Book Name: The Art of Action: How
Leaders Close the Gaps between Plans, Actions and Results.
Author: Stephen
Bungay
The commander in chief always develops a
strategy to win the war. All though it is taken for granted that the soldiers
in the field will obey the chief as planned to ensure they defeat the enemy. The chain in command and alignment becomes
very important so that they know Why, What and How it has to be done. Business
is an interaction between human organizations. It is competitive, highly
dynamic, complex and risky. Organizations develop strategy and review it every
year. Command is as unavoidable in the business world as it is in the military
one. Strategy is dynamic as it only defines the path that management has chosen.
At times the organizations fail to execute the strategy.
The Art of Action is a thought-provoking and fresh look at how managers
can turn planning into execution, and execution into results. The book is
based on the historical knowledge of military campaigns going back to
Napoleonic times and moves forwards into the 21st Century military application of strategy in the Western
world. The author draws parallels to application of the Mission Command
approach in private and public sector organisations today. In war
everything is very simple, but simplest thing is difficult as for the complex
organizations. Creating great organizations and devising great strategies is
not a science but an art. In science our knowledge grows and builds on the
past. The big issue is not strategy, but executing strategy and times organization
appear to reward compliance rather than initiatives or creativity resulting into
non-participation and fear.
A strategy is fundamentally an intent; a
decision to achieve something now in order to realize an outcome; that is a, “What”
and a “Why”. The steps of the staircase define
the organizations “main efforts: at a strategic level. Even if a strategy is
not watertight, energetic leadership can make it work, however business
strategy encounters frictions of uncertainty, errors, accidents, technical
difficulties, the unforeseen and their effects of decisions, morale and
actions. These result into 3 types of gaps (gaps in terms of expected results
and reality: outcomes, actions, plans). The gap is described as the difference
between what we know and we can do, as the gulf between plan and execution. They
are
Knowledge Gap: The gap between plans and outcomes concerns
Knowledge; it is the difference between
what we would like to know and what we actually know. This means that we
cannot create perfect plans. So the need is to formulate the strategy as an
intent rather than a plan. Knowledge gap is to limit direction to defining and expressing
the essential intent.
Alignment Gap: The gap between plans and actions concerns
alignment; it is the difference between
what we would like people to do and what they actually do. The need is to
be clear on the intentions with the employees. The alignment gap is to allow
each level to define what it would achieve to realize the intent.
Effect Gap: The gap between action and outcomes concerns
effects; it is the difference between
what we hope our actions will achieve and what they actually achieve. We
can never fully predict how the environment will react to what we do. It
requires the boundaries that are broad enough to take decisions for themselves
and act on them. The effect gap is providing individuals freedom to adjust
their actions in line with the intent.
The result is to make strategy and execution a distinction without a
difference, as the organization goes through PDCA cycle.
A gap in alignment is often pointed to top
level frustrations and lower-level confusion. Top –level managers feel
increased pressure to specify exactly what they wanted people to do. The lower
level imitates and identify problems on their own, which results in local initiatives.
These result in creating dilemmas over what to do. Junior people lose the trust
in decisions of seniors and they start delegating upwards. Top level frustration goes up a notch as
people thereby demonstrate that they really cannot decide anything for themselves
and so the cycle goes on.
A gap of effect is typically responded by
increase in control. The favorite control mechanism is metrics. Controls have
a cost. Overhead builds up around the controllers, and the reporting burden
increases for the controlled. Controls add costs, slow things down further, and
increase rigidity. People become demotivated and keep their attention firmly
fixed on their KPIs which they were supposed to measure.
People on the front lien are the ones who
ultimately crate value since they are the one who determine the kinds of
experience that the company generates for its customers. The higher the level
of command, the shorter and more general the orders should be. The next level
down should add whatever further specification it feels to be necessary and the
detail of execution are left to verbal instructions or perhaps a word of
command. This ensures that everyone retains freedom of movement and decisions
within the boundary of their authority.
The real challenge is how to create an
organization which enables average people to turn out above average
performance. Most organizations could improve that performance significantly if
they could unlock the potential to their existing people, whether or not they
are unusually talented. Organizations can use OGSM technique, this starts with
the corporate centre defining its Objectives and Goals and its Strategies and
Measures. These are then translated down into business and functional levels
instead of MBO.
High performing organizations tend to have a
strong culture. The Morale drops when organization wastes people’s time. Using an
effective briefing technique renders the motivational task of leadership far
easier by making the connections between the individual and the collective and
forming the basis of mutual respect. The organizational culture is set by two most
important organizational processes, budgeting and performance appraisal. They
form part of corporate body language.
Scorecard is only one source of information
from which that picture can be formed. A scorecard should be used to support
strategy execution by monitoring the effects actions are realizing, not to
supplant strategy.
Recommendation: A good book to read on strategy implementation.
