Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

What are the best practices that make strategy work in an organization?

When the strategy is clear to everyone. The strategy needs to be simple enough for anyone in the company to understand. Fostering clarity involves the following:

• Avoid top-down approaches. Many organizations suffer from planning that goes on at the most senior level of the organization and doesn’t integrate wisdom from “the front lines.” Top-down planning also suffers as a result of a lack of understanding and buy-in. The most effective approach is one that combines top-down and bottom up approaches.

• Numbers aren’t the whole story. Strategies that are about hitting particular financial targets alone aren’t really strategies. Financial targets are goals that we want the strategies to deliver.  A strategy is the mobilization of company-wide efforts needed to create the desired outcomes. Financial targets are the “what.” Strategies are the “how.”

• Create shared language. The language of the executive office is often financial, but that doesn’t “translate” very well in other parts of the organization. Using planning tools that create shared language in all departments and levels of the organization helps make the strategy clear.

When the strategy is resilient. One common critique of strategy processes is that they create plans that are quickly obsolete. Resilient strategies are based on organizational strengths and assets that have long-term strategic potential. This involves the following:

• Avoid strategies that are “borrowed” from other companies. Some companies try to copy what they see working for their competitors or peers in their industry.  While great ideas can often be picked up from others, successful strategy is based on the unique assets and strengths of each organization.

• Base strategic plans on long-term opportunities, not short-term trends. A very common practice in organizations is to mistake tactical strategies for strategic planning. A short-term market opportunity then replaces organizational mission and strategy. Without balancing short-term and long-term, the organization short-changes itself on profitability and risks creating a culture driven from one crisis to another.

When the strategy is fully implemented. Many organizations create reasonable strategies that are not fully implemented. When this happens, one of the following may be occurring:

• Invite people into agreement with the strategy. If the strategy process has not sufficiently included the perspectives of those who will execute the strategy, the outcome will likely have opponents. Strategy processes that integrate differing views ultimately create stronger outcomes.

• Translate the strategy to day to day work. For many, the intuitive process of figuring out what strategy means for their work is fun and challenging. For others, it’s impossible.  Creating measurable action steps, and in some cases, metrics and financial targets is a critical step in strategy implementation.

• Role model at the executive level and follow through. In order to give the strategy a chance, there has to be managerial commitment and follow-through. If the strategy was developed without their buy-in or if the strategy is not robust enough, managers will become fearful that it doesn’t address the reality of today’s challenges.  If no one seems to get the strategy, they may become frustrated and conclude the strategy “doesn’t work.”

“Why does your company exist?” It’s a question every values-oriented brand or strategy consultant asks of clients when they begin work together.

If the answer comes back “to make money” we know that there’s a huge opportunity for unleashing the hidden potential of the firm. That opportunity lies in engaging the company with a purpose greater than money alone.

As I’ve said before, profit is important. It’s just generating profit is first level mastery. Once you’ve figured out that part of the game, the answer is “what’s next?” Service, gratitude and creating a better world — those present meatier and fulfilling challenges. They tap the potential producitivity of your best employees. Companies with a unique purpose out-perform
those who don’t according to Harvard Business Review blogger Bill Taylor, and the authors of “It’s not what you sell, it’s what you stand for.”

The book came out a while back, but Taylor provides a good update of what companies and organizations experience — and how they benefit — when they are “Different on purpose.” Check out the article here.

Looking for a resource to help you find that unique purpose and express it in your brand? Contact us.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

An executive I’ll call Adam (not his real name) was frustrated with the company’s inability to get traction on its strategy. A thoughtful leader who’d spent part of his career in a consulting firm, Adam didn’t understand why his direct reports weren’t making more progress.  As we interviewed him and his executives, we discovered that their archetypal understanding of the company’s strategy was completely different.  The difference had profound implications for almost every aspect of the company’s operations – from planning to marketing to organizational structure and hiring.

Thinking about strategic archetypes was developed into a useful framework by professors Jeffrey Conant, Michael Mokwa, Rajan Varadarjan and Daryl O McKee (Texas A&M, Louisiana and Arizona State Universities). Hosfeld & Associates has used their research  with permission in the development of our online strategic assessment instrument, which allows us to type companies and their executives using these four archetypes:

• Prospector – The consummate innovator, able to anticipate and capitalize on trends, design breakthrough new products and services, highly agile and market oriented. Product and service innovators.
• Analyzer – Capable of innovation, but more likely to focus on market penetration for products or services with proven potential.  Strategic market developers.
• Defender – A niche or focused company that is highly selective about the products and services it offers.  Their strategic advantage in a reputation for quality and effective cost management.
• Reactor – Responds to the competitive movements of other companies. Opportunistic rather than strategic.

Each of these archetypes has its own approach to planning, research, products and service selection or innovation, promotion, pricing and organizational structure.

Like an organizational Meyers-Briggs, an archetype assessment gives executives an accessible vocabulary to identify strategic disconnects between the C Suite and the rest of the organization, and even within the executive team. Our client Adam consistently scored as an Analyzer and all of his direct reports as either Defenders or Reactors.  This helped Adam understand why he felt misunderstood, and sometimes lonely. It also gave him a means by which to articulate the specific areas where he needed to bring the organization into alignment around his vision.

The most important learning for Adam’s organization was that the Reactor type isn’t really a strategic alternative at all. It’s the archetype of no clear strategy. When too many people score in this category, it’s a sign that either there is no clear alignment around a strategy or that no one as yet understands the strategy. It’s a wake-up call for making conscious choices about which archetype best suits the assets and resources of the organization.

For many, a strategy is a series of financial goals the company must achieve. Archetypal language gives companies a more streamlined way to talk about how to start rowing together in the same direction towards those goals.

Alignment and coherence. Two words that convey a state within organizations where the strategy is fully supported by resources, structure, beliefs and intentions. It’s implementation. It’s the details of absolute follow-through.

Is your company aligned on its strategy? Does it have strategic coherence? Possibly not. The strategy might not be clear to everyone. If it’s clear to some, it might not seem achievable to others. Even if it is achievable, it may need resource allocation that hasn’t been explored fully.

According to an upcoming book, The Essential Advantage: How to Win with a Capabilities-Driven Strategy, by Paul Leinwand and Cesare Mainardi (Harvard Business Press, 2010), alignment (coherence) is achieved by focus on three interrelated aspects of strategy: market position, core capabilities and products and services that follow from both.

Market position is identifying the place where you can offer a product or service that’s clearly differentiated from others in a way that’s meaningful to customers. Core capabilities are the “know how” that you possess that sets you apart; they are the source of your differentiation. Products and services that align with the chosen market position and differentiation will, as a result, benefit from a clear brand identity.

The consulting firm Booz Allen has created an easy  (and free) self-diagnostic that allows organizations to assess their strategic coherence or alignment. It’s called the Coherence Profiler.   It takes about 5 minutes to complete and asks important questions about how strategically aligned or coherent your company is.

You can take the test here.

We’d love to hear from you after you do; let us know your experience with this profiler and how you might like to respond to its results.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

It will seem oxymoronic to some to put the words spirituality and strategy in the same sentence. The mainstream world of strategy and marketing is transactional and fast-paced, rather than reflective. Or so it would seem.  Let me paraphrase the four-point test from the strategy model we use in order to make more clear how an organization’s strategy design process touches the spiritual aspects of business decisions:

• In what way do we create perceived value for our customers?
• What value do we create that reflects the best of our collective gifts and intentions?
• What is the unique value we can create in the market that no other company is as qualified to create?
• Which types of value creation in which we engage give us an opportunity for positive impact in a wide variety of markets or settings?

Some of you might recognize the pattern of the four-point test of the core competence model in the questions above. This model, developed by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad years ago, is an enduring model for breakthrough strategy and strategic innovation.

The first question probes the extent to which we are serving the market by offering something of real value. The second question looks at who we are together as a work community; is there a cohesive sense of identity and purpose that we share?  The third question points to the unique capability that each company has distinct from any another company; what is it that we can do together that no one else can? The fourth question tackles the scope of the firm’s vision; how far does it reach, and how might it change our market, our community, our world?

Why are these spiritual questions? Spirituality taps the fullest experience of what it means to be alive, and for many of us this is expressed in relationships.   These questions help us examine the strength of our relationships with ourselves (are we deeply in touch with and expressing the essence of who we are as individuals and as a company?) and others (are we using our gifts and strengths to benefit others as ourselves through either support or challenge?).

Spiritual does not mean airy-fairy and impractical. All four of these questions can be used to advance key performance indicators and other benchmarks that measure organizational performance and outcomes.  The difference is hitching the practical, financial and quantitative aspects of business to something larger, engaging with meaningful action, and allowing the firm to be drawn upward as a result.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Following a recent Special Report by the Wall Street Journal, commentators had a field day with columnist Dr. Aneel Karnani’s assertion that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is fundamentally flawed.  Many of the comments pointed out that not only was his analysis fundamentally flawed, it was the “same ole, same ole” whateverness we’ve been hearing from free market idealogs for the last 15-20 years.

Karnani, who is Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M Ross School of Business, asserts that all CSR initiatives have to “pencil out” financially before they are embraced by CEOs. “Pleas for corporate social responsibility will be truly embraced only by those executives who are smart enough to see that doing the right thing is a byproduct of their pursuit of profit. And that renders such pleas pointless.” See the article here.

Based on the interviews that Pat Hughes and I did for her study: “The Leadership of Sustainability,” and my work with clients, my perspective is that engagement with CSR or sustainability evolves.  Some leaders we spoke with started with a “because it’s the right thing to do” mentality. They kept their experiments small to see if they would hurt or help them financially. If it didn’t hurt, they kept going. In businesses where CSR or sustainability was not baked in from the beginning, it is developmental, occurring in stages.  As a result, early experiments have to be either revenue positive or at the least revenue neutral.

However, there are many firms who find that holding objectives for financial, social and environmental benefit simultaneously creates a crucible for innovation. They have broken away from the either/or thinking represented in Karnani’s article, and are now in the territory of Third Way thinking. Third Way thinking goes beyond hierarchical rankings of choices, one being the better “good” than another. Instead, it “holds the tension” between competing “goods” until a new solution appears that honors all of them. Harvard Business Review even published an entire special edition last summer about CSR and sustainability as drivers of innovation, citing breakthroughs of over 30 companies.

So, what is the Wall Street Journal’s problem? Commentators responding to the article repeatedly questioned the lack of balanced perspective, and a pattern of editorial bias against values-based management approaches. Companies every day are proving Karnani wrong with their actions. Is the Journal simply blind to the evidence? Or are the editors ignoring the firms who are doing well by  “doing good”  because they seem to be “outliers” rather than  mainstream. If they are intentionally disregarding outliers, then they do their readers a disservice because it’s in the outliers where the seeds of breakthrough innovations are sown.

If you’re reading this page, it’s likely that you found it via Twitter. Thanks for following!

Hosfeld & Associates leads clients in the alignment of vision, purpose, strategy and brand. We join a community of others who recognize that new forms of organization are arising that have the power to positively reshape our economy and society.

As a result, our approach to purpose, strategy and change leadership is markedly different than traditional strategy firms. Unlike other firms that focus on short-term programs, we specialize in finding the unique elements of an organization that give it long-term strategic advantage. We guide clients in creating an adaptive framework that allows each organization to reinvent itself profitably over time to meet changing market conditions, while retaining its essential brand and market identity.

Unlocking this source of sustainable advantage takes both left-brain and right-brain processes, both head and heart. We create and facilitate team-based strategy design processes that intensify focus on priorities, align and engage stakeholders, and build strategic capacity within and across lines of business.

Through our associate network, we also support our clients as they take their purpose and strategy deep within the organization. Implementation services include leadership development, culture and change, as well as, of course, branding and messaging programs.

An initial consultation is free, and we invite you to contact us to discuss your situation further.

Please also browse our blog, where we share articles on strategy, purpose, sustainability, dialogue in business, and stakeholder engagement.

A representative list of our services:

Core Identity and Strategy
• Purpose/Mission/Vision/Values Creation
• Strategic Assessment and New Strategy Development
• Four Quadrant (Wilber) Mission/Purpose Analysis
• Brand Strategy and Alignment
• Institutionalizing Strategy and Brand

Customers, Stakeholders
• Stakeholder Analysis and Alignment
• Stakeholder Focused Process Redesign
• Customer Satisfaction Research
• Communication Strategy and Messaging

Leadership and Team Performance
• Executive Coaching
• Decision-Making and Improved Execution
• Mission Critical Team Coaching
• Dialogue, Crucial Conversations

For additional information please visit the Experience and Services sections of our website.

The future of brand building “will involve all stakeholders (in a)… fluid, uncertain world where a brand evolves in dialogue with others. This in turn will require both openness and trust.” So say Nicholas Ind and Majken Schultz in an article from Strategy + Business.

Pointing to two examples – LEGO and Robobank – of companies among other examples, the authors comment on how brand building is slipping from arms of marketers into the hands of managers who are tending the total customer or stakeholder experience. “These organizations have understood that brand building (even if the terminology of branding is not used) is a participative process involving the whole organization and is the responsibility of all employees.”

Critical success factors for organizations creating brands in this environment, we predict, will include the abilities to align the organization on compelling strategies based on stakeholder dialogue, to foster and facilitate dialogue among multiple stakeholders, to channel greater flows of information into, within, and outside the organization, and to build authentic trust with stakeholder groups.

Strategy + Business Article: Brand Building Beyond Marketing

Think about the last strategic planning process you went through. Was it energizing? Did it create breakthroughs with lasting impact on the organization? Did it tap the creativity of the planning team? If it did, it’s likely that your process went beyond traditional planning techniques to tap the potential of the artistic mind. It was likely more like a strategy design session than a strategic planning session.

What’s the difference?

Effective strategy design calls on us to engage the artistic mind – capable of pattern recognition, synthesis, story, empathy, play and meaning-making – to create compelling futures that inspire adaptive change. In our Strategy Jazz workshop, we explore an archetypal pattern of human creativity through the eyes of jazz musicians to see ways we can get greater outcomes from strategy processes.

Strategy Jazz will be presented at the OSR (Organizational Systems Renewal) alumni conference at Seattle University, June 19, 2010, but can also be adapted for on-sites, retreats and other conferences.

Through this workshop, we invite participants to shift their mental model of strategy design from a linear “planning” model to an innovation-based approach that taps the artistic, intuitive mind.

Using conversations with jazz recording artists Greta Matassa and Jovino Santos Neto, we take participants on a guided tour of the elements of jazz improvisation, laying down an archetypal pattern that repeats itself in our approach to strategic innovation for businesses and other organizations.

The OSR Conference explores the emerging field of arts in the design and leadership of change. For more information about the OSR Conference or to register, please visit the event website. To find out about options for presenting this workshop for your own organization, please contact us. Additional information is also available here.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

In an article called “The New Marketing Myopia,” authors N. Craig Smith, Minette E. Drumwright, and Mary C. Gentile suggest that a stakeholder perspective is the next step in a progression that began with “product orientation” and evolved to “market orientation.” Building on the insights of Theodore Levitt’s landmark essay “Marketing Myopia,” originally published in 1960 in Harvard Business Review, the authors say that a stakeholders orientation in marketing will help prevent companies from relying too heavily on products or services that may come under regulatory or other scrutiny, or fall out of step with mainstream values.  Another article in the Journal’s special edition, “From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation,” by O.C. Ferrell, Tracy L Gonzalez-Padron, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Isabelle Maignan, further develops the this idea.

A product orientation is internally focused on selling what one can/wants to make. A market orientation shifts to an external assessment of what customers need/want, and what competitors provide. A stakeholder orientation would also be externally focused, including other voices beyond customers and competitors, those advocating for longer-term, ethical, social, environmental or cultural issues.

The New Marketing Myopia article provides examples of food manufacturers and retailers who trade on the short-term desires of children for junk and fast food, and US automakers catering to the desire for gas-guzzling SUVs while disregarding signs of increasing regulatory pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Stakeholders have lobbied both industries for years.  Automakers in particular have paid a price for ignoring stakeholder concerns.

The authors make the point that a market orientation, because it looks outward, has the potential to more easily evolve into a stakeholder perspective. The chief difference is that market orientation tends to ultimately prioritize customers and competitors over other stakeholders, whereas stakeholder orientation seeks to manage to all stakeholder interests simultaneously.

The original “Marketing Myopia” offered inspirational examples of how a market orientation expanded possibilities for long-term organizational evolution – reframing the core business from specific products which may only have a market for a decade or two to a customer need that might be reinterpreted over many decades.  It expanded trains to transportation, or silent films to film and video entertainment.

The authors suggest that stakeholder orientation can help companies “develop foresight regarding the markets of the future.” However, they provide no examples of how companies have thrived by doing so. Rather the stakeholder orientation as described here serves as a constraint – what one should not or cannot do – rather than something that broadens strategic options.  This does an injustice, I believe, to the stakeholder concept, which by way of its expanded systems view and the latent creativity present in the stakeholder system itself should similarly explode strategic options.

I wanted the authors, particularly of the New Marketing Myopia article, to cite examples of the generativity fostered by the stakeholder perspective. In some situations the stakeholder perspective might offer an expanded view of customer needs—from junk food to youth nutrition, or from SUVs to transportation solutions.  In others, it might show how companies and customers can create new benefit for other stakeholders while enhancing value creation for themselves. Or, it may simply mean meeting the same customer need but from within a business model or operational system that has been redesigned to respond to issues of ethics and sustainability.

Significant change is motivated by a compelling future.  I believe there is a compelling business case for adopting a stakeholder orientation in marketing. The authors of both these articles have not made that case.