"Those who seek reliability attempt to do so by restricting themselves to reliance on objective quantitative data to make their decisions. They believe (often implicitly but sometime explicitly) that the past will be a good predictor of the future. [Moi ici: As pessoas que acham que basta fazer figas e esperar que o resultado que se deseja apareça por artes mágicas. Escrito assim parece estúpido. No entanto, é mais comum, muito mais comm do que parece. Conheço gente respeitável que pensa assim. Gente que acha que não cumpre as metas por causa do azar, A conspiração da realidade] For this reason, they like to plan based on the assumption (again often implicit) that all the important things in their world are controllable if one plans rigorously and comprehensively enough.
Those who seek validity utilize a wider array of information, because in addition to quantitative data, they also embrace qualitative, to which they add judgment, even if that judgment is always subject to bias. While they believe that the past can sometimes predict the future, they fully appreciate that sometimes it can’t and doesn’t. They are more inclined to attempt to create the future they would like to have happen rather than assume an extrapolation of the past.[Moi ici: Exemplo de balanced scorecard (parte zero)]
...
The tension between reliability and validity generates a critical leadership challenge. A company can generally make costs behave the way it intends because the company is the decision-maker on the costs it decides to incur. Hence it is worthwhile to plan for costs — and rigorously control them. There will virtually always be reliability-oriented team members that will focus on that — unless they are overtly discouraged.
But these reliability-oriented team members will also want to plan revenues and will dedicate countless person-hours to guesstimating revenues and then getting the company to commit to them. The great delusion of revenue forecasting is that you can make revenues occur by projecting them. But, of course, customers couldn’t care less that you projected that they would take cash out of their personal or business pocket and give it to you. They own that decision. Planning for that decision to happen is useless and delusional.
What is valuable, in stark contrast, is to make strategy choices that create an environment in which customers feel compelled to give their cash to your offer instead of the offers of your competitors. That set of choices makes a bet on the future, a future that is not a simple and assumed projection of the past into the future. Good strategy creates a future that is superior to the past and present. Strategy imagines possibilities and chooses the one for which the most compelling argument can be made. That is a validity-intensive endeavor.
...
In companies, there is an inexorable drift toward reliability. Companies typically start with a validity-driven burst of creative energy — and if it isn’t a relatively profound burst, the fledgling company expires pretty quickly. But those who prosper and grow tend to acquire an outside board, professional managers, public shareholders, capital market regulators, etc. Reliability tends to take a more prominent role as various actors ask for more ‘proof’ to justify decisions and the proof needs to take the form of rigorous data analytics.
Strategy slowly but surely morphs into planning, a migration that is heavily reinforced by modern business education, which itself is a creature of the modern science-obsessed world. In this world of business, there are many data analysts, but not so many validity-oriented strategists. And the data analysts in companies are supported and encouraged by the outside actors — like equity analysts and boards of directors."
Excelente artigo, mais um, de Roger Martin, "Strategy and Leadership #4"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário