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 ..."