Shape a strong performance culture.

Planning

Get started early. Plan for integration throughout the process, including the due diligence phase.
Create an integration road map which everyone can understand.
Facilitate employee participation in integration with plans to launch short-term projects using the mobilization of joint project teams. Ensure that the launch provides challenging projects which are chartered and have outcomes and deadlines.
Balance speed and time depending on the purpose of the M&A transaction. For example, a growth strategy may force a longer integration than an efficiency strategy.

Communicating

Develop a credible and inspiring story. Be clear about the purpose of the transaction and its tie to overall strategy.
Be clear about the importance of communications throughout integration.
Create a Statement of Principles for the new organization which will set a tone for the future.
Provide social connections so that employees can vet and create.
Construct communication messages, possibly for each constituency, which are honest and timely, provide a clear vision of the future with outcomes and milestones, and answer “why are we doing this?”
In communicating, anticipate large challenges such as fear, bad news, limited information, and tough questions.
Conduct a communications audit to assess how key messages are communicated and received for companies on both sides of the deal.

The expectations of these actions are to retain key employees and managers, to give people a purpose for their commitments, to foster a communicative culture long after the integration, and to develop focused leadership in a performance-oriented organization.

Conclusion

People are a conundrum under the best of circumstances. M&A is not the best of circumstances, so it is essential that business leaders acknowledge and address the ways in which people get involved in the acquisition process. Ultimately, personal commitment is the best antidote for the conundrum of people and occurs only in the presence of effective leadership.

23-Nov-10 1:00 PM

Unsung Heroes: Supervisors as Agents of Change

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:00:00 GMT

Supervisors are often the unsung heroes in most organizations. Often times, they are that forgotten resource in affecting change within an organization. But consider that in their day-to-day leadership roles, they are not only agents for implementing the work that needs to get done with the front-line, they can be valuable advocates and communicators for change.

So what can this critical link in the chain of command add to their tool kits to equip them to be effective leaders? How can they impact the culture of work right now? Those questions were addressed on November 9, 2010 in the “Supervisors as Agents for Change” workshop led by Mike King, a founding partner of King Chapman & Broussard, Inc.

Supervisors from the following industries were represented:

Oil and Gas Pipeline
Petroleum Terminal / Storage
Consumer Packaging
Wastewater Treatment & Storage

Backed by 27 years of training hundreds of people in supervisory roles, Mike King engaged the participants in an interactive discussion on the following topics:

Leading without your title: Using the quality of listening, communicating, and clarity of action to accelerate productivity and performance.
Engaging your work group: Training your employees to take action versus waiting to be told what to do.
Dealing with complaints: Helping employees turn their complaints into possibilities and requests.

The attendees ranked the workshop highly in terms of its application to the current challenges in their jobs. Participants said they enjoyed the interactive format of the workshop. All found the training potentially valuable for other leaders and colleagues within their organizations.

29-Sep-10 2:00 PM

Foundational Commitments - the Leader's Source

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:00:00 GMT

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

A leader is someone who makes things happen that were otherwise not going to happen. That is, the extraordinary occurs because of the impact this person has on others. To be a leader is to create what is needed to challenge, empower, guide and inspire others to accomplish the extraordinary. While it may not appear that the leader is especially gifted or charismatic, an impact is made on others. That impact leads to significant accomplishments. There are then the questions: Where does the leader get this “intangible” quality? How is it that the leader has this intangible quality and others do not? Said another way, “What is the source for a leader?”

Asking the question “What is the source for a leader?” is a bit like asking, “What is the source for Superman?” That is, what gives Superman his powers? While you and I may have different memories of the explanation of Superman’s powers based on which comic books we read and which cartoons and movies we saw, we are fortunate that today we can look on the Internet and get very detailed explanations. For example, “Since Superman is a native of Krypton, a planet that had a red sun, under a yellow sun (like that of Earth's), his Kryptonian cells act as living solar batteries, absorbing solar energy and giving him superhuman powers.” The various web sites devoted to Superman note that over time, in the various installments of Superman, the explanation of the source of his power changed slightly. This is ironic, since our understanding of what makes a leader has also changed over time with changes in the nature of the challenges facing businesses in an increasingly competitive global business environment.

Identifying what gives source to leaders is not so easily researched on the web. What we find on the Internet are many explanations and theories. These are what Gregory Batson referred to as “Explanatory Principles.” An explanatory principle gives an explanation of something that we can use as a placeholder, but an explanatory principle actually gives little access to the phenomena. For example, if you hold your house keys out in front of you and then release them, the keys will fall to the floor. If I asked you why the keys fell to the floor rather than floating up in the air like a balloon, you would say, “Gravity” (and probably wonder what is wrong with me). Yet what does the explanation, “Gravity”, actually tell us? Do we actually understand what the phenomenon is?

If we pushed this conversation further, you might say that what made the keys fall was the gravitational pull of the earth. This is a more advanced explanation (explanatory principle version 2), yet even this explanation does not give us any real understanding of the phenomena. Explanatory principles are useful as “placeholders.” An explanatory principle makes something clearer by describing it, and yet the description does not provide access to knowledge. The good news is that we have a social convention to accept an explanation for those things that would otherwise get so complex that it would make us uncomfortable. Do most of us actually want to study physics in order to be able to genuinely understand why things fall to the earth? For most of us the answer is, “No thanks, I’m happy to leave that to the physicist. I’ll stick with the explanation of gravity, rather than attempt to gain access to knowledge of the true complexity of gravity.”

The same explanatory principles hold for leadership. We use the term very frequently, and the term does not actually lead us to learn or distinguish what is actually occurring when leadership occurs. As an example, if someone observed a work team that was performing markedly better than another and asked, “How come”, we might answer, “The reason this team is so successful is because of the leader.” If that person then asked, “What does that statement mean?”, we would say, “That person provided ‘real leadership’.” If pushed further, we might add, “This person has leader attributes,” “This person acts like a leader,” or “This person has leadership skills.” If pushed further to explain where leaders get their power and strength we might say, “A leader is self-motivated” or “A leader gets strength from experience.” I hope that you can see that all of those statements are an example of an explanatory principle. The statements give a description or explanation of something without actually providing access to what would allow one to produce similar extraordinary results from a group of people.

Given that you are reading this, I assume that you are interested in getting beyond the explanatory principle of leadership. To use the earlier discussion on why keys fall to the floor as an analogy, we will move beyond the explanation of gravity (explanations of leadership) to understanding the physics (access to the source of leadership) involved.

I assert that Foundational Commitments are the source for leaders. Foundational Commitments are the cornerstones for leaders who want what is best for the business. This may include effective performance in a steady state, a bold change to achieve breakthroughs in performance or sustainable transformation. Foundational Commitments are the first step and the critical support on which everything else is built.

At this point you could be thinking. “OK, but what are Foundational Commitments and, oh, by the way, is this just another explanatory principle?” Those are great questions. First let’s discuss the term “Foundational Commitments.” I made up the term. There is no such thing as Foundational Commitments. If you conduct a CAT scan on a person who is widely acknowledged as a great leader, you will not see Foundational Commitments. You will not find any evidence of Foundational Commitments on the scan.

I invented the term to try to distinguish, or at least point toward, the phenomena that I have seen occurring with individuals who impact groups of people to produce the extraordinary. I am using this invented term to force us to think differently than we have before about what happens when an individual interacts with a group of people so that extraordinary things occur. Later, I will describe what appears to be going on with an individual who is later called a leader. We will discuss how the leader appears to be “being”, and how that way of “being” has such powerful impact on other people.

I have been privileged to consult with a large number of successful team leaders, managers and executives. I have noticed that those who achieve outstanding results have a common understanding that getting excellent results comes from unleashing the creativity, energy and tenacity of others. Further, they tend to have certain aspirations, beliefs, and tenets which impact how they look at situations, what they consider to be possible, which alternatives they choose, and how they communicate to others. It could be said that leaders have common commitments that are put into action. I am calling those commitments Foundational Commitments since they appear to be at the heart of who these leaders are being when they are performing their role and interacting with others.

In this following section, let’s discuss in more detail the phenomena that is visible when we watch individuals whose behavior is later explained as “leadership.” We will be looking at how these leaders’ Foundational Commitments can be seen.

Being a Leader

The word “being” means “the nature or essence of a person”. Foundational Commitments are the essence of a person whose being impacts others to accomplish the extraordinary. We use the word “being” to refer to the nature or essence of a person and the word “leader” to refer to a person who accomplishes the extraordinary through others.

The being of leaders orients who they are as persons in the face of the challenge facing the business. The first thing that I have noticed about successful leaders is that they are committed to being and doing whatever is required for the team and business to be successful. There is a burning passion for seeing that those around them are successful. In order to achieve this success, the leader is at-will to challenge, call out if need be, cajole, develop, encourage, remove blockages, provide resources, threaten, and train to see that the people are supported and succeed. Leaders take setbacks and losses personally, as if somehow they did not provide the direction, guidance, and support to have the team and business succeed. These commitments give rise to the being of the leader, which, in turn, impacts the actions and speaking of the leader. Foundational Commitments are the wellspring from which leaders draw their direction, energy, grounding and power to be effective leaders. Foundational Commitments are the source for being a leader. This is important because the being of a leader is the precursor to success as a leader. That is, a person is being a leader before any employees are impacted or results are achieved.

The being of a leader is what people ultimately come to trust or not. The trust of the employees is essential in that leaders make mistakes in what they say and do. Employees can overlook these mistakes and continue to trust the leader if they are confident in what the leader stands for and who the leader is being.

Being is where leadership begins. A person is being a leader before they ever do or say anything. A person’s Foundational Commitments give rise to his or her being, which translates into acuity, clarity, direction, energy, passion and tenacity. These being-based attributes are perceived by their employees. The employees interpret this as evidence of a person who is authentic, competent and credible as a leader. In contrast, Situational Commitments give rise to a being of pseudo-leadership marked by personal aggrandizement, self-protection and self-centeredness. The employees clearly experience this as pseudo-leadership, and the employees behave accordingly. The consequences for the business are predictable and unfortunate.

Being One’s Word

Leaders view their personal integrity as their most precious possession. The definition of integrity is “the quality of having strong moral principles and the state of being whole.” Leaders are exceedingly careful to act consistent with their moral principles, to behave consistent with their speaking, and to not mislead people through their actions and speaking. Rather, they challenge themselves to “walk the talk” in every thing they do. They take being one’s word very seriously.

Integrity is one of those words that people are reluctant to use in business, yet it is at the heart of leadership. Leaders “be” that their word is their bond. Leaders “be” that “You can take my word to the bank and my handshake is my contract.” This commitment to being integrity is at the heart of the Foundational Commitments and a key to what makes these leaders able to accomplish the extraordinary through their colleagues and employees.

Foundational Commitment leaders do not differentiate their behavior in their office with their behavior in front of the employees. They appreciate that others are watching every thing that they do, and they want to demonstrate their commitment in their actions as well as their words.

Another demonstration of being one’s word is that people want to work around such a leader. There is a confidence and sense of trust that is very appealing. As demonstration of this, in my many years of consulting, I have never had the slightest “commercial problem” with a Foundational Commitment leader. I have never felt as if I was taken advantage of or had difficulty in collecting fees or had to deal with getting “beaten up on fees.” That is not to say, these Foundational Commitment leaders do not complain about how high my fees are. They and I understand that I am committed to their being wildly successful and to my adding clear value to their work.

In contrast, I have also worked for a number of Situational Commitment pseudo-leaders. It is a striking contrast for me. In general, the pseudo-leaders listen for what they want to hear and are looking for ways to make themselves look good. Given that they have often “missed the plot” of what is going on in the business and organization, it is hard to support them in getting what they want, i.e., to look good without having to take risks and upset any of their “loyalists.” In addition to being hard to work with, these pseudo-leaders are also notorious for commercial problems, i.e., challenging invoices to delay payments, being late in payments, etc. One of the first signs to me that I am dealing with a pseudo-leader comes from my accounting group who is having problems with collections for a contracted service for no apparent reason.

Being Context

Leaders appreciate that the context for the business and team must change if significant accomplishment is to occur. Leaders’ Foundational Commitments will not let them continue to operate in a context that is not working. The context is decisive in determining if the team will succeed, and so the leader continues to talk with others to find a way to articulate and invent the context that is needed for success. This context is essential to team performance since it determines how the employees see the circumstances and the opportunities that are presented to the team.

In contrast, the pseudo-leaders have been successful because of current or past context. Their interest is “getting back to the good old days.” They often say, “We have done this before, and we know how to do this.” They say this even when the performance is unacceptable. The pseudo-leader does not see the importance of context and would be unsuccessful even if they tried to create a new context.

Being Unreasonable

A Foundational Commitment of leaders is to be unreasonable with themselves and others. This means these Foundational Commitment leaders do not accept excuses, explanation, and stories for why performance did not occur. They are unwilling to settle for all the good reasons why something cannot happen or be achieved. Leaders have learned to break up the stories and to keep pushing for a way to achieve the result. There is a tenacity to continue to challenge, based on a commitment to achieve results even when it is not yet clear how this achievement can be accomplished.

By contrast, pseudo-leaders who operate from Situational Commitments usually excel in explanations, excuses and stories. They can effectively describe why they think something happened. What they cannot effectively do is speak in such a way as to interrupt the excuses and stories. In addition, pseudo-leaders often get quite defensive, if not nasty, when their excuses and stories are challenged. This challenge is perceived as an affront and a treat to their intense desire to look good at all costs.

Energy

The Foundational Commitments of the leader are like Superman’s Kryptonian cells. If you remember at the beginning of this chapter, we talked about Superman’s Kryptonian cells acting as living solar batteries, absorbing solar energy and giving Superman superhuman powers. While the Foundational Commitments do not give superhuman powers, they do give the energy for accomplishing the extraordinary.

The leader’s impact includes creating energy for those on the team and in the business. At the beginning, the leader will need to create or generate the clarity, direction, excitement and intensity that leads to others’ creating their own energy. What allows the leader to create the initial burst of energy is the commitment and passion for the team’s excelling, and for developing people. The key is to get the others on the team and in the business to be generate energy for themselves and others. It is the generation of energy by others that ultimately recharges the leader, as the earth’s sun did for Superman’s Kryptonian cells.

While the leader is generating energy to get the team moving, it is also a matter of concern that should be watched closely. Energy for the leader is often a most critical ingredient. Providing or generating the leadership to turn an organization, whether it is around or in a decidedly different direction, is a very challenging and demanding task. The leader experiences this challenge as very draining. Often a Foundational Commitment leader’s main question is: “Do I have enough energy to get this done?”

In the early stages of a change, there is a particular demand or drain on energy. There are long hours, intense conversations and many meetings. In the early stages, the leader often has to generate the energy for the entire team, as well as for her or him. There is a demand for concentrated action and focus. The leader must be relentless in challenging, encouraging, confronting, demanding, and engaging. The challenge for the leaders is where does the energy come from? Of course, in part, it is from physical stamina, but the emotional and intellectual energy is actually sourced or charged/recharged from the leader’s Foundational Commitments. This act of generation from Foundational Commitments is what sets the leader apart.

By contrast, pseudo-leaders often get their energy from fear, focus on survival and self-interest. While fear and survival will provide temporary bursts of energy, they are usually not sustainable. Attempts to lead teams to serve the self-interests of the leader usually are not successful, and the leader then resorts to demands for compliance and conformity. This, of course, will not move an organization to achieve successful change and sustainable results.

Creating a Stand

The leader’s stand is the enactment or embodiment of Foundational Commitments. It is the articulation of “whatI stand for,” which is then translated into “what we as a team or business stand for.” Part of the energizing of the others is their taking on the leader’s stand as their own. They may choose different words, yet the essence of the stand is the same. As an example, when Tom Stephens took over as CEO of Canada’s largest forest products company, McMillan Bloedel, he told the employees that he was committed to three things:

1. Safety – safest forest products company

2. Earning respect

3. Being outrageously successful

Those three items were Mr. Stephens’ stand. They also were a bold statement of being a leader, as McMillan Bloedel was none of these at the time, and, in fact, was performing poorly in all three areas. However, within a short time, most employees could state the three parts of Mr. Stephens’ stand as what the company was committed to. The stand shifted from the stand of the new CEO to the stand of the rank and file employees, which started the company on the road to becoming successful in all three areas.

I have noticed that leaders are able to take a stand in part out of their own personal desire to be committed to something and to working with people who come to share that commitment. In fact, leaders often gain great pleasure in watching others discover their own commitment to the team and business and then generate actions and accomplishments consistent with those commitments. There is great satisfaction in giving people something to believe in and then watching them perform in extraordinary ways. This is one area in which the leader’s Foundational Commitments appear to be most reinforcing and rewarding.

The stand is the grounding from which the leader works. It gives a place of stability from which to develop a good perspective and contributes to developing the right perspective that will ultimately engage the employees. This engagement, in turn, will lead employees to take the actions needed to get the results for the business. The leader’s stand is a deep commitment that shows through as the leader deals with the day-to-day business, as well as engages in conversations with employees.

This stand supports the leader in demonstrating commitment. The stand provides valuable content as the leader demonstrates and discusses commitment. Valuable content is like the quality programming that is used on an entertainment channel. It is the rich, attracting content that will make employees pay attention and to connect to the commitment of the leader. It is demonstrable and can be seen by employees. In a conversation with an employee about how he knew that the plant manager was committed to certain outcomes, his reply would be, “I can see it. It is obvious.” This obviousness in what engages employees and makes them want to follow and work with the leader.

Authentic Communication

One of the bedrock Foundational Commitments of a leader is to be in communication. This is not to say that leaders are always good at staying in communication; in fact, they struggle with it just as everyone else does. The difference is that they are committed to doing it even when they are not necessarily good at it. They find ways to support themselves in being in communication with others on the team and in the business.

This communication is consistent through everything the leader thinks, says, writes and does. Correspondingly, it is the key to the leader developing credibility with the employees based on how they listen to the leader. The Foundational Commitments are communicated and experienced by groups of employees. In change efforts a key conversation that occurs early is the discussion among the employees as to what the leader is up to. Invariably, there are questions: Can we trust this person? What is this person about? Ultimately am I interested in what this person is committed to? (One way I talk about this with my clients is to phrase this employee question as: Can I be enrolled in the future this person is committed to creating?) If the experience is that this person is committed to doing what is best for the business, even if it requires tough actions, employees will experience this and start to engage. If the commitment is personally to looking good, then the employees sense there is going to be just more of the same and ask themselves why they should be involved or contribute to any change the leader suggests. In fact, they often say to themselves, “I’ll hunker down and protect what I’ve got. This new effort will pass, as new efforts have in the past.”

The leader’s Foundational Commitment to be in communication is also reflected in an intense desire to be a better listener. Often leaders are aware that listening is critical for success; yet often listening is not one of their strongest skills. The Foundational Commitment to being a good listener causes the leader to persist in developing advanced listening skills, which many business people today do not have. The ability to listen well is a critical skill for leaders. Most business people are much more comfortable talking than listening. There is an illusion of power when one is talking articulately and forcefully.

Too often, young leaders focus on saying the right thing and pay little attention to developing the skills to listen with great acuity. Employees will be engaged much more quickly when they know that their concerns and points of view are heard and appreciated by the leader, than they would be engaged by a slick slide show or speech. Leaders often report that learning to listen well is among their highest challenges, and so having their Foundational Commitments energize the continued development of listening skills is essential. The leaders come to appreciate that their power actually comes from their ability to listen and learn. Listening allows access to the wants and needs of customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

The leader’s Foundational Commitments also include providing a mechanism or structure with which to listen. The Foundational Commitment to listen results in some kind of clear structure for meeting with people in order to listen, for recording that listening, for repeating that listening back to the employee, etc. This structure works as a “listening device” for the comments and concerns of people on the team and in the organization. A central part of the increased skill in listening is the establishing of a commitment-based structure with which to listen: time, place, method, response, etc. This allows for heightened listening and for translating others’ comments into expressions of the commitments of both the leader and the employees.

By listening intently to customers and employees, the leader is able to determine their commitment and concerns. This gives access to the areas in which they can be engaged and enrolled. Listening is a key to effective enrollment. Highly effective leaders come to attend to the commitment that is being spoken as much as the particular words that are being used.

Critical Thinking

The Foundational Commitment leader appreciates that critical thinking is a key enabler of success. Often the leader has to teach others to think, so that they can think critically.

Critical thinking begins with a sense of inquiry and questioning. There is a continual quest to better understand what is going on in the business and what the drivers are to improve performance. There is an unwillingness to settle for pat answers, stories, and excuses. A statement such as, “Well, everybody knows,” provokes a leader with Foundational Commitments to question the thinking that is behind that statement. It is a bit like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull. Predictable responses will occur.

Critical thinking involves continuously challenging one’s own thinking and the thinking of others. A leader appreciates that what has stopped a business from being successful is the myths and stories that the managers tell themselves. Getting the managers to challenge their own thinking to identify the myths is a key step in moving toward breakthroughs.

Thinking critically is not simply a matter of intelligence. Many very bright people with extensive education and experience are not effective in thinking critically. The consequence of not thinking critically is often noted by the expression: “What were they thinking?” After all the excuses and stories are told, the sad realization is that people simply were not thinking critically.

Thinking critically is not as common in businesses as one might think and certainly not as common as one would desire. There seem to be different reasons for this. First, in many companies a myth has developed that only managers, especially senior managers, are the people in the company who are supposed to think. It is common to have very experienced front-line workers tell graphic stories in which their attempts to add thinking to a discussion in their worksite was met with an instruction to “Shut up and do what you are told.” The tragedy of telling those closest to the work that they cannot add to the quality of thinking in their workplace has deprived shareholders of unthinkable amounts of value as well as taken the satisfaction of work away from many employees.

A second factor in the limited level of critical thinking has been the heavy focus on getting tight processes. The myth is that the process is fine, if we can just get the employees to execute it flawlessly. Rather than challenging the process, there is extreme attention to getting compliance. In compliance-oriented cultures, critical thinking is not appreciated. That is why employees are so eager to get with and support a leader who enables and encourages them to think critically about the business.

By contract, pseudo-leaders with situational commitments spend enormous energy defending their history, the correctness of their answers, and complaining that their superiors would not be asking the questions they are asking if they understood the business. Situational commitment pseudo-leaders shut down critical thinking. They focus, instead, on avoiding any challenges to thinking that would make anyone uncomfortable or look bad.

If a person has Foundational Commitments, these result in big commitments for the organization. The critical thinking process, then, will need to expand to get to the level and expanse required to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situation as well as courses or pathways of action.

Leaders with Foundational Commitments are also more open to critical thinking that includes differences in points of view or different perspectives. They are more open to conversations and thinking different from their own. There is a tolerance and appreciation of diversity and the power that different points of view can bring. Foundational Commitment leaders usually surround themselves with people who are different in their thinking to assure that the proper challenges to the leader’s thinking are made. These people who think a bit differently are often the ones who come up with the data and ideas that turn into breakthroughs. In contrast, people with situational commitments tend to surround themselves with loyalists who are agreeable, who usually have similar perspectives, and who will not challenge their thinking. At times it looks like a scene from an opera with the loyalists “singing choruses of praise” for the pseudo-leader.

Access to Possibility

Possibility is the leader’s secret weapon. Possibility is a way of getting people to open up and consider the alternatives. It is a key to unlocking the power in teams and organizations, and getting people engaged in improving the performance. It is the kind of conversation and questioning that so many employees want to have, and so many managers are afraid to have.

Possibility invites a conversation of what could be. Possibility is a conversation about what could be accomplished, delivered or produced. In this kind of possibility conversation there are no immediate constraints, restrictions, or critiques. There, of course, is a role for critique at some later time, but not in the early stages of possibility conversations of creation and invention in thinking. Foundational Commitments enable the leader to have confidence to think beyond the borders or boundaries of what is currently thought to be achievable.

In business lingo there is an expression, “thinking outside the box.” This expression comes from a graphic where nine dots are drawn on a piece of paper or whiteboard. The person is then instructed to connect all nine of the dots by drawing four straight lines without lifting the pencil or pen. If you have not seen this demonstration, try it:

(The solution to this puzzle appears at the end of this article.)

The point of this demonstration is that the mind sees an imaginary “box” when it sees the nine dots. Is there a box there? No, but the mind acts as if there is and set boundaries and parameters on what is possible. The mind shapes what we see as possible when we look at the nine dots, and, in turn, shapes what is seen as possible actions and solutions. In similar ways business people may be limited in their view of the circumstances, customer behavior, competitive forces, market conditions, etc. There are “nine dots” and imaginary boxes around their part of the business. If these imaginary boxes are not interrupted, the boxes will dramatically reduce what people can see as possible. A leader with Foundational Commitments, however, continues to seek out the possibility that exists and can be explored and does not allow conversations to be limited by “nine dot imaginary boxes.” The leader, then, provides the energy and intensity to continuously challenge “the box,” whether it is the perceived limits of performance, approaches, or the contribution that employees can make to the business.

Increased level of critical thinking comes from the leader being able to see a full range of possibilities. The leader’s personal commitments and stand give access to a whole range of possible options. “We can’t” is not a familiar expression of a leader. Rather it is “We will” or “We will keep looking until we find a way.” The critical thinking of the Foundational Commitment leader will continue to focus on exploring for further possibilities.

Possibility conversations provide the Foundational Commitment leader to gain life or expression in the work. The commitments are experienced most powerfully as possibility. Possibility is also expansive, as it leads to the question of “What would fulfilling these possibilities that we have seen from critical thinking allow us to do that we don’t see as possible today?”

While ultimately there are boundaries on what is acceptable to consider, the act of critical thinking, nonetheless, becomes an enabler. As an example, if a leader has a Foundational Commitment of respect for employees and safety, those possibilities that would put employees at great harm will not be acted upon. However, since the leader has clarity or sharpness in perspective, there will be more resourcefulness available.

I have noticed that as leaders grow and mature, their relationship to possibility expands. It becomes not only something that is useful and expresses their commitment, but actually becomes a commitment in and of itself. There is a joy that the leader sees in what people do when they discover their own possibilities, and this is rewarding in and of itself. It is the possibility of what can be contributed to others. The satisfaction of this contribution and gift is very rewarding to the leader.

A person with situational commitments has little facility with possibility, since their field of view of what is possible is restricted to that which will assure that they look good. If the only things that a leader can consider are those which will make her/him look good or at least avoid looking bad, the conversation of what is possible is dramatically reduced.

Focus on Excellence in Implementation

A Foundational Commitment for leaders is excellence in implementation. This translates to wanting to do what is right and an intense focus on doing what is necessary for success. The leader is focused on implementation because that is the key to success. The “game” is won or lost in implementation, and the deep commitment to the success of the business and the people drives the leader to keep a keen eye on the key drivers of success in implementation.

In contrast, pseudo-leaders with situational commitments do not excel at implementation, especially strategic implementation. By that I mean implementation of something that involves risk or is in someway not completely predictable. Pseudo-leaders do not show a commitment to excellence in implementation if that implementation requires real leadership rather than merely managing and overseeing the unfolding of what predictably will happen. Leadership is making something happen that was not going to happen, and this is scary ground for a pseudo-leader. In fact, as I have thought about it, I think pseudo-leaders are unable to see the possibility or opportunity for such a bold move and therefore, cannot think their way through strategic implementation. The field of view what is possible is restricted to options that are designed to make the pseudo-leader look good. The cost of looking good is a narrowed range of view, with no access to the very paths that would create success. The commitment to looking good is greater that the commitment to getting the result.

For pseudo-leaders the commitment to looking good and having an organization full of loyalists who surround the pseudo-leader results is so strong that attempts to point toward it and/or break it up are almost always resisted. It appears that the only thing that will bring this commitment to looking good is the lack of business results. The lack of business results appears to be the only force strong enough to disrupt it.

A consequence of having a pseudo-leader is that implementation will always be limited to that which is predictable. Given that simply doing what is predictable or safe is not appropriate for many businesses today, having a pseudo-leader in a key position is an extreme limitation. Perhaps governmental agencies and the post office tolerate this. But when we think about the poor performance in the post office and the debacle with FEMA in Katrina, perhaps we would decide that such limitations are not acceptable even in organizations like the post office and agencies of our government. Perhaps as I think about it, this may explain some of what drives the creation of bureaucracy in companies and government. Perhaps these organizations are led by pseudo-leaders whose commitment is to protect themselves, to look good and not be shown up to look bad.

Courage

Foundational Commitments will not allow the leader to hide out, be politically correct, or put personal career safety ahead of what is best. Rather, the leader will have the courage to take risks and to encourage the team to take the risks necessary to be successful. The leader also has the courage to declare and confront breakdowns. “When the going gets tough the tough go shopping” is not a description of a Foundational Commitment leader. Rather, when the going gets tough, true leaders go back to their Foundational Commitments.

By contrast the situational commitment pseudo-leader focuses on what is politically correct and does everything possible not to take personal risks. This pseudo-leader will let others get out on the limb and will sacrifice as many employees as necessary to continue to look good.

In Conclusion

Foundational Commitments are the source for leaders. Like the Krypton cells that were the strength for Superman, these Foundational Commitments provide the energy and power for the leader. These commitments shape the being of the leader. This is important because being a leader is the precursor to having an impact on others and to achieving success. These being-based attributes are watched carefully by employees and are at the heart of the credibility and rapport that leaders develop with others. This credibility and rapport open the door for leaders to interact in unique ways, and it is through these interactions with Foundational Commitment leaders that teams and businesses accomplish the extraordinary. They make something happen that was otherwise not going to happen. This leadership will in turn assure the continued achievement of excellent results.

Foundational Commitment leaders are tenacious in protecting their integrity and being that their word is their bond. They create a new context for the team, one that gives the team access to actions that they otherwise would not have. The leader communicates a personal stand for success, which, over time, is adopted by the team. The leader learns to listen and provides a definitive structure for listening to employees. The leader asks for critical thinking from all employees. The Foundational Commitment leader is unreasonable about the team finding a way to be successful and will not accept excuses and stories.

Key to the Dot puzzle:

18-Aug-10 8:00 AM

Strategic Execution Planning

Bob Chapman - noemail@kcbcg.com — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:00:00 GMT

Strategic Execution Planning

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

There is overwhelming evidence that most strategic initiatives fall short of the expected results. At the core, many initiatives fall short because of the lack of anticipation of what it will actually take to make it work and the impact it will have on employees and other key stakeholders. Too often there are naïve managers who mean well but are clueless as to what will be required for success. Some of these managers think “just tell ‘em what to do and get on with it”. While this sounds “strong” in meetings, it is actually a dangerous blend of arrogance, bravado and naivety. In addition to alienating employees, this approach very rarely delivers the expected results and is almost certainly never sustained. Other managers are optimistically hoping that everyone will welcome the change brought about by the initiatives.

These managers misunderstand what they are getting into. Strategic Execution is an intervention made into the trajectory of the performance of a business. It is an interruption of the current trajectory in order to improve or upgrade the trajectory to one that will 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. That is a common occurrence, and the reason so many attempts at Strategic Execution fall short or are abandoned.

I assert that Strategic Execution requires intensity and a plan for managing dynamics that occur. When these interventions fall short, it is usually because:

There were insufficient levels of leadership in planning.
Those involved badly underestimated the challenges involved in actually implementing the initiative and therefore did not plan accordingly.
The initiative was not actually ever designed or planned to be implemented.
The key stakeholders were not engaged in the planning phase to assure the initiative was successfully implemented. Rather, the stakeholders were covertly to overtly resistive to the changes being brought about by the initiative.

Strategic Execution

As a way of beginning our conversation, let’s look at my definition of Strategic Execution:

Strategic Execution is an intervention made into the trajectory of the performance of a business. It is an interruption of the current trajectory in order to improve or upgrade it to one that will create more profitability and value in the business. Strategic Execution is intentional actions designed to accomplish extraordinary results and to better position the business competitively.

Strategic Execution is intended to create a breakthrough for the business. To achieve breakthroughs in enhanced competitive position and business results. These outcomes do not happen by accident. They are designed to produce the results and are implemented with energy, intensity and integrity. 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. It is change in the fundamentals of the business, and will involve substantive changes in 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.

What would you say is the primary source of undelivered shareholder value? Which of the following would you identify as a likely culprit?

Low-quality products
Obsolete technology
Poor customer service
Weak sales
Poor returns on capital projects
Failure to control operating costs
Trying to grow too quickly
Taking imprudent risks

What if I told you that none of the above ranks as high on a list of culprits as failures in implementation? Sound crazy? Maybe not. Consider the following phrase:

We are great at developing strategies and plans…

but lousy at implementing.

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 your not having an organizational landscape that is littered with the wreckage of prior projects.

Settings of Strategic Execution

Strategic Execution occurs in companies large and small. It happens in corporate headquarters, production facilities, sales groups, etc. It is the initiative to make something happen that is important to the business. It can include implementing a growth strategy, striving for world-class manufacturing performance, changing the competitive position of a business in the marketplace, integrating an acquisition, and substantial performance improvement. In all these cases there is coordinated action to deliver success in discontinuous change and avoid the “disappearing planes” in implementation.

Business Case for Strategic Execution

Strategic Execution planning begins with articulating the business case for change. This case needs to be compelling for all those who will be involved in planning and implementing the initiative as well as those who will be impacted by the change. Too often the business case is not well articulated and/or does not contain anything “compelling” for stakeholders. Sometimes managers describe some ethereal benefit that has nothing to do with employees, and then are shocked when their people do not get “on-board” for the change.

Often the believability of the business case is as much from the speaker as the message itself. The speaker must speak from the heart and clearly articulate personal commitment to success of the initiative. Absent the clarity of leadership commitment, the business case will likely have little power to engage people’s interest and enroll them in taking actions required for success.

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:

1. Execution is a discipline, and integral to strategy.

2. Execution is the major role of the business leader.

3. Execution must be a core element of an organization’s culture.

While I strongly agree with these points, I think it is important to add leadership at all levels of the business. Of course the senior leaders are important. Yet their role as leaders is to create other leaders throughout the business and in particular, to aid in planning and acting to make the Strategic Execution successful. Often there is too much attention paid to the senior leaders. Yes, they are the starting point, and yet successful execution does not occur without effective leadership at all levels of the organization. Further, leadership must be provided in elevating the level of thinking during planning, as well as throughout all of the execution. That is, 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 planning and implementation. Execution is more than a role of leadership. It is the essence of leadership.

My core message is that leadership is cornerstone for 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 is needed to be said has been said clearly and there is nothing else to say about that. There is no need to try and refine the point, as what has been said is as well said as the speaker can make 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.”

Steps for Success in Strategic Execution

Success in Strategic Execution comes from the deep understanding and action on these points:

1. Transformational leadership is essential.

2. Execution planning begins with rigorous strategic thinking

3. Execution architecture is developed standing in the future

4. Execution initiatives are designed for breakthrough

5. Engagement of the stakeholders who matter most

6. Leading, communicating and engagement of stakeholders is intertwined

7. Never stop leading, learning and expanding the possibilities for others

Let’s look at the planning element for each of these critical steps. The actions taken during execution will be covered in a subsequent series called Strategic Execution: Actions during Implementation.

1. Transformational Leadership is Essential

A cadre of transformational leaders is mandatory for success in Strategic Execution. Transformational leaders are capable of and committed to producing breakthroughs in the business.

At this point I would like to turn the conversation and speak directly to you, as if we were sitting in your work space talking about the subject of you being a transformational leader. At this point it should be clear that I say transformational leaders are the cornerstone of successful Strategic Execution. Yet, that does not make it so. It takes people like you to make it happen. So, at this point you would likely ask me, “OK, where do I start?” My answer is short and to the point. You begin with yourself. If you are going to be a successful transformational leader, you must begin with yourself. You lead through communication, examples, and your openness to deal with surprises and unexpected events. You must be willing to make personal changes as required for the success of the business. That is, you as a leader must be aware that you will need to go first in making personal changes and process changes. If you as a leader are unwilling to change, there is no reason to expect others in the organization to follow. Gandhi sums this up well:

To change, first we must change ourselves.

Each Strategic Execution and transformation is different. Each has unique challenges. A transformational leader must be open to learning, willing 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. Absent leadership, attempted intervention into the trajectory of the business will fail and the results will not be achieved.

A transformational leader is determined and responsible. The leader is willing to be responsible for raising the level of conversations during the planning phase. That is, asking questions, challenging the level of analysis and thinking, calling into question when the thinking is inward or isolated, refusing to accept easy answers, and continuing to push for thinking that will lead to breakthroughs. During the planning phase the leaders make it explicit that they expect others to take actions in areas that are beyond their formal accountability as part of the strong commitment to seeing the business produce exceptional results and succeed. Creating breakthroughs usually involves working across organizational borders and boundaries, so it is important that leadership establishes the intention to collaborate and work across traditional organizational boundaries during the planning phase of execution.

Successful Strategic Execution begins in the future. The role of the leader is to assert that thinking from the future is how the initiatives will be developed and executed. While this may seem odd at first, it is essential for success in Strategic Execution. I am amazed at how odd this feels for many managers since we think from the future in many aspects of our lives. Yet, when it comes to implementing initiatives, most of us have not learned to think this way. Let me give you an analogy. If you needed to be in New York City tomorrow for a meeting, what would you do? You would think about the starting time of the meeting, and work back to develop your travel arrangements. For most of you that is an act that you do with little regard for what has happened to you in the past, unless of course you had a bad experience on a recent flight with a particular airline or previously you had a bad experience with a hotel in New York. Bad memories aside, you start with a future you wish to create (on time for my meeting, arrive fresh and well rested) and plan back from that. In a subsequent chapter we will discuss planning from the future in much more detail. For now, let’s say that it is an essential element of leadership in Strategic Execution.

Another element of leadership is identifying outcomes that are to be achieved by Strategic Execution. These outcomes need to be sufficiently large in order to alter the competitive position of the business, and produce substantive value creation. Often there is reticence to identity outcomes this large, since the leader does not know how it can be achieved. That is precisely the point of courage for leadership. It is to declare a commitment to achieving an outcome without being able to show all the steps required to successfully deliver the result. Often the leader can agree to this level of outcomes since competitors are already accomplishing similar results, and the task at hand is to build on what competitors are doing and advance beyond.

The leader’s impact also shows up as challenging the myths that may have developed about the business, organization and the products of the business. As a sequel to Execution, Bossidy and Charan wrote Confronting Reality. In this book they noted that executions often fail because the executives and managers failed to confront the reality of their situation. A leader must show openness to inquiry and be challenging, even about sensitive topics. The leader must be explicit if an area is “off limits”, and then declare everything else open to investigation and questioning. Employees assume there are many more “sacred cows”, or topics off limits, than is usually the case. Establishing clarity on what is available for inquiry is a key first step in confronting reality. A second key step is to insist on facts rather than opinions and interpretations. The leader’s role is to bring crispness and thoroughness to thinking, without locking in on “our tired old answers”.

Leadership is demonstrated in developing an architecture or design for the full execution, including the core initiatives. These initiatives are developed from a point in the future back to the present. The architecture gives clarity and meaning to the initiatives, and demonstrates that if executed properly the strategic initiatives will produce tremendous results for the business. Once the initiatives are seen as viable, the next question is involving the right people in preparing for implementation. Getting the right people involved is essential. The selection of team leaders and team members is among the strongest communications that the leadership can give stakeholders about how strongly committed they are to the success of the execution and initiatives.

Leaders also appreciate that their job is never done while business is in the midst of Strategic Execution. 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 the 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 is 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 the executive’s ability to inspire employees throughout the business 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. That is, 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.

If you want more on being a transformational leader, Volume I in the To the Point on Strategic Execution series deals intensively with leadership.

2. Execution Planning Begins with Rigorous Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking is a precious and often missing component of developing and implementing Strategic Execution. A Strategic Execution plan should be created or invented based on quality thinking, i.e., inquisitive, challenging, complete, full of possibility and unbiased strategic thinking.

As a leader you must confront that many who should be capable in thinking strategically cannot. Just because a person has degrees from impressive universities and has had important positions in the organization, does not mean that the person can actually THINK STRATEGICALLY. I am still amazed at the number of managers who are in important positions that 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 ground” for being 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.

The leader also must insure that the difficult or unpopular questions are being asked. For example, difficult questions like these:

What have our customers and/or corporate staff being trying to tell us that we have been unable or unwilling to hear?
What do our customers really want and what are they willing to pay us? Will what we are executing give our customers what they want and are willing to pay for? If not, what are we missing?
How do our products and services compare with those from our competitors? Will what we are executing dramatically improve our competitive position? If not, what is missing?
What myths do we have about our products, services, and organization?
What is constraining our growth? What explanations do we have for this constraint? How long have we known that, or at least been telling ourselves this? Will this execution eliminate those constraints? If not, what is missing?
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? What could cause that to change? What opportunities or threats would such a change mean to us?
Are we optimizing the shareholder value in this business? Is this business worth more to someone else? If yes, what would they do that we have been unwilling to do?

A leader’s role is to see that others are asking these difficult questions, and many others. All of these questions are designed to confront the truth about our current situation. Confronting the current level of performance is among the biggest challenges faced in execution planning. New strategies are developed because there is a desire for significantly improved performance. Yet the need for improved performance often comes as a surprise to managers, supervisors and employees in the business.

I see this all the time, even in businesses that are in deep trouble due to underperformance. Leaders find that in planning execution they need to overtly challenge managers, supervisors and employee’s perceptions about competitive position and the current levels of performance. Managers, supervisors, and employees may have become comfortable and complacent with performance that is well below what is needed or could be achieved. Challenging this comfort zone requires people to be unwilling to accept mediocre performance. Managers and employees have come to accept their level of performance, even though it is based on complacency and is ho-hum, if not crummy. It’s like the old saying about a dishonest politician: “Yes, he is a crook, but he is our crook!” Complacency shows up in the business as “things could be better but…” Complacency is the enemy of successful Strategic Execution.

Leaders 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 not open to question 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 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 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!”

3. Execution Architecture Is Developed Standing in the Future

Architecture is the design for transforming a business. It is what guides the Strategic Execution. Architecture is creating a picture of what will be in the future. It is the creating of a future that is whole and complete. It is based on a future in which things have worked out rather than being determined by the problems of the past. It is a perfect representation of what will be constructed and exists in the future. It is developed for this specific application. It is fit for purpose.

Perhaps the most common mistake in implementation planning is the direction from which it is envisioned and developed. Strategic Execution planning must be developed from a future. This future is one that leaders have committed to achieving, and are now in the midst of developing the plan. Once leaders are standing in the future, the attention turns to identifying the context that is present in this future that will be required for the Strategic Execution to succeed. The new context is an expression of the possibility to which the leaders and the team are committed. The context gives fullness to the possibility. A test of the strength of the context is that those in the organization experience it as creating and giving possibility for them. That is, they can see how they could be more effective, engaged and expressive at work as a consequence of this context and this possibility. It is preferable that this context be identified and refined in the early stages of developing the execution architecture. The focus then becomes how to implement the changes in context. Leaders tend to articulate a future and then begin developing the execution plans from the past/present. This seemingly innocent mistake will in most instances doom the execution to mediocrity, unnecessary hard work, and usually failure. The key is to begin the thinking standing in the future. In this architecture, there are a couple of points that you must include.

A. Clarify Accountability, Responsibility and Ownership of the Plan

Leaders have accountability for success in all stages of execution. The execution plan should be worked on or polished until 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. Why that is essential is that 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.

B. Identify the magnitude of change

It is essential that leaders appreciate the differences between the types of change: incremental and transformational 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 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 be 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 incremental levels of change to be effective also with transformational levels of change.

4. Execution Initiatives Designed for Breakthrough

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 analogy about the fallacy of assuming implementation will naturally occur as result of 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 began 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 my “strategy” or 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”. While this seems obvious in this example of landscaping a yard, please look at how often that is exactly what happens in a business. We develop a strategy and think the work is done. In this example, there was a brilliant strategy on paper, but it did not become real until a crew of hard workers came with the needed plants, soil, and tools to actually make it happen. What is needed in your business?

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 results.

A. Planning for Breakthroughs and Breakdowns

The demonstration of a brilliant Strategic Execution is laying out a plan for achieving advantages in the eyes of customers and then implementing in such a way as to realize advantages for the customers. Rather than going for competitive advantage in the eyes of the customer, businesses sometimes 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 spell 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 with 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 be 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 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, and 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 transformational changes. The incremental improvements may be enhanced by breakdowns, while transformational changes must have the breakdowns.

B. Planning from Results to Action

The execution plan should describe specific action 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 the employees can see that their own well being is not treated as important, they can be expected to do only what is required and little else. When the employees see that there is a strong interest in their own well being, they are much more likely to become passionately involved in helping improve the well being of the business. Actions speak louder than words. If the execution plan has 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 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 the 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?” Managers often 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 thought managers may pretend that is the case. Employees may feel trapped in a job because of their financial obligations and life circumstances, but they actually are not. I have seen many situations where when the implementation plans were not well thought through that the employees find 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. That said, often that is not the case. They can be 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 this 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.

C. Breakdowns Are Desirable and Should Be Predicted

Breakdowns are the door or access point to what needs addressing if the business is to execute its strategy. Strategy could be thought of as being 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 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. 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 teams even smarter 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.

D. Metrics

Getting the right metrics is perhaps the most crucially misunderstood aspect of designing Strategic Execution. A metric is a category of measurement. Measurement is essential in that employees will act on those things that are measured for which they will be rewarded. That is clear. What is not clear is that in a transformation, entirely new metrics are required. Further, the best metrics for driving the desired performance likely do not exist in the business. They will need to be invented. This invention may be based on what other businesses have found useful, but as part of implementation they must be “invented anew” in this situation. Unfortunately, businesses may begin a Strategic Execution anticipating a breakthrough in performance while using the same metrics that they have used in the past.

Using the same metrics and yet expecting a different outcome is a recipe for failure. The reason for the failure is that the managers have not thought through the consequence or impact of the metrics. The metrics that are implemented will drive action and behavior, which, in turn, should have an impact on results. The impact, however, may not be the one desired. So in successful Strategic Execution, any old metric will NOT do. A new unexamined metric will also NOT do. What is required is the invention of new metrics that will pull forward the possibility of the new initiative. You want to invent new metrics that will bring forth and reward new ways of thinking and behavior that are essential to the success of the transformative change under way.

E. Engagement of Employees

An execution plan is not complete without serious consideration of how key groups of employees will be included. Having these employees be enthusiastic about participating in implementing the plan is essential. In many instances, the engagement of the front line employees is crucial. These are the employees that interact with your customers. They are the ones who are actually involved in producing the products and services of your business. They most often know where the problems actually are and how the problems can be resolved.

It could be said that your employees are either for you or against you. It is wise to assume that they are not for you until they have explicitly said so and are behaving accordingly. The impact of intensely engaged employees involved in execution is huge. Employees who are engaged are a key factor for success in implementation. In much of management literature, the implied assertion is that employees are resistant to become engaged, and that the manager should focus on how to get them to participate in change management activities. Ironically, I find that often the managers are the ones who are most resistant to change, and the employees are simply acting on the behaviors, communication and signals from their supervisors and managers. Getting people involved and engaged is a demonstration of leadership. If leadership is not present, it will be difficult to get employees engaged. But then, why should it be expected that employees will be engaged in implementing a strategy when they can see that those who are actually accountable for the strategy are not actually engaged in what will be required for success in execution?

Employees are critical stakeholders as they will be intimately involved in the 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 the employees.

Once employees appreciate the thinking behind the strategy and understand what it will mean to them, they will be strong advocates for success in the execution of the strategy. Prior to receiving this direction, the 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 the 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 as “here comes more of the same”.

5. Engagement of the Stakeholders Who Matter Most

Success in leadership of Strategic Execution depends on your effectiveness in engaging those stakeholders who matter most in implementation. Planning for engagement of stakeholders is essential for effective engagement of people to collaborate and work in ways that will most effectively execute strategy, transform the organization and achieve extraordinary results. The secret to success in execution of strategy is to communicate the direction of the strategy in a clear and compelling manner to a wide variety of stakeholders. This communication occurs only with clear appreciation of who the stakeholders are, what their concerns and commitments are, and what conversations will need to be had to get them engaged with the execution initiatives.

Stakeholders are any persons or groups of persons who can have either a positive or negative impact on implementing the Strategic Execution initiatives. Fanning the flames of engagement is essential for getting the desired level of engagement of each group of stakeholders. While you know that engagement of stakeholders is essential for success in Strategic Execution, you may not know how to identifying them. Begin your thinking on this by assuming that groups of your employees are among the most crucial of the stakeholders. Beyond the employees, consider who has something at stake in your business, and in the future success of your business. The individuals and groups that have something at stake in the future success of your business are the stakeholders that will matter most in successful execution of strategy, and then sustaining that level of results. Stakeholders include employees, customers, partners, suppliers and owners (shareholders).

6. Leading, Communicating and Engagement of Stakeholders Is Intertwined

I want you to consider that implementation often fails because it is treated as an afterthought rather than as a crucial element of what is being designed or developed. Here’s the startling truth: implementation is the executive and manager’s primary responsibility. Their role is to see that success is achieved in implementation, not that a wonderful strategy was designed; a wonderful strategy that then flopped in implementation. 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, of 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 so fatigued from planning the menu that they would not be cooking tonight and had delegated the final tasks to the buss boys. How would you react? Yet that is precisely what happens on a frequent basis in companies. Execution is THE job.

Leadership in execution often falls short because:

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 wants to be dramatically expanded, but the transformational leader must continue to BE that he/she is responsible and stay actively involved. The leaders continued focus and intensive is required for engaging others and in keeping an eye on how the implementation is progressing.

Executions succeed or fail based in large part on 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 the employees because they soon hear via the rumor mill that something is afoot. It does not work with the 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 to provide employees with more information on what is being done and what the consequences of the Strategic Execution will be on their job and in their work.

Ironically, communication is one area in which the being of the executives, 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 employee 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 of the hazards that the leader must watch for are the 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 this character from the TV sitcom Leave It to Beaver. Eddie Haskell was notable for his overwhelming in-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.

7. Never Stop Leading, Learning and Expanding the Possibilities for Others

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 of design and even with planning the implementation of the design from the very beginning, unforeseen problems arise in the 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 implementation of the general’s campaign plan.

This same kind of leadership is what is required of those who plan the strategy for a transformational change if victory is to be achieved. Just as “no battle plan ever won a battle,” so 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 breakdowns and surprises until the results are achieved. It begins and ends with leadership. No leader, no success in Strategic Execution.

[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

19-Jul-10 12:00 PM