Stubbornly Strategic

A few weeks ago I wrote about the need for leaders at all levels to have good advice and to keep those advisors close to them. It's funny how the world can change in a few weeks. In that time, here in New Zealand we've had arguably our biggest disaster in the Christchurch earthquake, while elsewhere in the world Libya is in revolt and the associated impact on the price of oil is affecting economies everywhere. The ripple effect of such events means that many more things will change in months to come. In New Zealand businesses outside of Christchurch will feel some impact, if they are not already. And the cost of the rebuild will have an affect on everyone in the country. Already debate is raging about whether we should rebuild or not, and while I am not going to comment on that here, I would like to draw some parallels with the challenge that leaders face when the environment changes around them.

Businesses spend time in developing strategy to guide leaders in the day to day choices that are made and actions to be taken. For some strategy is a rock solid path, while others use it in a fluid way. A key part of strategising is looking at the context your business finds itself in and environment that could be expected in the future as well as the current reality.

But what happens when that context changes? A test of leadership is their ability to steer a course when the environment changes.

Nobody predicted an earthquake with such devastation as we've now seen in Christchurch. It's a major city in New Zealand terms, 'it's always been here' is the cry from some, so we must rebuild it. Others question whether that is a smart move given the changing environment, the relative cost and the uncertainty of the geological future. There are world cup games scheduled for Christchurch and the tug of war between the emotional cries of 'solidarity' and 'it would be good for the devastated population' are being countered with 'can we risk it happening again?'.

In the midst of change leaders have to make choices. Do we stick with the strategy we've set? Do we watch a little longer and see what happens? Do we jump now and cut our losses? Whether it is a suddenly under-performing product or arm of the business, a change in competition, shift in consumer trends, hike in the interest rate, sudden collapse of the market, a rise in the exchange rate or the multitude of other challenges that arise, leaders are there to make choices.

The difficulty is that difficult times also bring a lot of day to day issues to manage and wherever you sit in the organisation it is easy to get sucked in to those. And all the time the circumstances are setting in and your opportunity to do what you should do, is drifting away. In times like this many leaders make reactive or emotional decisions: 'stick to the strategy. It worked in the past it will work now', 'let's jump, we can't risk it', 'we've always done it this way and we're still here aren't we!'. And yes, you might get it right. You might dig in and ride the storm or you might jump and steal a march as others flounder.

But you know what you should do, even while you are reacting or digging in and letting circumstances run your day, dont you. You should gather trusted advisors and key thinkers around you and you calmly and dispassionately take the emotion out of the debate, test the strategy against the environment, surface the risks and opportunities and reset the course accordingly.

History will judge your choices that our politicians will make over the coming weeks or months. As a leader in business, your choices may not have as much significance nationally, but the questions will still be asked. 

So how do you want to be judged? Stubbornly or smartly strategic?

New Broom, Soft Bristles?

Everyone knows the concept of a ‘new broom’ going in to an organisation and making sweeping changes to how things are done.
For some this starts with a refreshed vision/mission and roles on to new company values, some rebranding, followed by changes to the way the business operates (systems and I.T etc). For other’s it can just be that the new boss does things differently and people get used to the changes over time; the vision, mission and values are still on the walls but gradually fade, gather dust and fall off, while the new boss introduces methods, approaches and systems that they prefer and have delivered for them in the past.

Whether you’ve been part of the ‘Industrial Strength Hoover’ approach or the ‘Urban Decay’ methods of bringing changes to a business (and if you have definitions somewhere in between please share) then you will know that the arrival of a new boss or the leaving of a new boss can be an interesting time for employees.

In recent years I have noted that it is almost impossible for a new CEO/GM/MD to do anything other than adopt a new broom philosophy. In addition it is noticeable that there is an expectation that the sweeping starts very soon after their arrival. This creates some interesting changes scenarios for the business.
Firstly the business often goes in to hiatus when it is clear that a new boss is arriving. This hiatus continues until the new boss announces what they intend to do. The hiatus seems to occur because people ‘just know’ that changes will happen with a new boss, so initiatives that take a lot of effort are ‘delayed’ and changes that were part way through are put on hold. People hunker down and do the basics.
As a change agent this is an interesting time to observe the culture as it is an indication of what is culturally embedded but it is often a ‘lowest common denominator’ impression. At this point the new boss comes in and sees that lowest common denominator and rapidly comes to the conclusion that old vision/mission and values are not working (rapidly because that is the expectation these days) and low and behold they see that a new broom is needed.
If the new manager then acts soon after their arrival and takes the ‘industrial strength hoover’ approach then many good things are swept away and lost. This is sometimes because the manager had not seen them in action because of the hiatus and sometimes because thats what happens with an industrial strength hoover. When this happens people at least know where they stand (big announcements are part of the industrial strength hoover) but often those that have been there a while suffer the ‘we’ve done this before’ feeling as similar things come out in the new vision/ mission values.
If the new manager adopts an urban decay approach people have to be light on their feet and swift to learn what is acceptable and expected. Hiatus is swapped for confusion and concern as people try to work out what bits of the old are acceptable and which aren’t.

There are many other impacts on an organisation as a result of management change, but the real question is ‘how do you reduce the negative and maximise the positive?’

I believe that new leaders need time to observe and learn about their organisation. There are many conversations required before people stop treating them like a new boss and really speak their mind. The new manager has a lot of testing (and often indirect) questions to ask over a number of weeks to find out what parts of the vision are working, whether the organisation is functioning in line with that vision and whether departments/ divisions and teams are aligned, playing their part , etc. They need to stand outside and observe the culture in action and see what is positive about it and what isn’t. They need to assess the capability and fit of their people, the systems, processes and ways of working. They need to signal to the organisation that they are looking and learning and that they want everything to continue as it was before they arrived and that includes initiatives and change programmes.
They need to manage the tension between the board’s desire for swift and immediate action and the need to find out what the right actions are. They cannot take forever to decide but nor can they decide in their first few weeks.

They need to be a new broom with soft bristles.

The Road to Nowhere

I was recently talking with a senior partner of a renowned Auckland architectural firm about the things they find in their project reviews. I have been lucky to work beside some of their team at the conceptual stage when they are thinking about the cultural impact and intentions of the design (of course the culture side is my interest)

I enjoy their approach as they like to get inside their clients heads & really understand how they think about their business. That means they are very interested in the post project review because there is nothing better than looking at the actual impact of the design and comparing it to the intended impact to help them learn for the future.

In the case of one space they had designed they found that the expected working improvements had not fully materialised because people were using the new spaces the way they had in the old building. Aside from observing that this is culture in action (that's the way we always do things), I was interested in why this was the case. After all the space had been designed to create new thinking by providing opportunities to work differently.

Like all projects this one had a significant front end effort in creating the strategy and setting cultural and performance goals had. However there appeared to be a gap between the strategists strategising and the users using.

It occurred to me that this was not unusual whether it be the business strategy, marketing strategy or in this case a project strategy.

Strategy is meant to guide inform your people as they make decisions, yet in many organisations it doesn't do that as much as it should. Not because the strategy is wrong or the people ignore it but because the strategy isn't properly translated in to plans, reviewed against actual results and, certainly in the case of cultural objectives at least, communicated repetitively and regularly so that it sticks in the hearts & minds (that's where culture lives). Without understanding your intentions people will do what they think is right and that tends to be what they already know.

It's like buying an expensive map before a road trip across the breadth of the country and then navigating by road signs. It's not effective & the risk is you get sidetracked down roads that take you nowhere.

Developing good strategy takes some effort; lots of leadership time, expensive collation of data & market intelligence, weeks of analyst time and a pile of charts, slides & reports. So why waste that all by not following through in the role out as thoroughly?

So is the cost & effort involved in creation of strategy replicated in the role out, the time to explain, clarify, revisit, update, measure & publicise in your business? Your division? Your team?

And do you take a leaf out of the architects book & review the actual impact of the strategy so that you can learn and improve at least & refocus at best?

Or do you start out with a great strategic intent and take the road to nowhere?