“Those who study
genetics avoid studying humans, because new generations come along only every
thirty years or so, it takes a long time to understand the cause and effect of
any changes. Instead, they study fruit flies, because they are conceived, born,
mature, and die all within a single day”
Studying
and analyzing strategy can be just as painful with no real proof of concept or
sustainability. This creates an additional justification of keeping the
formulation of strategy beyond the walls of the C-Suite.
Should
the planning exercise itself be treated as an executive level project? Should
the brains of the organization lock themselves in a room and emerge with the
plan that will lead the organization into the future? Is there a better, more
sustainable way to have strategy defined and executed throughout the
organization?
A Clear
distinction of the decision making bodies and the implementers of the strategy
answers the above concern. The
formulation of strategy remains a vision but the execution of it is undoubtedly
a pursuit in which the stakeholders must buy in and more importantly understand
it thoroughly.
Strategy
is more of a living document than a written down version of the construct of an
executive mind. In fact we get much
evidence of companies losing their competitive advantage and head towards
bankruptcy due to lack of change in their “winning” strategy overlooking the hurdles
faced by the implementing group.
“Wal-Mart and GE both brought in major players from the
nonprofit industry to help them develop their sustainability strategies around
water, waste, energy usage, etc. Often
these outside viewpoints will ask question and open up new avenues of thought
that the internal "strategy team" would have never even sniffed on
their own”- notes Jeff Gowdy, an Owen Alum in the sustainability business.
I guess if an external viewpoint can help this much a
channel to drive the concerns of stakeholders wouldn’t after all be such a bad
idea.
