Change, Strategic Success

Journal of Staff Development, | www.learningforward.org April 2012 | Vol. 33 No. 2,  Jody Spiro

Regarding Change, as need for Strategic success, Jody Spiro's (2012) article explains change this way,

"Everyone participating in the effort has different reactions to change, different concerns, and different motivations for being involved. The results of change are long-term, but the change process is incremental and continuous. It is a series of destinations that lead to further destinations. The smart change leader sets

benchmarks along the way so there are guideposts and pause points instead of an endless change process. “Early wins” — a term used to describe successes demonstrating concretely that achieving the change goals is feasible and will result in benefits for those involved — help accomplish this."

 

This statement fits Jack Welch's admonitions that strategy must be involved, must be achievable, and must possess a series of measurable objectives. Spiro introduces the concept of early wins, or strategic objectives that display winning results in the short term. She suggests that occurs not necessarily because the results actually contribute significantly to strategic objectives but because stakeholders demand measurable results and some industries such as the education industry possess a cultural inability to grasp long term strategy. She does not quite say that but that accurately describes the environment. For example, educators will implement a change and expect to see results three or six months later. Despite rapid consumer polling, changes to a system often require several generations or student enrollment periods to manifest. As a result educators often hang their hats on statistically observable results. And those may be almost indiscernible to the naked non-statistical eye.

Never the less Spiro describes an achievement plan that closely aligns with Jack Welch principles.

That consists of :

"1. Identify the problem and define the objectives

to address it.

2. Design the overall strategy to achieve the objectives.

3. Develop actions (activities) under the strategy.

4. Plan, implement, and publicize the early win."

 

She omit's the principle of celebrating the win and rewarding performance but still delivers sound counsel.

 

However, later in her article she reiterates characteristics of early wins in this manner:

 

• Tangible and observable; - Journal of Staff Development, | www.learningforward.org April 2012 | Vol. 33 No. 2,  Jody Spiro

Regarding Change, as need for Strategic success, Jody Spiro's (2012) article explains change this way,

"Everyone participating in the effort has different reactions to change, different concerns, and different motivations for being involved. The results of change are long-term, but the change process is incremental and continuous. It is a series of destinations that lead to further destinations. The smart change leader sets

benchmarks along the way so there are guideposts and pause points instead of an endless change process. “Early wins” — a term used to describe successes demonstrating concretely that achieving the change goals is feasible and will result in benefits for those involved — help accomplish this."

 

This statement fits Jack Welch's admonitions that strategy must be involved, must be achievable, and must possess a series of measurable objectives. Spiro introduces the concept of early wins, or strategic objectives that display winning results in the short term. She suggests that occurs not necessarily because the results actually contribute significantly to strategic objectives but because stakeholders demand measurable results and some industries such as the education industry possess a cultural inability to grasp long term strategy. She does not quite say that but that accurately describes the environment. For example, educators will implement a change and expect to see results three or six months later. Despite rapid consumer polling, changes to a system often require several generations or student enrollment periods to manifest. As a result educators often hang their hats on statistically observable results. And those may be almost indiscernible to the naked non-statistical eye.

Never the less Spiro describes an achievement plan that closely aligns with Jack Welch principles.

That consists of :

"1. Identify the problem and define the objectives

to address it.

2. Design the overall strategy to achieve the objectives.

3. Develop actions (activities) under the strategy.

4. Plan, implement, and publicize the early win."

 

She omit's the principle of celebrating the win and rewarding performance but still delivers sound counsel.

 

However, later in her article she reiterates characteristics of early wins in this manner:

 

• Tangible and observable;- (yes matches Welch Way)

• Achievable; - (yes matches Welch Way)

• Perceived by most people as having more benefits than

costs; - (yes matched Welch Way)

• Nonthreatening to those who oppose the strategy; ( I observe that winning strategy almost inevitably threatens someone in the organization. And that winning strategy requires doing what will best support organizational performance and success. Spiro is off base here as a non-threatening to all strategy will either be so weak as to be ineffective or so broad as to be non-implementable) 

• Symbolic of a desired shared value;- (yes matches Welch Way)

• Publicized and celebrated; and - (yes matches Welch way)
• Used to build momentum."

 

Observe that Spiro provides no differentiation between early wins and low hanging fruit. Low hanging strategic fruit occurs when a company can achieve some win, some easily recognized monetary achievement.  For example a quick effort that puts money in the pot. And low hanging strategic fruit can definitely meet financial objectives, short term goals, and keep the company in the game. They even provide strategic advantage  in that they can keep the executive and strategy team in power and capable of further strategic maneuvers. When low hanging fruit coincide with established strategic vision and goals then they strongly contribute to lasting competitive advantage. However, the organization must retain strategic direction, it must remain consistent to the strategic vision. A series of non-strategy contributory low hanging fruit or early wins that do not continue towards firmly established objectives can weaken organizational capabilities to execute winning strategy by leading the organization away from its core competencies and mission.

 

And speaking of mission, core competencies, and strategic objectives, one can see support for those in:

Baltic Security & Defence Review Vol 17, Issue 2, 2014, The COG strikes back: Why a 200 Year Old Analogy Still Has a Central Place in the Theory and Practice of Strategy

By Major Jacob Barfoed

 

COG refers to the Clausewitzian Center of Gravity.

Barfoed presents three COG interpretations based on Will (to win) and Ability (to execute).

These consist of the Direct Approach - focused on defeating the enemy Ability COG, Indirect Approach - focused on the enemy Will critical vulnerabilities, and the Flexible Approach that their main force can be defeated by a combination of political and military efforts (Barfoed, 2014).

This sounds very warlike but it translates easily into business terms.

Consider that a direct approach means standing face to face, slugging it out, bloodying each other in brutal strategic contest. That could consist of a price war or any attempt to meet and overwhelm a competitor by manufacturing output, efficiency, or performance based on pitting one organization's same factor strength against the other. That can work but it requires an effort that depletes both organizations strengths and can make the environment susceptible to intrusion and loss to a third or fourth party.  This head to head strategy can produce two losers, regardless of who wins.

 

On the other hand, an indirect business approach consists of avoiding the competitor's core strength and destroying their demand function or supply capability or even their regulatory adherence. As a result of indirect behaviors regardless of its production capability the competitor cannot supply it manufacturing needs in order to produce or finds a greatly diminished market. And that effectively removes it from competition. This behavior results from better supply chain management, freezing out suppliers, partnering with suppliers and improved logistic services. It also can rely on convincing advertisements and better customer behavioral segmentation. The indirect approach leads customers to realize that they will receive less value from the competitor. The flexible approach uses both behaviors as appropriate to win.

 

And the COG or core competency battlefield discussion leads to:

A playbook for strategy, The Five Essential Questions at the Heart of Any Winning Strategy by A.G. Lafley, Roger Martin and Jennifer Riel, Rotman Magazine Winter 2013

Lafley, Martin, and Riel (2013) list five questions for winning strategy:

" 1. What is your winning aspiration!'

2. Where will you play?

3. How will you win?

4. What capabilities must be in place?

5. What management systems are required?"

 

 

These display Welch Way principles of Vision, Objectives, Scope, Competencies, and Implementation. Winning principles derive from winning objectives; the why, the reason for existing, the organization's purpose. Keep the organization focused on its winning roots. Winning objectives harks back to the need for achievable objectives as discussed in Spiro(2012) and Scope relates to this and last week's strategy types and its risk portfolio. With Scope necessarily aligning to competencies whether original, new, or acquired.

Then as Jack Welch says, "Implement like ..."