Change Whisperer – Gail Severini's Blog


The Strategy Execution Mindset

“Where you stand depends on where you sit.”―Nelson Mandela

“The overall name of these interrelated structures is system. The motorcycle is a system. A real system. …There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding. That’s all a motorcycle is, a system of concepts worked out in steel. There’s no part in it, no shape in it that is not in someone’s mind. I’ve noticed that people who have never worked with steel have trouble seeing this- that the motorcycle is primarily a mental phenomenon.” ―Robert Pirsi, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”

The mindsets within which we approach any analysis of strategy execution approaches set up the criteria by we which evaluate them.  We all have mindsets and they usually function subconsciously.

What mindsets might underlie strategy execution success? Recently I sat down with one of my valued thinking partners, Brian Gorman.  Here is what we came up with:

The purpose of strategy execution is to change the operational DNA and systems of an organization so as to change its performance and/or competitive trajectory

  1. By “operational DNA” we mean to call out the deeply embedded nature of “business as usual”.
    • For organizations that approach transformational change infrequently this “operational DNA” is their culture (i.e. “how we work around here”). All policies and processes (“systems”) in the organization are integrated and rooted in this modus operandi.
    • Those organizations that change periodically face pockets of this as well as additional challenges caused by “change on change”.
  2. Change management must address these issues sufficiently in order to create sustainable change.
  3. An unrelenting focus on the end goal “change its performance and/or competitive trajectory”, requires us to evaluate bodies of knowledge against their ability to deliver the desired strategic results, nothing less than full realization is acceptable.

Strategy execution is a system of change capability applied to a dynamic, complex and “in-flight” system (see Figure 1 below).

  1. By “dynamic, complex and “in flight system” we mean to call out that the organization itself is a system:
    • The organization “system” is comprised of functions that are optimized for business as usual activities, eg delivering services, billing for those services, paying for services required to generate that delivery, managing resources, etc.
  2. And to call out that this organizational system is changing every day (i.e. it is dynamic) in response to multiple stimuli. These stimuli are vast and include:
    • planned change such as projects addressing internal and external factors (such as continuous improvement and legislative compliance respectively), on-going training and professional development of staff, hiring and terminations,
    • unplanned change such as actions of competitors in the market; external physical crises (typhoons, earthquakes), etc.
  3. By “system of change capability” we mean to call out the fact that change management alone is insufficient to meet the purpose. Change management must operate within a system of strategy execution.
    • The “system of change capability” includes project, program and portfolio management (or other means of organizing time, scope and budget) as well as other components such as process management (eg lean and sigma) and business analysis. It may also require specialized process or content knowledge and skills including organization design, compensation restructuring, culture shift or other capabilities specific to the change (eg technology, engineering, and even institutional memory and navigation).
    • For change management to be effective it must acknowledge and integrate with the other components.
  4. By “applied to” we mean to call out that the mindset of most strategy execution approaches today is that change is done to the organization, i.e. the vision and solution are designed by a few and driven into the organization – that the organization must “adopt” the change.
    • There is occasionally some provision for broadening the solicitation of design ideas (more often how rather than what) to create “buy-in”, but this is generally limited and shallow.
    • The alternative concept of strategy execution “facilitated from within” the organization system is an important one but outside the scope of this analysis due to additional complexity that it entails.
    • Prevailing change management approaches tend to the “applied to” bias.  Some, mostly within Organization Development allow for and even promote degrees of “facilitated from within”.

Figure 1 – The Strategy Execution system applied to the Organization system

System of Change Capability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We come at change management from a “line of business” perspective

  1. We acknowledge that our bias is in outcomes, in an unrelenting focus on achieving benefits realization.

What are the mindsets that drive your work?  Are they getting you all the way through realization?

Most professional associations are on a journey to incorporate all of the components required to deliver strategy execution and so far, in our opinion, none are “there” yet.

How is your organization doing?  Is it time for a review of your strategy execution process?

We’d love to continue the dialogue in the comments section here.

Brian is a seasoned strategy execution practitioner and change mentor to many.  He is a fellow Associate at Conner Partners where he also serves as Methodology Lead/Instructional Designer and he runs his own practice, Change Mentor.  You can learn more about Brian here and follow his own great blog here.

Related Posts:

Creative Commons License
Change Whisperer by www.gailseverini.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.



When Harvard professors duke it out – the ugly debate on Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation

Harvard thought leaders duke it out over strategy

If you have missed it, the gladiators at Harvard Business School are duking it out this week.

You really must catch up.

Here’s the plot line:

May 31st Harvard University is facing disruption of its own business model.  The New York Times reports on “Business School, Disrupted” (addressing the impact of eLearning and Harvard’s strategic choice) and the life’s work of Michael Porter and Clayton Christensen are applied and contrasted as “The Clashing Models”.

A relatively unknown history professor at Harvard, and former student of Michael Porter, writes a scathing, and very public, attack on Christensen’s life’s work in The New Yorker.

June 20th Christensen responds in a candid interview on BloombergBusinessWeek. continue reading here



Multiplying the power of thought partners to super-charge your strategy

“You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with”―Jim Rohn

Source: Wikimedia Commons

I often have the opportunity to think together with colleagues and clients.

You do too, I am sure.  Sometimes it is to plan or solve an issue or even just to chat over a friendly coffee comparing notes on our profession.

The power of the “mind meld” 

However, really thinking together, which my friend Bill Braun describes as “moving along together in thought”, is rare. continue reading here



New !! Model to understand Strategy Execution success

Outperfom model Gail SeveriniWhat comes after radio silence?

Something new.

It has been several weeks since I provided a blog post – I hope you have missed me a little and I hope the wait is worth it.

I am in the process of developing and publishing a new model to better understand Strategy Execution and what is required for success.

Here is the first public presentation, embedded in a presentation to The Conference Board of Canada’s annual Change Management conference on the topic “Is Change Management tactical or strategic?”.  Lots more coming.

continue reading here



Building your leadership legacy—the organization that thrives for generations. Interview with Daryl Conner, Chairman, Conner Partners on the “nimble organization.” Post 3 of 3

“If I have done any deed worthy of remembrance, that deed will be my monument. If not, no monument can preserve my memory.”—Agesilaus II

Legacy - fingerprint with citation.jpgLeaders at the very top of organizations—and by this I mean board members, CEOs, EVPs, and SVPs—have a very rare opportunity. They shape the destinies of their organizations and those of the people working for them, not to mention people in the communities they serve and the economies in which they operate.

Through their corporate strategies, they leave their fingerprints on the future of their organizations in the short term (which is always under scrutiny by Wall Street), but also in the long term.

Can leaders build organizations that outperform the market over 18 years or longer? Where should they start? continue reading here



What is leadership’s responsibility for driving and sustaining a nimble organization? Interview with Daryl Conner, Chairman, Conner Partners. Post 2 of 3

Daryl Conner’s extensive thought leadership on creating nimble organizations has the potential to breathe new life into the dinosaurs of the Fortune 1000 and S&P 500.

As a preface, let’s just level-set. Why should leaders and boards care about an organization’s ability to change? Is it a real issue?

Tenure on S&P500The statistics are not kind.

The Innosight study, “Creative Destruction Whips through Corporate America,” indicates that:

“the 61-year tenure for the average firm in 1958 narrowed to 25 years in 1980—and to 18 years now.” (2012) continue reading here



The strategic imperative of the “nimble organization” and why it seems to be a mirage. Interview with Daryl Conner, Chairman, Conner Partners. Post 1 of 3

“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Daryl photo After the “Evolution of Change Management” series with Jennifer Frahm (where we landed with “Will ‘Change Management’ become extinct?”), and with Zappos announcing its move to holacracy, it just seemed like it was time to talk to Daryl Conner about the nimble organization.

In this post, I interview Daryl about what “nimble” means, why it is a strategic imperative, and why it seems to be so difficult for organizations to get traction with it. continue reading here




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,402 other followers