It should not be.

Selling strategy and strategic thinking to a trial-and-error management team can make perfect sense. In fact, it not only makes perfect sense but it is a complementary antidote to inevitable blind spots of the most intuitive of people. Properly executed, a thorough strategy process balances perspectives to reduce the possibility of missing something important. Indeed, systematically eliminating unknowns (or, better, converting assumptions to facts) is an important cornerstone to discovery driven growth.

Eskimos, as the saying implies, are not the best customers for snow makers. Obviously, given where they live, snow and ice exist in abundance. Producing something that is already free seems unlikely to induce someone to make an incremental investment. Yet, an Eskimo depends on the ice and snow for traditional igloos and, perhaps more importantly, for maintaining an environment that supports their lifestyle. It is a hedge, maybe, to pay for something that often appears unneeded. However, the moment the temperatures rise, that hedge is all that stands between disaster and survival.

Strategy is similar. Most management teams get by on undirected intuition. They already “own” this and everyone has an opinion to assert. Sometimes, it works spectacularly well. After all, business owners and senior managers tend to be smart, experienced people. Other times, increased competition or environmental changes expose a lack of strategic problem solving. When that happens, business results suffer.

Recently, with Don Springer of the The Colton Group, I completed a survey of 22 business leaders of small-to-medium size businesses. Most of these businesses involve technology products and services. The demographics from the survey are shown in the following graphics.

As a parent, I sometimes return home to find the house in disarray. Things are out of place, some rooms are a mess and the guilty parties are nowhere to be found. Clearly, something has been happening. Eventually I round up the two suspects and ask them the fundamental question.

“How did things get the way they are?”

Usually they exchange glances that contain a wealth of information about possible answers to that question. They seem to calculate the pluses and minuses of each possible answer. Denial (a favorite response) ignores the obvious evidence and lack of alternative causes. Blame means admitting involvement though, of course, the intent is to deflect responsibility to the other party. Excuses attempt to substitute an inferior explanation for the correct one. Silence is stonewalling and an implicit appeal to mercy. Occasionally (just enough to restore my faith and hope), there is an admission of responsibility. Why is that so hard, I am left to wonder?

It is not so different in business.

We enjoy results that might be good (but not good enough) or we suffer through obviously unacceptable outcomes. Then the same question comes to us -“How did things get the way they are?” Confronting that question correctly often determines what comes next. If, on one hand, we attempt all of the responsibility evasions mastered by children in homes around the world, we risk worsening results. On the other hand, when we responsibly answer the question, we lay the foundation for a second important question.

Before I get to the second question, it is useful to remember three fundamental abilities required for management as described by Jerry Weinberg in his Quality Software Management, Volume 1. These abilities allow a manager to meaningfully decipher and respond to difficult situations including “messes” encountered at work.

At the end of an invigorating but overwhelming day of discussing competitive intelligence, I often hear people ask for simplicity.

As I wrote about in “The Three Basic Competitive Intelligence Questions”, the simple formulation of “What? So What? Now What?” regularly resonates. People tell me that they finally understand competitive intelligence after internalizing those three questions. While that is encouraging, the questions are a framework with only the hints of specific actions.

“Just tell us what to do,” they say. “You’ve convinced us that competitive intelligence is important and that there is a lot to know about doing it right. Give us a three step approach that we can wrap our arms around and remember. We want something tangible to do!” they demand.

“Okay, okay, I’ll give you some steps,” I say. (Unsurprisingly, these steps correlate to the three questions in the framework.)

Here are three tangible steps that most anyone can take to get moving. If these issues are well covered, then there is a good start at competitive intelligence. Furthermore, after one pass through these steps, a company will understand competitive intelligence far better than most any simple formulation.

For people with a chronic and serious illness, there often is a periodic set of tests used to assess whether or not their disease has progressed. For instance, for people with cancer, many “enjoy” CT scans, MRI’s and blood tests regularly to determine if the cancer has returned, grown or spread. The routine of getting the tests done, waiting for specialists to interpret the results and talking with the doctor is an anxiety-filled time. Many people that I have known dread this sequence. The uncomfortable tests, irritating waiting and difficult discussions dissuade some from proper treatment. And yet, without the proper treatment, how will one get better?

Competitive intelligence is sometimes a similarly difficult topic for some businesses.

Competitive intelligence does three things that can be painful.

1. It forces an organization to look externally. Indeed, in my experience, most organizations admit that their focus is intensely inward. They are concerned about operations, execution and tactics. The more experienced people sheepishly concede that their balance is out-of-whack. The pain comes from admitting that they have been missing important information from the competitive environment.
2. It asks why an organization is getting the results it sees. Every company that I talk with wants to improve. Either they want to turnaround a mediocre (or failing) business or they want more growth. Hence, the management creates strategies to improve the results. Competitive intelligence methodically puts those strategy decisions in a competitive context. The pain comes from exposing the leaders’ decision-making thought processes.
3. It requires new approaches. Especially for companies that have not done competitive intelligence, starting CI will change them. The changes include new allocations of time, augmented strategy decision-making processes and a shift in the culture. These are not trivial changes. The pain comes from seeing that the solution requires long-term changes.

I suppose that there are other real and imagined barriers to competitive intelligence.

Commonly, people that recognize that there is a deficiency do not know where to start to improve. They need guidance and are unsure where they can get it. A lack of support within the organization sometimes stymies even motivated people. They feel that they do not have the latitude to begin competitive intelligence. I have also seen that there is a shock for some when confronted by the difference between what they are doing and what they might be doing (or their competitors are doing). Actions that follow shock are rarely bold. Rather, as with a serious medical diagnosis, the first reaction is often to become more conservative (i.e., avoid starting new things).

If any of this is true for you, your company or your clients, there are some common sense ways to decrease the fear.