Comments

In companies such as Ford - strategy change comes on strategy change... What this means is that by the time the changes are effected throughout the organisation, those at the top introduce new strategy changes. The perpetual turmoil leads to demoralised staff, no-one knowing what their job is, and a belief that it is just another plan that won't be seen through. Also, none of this is ever bottom up, so those who can really make a difference don't get a say in the masterplans. Sometimes maybe the small steps to improvement are better than the headline grabbing big strategy designed to pacify the financial stakeholders.

Posted by Heather Yaxley at January 25, 2007 12:45 PM

I've got your strategy and execution plan, "SELL SOMETHING." FORD spends too much money advertising, not enough servicing (i.e. selling and making customers happy). As a manufacturer, they have to make a quality product that people want. That's a given in manufacturing. Then, they need to sell it, which means people are happy to own it, keep it and tell others. That's not happening. As inventories have risen, so have costs. It'll happen every time. FORD uses the term "execution" more like what happened to Sadaam - less like what they need to do to find their way out of the tailspin they're in.

Posted by Leonard Klaatu at January 25, 2007 5:15 PM

In "Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them" Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan state, "The key for corporations is to mimic the pace and scale of change in the markets—without losing control of the operations they oversee. The markets, of course, do not have to worry about operations. Corporations do. Blending the creative destruction of the markets with operating excellence is an extremely tall order. Nonetheless, it is essential, for the pace of creative destruction in the economy is increasing." It's difficult for some to do this but it is necessary for survival. Sometimes "creative destruction" is the only answer.

Posted by Tom E. Snyder at January 25, 2007 6:13 PM

In my experience the best strategies are executed by the people who write them. It is arrogant to expect staff to simply accept and get passionate about someone else’s strategy just because the author is called ‘the leader.’ The very best leaders will have their own very clear vision but they do not write strategies in the warmth peace and quiet of their office. He/She will get on the front line; talk to the staff and to try and get the necessary ownership of his/her vision and strategy. Any leader who simply informs me in a one dimensional way what is happening gets less respect and therefore support than those who explain their vision; involve me in drawing up the strategy; and ask my opinion. Execution of strategy is a people issue and it is about leaders having respect for employees. I love Tom E’s ‘creative destruction’ reference – I think what I am saying here is also a creative process.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 26, 2007 3:14 AM

Totally with you there Trevor. Another area that could help is to communicate in plain English - I recently saw a strategy communication that front line people either deleted as unreadable or fell about laughing.

Always remember people at the front line hold the ultimate veto on this stuff - the delete buttton!

Posted by PaulH at January 26, 2007 4:02 AM

Folks - head over to Accenture's web site and look at some of the research they've been doing on high performance companies. The keys they identify are not dissimilar to many of the thoughts above:

- a focus on both market-making and day-to-day execution;
- development of people;
- regard / use technology as a strategic asset;
- use a simple and memorable scorecard to monitor things;
- renew continuously: preserve the good but jettison anything that doesn't work anymore.

You could pay $trillions for an MBA or read this and learn the lessons...

Posted by Mark JF at January 26, 2007 4:12 AM

"The Plan" is details. Its too much information for front-line managers to understand and simply communicate and everything becomes muddled and confusing.

Managers need a simple message and a visual...a pointer. If they need the detail they can look it up.

If the strategy cannot be boiled down to a message and a visual..its the wrong strategy.

Posted by mary wynne-wynter at January 26, 2007 7:49 AM

Reading Trevor's comment struck a chord with me. My first foray into the working world was through the restaurant industry (what an amazing way to learn about the importance of customer service!). Of the 25+ managers I've worked with (16 in one company!), one of them hit the nail on the head when it came to describing our staff to another manager. He told a new guy that we (collective staff that had outlasted many managers) didn't so much have a problem with authority, but we weren't very fast to implement things that didn't make sense to us(things that we were told to do with no explanation other than "just do it"). He realized the importance of explaining, even very briefly, why we were asked to do something instead of ordering us to do it. We didn't need a full-blown strategy report, but a simple purpose for action was all that was necessary.
How many people on Ford's assembly line ever know why the company implements the changes that they do? How many show up thinking that they are doing work that matters, work for a reason, as opposed to putting in their hours for their check? Having a purpose makes it exceptionally easier to drink the kool-aid and love what you are doing.

Posted by Nick Adams at January 26, 2007 8:46 AM

I owned a Ford in 1974. Basically, I liked it. But I haven't ever been slightly tempted to enter a Ford showroom or buy a Ford since. For all of the focus groups and research they do, I simply think management is not talking with people.

For example, my sister-in-law was in management at another major car company. She got a new car every six months, never had to make payments for it, never had to service it, never had to insure it, never had to live with it while it got older. So what possible realistic view of the ownership experience could she have? She and all around her were insulated from reality.

Posted by Perspective at January 26, 2007 8:48 AM

I agree with Mary Wynnne-Wynter that the strategy has to be simple, ideal,and visuals are very important. Our minds relate to and are stimulated by visuals. Clear and honest messages are essential.

Posted by Val Willis at January 26, 2007 9:10 AM

I have a twenty year relationship with most of the major auto companies, some from the inside, some from consulting. First, I agree with perspective about the exec car program. I was fortunate to be part of that at GM, and indeed it is part of the problem. As well as a really foolish policy that we had to rent GM cars when we travelled...wouldn't make sense to rent the competition would it? (all sarcasm intended). I believe Ford is in a serious tailspin. The new CEO doesn't seem to understand the industry, and it is telling that his first act was cancelling his order for his new Lexus. One has to wonder why he hadn't ordered a Jaguar. In today's Michigan press, it was reported that he told the employees that they are at the bottom and it is up from here. A huge assumption I believe. Then he is trying to justify bonuses to the salary ranks by saying they need to retain talent. What talent??? And of course that provided the fuel to the UAW to rescind any cost cutting concessions in contract talks. As important as Ford is to the Michigan economy, I have some question about whether it should be kept alive at any costs. I am struck that they killed the Taurus. It was a tired old model, but look at what Toyota has done with the Camry. Whenever I walk around the Rouge complex, I am taken with the history of Henry Ford and the Reuther walking bridge. To me, that is where the US auto industry really started. I am also taken that at Ford, it really hasn't changed much. They need to find the passion for design again. There is no way they can cost cut themselves out of this nose dive.

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Hi Nick – thanks for your supportive comments – superb stories from your experience. I too worked in the ‘restaurant industry’ (loosely) in that I was a barman behind the bar of a few pubs for ten years as a second or third job to make extra cash while my children were young. That experience taught me more about customer service than any manager ever did. When a ‘regular’ in an English pub tells you his pint is ‘crap’ you don’t refer it to some committee for an academic discussion –you resolve it on the spot as he looks you in the eye. I simply cannot see why managers cannot see that front line staff know how to deal with things. Front line staff are not stupid morons who will blindly follow silly rules. Good managers and good organisations will welcome challenge from front line staff and not discourage front line staff ‘rocking the boat.’ If we really want change to happen why then just trust the front line staff. Treat them like adults and they will behave like adults. Treat them like children and don’t be surprised if they act like children. And don’t blame them.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 26, 2007 9:41 AM

I had a surreal experience

I was facilitating a workshop with another facilitator where a friend of mine led the workshop and provided training etc. .. the team he was training needed to find efficiencies/redesign processes etc at a university.

At the end of the workshop, he asked us facilitators what we thought of the team. The other facilitator started scoring people based on what he thought of them and then recommended that one of the members of the team should be asked to leave the team -- because she wasn't positive enough about this new design and she often came up with "But have you thought of xxx reason..."

Do you need to have all members as believers if you want a team to succeed on any large scale important project, or are you allowed to have doubters as well?

It'd be great to get some answers.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at January 26, 2007 11:53 AM

Gotta agree with Heather. First-hand experience. Around here, it's "Flavor of the Month" (or year to be accurate). New year, new program. New VP, new program. For those of us at the bottom of the totem pole, it just causes stress as we struggle to figure out what it all means (especially when Reviews are based on it). The actual "job" rarely changes.

Arun... Dismissing those with opposing poins of view is foolish (large or small team). The best way to make something better is to get it out there, have it shredded by others, then incorporate the suggestions. I guarantee your product/idea/theory will be 100% better and grounded in reality. Unfortunately, most people can't handle the shredding and avoid at all costs.

Posted by gayle at January 26, 2007 1:09 PM

Hi Arun - My understanding is that in any change there will be ‘early adopters’ and ‘laggards’ Beyond the laggards there some others who are 'terrorists' -they are dangerous and beyond terrorists there are some who will ‘kill you’ and they have to go. Sounds fine in theory

As a facilitator I take the view that almost everyone can be ‘worked on’ and a part of me from practical experience as a manager tells me that even the most difficult person always has a point. The pragmatic solution is to ask the person to leave but I am not sure that is always the right thing to do. The person will often just leave because they too realise they do not fit in.

real viagra cheap

I don't actually believe the answer is a simple black and white scenario.

Some things during change have to be challenged and just because people ask questions does not mean they are a negative person – they may just not comprehend the reason for the proposed change. On the other hand if they ALWAYS object then we all probably know that showing them the door is probably the right answer.

All I know is that the worst job I ever did as an operational manager was to sack people – which happily didn’t happen too often. I think we have to be absolutely certain before we fire the gun – this is not an easy one Arun.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 26, 2007 1:13 PM

Thanks Trevor, really appreciate your input. It certainly fits my worldview - But it was nice to rethink what I thought to be true

I think part of the job of a leader/manager is to convince others of the logic and correctness of a certain action/plan/strategy that needs to be worked on by all - including doubters.

And the effective leader/manager will do just that successfully

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at January 26, 2007 3:35 PM

Arun - to echo Trevor, it is rarely black and white. It is important to have people "on board," but it is just as important to have people willing to ask those hard questions. "Have you thought of such-and-such" might make you realize that you hadn't, and that small bit might have been the cause of a problem down the road. I see it this way: Tom encourages rapid prototyping (ready fire aim), and celebrating failures (that is how we learn to make it better). If no one is willing to point out the faults, then you have a naked emperor standing around looking foolish. However, when someone tries to find fault out of spite or simply to find fault, then they are not a contributing member to the team, and their negative attitude can actually poison the positive ones around them. pharmacy viagra canada

viagra for sale without prescription and next day delivery

Oh, and "They may just not comprehend the reason for the proposed change" - This is why what the previously mentioned manager offered his advice to the "new guy."

Posted by Nick Adams at January 26, 2007 4:08 PM

The fact that BOTH U.S. auto manufacturers are in dire trouble signals a systemic problem to me. I think it has to do with two reasons. One, the erosion of the US as a manufacturing base. Two, the general lack of discernment among the Americans for quality in everyday products.

If you're to look at DaimlerChrysler, 70% of the value creation takes place among it's suppliers (purchasing volume was 70% of revenues). The auto OEMs are ridiculously dependent on their suppliers -- not just for manufacturing capacity but also for innovation. German cars' ever improving paintjobs are dependent entirely on BASF who makes the paints and on a company in Baden-Würtemberg whose name I forgot that makes the machines that apply the paint. They rely on Hella to make ever more intelligent headlamps. They need Bosch for their braking systems, engine control and more. Recaro does the leather seats, mostly by hand and with incredible attention to detail. (Leather seats are not supposed to crease. Not a single crease. NOT ONE. Also, the leather must be perfect. PERFECT. No scars allowed.)

Without a vibrant, deep pool of manufacturing companies at your doorstep, you're unlikely to make good cars. Because 70% of your car is made by them. So don't just blame GM and Ford. Their suppliers, and that translates to a large part of the American manufacturing industry, carries 70% of the blame.

Now to the second problem. The Germans and Japanese have a very discerning taste when it comes to daily implements. You just have to look at things like household knives. Doorknobs. Watches. Or houses. One of the neighbours bought and shipped in (to Germany where I am) an American pre-fab house. It was junk. Nowhere in this country do you find a more shoddily made and conceived house. He junked it.

This matters more than you may think. It's important what the "general population" in a country is like. It is this population that you sell to (GM takes this a little too seriously for its own good, having bet the farm on SUVs), it is from it you recruit, it is from it you buy components.

It's not Ford or GM. The problem is with America.

(Pardon all the talk about paint and headlamps and leather on a strategy blog. I'm a German-trained mechanical design engineer. Details are my metier. It's my job to get these things right. Not approx. right, but perfectly right.)

Posted by Jeremy at January 26, 2007 6:32 PM

Just to be a little clearer to those unfamiliar with the auto industry:

DaimlerChrysler does not tell Bosch what brake system to design and manufacture. It is the other way around. Bosch tells DCX what sort of system they can provide for the next model DCX is planning.

Ditto for many other systems. The OEMs are dead without great Tier 1 suppliers. The ground-breaking brake system in the Maybach is 100% a Bosch development, for instance, and DCX paid for exclusivity: Bosch cannot make this technology available to other manufacturers for five years.

Posted by Jeremy at January 26, 2007 6:55 PM viagra for women in australia

I looked into what Mark JF said about Accenture's website, and I'm putting some links here to make it easier for anybody who wants to follow up on his suggestion.
Here's the page leading to the research he mentions:
http://www.accenture.com/Global/High_Performance_Business/default.htm
And while you're at it, take a look at the Accenture home page (it uses flash). Tiger Woods is featured right now, with the words, "relentless consistency 50%," "willingness to change 50%." Very cool, and absolutely something I want linked from tompeters.com:
http://www.accenture.com/

(And once again, I had to approve my own comment. I love doing that.)

Posted by cathy mosca at January 27, 2007 10:27 AM

This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

Pretonious Arbiter, 60AD

Posted by David H at January 28, 2007 6:04 PM

Execution and leadership are absolutely critical. I am working temporarily at a facility that is condensing operations and trying to implement lean. They use a planning form for projects that lists a problem statement, current state, future state, a step by step plan for getting there with due dates, and responsibilities for each team member. These projects are reviewed for progress at least once a week.

I've seen some great strides here. This planning method makes them much more effective than my former company, who would start something but lose focus. Nothing was documented, projects were continuously shelved, and it was easy for someone to point the blame elsewhere. Countless production meetings were wasted re-hashing business that was discussed in prior meetings. One project in particular, eliminating job tickets, was constantly delayed and reached the point where nothing had been done three years after the CEO thought it was a done deal. I could go on and on...

The management at my current facility has struggles also. They have a culture that has seen many plans fail and has had their their thoughts and input ignored by management. It is difficult to break through that history, and I know they'll have to spend more time out on the shop floor than they're spending now. Some passionate leadership is sorely needed before these people on the floor are going to give a rip.

Just once I'd like to see a corporation's statements about how they (will) value and treat their human resources...on every PC (especially upper management) as a screensaver...rather than out of sight, out of mind in the lobby or on the cafeteria billboard.

Posted by Mike at February 2, 2007 4:58 PM

Support by the right people makes the difference. You can't execute a strategy if it's not actively supported by the right leaders in the organisation. If you have that, then all you need to worry about is skills, time, budget and headspace. Easy!

Posted by Megan at February 7, 2007 5:27 PM