The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning
Doctors call high cholesterol a “silent killer” because it blocks arteries with no outward symptoms. Companies, too, have silent killers working below the surface — mutually reinforcing barriers that block strategy implementation and organizational learning. The silent killers can be overcome, but first leaders must engage people throughout their organizations in an honest conversation about the barriers and their underlying causes.
Companies have long known that, to be competitive, they must develop a good strategy and then appropriately realign structure, systems, leadership behavior, human resource policies, culture, values and management processes.1 Easier said than done. Between the ideal of strategic alignment and the reality of implementation lie many difficulties.
For one thing, senior managers get lulled into believing that a well-conceived strategy communicated to the organization equals implementation. For another, they approach change in a narrow, nonsystemic and programmatic manner that does not address root causes.
We began our research on strategy implementation when CEO Ray Gilmartin and chief strategy officer Ralph Biggadike of Becton Dickinson recognized that perfectly sound strategies were not easily implemented.2 Nowhere was the challenge more evident than in their global strategy. As is often the case, good intentions embodied in a new structure were not sufficient to change behavior.3 Teams created to enact strategies across several geographic regions couldn’t seem to coordinate their research and development, manufacturing and marketing. A worldwide educational program created to demonstrate how the global organization should work failed to overcome barriers.4 At the business-unit level, too, the lack of cross-functional systems blocked strategy implementation. Like other companies we know, Becton Dickinson bought in to the structures consultants recommended, but a gap appeared between knowing what to do and actually doing it.5
For a decade, we have conducted research focused on understanding the root causes of the difficulties that Becton Dickinson and others encounter when responding to shifts in competitive strategy. Using an inquiry and action-learning method we call “Organizational Fitness Profiling (OFP),” we enlist a team of senior managers to serve as our co-investigators. The process provides a window for understanding deeply rooted barriers that are common to an array of companies. (See “Organizational Fitness Profiling.�
References (33)
1. M. Beer, “Organization Change and Development” (Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Publishing, 1980); and
N. Venkatraman and J.C. Camillus, “Exploring the Concept of ‘Fit’ in Strategic Management,” The Academy of Management Review, Mississippi State, 9 (July 1984): 513–526.
