How Leaders Mistake Execution for Strategy (and Why
That Damages Both)
When
leaders substitute visions, missions, purposes, plans, or goals for the real
work of strategy, they send their firms adrift.
When discussing strategy, executives
often invoke some version of a vision, a mission, a purpose, a plan, or a set
of goals. I call these “the corporate five” (see exhibit, below). Each
is important in driving execution, no doubt, but none should be mistaken for a
strategy. The corporate five may help bring your strategy to life, but they do
not give you a strategy to begin with.
Nevertheless, they are often
mistaken for strategy—and when that happens, real damage can ensue. If the
corporate five are the cart and strategy is the horse, leaders who put the cart
first often end up with no horse at all.
Before they get to the corporate
five, companies need to address five much more fundamental, and difficult,
questions. Let's call them the “the strategic five”:
1. What business or businesses
should you be in?
2. How do you add value to your businesses?
3. Who are the target customers for your businesses?
4. What are your value propositions to those target customers?
5. What capabilities are essential to adding value to your businesses and differentiating their value propositions?
2. How do you add value to your businesses?
3. Who are the target customers for your businesses?
4. What are your value propositions to those target customers?
5. What capabilities are essential to adding value to your businesses and differentiating their value propositions?
Although most companies can
articulate a vision (for instance, “to be the leading biotech company”), a
mission (“to find and commercialize innovative drug therapies”), a purpose (“to
improve patients’ lives”), a plan (“to develop molecule X, enter market Y, and
partner with company Z”), or a goal (“to bring three innovative molecules to
market by 2025”), few convincingly answer all five strategic questions,
especially with one voice across their top teams and down their organizations.
They can’t answer those questions
because often they haven’t asked them in a very long time, if at all. Instead,
the corporate five have become a mask for strategy. When that happens, the real
substance of strategy—making deliberate and decisive choices about where to
play and the way to play—is lost. There is no foundation for decision making
and resource allocation. Everything becomes important. Indiscriminate
cost-cutting and growth become the order of the day and, sooner or later, with
no strategy as a guide, a business drifts. Consider Procter and Gamble. It has
a mission (“to touch and improve the lives of more consumers, in more parts of
the world, more completely”) and a CEO who says he is “totally focused on the
plan.” Yet the company is struggling
to regain its footing and direction
because the strategic five has been lost while the vast, complex enterprise
strives to operate in a more volatile economic environment.
IBM, on the other hand, is an
example of getting it right. When Lou Gerstner took over the reins of the
troubled company in 1993, he famously declared, “The last thing IBM needs right
now is a vision.” This was widely interpreted as a statement that execution
would be the priority and strategy would take a backseat, at least while
Gerstner was busy turning around the company. But he proceeded to redefine
IBM’s business boundaries (from computer hardware to hardware, software, and
services), value proposition (from best products to corporate solutions), and
essential capabilities (for example, from selling to the IT department to
selling to the C-suite). In other words, he focused on the strategic five—not
the corporate five—to make his elephant dance. Gerstner was as strategic a CEO
as they come. James E. Burke, former CEO of Johnson & Johnson and former
IBM board director, said of him, “He thinks strategically about everything. I
once asked him if he thought strategically about his dog.” Gerstner knew that
IBM was suffering from a lack of clear and coherent strategic choices and that
fixing this was far more important to the company’s immediate needs than was
envisioning the company’s longer-term future. Without the former, there would
be no need for the latter.
All this is not to denigrate the
role and power of having visions, missions, purposes, plans, and goals. Strategy
is the primary tool a leader uses to guide decision making and resource
allocation for a business and its people, but the corporate five give the
leader a means to excite, focus, inspire, mobilize, and challenge. A vision
paints a picture of the future around which your company can rally; a mission
articulates an objective that defines what the company is seeking to achieve; a
purpose describes why your company exists and gives meaning to what it does and
the people who do its work; a plan lays out a set of actions to be undertaken
within a certain time frame; and goals define how your success and progress
will be measured and evaluated. None of these gives you a strategy, but they do
play an important role: They motivate an organization to perform at its very
best in the context of that strategy. That is what execution is all about.
Gerstner knew this too. After
stabilizing the company and establishing IBM’s strategic five, he did, in fact,
create a vision: “To lead big companies into the brave new networked world, IBM
will devise their technology strategies, build and run their systems, and
ultimately become the architect and repository for corporate computing, tying
together not just companies but entire industries.” But, even then, he
recognized the need to connect that vision to the strategy (and execution).
“Vision is easy. It’s just so easy to point to the bleachers and say ‘I’m going
to hit one over there,’” Gerstner told a CNN interviewer in 2004. “What’s hard is saying, ‘OK, but how do I do that?
What are the specific programs, what are the commitments, what are the
resources, what are the processes in play that we need to go implement the
vision, to turn it into a working model that people follow every day in the
enterprise?’ That’s hard work.”
If you want to have a bit of fun
sometime, just ask your head of strategy or general manager how the corporate
five differ from strategy. A typical response will be, “Who cares? Aren’t they
all about giving direction to a business? Does it matter what you call
‘direction,’ as long as you have it?” Now, you have an answer. Without
addressing the strategic five, your company will lack the foundation and the context
for making the choices and allocating the resources that are critical to
superior execution. Without the corporate five, your organization will lack the
perspective, commitment, and alignment required to perform at its very best.
- Ken Favaro is a senior partner with Booz & Company based in New York and global head of the firm’s enterprise strategy practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment