- 32% of respondents supported that statement “It is not sufficiently agile to adapt to the marketplace. Often an annual process, tightly linked to the budget“.
Indeed there was a comment “An annual process actually would be a major improvement at firms who are still in a 3-5 year strategy cycle”! Infrequent review and update ensures that strategy “is a document kept in a drawer but not a working document influencing the organisation”.
And when tightly linked to the budget process focus is given to excel sheets and forecasting, rather than making choices on what to do (and not do).. “My experience is that during a strategy process no real choices are made and that subsequently the execution is flawed….of course smaller companies may struggle even setting a path forward”
So why is this happening? Experience would suggest that the strategy process is so heavy the organisation cannot cope with a more frequent review. Inspired by Eric Ries’s “The Lean Startup” thinking the answer could be a “Minimum Viable Strategy” designed in Agile-like Sprints and adopting a “Build, Measure, Learn” mindset enabling frequent review and adaptation.
- 24% align with “Do not have the available expertise to develop strategy effectively”
In modern lean organisations, it is perhaps no surprise that available expertise to drive the strategy process is limited. Hiring external expertise is a solution, but care is advised. Instead of the “do it for you” external consultant approach, the “do it with you” method is recommended. This approach ensures the team has ownership of the strategy but is guided by external objectivity to secure a quality outcome.
In a related comment, another frustration was the “Inability to focus organisation around common understanding of language of strategy” which can of course be addressed with external expertise.
- 24% voted for “People do not have accountability for achieving goals. This may be because they are not adequately involved in the design to create ownership, or performance metrics do not drive appropriate behaviours.”
The importance of engaging the team in strategy design has already been highlighted.
It is not enough to have high level objectives and goals. Plans with metrics and sub-goals should clearly identify accountabilities and reviewed regularly in management rituals such as Integrated Business Planning (or S&OP) monthly reviews top drive the right behaviours. Far too often this discipline is missed creating the divide between strategy and execution.
- 20% felt that the most frustrating aspect of the strategy process was “Goals and objectives are identified, but limited guidance on how to achieve them, again impacting execution.”
As identified in the article “What is the definition of strategy?” sadly for many the process gives the organisation high level aspirations, but the team is left to work out for itself how the goals should be achieved, leaving a low likelihood of aligned cross functional execution.
One key insight of the Emergent Approach™ is understanding the critical distinction between the aspiration (“What Matters”) and the strategy (the central and unifying rule that guides “What you can do?”). The Emergent Approach to Strategy™ has the following definition;
|
