Thursday, March 5, 2015

An Analysis of Strategy Execution Systems - Aligment

A recent article in Harvard Business Review describing myths around strategy execution and failure modes1 struck me as particularly relevant to my coaching and consulting in "operationalizing strategy" and, more precisely, designing and analyzing systems of work and execution.

And so I found it useful to summarize the ideas presented in the article in my own words and then relate them to the aspects of operations that receive my focus and inquiry; in essence, using the content to bring visibility and clarity to my own latent points-of-view in how each of these areas impact systems I work with.

I will address each one in turn as a series of posts, starting with this one about Aligning Execution, then moving through the others: Sticking to the Execution Plan, Communicating Strategy for Execution, Performance-Driven Execution, and Top-Down Execution.



Aligning Execution

Too often alignment is used as the singular dimension for improving execution – all we need to do is implement or improve alignment and all the pieces will then fall in place.

In actuality, cross-functional commitment is more often the source of the most challenging issues in complex organizations. Even when alignment is clear, explicit, and even defensible within a group or unit, the problems arise when execution relies on cross-boundary collaboration. Some typical situations and behaviors I’ve observed include:
  • Ignoring cross-boundary needs or issues – “we don’t talk about that…”
  • Identifying cross-boundary needs or issues with passivity – “yeah, but they didn’t respond to our needs…”
  • Turning cross-boundary needs or issues into divisive flash points - “we’ll steal what we need if we have to”

The most common challenge I encounter is when organizational strategy is decomposed into objectives requiring collaboration across boundaries, yet are rewarded and measured within each distinct unit. In this case, alignment, per se, is not the problem; it is the decomposition of strategy and rewards along organizational boundaries, increasing the friction introduced by these boundaries.

What Would Attract my Interest?

  • Can lateral, integrative, collaboration systems even be articulated within the organization? Are they formal (part of the explicit organizational system) or informal (dependent on interpersonal relationships alone)?
    • While lateral competencies do not have to be formal, the more friction created by structural divisions, the more design is required to effect such integration.
    • Structures that introduce boundaries are also most often reinforced by parallel incentive systems and no informal system of collaboration will be able to counteract that force – and few formal systems may either.
  • How often are cross-functional commitments identified? How often are cross-functional commitments met?
    • Obvious measures are the outcomes themselves.
  • How are cross-boundary commitments met (willpower, directives, collaboration)?
    • It is also important to understand the motivation and type of energy behind how commitments are met.
  • What incentives are in place for collaboration behaviors?
    • Whether there is a direct causal relationship or an indirect influential with incentives and shared goals tied to rewards, these must be part of the analysis.
    • Sometimes I believe with a bit more focus and effort, an organization can actually re-design incentives not just for enabling collaborative behavior, but appropriately designing shared outcomes that naturally drive such behaviors. 

"Operationalizing strategy" is a complex, multi-dimension activity that requires a systems thinking perspective focused on the motivation that drives particular behaviors and identifying the most impactful levers.

While strategic alignment is a legitimate concern to investigate, my experiences indicate that it is less often about true misalignment and more often about the ancillary systems of communication and collaboration, which provide the channels for alignment, that require the most attention.

That said, this exercise has provided me with the opportunity to make my own POVs explicit and identify aspects of this challenge that I have overlooked or taken for granted in my own coaching and consulting – even very recently. Learning is never-ending and I appreciate the opportunities to become aware of my own blind spots.

1.     Sull, Donald, Homkes, Rebecca, & Sull, Charles. (2015, March). Why Strategy Execution Unravels – and What to Do About It. Harvard Business Review, 58-66.




No comments:

Post a Comment