Where I live it is common to have slab foundations (How to Build a Slab Foundation) for homes.

Slab foundations are solid blocks of poured concrete on top of which the structure is erected. There are several important characteristics that a slab foundation must have in order to support the house that is being built.

• It must be shaped correctly for the house. It is costly and difficult to alter the basic shape after it hardens.

• Although it looks like a solid mass of concrete, it actually conceals a great deal of infrastructure including electrical conduits, plumbing and cables (which provide strength).

• Everything attached to or embedded in the foundation must be in the right place (again, it is hard to change things fixed in concrete). For example, the plumbing for sewage should emerge where the bathrooms are planned to be.
• Finally, after doing all of the necessary things, it is important to preserve your flexibility for all of the remaining elements of the home. For instance, the placement of the second story wall for the guest bedroom is not to be tied to something in the design of the foundation.

The foundation serves its purpose even though it is not a visible feature of the home. The structure above obscures what is beneath it and many people give little thought to what they don’t see. However, you absolutely must pay attention to your CI foundation. And the quiet time after your first management presentation is a good time to establish what will support all that you do later.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the obvious solution for wanting something sweet to eat was sugar. You know, sugar that is natural, cheap and effective (if only temporarily for some of us). It is easy to get sugar in many different forms that fit your purposes. There are at least two problems with sugar. First, if your teeth brushing habits are not good then you can develop cavities. Second, if your exercise habits are similarly lacking, you can gain weight.

To overcome the side effects, substitutes were created.

The substitutes (e.g., stevia, saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, and acesulfame potassium) are meant to look like sugar, taste like sugar and behave like sugar in recipes. Their virtue is that they overcome the issues of real sugar (not rotting your teeth or adding weight). But, here’s the problem. While the various substitutes solve some problems quite well, they can introduce new problems that are more severe than what they have solved. For instance, studies are ongoing about the cancer causing impact of the artificial sweeteners.

Substitutes have their own problems that may be worse than the original substance.

Business leaders have reactions to strategy that are a bit like the reactions to natural sugar. Many leaders in business would claim to have a strategy, that their strategy was good and that it was effective. There have product strategies, technology strategies, organization strategies, people strategies and more in their company. In fact, if a little strategy is good, a lot of strategy must be better. However, the kickback from the proliferation of strategies is the side effects. After all, the organization and its customers can only absorb so much strategy. It gets confusing to understand, difficult to place in context and hard to track. So, guess what?

Leaders develop substitutes for effective strategy.

Here are 5 “strategy substitutes” that are common in organizations. Each has its own unintended side effects.

“Accumulation of Tactics”

The virtue of tactics is that almost everyone is already involved and busy with their tactical responsibilities. The success or failure of tactics is usually known quickly. Leaders can simply convey to the organization that the sum of the to-do lists equals the direction of the company. This overcomes the real difficulty of properly using strategy to implement and measure an effective long term course. The negative side effect is that it is easy to waste a great deal of organization energy on what is unimportant or contradictory to the real future goals.

“Stone Tablets”

Of course, strategy is sometimes given a lofty position in a company. The strategic statements of management are venerated (as management intends them to be) as profound summaries of the future. The “stone tablets” contains these statements and like the original ones from Mt. Sinai, they are not meant to change. It is easy to accept such statements if divinity is actually involved. But there are no such figures in business. Simple statements, communicated once and slavishly adhered to overcome the difficultly of maintaining an adaptive strategy at the expense of ignore obvious changes in the environment. The negative side effect is that all strategy statements lose their relevance and credibility quickly.

“Magic Slogan”

It’s amusing (and a little sad) to observe large companies over time. Many of them (especially those selling to consumers) develop ad campaigns to capture the public’s attention. A common way to do so is to develop and repeat a simple slogan (think Ford, “Quality is Job 1“). Slogans may prove useful in advertising but when they come to represent the bulk of the business strategy, something is missing. Managers misappropriate what has been developed for the mass market for reuse within the company. The magic slogan becomes the strategy. The negative side effect is that the strategy is seen to have no depth and internal customers (e.g., employees) rightly understand that little effort was expended to craft something to guide their work.

“Divorced From Reality”

Sometimes strategists are given free rein to develop all of the strategy that they want to develop. And, like good employees, they set off to create beautiful depictions which show how the company will trample the competition and return incredible value to stockholders. The only problem (as if this was a small problem) is that the organization is intentionally insulating the strategy from reality checks. It is an academic exercise that avoids comparisons to competitors, assessments about implementation effectiveness and measurements of success. The negative side effect is that strategy is viewed as a checklist item and an unimportant one at that.

“Fire Drill”

The usually correct response to a fire in a building is to get out as fast as possible. Some businesses see fires all around them. Their strategy is to get away from those “fires” as soon as possible. Every activity is oriented around survival and the management is reliably fast to react to dangers. Strategy that is always shaped by “fires” means that the organization rarely moves effectively in normal times. A common management trick in dysfunctional organizations is to introduce fire drills to direct the organization. Aside from the artificial manipulation involved, the negative side effect is that the strategy has no reflective character.

When a business is using the “real” thing, look for a strategy that has the following characteristics.

• It is distinguished from the tactics by having an overarching, longer term focus.
• It is adaptable (not fixed in stone) as the environment changes.
• It has significant meaning at many levels inside and outside the organization.
• It is regularly discussed, measured and evaluated (leading to the adaptation).
• It represents the studied reflection over time of the organization.

Substitutes have their appeal. They also carry with them significant side effects. Using the real thing does cost time and money but the benefits are well worth the effort.

I was thinking about cooking and strategy today. An odd pair of topics I know but they actually have a lot in common.  Let me explain.

Even if you are not a chef by training, you know some things about cooking.

• First, you probably know that a lot of people cook but not many are masters. For instance, I count as cooking almost any time that I intentionally apply heat to raw food. There is not much nuance or sophistication to my definition (and you would rightly deduce that I am not a master chef). You probably wouldn’t want to eat many of the things that I have prepared but I can do some basic things well. Meanwhile, a master chef brings training, creativity and versatility to the kitchen.

• Second, cooking usually involves multiple ingredients. A proficient cook understand the purpose of each ingredient, when to add them and how much to add. Maybe they have a recipe to start with but they trust their judgment as the dish is being prepared. A little more salt, a little less butter they might decide along the way. A novice either ignores the recipe (and creates disasters) or slavishly adheres to a set of directions with no understanding of when or how to creatively deviate from the prescription.

• Third, and this is getting much more involved, a master cook understands that a meal is far more than the mixture of ingredients according to some recipe. Indeed, a meal includes the presentation of the food, the drink to accompany the meal, an artful display on the table and maybe some music for enjoyment. The “full meal” to the master is an encompassing sensory experience that is meant to satisfy those that partake. (A novice wonders why paper plates aren’t good enough for most meals.)

Strategy is similar to cooking.

• Almost anyone can claim to be a strategist for basic topics but not many are masters.

• Master strategists understand fundamentals and tools but know when to apply their intuition and experience to improve on both.

• An accomplished strategist provides a complete strategy which provides value at many levels to the organization.

Separate the “microwave strategists” from the master practitioners.

If you are in management, a primary task that you have is to distinguish between titles and capabilities. The title of “strategist” means little when you need to know if they can handle difficult assignments. Of course a microwave strategist (think of someone that handles simple assignments quickly) might be quite helpful for certain business topics (there are many “popcorn” topics in everyday business). However, they are not nearly as suitable for complex business strategy, competitive intelligence or early warning systems that make a difference to the company. In these cases, you have to look for the right kind of thinking (e.g. clear, integrative), specialized training and creativity in someone that has a strategic mindset. Everyone can be a type of strategist but only a few are suited for the complicated subjects of business.

Fundamentals first and then the important deviations.

The famous football coach of the Green Bay Packers, Vince Lombardi, said that football was “nothing more than blocking and tackling.” His point was that the fundamentals, consistently and effectively applied made the most difference in the outcome of a game. It’s worthwhile pointing out that his teams would have failed miserably if he really stopped with the fundamentals. They needed to have offensive and defensive plays that gave his team advantages. A strategist, like Coach Lombardi or any master chef, must know what is basic to the craft. However, the breakthrough value often comes from the intuitive leaps that signal a departure from the norm. In strategy work, this places a premium on the strategist’s ability to gather clues from the environment (much like a chef tastes the food as it is being prepared) to determine how to make adjustments to the basic tools. How do others understand the tools? How should an approach be customized for the various strategy audiences? When is it time to introduce or adapt a competitive model? These process deviations (or customizations) make the difference between simply completing a task and making an impactful change to the business.

The total strategy experience matters.

A confession is in order at this point. Many times in my career it seemed like the end point of a strategy effort was a gorgeous PowerPoint presentation impressively delivered to management. That’s it, I’m done I regularly exclaimed after some high level presentation. I was wrong.

When done effectively, strategy work engages the organization on many levels. First, it helps define a direction. Second, it signals how others will be involved in that direction. Third, it suggests steps along the way to the destination. Fourth, it may well include the external impacts on partners, suppliers and customers. Fifth, it equips the organization with the proper tools to implement and measure the strategy. Sixth, it includes new or refined definitions that become part of the lexicon. (See my blog entry “Grading Your Business Strategist” for more information.)

I can become a better cook (my family hopes this happens sooner rather than later). Maybe I can even earn the title of “chef” if I dedicate myself to learning and applying the craft. Until then, the kind of meals that I can reliably prepare will be the basic ones.

Your strategists may be of the microwave variety. They can handle what is simple and quick. Where they need help is in the “full meal” experience. See my complete set of articles at http://tomhawes.wordpress.com for many ideas about how to move them forward in their competencies.

Bon Appétit

I’m in the idea business. Chances are that you are too since you are reading this blog. We spend a lot of our time thinking, imagining and dreaming. Along the way we conceive of new products, innovative services and solutions to difficult problems. What a great way to make a living!

Business strategists and competitive intelligence professionals deal in ideas. At first it may seem that having a good idea is the biggest challenge. Later we come to know that affecting people successfully with those ideas is a much greater challenge. It’s wonderful when we work with people that accept our ideas readily.

Sometimes though, we run up against people that resist our ideas.

You know the type. Despite our honorable intentions, elegant solution and impressive presentation, they remain unmoved. More than that, they sometimes can get quite hostile. They seem to resist the very possibility that we have a great solution. Maybe their hostility or resistance is passive. It can take us a while to even figure out those people.

After battling the passive folks it is almost a relief to confront someone that openly and vociferously opposes us. Ah, let the battle begin, we think. My ideas versus your ideas and may the best ones (mine, of course) win! There is a big problem with this scenario. (Well, maybe there is more than one.)

It is extremely difficult to overcome someone’s resistance when we think of it as “resistance.”

People are masters are detecting our strategies and adjusting their “wall” to deflect unwelcome ideas.  You try to argue with them. They might argue back, withdraw from the discussion or retreat to fight you another day. Many people will seem to agree with you and only later will you learn that their agreement was not sincere. The one certainty is that they remain unconverted to your idea. You will not be allowed to win because it means that they will have to lose.

Try transforming your image of resistance into one of “safety.”

Jerry Weinberg of Weinberg & Weinberg gave me this lesson a few years ago. At the time my head was bruised from all of the times that I beat it against a wall. The wall, of course, was all those idea resisters. How dare they withstand me, I thought! My ideas were good ones. They only wanted to see me fail which turned my bewilderment into anger and resentment. Then Jerry gave me transforming idea that the issue was their “safety.” What I was advocating affected their safety because it threatened them with change. The change that I wanted to occur was not something that they had asked for or welcomed. Coming to grips with how to effect change is the acid test for “idea” professionals.

Helping others work through their safety issues can actually improve your idea.

So I began to rethink how I approached others. I realized that my best ideas would languish without the agreement of at least some of the people that felt unsafe. I began to ask them about the possible impacts of my ideas. Did they have any thoughts about mitigating the side effects of my proposed idea? Were there things that could be modified in my original idea that would better consider the culture of the organization? In their opinion, what was the right pace of change? Were there ways to test my idea in some incremental fashion? Amazingly, by asking these questions, my idea and its implementation always got better. Adversaries became allies and co-owners. They began to trust me more and to help rather than fight me. My blood pressure went down and my forehead healed.

It’s good to have ideas. It’s good to make beautiful presentations. It’s good to find solutions.

It’s better to work through change with people together.

The days of command and control organizations (at least in high technology) are long passed. We have a few examples where knowledge workers can do powerful things when they are operating with confidence rather than fear. Your job and mine is to make sure that while we love our ideas, we also make sure that we are helping people feel as safe as possible with what we proposed. Yes, there will be discomfort with change. But harnessing the creative, contributory energy of others is the measure of a successful idea person.

Do you agree?