Prioridades? Que prioridades? (parte II)

Parte I.

Enquanto escrevia a parte I recordava uma manhã em que desembarquei em Coimbra-B e a pé cheguei ao centro da cidade. Na Fernão Magalhães (acho que é assim que se chama) junto a um quiosque parei para apreciar a capa do Diário Económico. No dia anterior, o então presidente Jorge Sampaio tinha anunciado ao país uma lista interminável de prioridades. (BTW, julgo que foi nesse dia que no jornal Público li a decisão no parlamento sobre a instituição do que gerou o défice tarifário, no tempo de Pina Moura como ministro das Finanças. Lembro-me de me fartar de rir com os comentários dos colegas parlamentares à entrada de Maria Carrilho no parlamento com fato e calças brancas: "É o vendedor de gelados")

Entretanto, no último Domingo encontrei:

"There are, however, some things about success that are universally true, priorities and execution being the two most fundamental. These two factors are also the defining difference between those who succeed and those who struggle.
.
Your Priorities Define Your Success.
However you define success, doing so creates an intention to achieve something, to close some perceived gap.
...
When you know what you want, you can prioritize what you do with your time and energy, the first being your single, finite, non-renewable resource, and the second being another resource with limits. Without priorities, you can spend your days, weeks, months, and years wasting your time and energy on things that are of no real consequence.
.
Priorities provide boundaries. You draw a line in the sand by establishing what is most important, deciding some result is more important than some other outcome, based on what it is that you want and how you define success. When you establish priorities, you cut yourself off from the distraction of all the options available to you, especially those that would move you further away from your goals.
...
What priorities provide is the ability to make a plan to achieve the results you want to make up your life. You can’t execute a goal or an outcome. You can only execute your plan to achieve it. Execution is the variable, accounting for much of the difference between those who make their goals and those who struggle.
...
Saying yes to what’s most important means saying no to things that are not a priority. When you say yes to the small stuff, you are saying no to bigger things. Those who create their version of success say no to small things, limiting distractions so they can execute their plans.
...
In the end, there are only priorities and execution. If you want your version of success, you must decide what is good and right and true for you, establishing your priorities."

Quais são as prioridades da sua empresa? São claras? Estão alinhadas com a estratégia? Estão restritas ao que é mesmo, mesmo essencial?

Trechos retirados de "Your Success Is Found in Priorities and Execution"

"Without focus"

"Without focus a company cannot achieve an execution culture....unfocused companies pursue too many objectives and have too many initiatives. ...the greater the number of strategic objectives and priorities, the more unfocused are the are the employees. Alternatively, the more focused is top management, the clearer employees and departments are about what they need to do on a daily basis. When priorities cascade down the organization, the result is often a distorted focus - a frequently a significant distortion. ...Another significant consequence is that lack of focus leads to lack of discipline in executing organizational objectives. Focus imposes discipline because staff at any level know what to do at any point....One of the most dramatic consequences of being an unfocused company is the impact on staff. Lack of clear direction and priorities causes staff to be unhappy in what they do because they do not understand how their work contributes to the company's goals. ...Managements needs to decide every year  how to distribute the company's limited resources, specifically its staff and financial assets. Decisions regarding how much and where to allocate resources are not easy. Management at an unfocused company often fails to regards these decisions as part of their key responsibilities because they lack clarity about the run-the-business/change-the-business dimensions. Consequently, the distribution of work within the business becomes totally unbalanced and grow out of control."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

"Poorly executed strategy"

"the fundamental difference between success and failure depends on which projects top management decides to invest in and how those projects are executed.
.
In other words, finding ways to achieve the strategic goals is what today is known as 'strategic planning,' while 'strategy execution' is the method used to achieve those goals. The three most important elements of successful strategy execution are:

• Identifying the company's core competencies that will differentiate it from the competition.

• Selecting and prioritizing the initiatives that will exploit those core competencies and create sustainable growth via the company's strategic plan.

• Organizing company resources so as to optimally execute the chosen strategy. 

...
Once a company's structure and resources are aligned to its chosen strategy, the key question is whether the organization is focused enough to deliver the intended result. If the answer is no chances are that the strategy will not be successfully executed. This will be discussed later, but successful strategy execution is not so much about how well the strategy is defined; instead, success depends on project selection, effective organizational alignment, relentless execution and focus.
...
Being unfocused means that strategy objectives have not been clearly articulated or communicated to the entire organization. Often, there are too many objectives or even worse, the objectives are not prioritized. Top management wants to do too many things and does not involve employees in the strategy formulation. Thus, employees neither understand nor buy into the long-term mission.
...
If the strategy is poorly executed, the financial objectives will be difficult to achieve. Unfocused companies typically generate significant costs over the years. They often run too many projects, not recognizing that projects are expensive and consume both financial and staff resources. In addition, they frequently lack a clear, transparent and objective project selection process (or investment committee). Investment decisions are made on partial information and the tendency is to start all projects whose business case 'looks good on paper."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

Trabalhar? Até os burros trabalham, e muito!

A descrição do evento desenvolvido pela Lactaçores:

"Há menos de dois meses, a Lactaçores organizou um evento para promover o queijo São Jorge. E em que consistiu a coisa? Numa torrente de discursos (alguns penosos) de meia-dúzia de figuras das ilhas e do continente especialistas em repetir o óbvio (até o presidente da Câmara de Vila Franca de Xira falou, valha-nos Deus) e, em seguida, na degustação de queijos com compotas, bom pão e vinho do Pico (isso deve ter dado uma dor de cabeça ao chefe responsável pelo catering que nem imagino...).
.
Houve alguém para falar do terroir de São Jorge? Não. Houve alguém capaz de descrever, com prova didáctica, quais são os aromas e os sabores elementares de um queijo São Jorge? Não. Houve alguém para explicar como evolui o queijo ao longo dos anos? Não. Apareceu alguém para contar alguma história sobre este queijo com centenas de anos? Não. Algum chefe - estavam uns quantos presentes - fez sugestões sobre a degustação do queijo? Clássicas ou mais arrojadas? Nada."

Faz-me lembrar aqueles que desenvolvem acções para picar o cartão. Como não recordar os monumentos à treta: Trabalho, muito trabalho. Resultados? Vão no Batalha!

- Trabalhar? Até os burros trabalham, e muito!

 Trecho retirado de "Desabafos sobre o mundo do queijo"

Trabalho, muito trabalho. Resultados? Vão no Batalha!

"Activity metrics are receiving lots of attention.  Activity metrics can be very useful, at the same time, they can stimulate a lot of, well … wasted activity.
.
Too often, we focus on the wrong things as we put activity metrics in place.  We focus on the “what and how many,”  for example, “You need to make 150 dials today,” or “You have to send out 200 prospecting emails,”  As a result, the activities become “ends” in themselves, and not means to achieve certain goals."

Isto continua a ser um cancro em algumas organizações privadas e em quase todas as organizações estatais ou sem fins-lucrativos.

Ainda há dias escrevia (descer foi a tradução do corrector de algum erro que fiz ao querer escrever "de ser"):

Qual a razão descer da Santa Casa? Acabaram os pobres e desvalidos em Portugal? https://t.co/cKjxuHj3dV

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) November 6, 2018

Organizações que deixam de servir a sua causa, a sua razão de ser e passam a ter como razão de ser o serviço dos funcionários.

Ainda ontem alguém me dizia que na sua terra, no Alto Minho, se costuma dizer:

- Trabalhar? Até os burros trabalham, e muito!

Um tema com barcas aqui no blogue, por exemplo: "Mais um monumento à treta - parte II"

Trecho retirado de "Going Beyond The “What” Of Activity Metrics"

Fazer a mudança acontecer

“Drawing on his observations [Austrian psychologist Konrad Lorenz] about what is needed to make people change, we might modify them for an organization as the following:

1. What is said is not yet heard.
2. What is heard is not yet understood.
3. What is understood is not yet believed.
4. What is believed is not yet advocated.
5. What is advocated is not yet acted on.
6. What is acted on is not yet completed.

There is an understandable tendency for leaders of organizations to concentrate on the first step – demanding enough in itself – and assume that once that has been achieved, their work is done. In fact, it has just begun.”

Excerto de “The Art of Action: Leadership that Closes the Gaps between Plans, Actions and Results” de Stephen Bungay.

Em que é que o balanced scorecard é usado?

Ao preparar a sessão de arranque de um workshop intra-empresa sobre o balanced scorecard (BSC) para esta semana, tive a oportunidade de integrar alguns tópicos deste relatório sobre o uso do BSC, "Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2017".

Destaco:

"What are Balanced Scorecards being used for?.
Balanced Scorecard’s primary reported role continues to be supporting the implementation of strategy.
...
Strategic management as the major use is consistent with the trend we see for the Balanced Scorecard methodology to be a key element in organisations’ strategy execution. Initiatives are a key part of strategy execution, and so interest in improving the reporting of these is not unexpected.
...
Balanced Scorecard has become established as the primary tool for reporting on strategy implementation / execution progress to Executive level managers, and this continues to be the case. But the increased interest in Balanced Scorecard as a mechanism for incentive payments is a surprise.
...
Balanced Scorecards work by informing and improving decision-making, so they must be reported and reviewed frequently. It is encouraging that over three-quarters of organisations report using their Balanced Scorecards at least once every three months.
...
This year a larger majority (63%) of organisations reported using Balanced Scorecards based on the more effective 3rd Generation designs.
The Balanced Scorecard designs shared some common features:
• they had between 2 and 6 perspectives (average 4), using a mix of sector- specific names and common names for these perspectives
• they contained on average 10 strategic objectives and 14 initiatives, and
• they had on average 21 measures (i.e. 2.1 per objective)."

Do concreto para o abstracto e não o contrário (parte II)

"Strategy can be viewed as a literary effort to craft a complete script and then hand it over to actors who enact it word by word. I prefer to think of it as resembling improvisational theater. A strategy takes shape from what actors do in front of audiences that provide feedback. Like the rapid prototyping of products in the tech world, or like a capital campaign for hospitals or museums that begins with a quiet phase, strategy often emerges from thoughtful planning followed by serendipitous execution experiments, like doing better than expected in a particular market. In fact, successful leaders sometimes wait to announce a strategy until it’s well under way."

Em momentos de incerteza, em momentos de mudança e turbulência como neste exemplo, "Já há livrarias a fechar devido à oferta dos manuais escolares", a minha receita é procurar um sinal de algo sobre o qual se possa alicerçar uma hipótese de sucesso futuro, como naquele "like doing better than expected in a particular market". Recordar o meu:

"Temos de começar por aquilo que já hoje funciona, apesar dos resultados globais negativos da empresa."

E este "Do concreto para o abstracto e não o contrário".

Trecho retirado de "Smart Leaders Focus on Execution First and Strategy Second"

Execution is the act of ...

"The common perception is that strategy is done at the top of the org chart, and execution is done below. It is exactly the opposite – let me explain why.
...
Usually when businesspeople talk about “strategy” and “execution,” the former is the act of making choices and the latter the act of obeying them. My quibble with this characterization is that the things that happen in the activity called “strategy” and the activity called “execution” are identical: people are making choices about what to do and what not to do.
...
No matter where you are in the organization, the choices are the same: they are all where to play/how to win strategy choices.
.
And that is why I describe leadership in this layered choice cascade as follows:
.
Make only the set of choices you are more capable of making than anyone else.
Explain the choice that has been made and the reasoning behind it.
Explicitly identify the next downstream choice.
Assist in making the downstream choice, as needed.
Commit to revisit and modify the choice based on downstream feedback.
...
Strategy is the act of making choices about “where to play” and “how to win” across the various levels and parts of the organization. Execution is the act of parsing out responsibility for those choices, making sure people actually choose (instead of waffling around in indecision).
.
This reverses the normal implied responsibilities. While the traditional definitions hold that strategy is done at the top and execution is done below, in this alternative, more useful definition, strategy choices are made throughout the organization and the responsibility for execution lies at the top."

Trechos retirados de "CEOs Should Stop Thinking that Execution is Somebody Else’s Job; It Is Theirs"

Fugir das decisões à la Infarmed

"We wanted to unpack the how by identifying what sets these teams apart in terms of how they spend their time and the critical behaviors they engage in.
...
Commit to an identity. The first tenet of their framework is that an organization must commit to an identity through a shared understanding of its value proposition and distinctive capabilities. In short, the organization must commit to focus on what it is good at and then go after it
...
Translate strategy into everyday processes and capabilities. Our analysis of how senior teams spend their time shows that for this dimension:
.
High-performing teams spend over 25% more time focusing the enterprise than their lower-performing peers. That time is spent establishing financial and operational metrics, aligning goals with overarching strategy, allocating resources, and reviewing key metrics.[Moi ici: Daí a importância de um balanced scorecard da 3ª geração]
High-performing teams spend 14% more time checking their progress against strategic goals by reviewing key metrics and shifting resources accordingly.
...
Concentrate on the unique cultural factors that fuel success. Implicit in this assumption is resisting the temptation to drive traditional change programs based on addressing gaps or weaknesses.
...
The academic literature as well as our consulting experience suggest that the ability to prioritize is a key ingredient to an enterprise leadership team’s success. This is no small task, given the constant and overwhelming demands on most teams. What do our data suggest about how teams go about this?
.
High-performing teams, compared to lower-performing teams, spend 54% more time first setting direction, crafting a vision that serves as a guiding light for decisions regarding resources.
When it comes to execution, lower-performing teams spend an astounding 83% more time fire-fighting and dealing with issues at a tactical rather than strategic level.[Moi ici: Quando deixaremos esta mania de nas empresas praticar o mesmo que vimos à dias quanto ao Infarmed? ]
...
Shape the future. High-performing teams successfully shape the future, rather than always being in a reactive mode in the present. How do they do it?
.
They spend 25.3% more time influencing high-level stakeholders by identifying their needs and managing their expectations.
Unsurprisingly, though easier said than done, the high-performing teams spend 13.2% more time planning for the future by setting direction, creating a vision, and defining their strategy.
Finally, they shape the future by responding to change in the present (20.7% more effectively than lower-performing teams), positioning the enterprise for future success. This is consistent with much of the existing literature around the importance of agility in high-performing teams."

Muito, muito bom!!!

Trechos retirados de "How the Most Successful Teams Bridge the Strategy-Execution Gap"

"Never blame your predecessor"

Um conjunto de boas sugestões.

Caro Eduardo, "Never blame your predecessor", faz-lhe lembrar alguma coisa?

"A 10-year longitudinal study on executive transitions that my organization conducted found that more than 50% of executives who inherit a mess fail within their first 18 months on the job. We also uncovered numerous landmines for leaders in this situation. And, with the best of intentions, my client was about to step on a number of them. When a leader inherits a mess created by others, especially when arriving as an outsider, the situation can feel fragile and knowing where to begin the long journey of change can feel precarious. Based on our research and my experience, there are six things the most effective leaders do to avoid failing in a new role.
.
Resist the temptation to emotionally distance yourself. Difficult and unfamiliar circumstances can make leaders feel vulnerable. To combat their anxiety, they actively avoid being implicated in the mess in subtle but damaging ways. Four weeks after my client’s arrival, I noticed a distinctive pattern in her language. When referring to the significant challenges of her new organization, she consistently spoke in third-person references — they, them, those people. And when speaking about possible changes that needed to be made, she spoke only in first-person language: I will, I don’t.
...
Never blame your predecessor. It’s a natural temptation to blame the past regime when entering organizations in disarray. In one meeting, my client’s frustration got the best of her, and while looking over the past quarter’s budget, she blurted out, “What on earth was he thinking?” Well, since “he” isn’t there anymore, everyone else in the room was implicated by proxy. Nobody knows better about the mess they are in than the people in it, much less about how it came to be. You are better off simply making no references to decisions or actions taken prior to your arrival. Your best response when being baited to blame those that came before you is simply, “We can’t change what happened then, but we can change what we do going forward.” People appreciate when you take the high road.
...
Minimize references to past successes. Absent any substantial experience in your new environment, the likely place to reference your track record is past successes. Chances are that you were hired into the role because you had relevant experiences. But talking about those experiences doesn’t help you leverage the wisdom from them.
...
Test the reliability of your data. While unvarnished data can be hard to come by when facing harsh headwinds, it’s even harder to come by when everyone wants to appear innocent and important.
...
Be transparent about how you will make changes. There are lots of rules about how fast an entering leader should make changes and how big they should be. Some suggest waiting 90 days, even up to a year, to learn the organization before upending anything. Some say clean house on day one. The speed of change will depend on your particular situation and what the business can tolerate. If immediate change is needed, make it. If you aren’t sure, then investigate and diagnose before you make your moves. My client’s thoughtful approach served her well in this regard. She was very transparent up front about how she would assess the organization, how she would approach making changes, and in what time frame. Her “leading out loud” allowed others not to wait in dread and also not to remain in denial. My client’s approach was to start with small wins championed by people in her organization."

Trechos retirados de "Leading Effectively When You Inherit a Mess"

Transformar é possível (parte III)

Caro Nuno, na sequência da parte I, veja esta sequência em "How to Develop Strategy for Execution":

• 1. What is our vision?
• 2. What are our critical vulnerabilities?
• 3. What should we prioritize?

Repito o que escrevi:

"Apresentar um destino ambicioso, conversar abertamente sobre como é viver nesse destino, que resultados obtêm a empresa e os clientes, o que dizem os clientes da empresa, o que dizem os trabalhadores da empresa e do que fazem. Deixar a visão da terra onde corre leite e mel seduzi-los, deixar que contribuam para a descrição de como é essa terra, eles já lá estão, eles já lá vivem, o que vêem, o que fazem, o que sentem? Depois, capturar o gap, a lacuna entre o que ainda somos  e o que queremos ser no futuro desejado para construir o programa de transformação."

E recordo o acrónimo, "S-CRT":

• Pensamento sistémico aplicado a um SGA (I)
• Pensamento sistémico aplicado a um SGA (II)
• Pensamento sistémico aplicado a um SGA (III)
• Pensamento sistémico aplicado a um SGA (IV)
• Matéria-prima para converter estratégia em acção

"overcommitting resources"

Há dias, no exame final deste curso apresentei este exemplo de não-conformidade:

"A empresa define objectivos que operacionaliza através da metodologia A3 e que são aprovados pela ADM. A empresa evidencia lacunas no controlo do estado de alguns desses projectos. Por exemplo, o projecto “Conquista do mercado Senegal” tinha uma data de conclusão prevista inicialmente para 28.02.2017. Estamos em Novembro de 2017, o projecto ainda está por concluir e a data prevista para a sua conclusão foi revista para 31.07.2017. (cláusula 6.3)"

Entretanto, neste artigo, "Executives Fail to Execute Strategy Because They’re Too Internally Focused":

"Diluting the focus of an organization by overcommitting resources institutionalizes mediocrity and cynicism. People feel set up to fail. Saying no is one of the greatest gifts an executive can give their organization. Too many leaders overestimate the capacity of their organizations under the ruse of “stretch goals” or “challenge assignments” to justify their denial of the organization’s true limitations. In one of the largest global retail companies I worked with, executional capacity was unusually constrained for an organization of its size and margins. I asked the CEO to estimate how many global initiatives (multicountry, more than $1 million in scope and budget) he thought were active at the enterprise level. He guessed 20 to 25. We did a comprehensive inventory for him — and stopped counting after we reached 147. Failure to make intentional, hard trade-offs when executing your strategy ensures that all efforts are likely to fall short of expected results." 

No exame pedia aos futuros auditores internos que ensaiassem uma proposta de acção correctiva. Engraçado que nenhum avançou com esta hipótese de causa: "overcommitting resources"

Transformar é possível (parte I)

"the days of keeping strategy and execution as separate topics are ending: We need leaders that can create big promises to customers, and help their organizations deliver on those promises.
...
Starbucks has been able to deliver on its promise because that promise is tightly linked to the company’s distinctive capabilities. The feel of Starbucks stores isn’t created merely by the layout and the décor—it exists because the people behind the counter understand how their work fits into a common purpose, and recognize how to accomplish great things together without needing to follow a script.
...
a bold vision needs to include both a very ambitious destination and a well-conceived path for execution that will get you there. This is ever more important today, where differentiating your company is so difficult. Differentiation increasingly requires more innovative thinking, and the use of very specific areas of expertise
...
Leaders who master both strategy and execution start by building a bold but executable strategy. Next, they ensure that the company is investing behind the change. And last, they make sure the entire organization is motivated to go the journey.
...
Developing a bold but executable strategy starts with making sure leaders have addressed the questions of “What are we great at?” and “What are we able to achieve?” rather than coming up with lofty plans and asking functional and business-unit teams to do their best to execute. Indeed, they spell out the few differentiating capabilities that the company must excel at to realize the strategy.
.
Ensuring that the company is investing behind the change means that leaders recognize that the budget process is one of the most important tools in closing the strategy-to-execution gap. Cost isn’t an exogenous variable to be managed—it is the investment in doing the most important things well. But rarely are budgets linked closely to the strategy. If your company is merely incrementalizing the budget up or down by a few percentage points, ask yourself whether the investments are really reflective of the most important tasks."

Nuno, isto tem tudo a ver com o desafio de 15/16 de Dezembro. Apresentar um destino ambicioso, conversar abertamente sobre como é viver nesse destino, que resultados obtêm a empresa e os clientes, o que dizem os clientes da empresa, o que dizem os trabalhadores da empresa e do que fazem. Deixar a visão da terra onde corre leite e mel seduzi-los, deixar que contribuam para a descrição de como é essa terra, eles já lá estão, eles já lá vivem, o que vêem, o que fazem, o que sentem? Depois, capturar o gap, a lacuna entre o que ainda somos  e o que queremos ser no futuro desejado para construir o programa de transformação.

Continua.


Trechos retirados de "How to Excel at Both Strategy and Execution"

Ainda há muito espaço para melhorar (parte II)

Parte I.

"Experts have opined for decades on the reasons behind the spectacular failure rates of strategy execution.
...
A full 61% of executives told us they were not prepared for the strategic challenges they faced upon being appointed to senior leadership roles. It’s no surprise, then, that 50%–60% of executives fail within the first 18 months of being promoted or hired.
.
Appointing that many unprepared leaders into roles directly responsible for crafting and executing strategy only fuels the risk of executional failure. Here are four of the most common signs that an executive is likely to fail when attempting to bring the organization’s strategy to life.
.
They lack depth in their competitive context. [Moi ici: Recordar a cláusula 4.1 da ISO 9001:2015] Taking on broader leadership roles usually results in greater insularity for leaders. Their focus is pulled toward internal issues: resolving conflicts, reconciling budgets, and managing performance. Consequently, they pay less attention to external strategic issues like competitor moves, customer needs, and technology trends. One study reports that 70% of leaders spend on average one day a month reviewing strategy and 85% of leadership teams spend less than an hour per month discussing strategy. When leaders fail to understand the competitive context of their organizations, they sometimes hide behind unrealistic goals to overcompensate. When I ask executives to show me their organization’s strategy, they often hand me a strategic plan that has product quotas and market share growth targets, or they show me the mission and values statement with some lofty statements on one page. But they rarely show me a clear market identity that articulates who they will serve and who they won’t, what capabilities they will be disproportionately better at than their competitors, and why their target customers would choose them over competitors."

Esta última descrição aplica-se bem a uma multinacional onde estive recentemente, e onde me apresentaram como estratégia um documento onde se explicavam as virtudes do produto mas nem uma única palavra sobre quem são os clientes-alvo, sobre qual a sua proposta de valor e sobre como chegar a eles.


Continua.

Trechos retirados de "Executives Fail to Execute Strategy Because They’re Too Internally Focused"

Ainda há muito espaço para melhorar

"Two thirds (67%) of leaders believe their organization is good at crafting strategy but only 47% believe their organization is good at implementing strategy.
...
Only 10% of organizations surveyed achieve at least two-thirds of their strategy objectives, with 36% achieving between 50%-67% and 54% achieving less than 50%.
...
In an alarming 49% of organizations, leaders spend only one day a month reviewing their implementation. 

In 2016, the top three reasons for implementation failures are 1) Poor Communication, 2) Lack of Leadership and 3) Using the Wrong Measures."

Trechos e imagens retiradas de "Bridges 2016 Survey Results"

Sem escolhas não há estratégia

"Many strategy execution processes fail because the firm does not have something worth executing.
...
One major reason for the lack of action is that “new strategies” are often not strategies at all. A real strategy involves a clear set of choices that define what the firm is going to do and what it’s not going to do. Many strategies fail to get implemented, despite the ample efforts of hard-working people, because they do not represent a set of clear choices.
...
Execution involves change. Embrace it."

Trechos retirados de "Many Strategies Fail Because They’re Not Actually Strategies"

Melhorar as hipóteses de execução

Um texto interessante e a merecer reflexão, "Is Execution Where Good Strategies Go to Die?"

"what determines whether execution brings life or death to your strategy? It’s not what you think. It’s how you think. The mental models that inform strategy are usually different from those that determine implementation. To close the strategy-execution gap, leaders have to close several other, smaller gaps.
.
First, the thinking styles of the people who create strategy are often different from those of the people who implement it.
...
strategy is usually developed by people who have a big-picture orientation, while execution is often done by those with a detail orientation. Furthermore, strategy is usually done by people who are focused on ideas and connections, while implementation is done by those who focus on process and action.
...
The second gap is a result of the connection between participation and ownership. ... Often stakeholders are kept out of the strategy process out of concern that they will slow things down or compromise the quality of the outcome. But this is a shortsighted view. By involving stakeholders earlier, you give them a sense of ownership that speeds things up when it comes time for execution. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that diversity will actually improve the quality of the strategy. And it’s far more likely the strategy will stick to its flight plan, because those responsible for its execution will have a stake in defending it.
...
The third gap between strategy and execution is in the narrative around the strategy. The strategy itself may be sound, but what matters for execution isn’t what is said but what is heard. Strategy is inherently about creating something new or getting somewhere new. But the way humans are wired, it’s difficult to process something that is completely unrelated to what we already know. A good narrative helps people move from the past to the future.
...
The fourth gap between strategy and execution is in measurement and metrics. [Moi ici: Isto para um praticante e adepto do balanced scorecard não tem espinhas ...] This, too, is a reflection of mental models. You only measure what you can see. And your mental models determine what is visible or invisible. I consistently see measurement as an afterthought in strategy development. The assumption is that financial measures like cost and revenue are sufficient metrics to measure progress. But that would be like a coach only tracking points on the scoreboard. You need metrics that tell you how well your game plan is being executed — metrics that all of your players can organize around.
...
Execution doesn’t have to be the place good strategies go to die. As you are developing your strategy, take into account the thinking styles and mental models of the people who will be responsible for its execution. Involve them to generate a sense of ownership and to tap into their collective wisdom. Craft a narrative that connects the past to the future. And design metrics that focus attention and motivate behavior around what will really make the strategy successful."

Acerca da execução estratégica

Algumas dicas sobre o que pode contribuir para uma execução estratégica bem sucedida:

"Putting strategy into practice is notoriously difficult. In our experience, the primary obstacle to strategy execution is a failure to balance the inherent tensions that characterize any major execution effort. Successful strategy execution calls for skillful orchestration of sometimes opposing forces and competing needs. In particular, there are four core tensions that leaders need to balance.
.
Tension #1: An inspiring end-state versus challenging targets.
A vision of an inspirational ”end state” is essential for getting people to commitment to change: a simple narrative that articulates not only why change is necessary but also what life will look and feel like once change is successfully implemented.
...
Tension #2: Top-down control versus democratization of change.
When everyone in the organization feels empowered to make decisions that can influence change, it creates a palpable energy: People tend to work harder, offer more ideas, and become far more invested in the process. If every activity is the result of a command from on high, the company runs the risk of sucking all the energy out of the room. But the flip side can be myriad groups of enthusiastic change agents dashing off in multiple, uncoordinated directions.
...
Tension #3: Capability development versus pressure for results.
Many strategies call for significant changes in the ways a company works, which raises questions of whether the organization needs to develop new capabilities. But the pressure to deliver immediate results is often so intense that an organization may be forced to forge ahead with its existing capabilities.
...
Tension #4: Creativity versus discipline.
Creativity is a part of any distinctive strategy. Fearing that discipline will stifle creativity, it is not uncommon for executives to choose to “let the creatives run free.” At its best this can lead to unanticipated insights and outcomes, but at its worst it can lead to chaos and complete unaccountability for results. In fact, creativity and discipline are not mutually exclusive — yet this tension can be the hardest one to balance.
...
Getting strategy done well often calls for trade-offs between delivering short-term results and implementing foundational changes that require time. Yet companies that can achieve a balance between opposing forces are far more likely to realize successful strategies that endure."

Trechos retirados de "Good Strategy Execution Requires Balancing 4 Tensions"

"your organization’s biggest strategic challenge isn’t strategic thinking — it’s strategic acting"

"However hard it is to devise a smart strategy, it’s ten times harder to get people to execute on that strategy. And a poorly executed strategy, no matter how clever, is worthless.
.
In other words, your organization’s biggest strategic challenge isn’t strategic thinking — it’s strategic acting.
...
Because while strategy development and communication are about knowing something, strategy execution is about doing something. And the gap between what you know and what you do is often huge. Add in the necessity of having everyone acting in alignment with each other, and it gets even huger.
...
To deliver stellar results, people need to be hyperaligned and laser-focused on the highest-impact actions that will drive the organization’s most important outcomes."

Trechos retirados de "Execution Is a People Problem, Not a Strategy Problem"