business strategy

The Hare, the Tortoise and the Strategy-Execution Gap

The Hare, the Tortoise and the Strategy-Execution Gap

Effective strategy execution is one of the single most challenging hurdles for any CEO and business to overcome. Translating core strategic objectives into strong outcomes requires sticking to the fundamentals. This is one race where being fastest out of the gate is not a good predictor of success.

Aligning People, Process, and Purpose

Aligning People, Process, and Purpose

In order to solve the right business problem, it requires organizational alignment around a common set of goals and objectives that puts your customer as the main point of context. Learn more.

A Strategy isn't a Strategy Without Implementation

With organizations going through major inflection points in their business, one theme is consistent… companies can’t continue doing what they have always done. So it’s determined that the development of a new strategy is needed to align to the rapidly evolving business landscape. Your team convenes for a ‘planning session’. The end result is some form of a strategic roadmap with corresponding tactics. This gets summarized, socialized, and distributed to the respective teams to begin execution.

Fast forward a few months and management finds progress on the plan is either limited, or the execution isn’t meeting the intended outcomes. Why?

From our experience, this gap occurs when the current reality of the business is not fully mapped to the desired end state. It requires answering some fundamental questions to help assess what it would really take to operationalize these initiatives. Questions like:

  • People
    • What skills and knowledge are needed to reach your goals and do your current employees possess these capabilities?
    • Are additional resources needed? At what capacity are your existing resources and can they truly take on more?
  • Process
    • Are your internal policies, procedures, and processes flexible and agile enough to enable to you to move quickly?
  • Culture
    • Is the current organizational culture one that will embrace change? Will inertia or status quo be likely to limit forward movement?
    • Is cross-functional, cross-departmental collaboration and openness a challenge?
  • Technology
    • Will the existing systems enable your organization to achieve what the business needs?

Taking a holistic view to assess the level of effort in implementing your strategy is critical - because now more than ever, everything is a connected system. It means understanding the organizational, structural and procedural capabilities in order to effectively build the operational roadmap. It means identifying risks and tradeoffs to reach near term milestones and meetsr longer-term goals. It’s figuring out how to iterate and optimize as you execute while still staying true to the end objectives.

In the end, a strategy isn’t a strategy if it can’t be executed consistently and successfully. Bringing the strategy to life so that your customers and employees see and benefit from it is what really matters.

Is “Top Down” or “Bottoms Up” Financial Planning Best?

canstockphoto1936772

Many financial planning experts will tell you that this depends on where your company is in its business life cycle. If you’re a startup or early stage company, they would say you probably don’t have the resources or operational complexity to benefit from a “bottom up” approach. Conversely, they would say it’s imperative for large companies with substantially more resources, integrated processes, and information flow to invest in “bottom up” planning tools as accurate and timely business intelligence, and ultimately good strategic decision making, require a strong ground level perspective. Although neither of these arguments is faulty in and of itself, I would argue that best practices planning and analysis can only be achieved if both approaches are leveraged.

Having worked as a finance executive for technology startups as well as multibillion dollar global enterprises, I have experienced the pitfalls of over utilizing one approach at the expense of the other. In the case of a larger company that lacks meaningful “top down” target setting, management is not able to effectively convey its key growth and operating strategies to business owners and line level employees. Consequently, the “bottom up” plans will often be overinflated and disjointed as budget owners struggle to cover all their bases which often results in sales and expense forecasting that is not in alignment with overall objectives.

What really kills productivity is the seemingly endless iteration required to consolidate the “bottom up” view and resolve the back-and-forth negotiation that invariably takes place between business owners and management. On the flip side, a “top down” model might be better at explicitly communicating management’s objectives and business-level accountabilities, but it does not allow for the feedback loop required to establish meaningful business priorities and effectively course correct as business conditions change. A company that leverages both approaches is much more effective in communicating key corporate objectives and ensuring essential alignment and accountabilities while at the same time empowering business managers to provide the critical feedback and innovative problem solving that is so crucial in successfully navigating an ever-changing business landscape.  At a much smaller scale but no less important, an early stage company needs both approaches to ensure that management understands key business drivers (bottoms up) and is therefore able to establish overarching objectives (top down) that are substantive, achievable, and properly tensioned.

Although often overlooked or under resourced, strong planning can be even more critical at the early stage as there is much less margin for error. In any company at any stage in its business life cycle, strong financial planning, thought leadership, and decision analysis are predicated on 1) clear and consistent communication from the top, 2) strong alignment and business accountability, and 3) a healthy feedback loop that promotes innovative thinking and operational flexibility.