Blog #4: Taking Strategy from Development to Implementation

Blog #4: Taking Strategy from Development to Implementation

One of the key themes from the readings is the inclusivity of ideas in the forming and implementation of the strategy process. In the “Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy”, the authors’ group brain storming process requires “a diversity of specialties, backgrounds, and experiences (Lafley et. al). The authors suggest involving junior executives and people from outside of the firm or even the industry. This idea aligns with the “Good Strategy Execution Requires Balancing Four Tensions” reading where tension #2 was the democratization of change (Horan and Connerty). I think we hear the rhetoric of “inclusivity’ without realizing that it also has business implications. I think a semi-corny example is from the TV show “Undercover Boss”. In certain episodes, you can see where employees disregard certain procedures because they or no one from an equivalent position, represented them in the making of the strategy. I think that people are far more willing to see a strategy through when they or someone they perceive as having a similar rank/position had some stake in creating it. People enjoy taking credit or seeing something they had an influence on succeeding. I think the show might be a bit of a cliché, but the application of inclusivity is there. We often hear of a new business process or product creation that is the result of either soliciting employee feedback or actively letting employees make their mark on the firm, companies like Google allow employees to have personal 20% time. The “Can You Say What Your Strategy Is?” reading provides the distilled idea of the strategy statement is one “that everyone can internalize and use as a guiding light for making difficult choices” (Collis and Rukstad). I think the idea of people, no matter the position, having their ideas heard or perceived to be heard is an extremely important takeaway.

The “Bringing Science To The Art Of Strategy” reading is attempting to do is just that. It is trying to propose an alternative hypothesis that challenges the status quo or makes the group feel the most uncomfortable. But from the beginning, the strategy development process recruited diversity in backgrounds and positions, and in a way gives some credit to most ideas until proven to be unfeasible or the conditions for them to be successful aren’t possible. The reading is definitely not trying to shoot down ideas early, but create a situation where the doers are also the planners.

Another idea is what is strategy ultimately created to do? As we have learned it is to Win. I think the Collis and Rukstad framework of evaluating objective, scope, and advantage is a good way of looking at strategy creation. This framework avoids strategy statements like “We want to be the most successful marketing firm in the world.” This statement does not specify in what geographic area, in what consumer or product space, or how long it will take. The reading provides a heuristic in the creation of a strategy, “In the case of strategic objectives having a strategy that can be applied to any other firm is not a good one. Strategic objectives should be specific, measurable and time-bound” (Collis and Rukstad). I think another element that would add to this would be tension #1, that people need a clear vision of what life will look like once the change is implemented is also key (Horan and Connerty). I think any elements that add to the vividness or collective creation of strategic objectives only can help. I am not saying that there should be no management or hierarchy, but that the more people you have on board that will physically execute the strategy the better.