Strexecution

A provocative piece on LinkeDin about the gap between strategy and execution set me thinking. Paraphrasing the original poster, managers admit to being generally lousy at executing business strategies, which may well be true (for some at least) but it could also be that:

• Strategies are unrealistic, infeasible or impracticable;

• Strategies are more stretch than target, intended to motivate and drive up performance without necessarily achieving the stated objectives;
• Strategies are literally unworkable, krazy, completely divorced from reality;
  
• Available/allocated resources are overstreched, inadequate or simply unable to execute the strategy;
• The timing is wrong or inadequate (implementing long-term strategies typically incurs short-term costs and inefficiencies - creative destruction);
• People generally struggle with change, significant change especially, hence it is easier for everyone to continue the old ways than to strike out into something new;
• The entire corporate structure and culture is so conservative, set in its ways and staid that even small changes are resisted or blocked, overtly and covertly;
  
• There are other higher/competing priorities and constraints, some of which may not have been evident to the strategists (hinting at governance issues, hidden agendas and company politics, plus a measure of good ol' incompetence and ignorance);
• There are conflicting messages, metrics and mandates from senior management - for instance 'Get cracking on these new initiatives ... but don't neglect ongoing activities' or 'Your bonus is derived from the old metrics, but we want you to do something different';
  
• Strategies are misunderstood/misinterpreted, perhaps being so esoteric and finely wordsmithed that they only truly make sense to their cunning creators;
• Strategies are relatively rigid, whereas the operational environment is dynamic, fluid and flexible due to all the stuff going on routinely and exceptionally within and around the corporation.

Some of those reasons (the final bullet point in particular) led me to wonder why they are considered distinct, quite separate activities. Is it simply that senior managers enjoy their occasional 'away days', sloping off to some swanky club or hotel for a 'strategy session'? Could strategy be developed or at least refined routinely in the course of execution? Shouldn't the realities of execution inform or modify strategy? Is it feasible to run both activities in parallel, within the same management team? Would 'strexecution' work - and if not, why not?

So, what are the differences between them?

• Strategies deliberately take a broad perspective, the helicopter view, consciously stepping back from the daily grind to consider the bigger picture: what the organisation is about, what it is or rather should be doing (core business), what are its primary products and markets, what are its strengths and weaknesses, which business opportunities might be worth opening up and exploiting, what is likely to threaten the business going forward ...
  
• Strategies are long-term (whatever that actually means: years, decades, centuries ...);
  
• Execution is myopically focused on the detail, the here-and-now, with a limited perspective and short-term outlook;
• Strategising is creative, free-thinking, hand-waving, blue-skies stuff, unconstrained by reality, whereas execution most certainly has to deal with the realities such as finite resources and conflicting priorities;
• Strategies make assumptions and involve guesses that may not turn out as expected - leaving execution to deal with the fallout;
• Strategies predict and address a cloud, a broad spectrum of potential futures, possibilities that collapse down to whatever actually transpires in practice, whether as predicted or not.  

I have some sympathy with the old saw: failing to plan is planning to fail, in other words the planning process, the analysis and consideration, is more valuable than the product, the plan itself. Plans almost always turn out to be wrong, but not planning means everything comes as a complete surprise, leaving the organisation a hostage to fortune, constantly on the back foot.

This is opportune. I am currently helping to design and document the governance arrangements and strategy for a new voluntary organisation. While the founders are excitedly developing ambitious strategies for rapid progress and expansion, execution will need a team of willing volunteers performing the associated donkey-work - much less glamorous but no less important. It's a tricky balancing act, harnessing the founders' creative energy while also putting in place the appropriate organisation structure and management controls to build and guide the operations team, delivering on their ambitions.

 

I'm also working with a tiny NZ tech startup client to design and implement the information security controls they need right now, with a view to extending them appropriately as the company grows. Establishing and operating the company is consuming most of their energy and resources, constraining the amount that can realistically be achieved in preparing for the corporate growth and changes ahead. The opportunity to start from scratch is both exciting and daunting.

 

Resource constraints are a common factor requiring a degree of pragmatism, progressing the stuff that must be done without losing sight of the bigger picture. Strategy and execution are related and complementary, not separate. They need each other. We need 'strexecution'.