RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Interesting Perspectives’ Category

No Theory – No Learning

15 Aug

Dr. Deming, a thought leader, in quality improvement theory and practice once said, “No theory, no learning.”  What does this mean? Don’t we learn through experience?  Isn’t experience itself a teacher?  I say NO!  I do not believe experience teaches; rather only refection on experience teaches.

It is difficult to reflect on experience if you do not have a good working theory to be the mirror providing the reflection. As a system engineer turned CEO, I have studied organizational theory and behavior for over twenty five years. Over this period of time, I learned that every company is a system perfectly designed to produce the result it is producing. If you do not like the results, you have to change the design.  I also learned that the system design did not just happen. It evolved through a conversational process, and everyone in the organization contributed to the process and the current state of the design.  How can I say everyone contributed to the design? Isn’t it clear that the executives and managers are responsible for the organizational design?  Yes, they are part of the system, and may have a heavy hand on the controls, but everyone else is also part of the system, and they do have an influence on the design, usually stronger than they believe.

Look at it this way, organizational excellence is not based on one or two factors.  It is based on several interrelated factors starting with compelling vision and effective leadership.  When I say leadership, I do not just mean leader ship at the top.  I mean leadership throughout the organization.  With a compelling vision as the context for action, the next aspect of leadership is to create a powerful strategy as a means to bring the vision into reality and effective operational structures to execute the strategy.

The underpinning of strategic and operational effectiveness is ultimately the effectiveness of the teams throughout the organization. At the end of the day companies do not innovate or execute, people do.   

When all of this is done with excellence, the result is financial effectiveness and business growth.

Here is a framework to look at many of the key aspects of your organizational system. If major capabilities and/or processes are missing or are ineffective, then your results will suffer until you change the design.

Compelling Vision 

Effective Leadership

Strategic Effectiveness

  • Strategy Formulation
  • Strategic Objectives
  • Strategic Positioning
  • Competitive Strategy
  • Technology-Product/Service Strategy
  • Business Development
  • Offers/Target Customers/Marketing Strategy
Operational Effectiveness

  • Systems
  • Structures
  • Processes
  • Practices/Methods
  • Measurement
  • Tools

 

Team Effectiveness

  • Cooperation/Collaboration/Coordination of Action
  • Capability Development
  • Engagement/Empowerment
  • Conversational Competencies
  • Trust/Full Self Expression
  • Adapting To The Business Environment
  • Managing Mood
  • Learning/Change Management

Financial Effectiveness

 

Share
 

Igor Ansoff’s strategy development process!

01 Jun

I, Kobe, came to the US in 1995 to work and study with Dr. Igor Ansoff, often referred to as the Father of Strategic Management. Although he was a great contributor to management thinking, I do think that he mainly got that reference because he was the first to dedicate a book solely on the subject of corporate strategy. I am dating his initial contribution as this happened in 1965. This book is described as “the most elaborate model of strategic planning in the literature” by Henry Mintzberg, a consistent critic of Dr. Ansoff.

One of the most recognized models of Dr. Ansoff  is the Product-Market Growth Matrix, or Ansoff Matrix which he published in 1957. Although it does not sound like much in our MBA driven culture where every problem has its own matrix, at the time this was a revolutionary concept.

The matrix provided, and it still does to this day, a good basis for a strategic discussion. Its main weakness was rooted in the fact that it was one of the first strategic models in the market place. Its initial success drove the widespread adaptation of this model and it quickly became a ‘one-size-fit-all’ solution for any company that wanted to do strategic planning. That combined with the analytical and prescriptive nature of the tools, checklists and processes in his initial work as described in Corporate Strategy, made it too difficult to consistently implement.

Although the matrix has its use, and it is never a lost conversation, it clearly is not a solution to every strategic dilemma, even less so in an ever-increasing complex environment. Lucky for me, as I am quite a bit younger, it did not discourage Dr. Ansoff in his strategic thinking. I strongly believe that to this day one of his greatest contributions to business world is the Contingent Strategic Success Paradigm. It is the major recognition in that strategy is not a balance sheet, a point in time where you write a plan that you put on the shelf. The strategy development process sets up strategy development as an ongoing process. Since that time, there are other great thinkers that I admire that have developed similar strategy development processes. The main advantage of looking at strategy as a development process is that there is always room for continuous improvement, and there is the recognition that strategy has to be flexible if the company is to stay successful.

Dr. Ansoff took that process one step further by firmly linking the environment, with the strategy and the capability, where the premise is: “In order for a company to reach optimum profitability in the future, a company needs to align its strategy and capability with the future turbulence of the environment.” Ansoff’s strategy process has been empirically validated its process in a wide variety of industries and over 1,500 companies.

Other management gurus have picked up several of his ideas and made them more famous such as Michael Porter’s competitive advantage, Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad’s core capability and Tom Peters’ “sticking to your knitting”, to name but just a few.

I will expand more about Ansoff’s strategy development concepts in future blogs.



Share
 

A Company Is A System

10 Mar

A company is a system, and as a system, it is perfectly designed to produce the results it is producing.   I told this to a business owner recently and their response was “that is really harsh.”   Yes it is harsh, but it is the truth.  Think about it!  How else can it be?

As a business owner that is not getting the results you want, there is only one place to look.  That is the design of the business.  If you want different results, you have to change the design.

In order to change the design you need key distinctions to see what is really going on.  You cannot intervene in a world you cannot see.

The first step is to look in the mirror to see who is responsible for the current design.  Once you declare your responsibility in the matter, you will start to learn how to make the necessary changes.  If you blame others for the design, all your learning stops.

Share
 
 
Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Linkedin button Youtube button
© Strategic Momentum 2001-2011 - All rights reserved