Comments

First, I love your choice of quotes from Michelangelo. It is on my business card, email and forum signature.
Anyway, I think, however audacious, hairy or not, the vision has to be true and believed by the owner of the vision - it can been seen. When this is clear, the messaging and ability to inspire improves dramatically

Posted by David Sandusky at November 30, 2007 5:21 PM

OK - so the guy painted a cool ceiling and made great statues -
But he worked alone on stuff one man can do alone -
what the hell does that have to do with running a large buisness that has lots of people and complex systems?

Posted by picasso at November 30, 2007 5:27 PM

everything

Posted by Michelangelo at November 30, 2007 6:31 PM

Sorry, Picasso, I have to disagree - in my opinion Michelangelo worked alone on stuff one average man COULD NOT do alone.

I opt for Steve's proposal to replace big and hairy with clear and compelling. Let the organizations and processes be the complex part of the game, not the goals. And yes, they are big and hairy more than too often ...

Posted by Harald Felgner at November 30, 2007 6:58 PM

Lucky & crazy wild dream (LCWD). The best comes from sheer luck & craziness for lack of better words. People must be free agents 1st ... then playing the corporate game becomes sport fun - become financially independent as 1st dream.

Posted by Michael at November 30, 2007 7:34 PM

Tom

I buy in to the idea of the BHAG and your refinement of it as CCAG. But having the BHAG is only the start of the opportunity. It is the plan that makes the difference. My company has helped many clients dream the big dream. Then we put together the strategies and plans to make them a reality. Having a plan makes the BHAG realistic and able to be supported. Aligning employees with the strategy is critical and you have written about that for years. Thanks for keeping people thinking big.

John Maver
Maver Management Group

Posted by John Maver at November 30, 2007 9:17 PM

I agree with the Clear and Compelling observation--but, that's really the meaning of "Big and Hairy" isn't it?

The reason BHAG is now a common term in business is because of the visual "Big and Hairy" creates in the subject's mind--a goal that's so big and hairy that you can see and even FEEL it. Whether it's a CCAG or a BHAG, they're both Audacious. But a BHAG, as a term, provides the nice tangible key visual that the lifeless CCAG can't.

Sorry, I think Jim Collin's BHAG will remain the term used when labeling an audacious vision/goal...though I agree with your point that it better be clear and compelling...er...or big and hairy.

Posted by Adam Landrum at December 1, 2007 10:06 AM

I have often seen more tangible benefit in business by doing small things really well rather than macho driven massive ideas.

I not saying that big goals are not valid but I suspect many leaders could get more bang for their buck by doing small simple stuff really well.

Posted by PaulH at December 1, 2007 11:30 AM

Caveat's to the BHAG concept:

1. Agreed...Clear and Concise is essential, and often forgotten.

2. The way in which the goals are developed is critical. Generative, participative approaches that tap into things that hit home with employees is absolutely essential. I've seen too many BHAG's generated by an over homogenized board and management team that don't tap into the passion of the greater organization.

3. Beyond clear and concise, the "home run" takes place when the concept is spread virally, and when it sticks (credit to Seth Godin and the Heath brothers)

4. Doing the small stuff well isn't enough. It's got to be clear to the average employee how this small stuff makes a difference on a larger scale.

5. The big problem with not just BHAG's or CCAG's, but with goals in general, is that there's a danger in designing incentive systems such that they inadvertently encourage setting a "low bar", and also squelch creativity and innovation when they start to look like "Management by Objective" initiatives (a concept someone needs to kill quickly and violently).

Manoj

Posted by Manoj Pawar at December 1, 2007 12:04 PM

I wonder if Toyota has BHAGs?? My guess is - probably not.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at December 1, 2007 3:57 PM

Caveat to this Discussion:

1. I am neither author or consultant(as yet anyway). I am one however how has to translate what gets packaged and sold to Sr Leaders into action and results to a large part of the frontline team. Guess I could be a past or potential customer.

2. It strikes me much of what is said or written on leadership, management and business practices today are just variations of the themes and concepts pioneered by the Demings, Jurans, and others of decades past. What has changed are the words and labels used to describe them but the things that need to be done to "execute" them are the same and often not discussed at all. This is not a negative. I became a "fan" if you will of Tom Peters work because it helped me understand and put into context the words and concepts that I was learning elsewhere....take the complex....give examples to insure understanding..that's learning and comprehension. The frontline doesn't need labels, they parody them the same way many speak with distain of concepts like TQM and MBO....while pushing an approach that looks remarkably similar to TQM or MBO. Again, I understand the concepts of branding and marketing and not a negative. The new labels and models may make it easier to train and sell to the frontline.

3. The reason the frontline cares less about the label is what they want and often don't have is input into the planning process and the resources to execute their piece of the plan. So no matter what you label the goals....it's the process used for planning and execution that is critical and often the reason things fail. Many again speak of planning and "systems" with distain. I understand "analysis paralysis". I also know of a planning model that is participative and action oriented.....one that sidesteps a few of the challenges and barriers cited above. Bottom line...it's still a "Plan-Do-Check-Act" (Shewart Cycle?) world when it comes to execution. What's often missing at this point however is accountability and leadership credibility. It 's not the label that's the problem.

4. The planning model was one I learned in the Tactical Air Command, later the Air Combat Command. A four phase 11 step process...strategy formulation by Sr Leaders...strategy development on the frontlines....all linked and aligned to each other. Participative, action oriented, not paralysis here....We had a couple of great leaders from General Bill Creech to Tony McPeak back in the day (late 70-'s to 90'S) who enabled us to work in an environment that promoted trust, teamwork and continuous improvement. Check out a Passion for Excellence.....

4. The "average employee"? There are alot of mis-conceptions about the folks on the frontline. Their intelligence, their work ethic, their attitudes. Tell them what you expect, how it's going to be measured, ask/get them the tools, time and resources they need to do it and then get the hell out of their way and you might be surprised at the results.....Sr Leaders should set the 3-5 year targets. Let the various regions, departments develop the "roadmap" on what it gonna take in their functional area to get there.

5. Old School? Absolutely! The more things change....the more they stay the same? Most definitely. Label it what you will on the front-end...it usually fails on the back-end because no one thought to include the "average employee" in the process. Style may sell....substance gets results.

As always...thanks for sharing your expertise!

Posted by Dave W at December 1, 2007 4:00 PM

Excellent comments Dave W – thanks for excellent insights.

One of my three Simplicity principles is

‘If managers have a job at all in 2007 it is to make the job easier for font line staff.’

I believe the greatest talent in an organisation is at the front line and not in the Boardroom or in its management structure. In over 30 years in management in corporate healthcare all the best ideas I ever saw were from front line staff. If we want to de-motivate front line staff and get an organisation infected with a large dose of cynicism than all we need to do is introduce some management fad with an acronym. Shewhart’s plan-do-study-act remains the most reliable, simple and effective change method I’ve ever come across. Its simplicity is one of its greatest charms and as Mr Shewhart was around well over 70 years ago it proves the best idea didn’t actually happen last Tuesday thanks to the internet!

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 1, 2007 6:42 PM

Best batch of comments I've seen yet, especially the points made by Dave W and Trevor G. My comment: "Clear & Compelling" is not static. The CEO can't author one article in the company newsletter about the change and expect it to be enough. Implementing any kind of change requires ongoing two-, three-, infinity-way feedback. All departments and levels need to be talking and listening to each other.

Posted by Glenn Ross at December 1, 2007 8:22 PM

Manoj

My argument about the small stuff is not that it's enough. It's more that if you don't get that right the BHAGs simply won't happen. It's not either or - it's both.

The problem is that BHAGs have a glamour about them that make them very attractive and dynamic to people who think they are strategic thinkers (there are a lot of these people in Junior and middle management grades!) and very good a spouting a load of management BS. These people are often not good executers they look upwards and dream of strategy rather than actually getting stuff done.

My experience of front line staff is that they often think in terms self actualised excellence (i.e. how can they do an amazing job for the sake of doing an amazing job) i.e. sub conciously they often have a more sophisticated and effective model of strategy and branding than more snr people. They fully understand the big picture without snr people pontificating about a 5 point BHAG

Posted by PaulH at December 2, 2007 4:14 AM

This is one of many places where knowing your people is vital.

Some will inherently 'get' the BHAG and work toward it. Some won't, but if given the right expected outcomes in smaller steps appropriate to their level of, for lack of a better word on a Sunday morning, 'engagement', they'll do the work.

Of course, both the big goals and the baby steps to reach it have to exist; either on its own is useless. It's how the balance of responsibility and authority are conveyed to others in the organization that's often mishandled. That is, of course, the 'clear and compelling' part.

Posted by Joel D Canfield at December 2, 2007 12:39 PM

BHAGs get people's attention, but they also produce fear, doubt, anger, and questions--what's in it for me! Making your "Big Goals" clear and compelling is a step in the right direction. I agree with several previous comments--it's always best to involve people in establishing the goals and developing the plans. Bottom line--the leader has to make the case as to why a "step change" BIG Improvement is necessay. Some leaders announce the big goals with little explanation as to why it's critical.

Posted by Paul Thornton at December 2, 2007 8:46 PM

In an effort to translate the BHAG concept to the two churches I have lead in the past 5 years I had to make some changes. When you deal in a field where the vast majority of your congregation (read "clientelle") are blue haired old ladies, the term BHAG hits just a bit too close to home. We also need to take a tact that is faithful to our endeavor... faith. So we changed the name to GIGA = God Inspired Grand Ambitions. We didn't leave the basic tenets of the BHAG expression, however we expalained it as ambitions so large that they cannot be accomplished unless God intervenes to assure success. I welcome your thoughts.

Posted by David I at December 2, 2007 10:16 PM

Brilliant David - adapting language to suit your audience is crucial. Quite frankly if I’d talked about Big Hairy Audacious Goals to cleaners, porters and drivers at the front line in healthcare I would have been told by them to book myself in to the next psychotherapy session on the grounds of delusion. In my experience front line employees see these things as gimmicky fads. Part of me thinks its ok for managers to talk between themselves and use acronyms as hooks to hang strategic thinking on. But then I can’t help thinking that managers who separate themselves from employees as some sort of gifted elite group and developing their own unique language is the biggest problem in poor performing organisations. All employees have to be part of the vision and as David so eloquently puts it the appropriate language must be found for each scenario. Good luck with your ongoing work in the church David – I would love to hear more about that.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

I don't understand. Certain leaders don't communicate the BHAG well, so everyone should abandon the idea for something else? Was that the meaning of this post?

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at December 3, 2007 7:24 AM

Red Island Rhodes is on the right lines.

"BHAGs are often half-baked and poorly communicated." True. But then so are some strategic plans, mission statements, blogs, Thought For Today's, action plans and whatever. Do we re-name and re-launch each of these concepts simply because some folks either a) don't do them very well; or b) don't really understand their purpose before using them?

I suggest we go back and treat the causes of the problem - and not the symptoms.

Posted by Mark JF at December 3, 2007 8:33 AM

So the question is - do BHAGs fail because of poor communication/execution or are they fundamentally flawed and stand a good chance of failing anyway.

I suspect that you stand a lot more chance getting a BHAG to work in a startup rather than an established multi layered org.

Posted by PaulH at December 3, 2007 10:57 AM

Also - does anyone have any good examples of them working?

Posted by PaulH at December 3, 2007 10:57 AM

Steve, great. But I want to muddy the waters (sorta support BHAGs?). I want Clear and Compelling and Scary. If you aren't a little scared then it's not worth doing. I end my presentations with our friend Michelangelo, and Eleanor Roosevelt's "Do one thing every day that scares you." For me, personally, Ms Roosevelt's challenge is the more important of the two--though one can readily argue that the two are twins.

Posted by tom peters at December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

I took a cut in pay to move from an organization who was totally into BHAG's. The problem was the way management presented them -- they were announced to EVERYBODY before the first team meeting. Not only were they announced to a wide audience, who was going to be responsible and when they would be done was announced. There was no research or investigation to see if it was feasable, there was no "face time" to hear input from employees if it was a good idea (and we are governed by a "fortress" 900 miles away who believes we are too clueless to know what we are doing). After being utterly humiliated twice by these BHAGs, I jumped ship...........

Posted by ArtsyIryne at December 3, 2007 12:28 PM

Scary is required because change only happens in the Uncomfortable zone. But clear and compelling are what work. Best example: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." on May 25, 1961. It's Big. It's Hairy. It's clear. It's compelling and challenging and uncomfortable. But it is achievable. That's what makes BHAG's work. Everyone knows where they are going. It isn't about the process; it's about the path. Managers manage the process. No different when Boeing, who in 1950 only made bombers and had just done a massive layoff, announced that it would build a commercial aircraft "to bring the world to the jet age" and to become the dominant player in commercial aircraft.

Not many governments nor businesses have Vision any more. The only vision is the stock ticker. "What can we do to tweak the stock this quarter." It's sad. It better change soon because America is falling behind the rest of the world in so many areas.

from beyondresistance,com: "A vision aligns people in activities that cut across the organization. A vision facilitates goal setting and planning.It helps people set priorities. The vision says, “This is what we stand for.”
A vision defines what you will do as well as what you will not do."

Probably th epart about what you will NOT do is just as significant as too many companies try to be all things to all people, instead of exceptional at one or 2 things.

Posted by Peter Radizeski at December 3, 2007 12:29 PM

ArtsyIryne - great story and well done for jumping ship. I left my comfort zone of 35 years in healthcare to become freelance and independent 3 years ago with no income guarantee. My personal BHAG then was to make enough money to pay the mortgage and it still is. My personal business planning is about one month hence.

The National Health Service I left with no regrets is still full of BHAG's and like you I got fed up with it. The NHS hits targets but misses the point. The front line staff are never involved in designing targets and managers wonder why those front line staff are not engaged.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 3, 2007 7:05 PM

"It is, of course, impractical and probably imprudent to advocate a total ban on using objectives in creating corporate strategy, but it is important for strategists to remember that the more specific an objective, the further away it may potentially lead the organization from its optimal big picture."
-- Is Strategy a Bad Word? (MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter 2006)

Posted by Hooper at December 3, 2007 9:26 PM

From my perspective, leadership in the religious sector, if you haven't done the ground work to make very clear what the mission/vision/values are, BHAG's (or GIGA's as I call them, see previous post) have absolutely no meaning to the front line people, in our case church members.

Taking a page from Guy Kawasaki (http://blog.guykawasaki.com/) you must have a clear mantra that your team can understand and get behind. When you have your mantra, and you have the subscription of all the players, than a BHAG that is clearly defined as well as completely in line with advancing the mission/mantra of the organization has a chance at success. If you vear from your mantra, lose sight of your vision, fail to constantly reinforce the BHAG and the reasons for it, it is doomed to failure.

I have had several successes at implementing BHAGs (GIGA's) because I learned from failure that when I threw it out there without constant attention being drawn to it, and I didn't do the ground work of connecting it to mission and vision, it is quickly forgotten.

Posted by David I at December 3, 2007 11:54 PM

Steve,
Whether it's BHAG's or CCAG's I think a lot of the terminology is semantic. The key is something that you touch on and that is that it must be compelling. If you are not able to get everyone engaged and motivated, the project is often doomed to fail.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at December 4, 2007 2:14 PM