|
Executive Interviews: Interview with Melissa Raffoni on Strategy Execution
September 2008
-
By Dr. Nagendra V Chowdary
In one of your brilliantly written
articles (Three Keys to Effective Execution),
you have espoused 3 recommendations
for effective execution.
Can you illustrate the importance
of these three keys? What importance
do they hold for global and
domestic firms operating in complex
environments?
To put it simply, the 3 keys focus,
analysis, and review are critical. Often
companies bite off more than they
can chew, you want to avoid this.
The consequence is poor performance
and negative morale. Goals
need to be "worked" and thats why
analysis and problem solving are important.
|
|
With large strategic goals, its
important to understand that there is
"no right answer" with respect to
how you approach the goal; so open
discussion and problem solving
optomize the chance of identifying efficient
and creative solutions. Formal
reviews accomplish a few things:
- Measurement How do we
know we are doing well? Where do
we need to regroup?
- Clarity What did we agree
to accomplish when we first set this
goal? Does it still hold true?
- Procrastination Management
Oh gosh, we are up for review
next week, we better get going!
For firms operating in complex environments,
these keys are increasingly
more important. The environments
in which these firms exist tend to be
dynamic, so your plan could change
overnight. Additionally, these firms
usually require the engagement of
multiple stakeholder groups. If you
believe that execution success is a direct
function of effective communication,
its clear why the keys are so
critical.
-
One of the three keys you suggested
was, Let Focus be Your
Watchword. What characteristics, in
your opinion, help companies stay
focused?
I believe the primary characteristic is
strong leadership. Focus is about having
the discipline to not "do everything"
and the courage to choose the
things that matter. -
OnPoint Consulting recently surveyed
the gap between strategy and
execution. And the results were startling.
Of the leaders surveyed: 49%
perceived a gap between their strategies
and execution (the ability to
make their strategies happen), and of
these 64% didnot have full confidence
that their companies would be able
to close the gap! How do you identify
strategy execution gaps? Is this same
as tracking systems that you suggested?
To measure execution success, I work
with my clients to develop a simple
scorecard tracking system that measures
success against the strategic
goals. Leadership defines the measures
of success. Then, we measure
from the top and hold leadership accountable
for driving execution
down. Sure, there may be some gaps
from the bottom up, but if the goals
are being accomplished overall, the
incidental gaps dont really matter
much. The reality is that, for various
reasons, 100% of the organization
isnt going to be aligned. If you have
strong leaders, they will figure out
whom to align and for what. They
will prioritize execution success
while being mindful of employee satisfaction
its a balancing act that's
tricky; but doable. -
You have pointed out that the
odds of successfully executing a plan
that isnt reviewed very frequently
are slim to none. Who should conduct
such reviews? How frequently
should they be conducted?
It depends. Clearly, the CEO needs to
be engaged at a high level of frequency.
Whats more important is
that the team takes the time to draft a
customized governance plan that they
believe will work for themgiven their
strengths, weaknesses and time constraints
as a team and organization. -
There are two divergent lines of
thinking in strategy making: one represented
by Henry Mintzberg arguing
that strategy is an emergent process;
and others argue that its an intended
and a deliberate process.
What according to you is the right
way of understanding strategy? Are
there any evidences to support this
line of thinking?
I believe its both. You need to be intentional
and deliberate, but at the
same time you need continuous review
and the ability to adjust as
needed. I agree its a dynamic process,
but I like to build backbone behind it
to ensure discipline and rigor. In
terms of evidence, its hard to substantiate.
Different companies have
different cultures and skill sets. Yes, I
know successful companies that
donot plan but they are super creative
and can execute fast. Or, they
have the industry on their side. On
the other hand, I know super creative
and expedient companies that donot
do well because they tend to be reactive
and never stop long enough to be
thoughtful about their decisions.
And of course, a specific industry
dynamic or maket condition can
make it more difficult. -
What new practices have you observed
in the last decade with respect
to strategy formulation and
strategy execution? Are these practices
radically different from the earlier
practices? What factors do you
think would have brought about this
new line of approaching strategy?
The primary trend I have seen is the desire
to get things on "one page". I
believe this was driven by the "plan
in the file cabinet" phenomenon and
the "we take on toomuch" complaint.
The second trend is the desire to "cascade"
goals to drive organizational
alignment. I believe this was driven
both by a tendency for divisions of
large companies to engage in "flavor of
the month" initiatives that were unsuccessful
or costly non priorities from the CEO perspective as well as
the resulting employee frustration
with respect to not understanding
how their work is directly related to
the companys priorities and ultimate
success. Lastly, while difficult, many
are trying to orient theirmeasurement
around results in addition to tasks
and deadlines. I think some just finally
saw how effective itwould be to
link traditional GMTs "goals, measures
and targets" that were common
in strong performance mangaement
systems with an initiative based
projectmanagement.
1.
Business Strategy Case Studies
2. ICMR
Case Collection
3.
Case Study Volumes
|
