InSights
A publication from the Albers School of Business and Economics the Center for Leadership Formation Fa ll 2017
By Marilyn Gist and Alan Mulally
L
eadership is truly an honor and responsibility. Our goal in this series is to provide a proven and replicable approach for success — Alan Mulally’s Working Together Management System (WTMS). Each component of this approach is integrated with the others. So we have dedicated this series to help leaders understand clearly how to use the WTMS so they can produce smart and healthy organizations and strong performance results. Our first article, “Why Leadership Matters,” provided an overview of the WTMS, and our second article, “Charting the Course,” elaborated on the front end of that system — how leaders develop vision, mission, and strategy. Recall that the leader’s most important contribution is to hold him- or herself and the leadership team collectively responsible and accountable for defining a compelling vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation. Information from these prior articles is summarized in the center spread, along with the ideas we present in this final segment on the WTMS which addresses implementation.
Development of the organization’s mission, vision, and strategy are essential first steps in the WTMS. Yet they are not enough by themselves for leadership. And tracking progress (and knowing what went wrong after the fact) is important and can help avoid mistakes in the future — but that is not enough for implementation. Boards, employees, and markets are seeking leaders who do more than explain what went wrong after the fact. They want leaders who can ensure that plans are met successfully. This fact makes it clear why a plan for “relentless implementation” is critical to leadership. The WTMS provides for relentless implementation through the Business Plan Review (BPR). It has two major elements: an Expected Behaviors element and a Process element. Both are crucial for strong implementation. We will discuss these one at a time, but it is important to understand that they must go together to achieve results. Continued on page 4
Letter from the Dean
T
in this issue Leading Successful Implementation / 1 A Message from the Dean / 2 Implementing Business Strategy: It Takes a System / 3 Effective Strategy Implementation / 6 Jeff Musser on Humility and Leadership / 8 Alan Mulally’s Working Together Management System (WTMS) / 9 The Challenge of Strategy Implementation: Ensuring Success When the Stakes are Too High to Fail / 13 Mobilizing the Troops: Followership as an Untapped Resource in Strategic Planning / 16
he Center for Leadership Formation (CLF) is celebrating a major milestone this year. This September, the Executive Leadership Certificate Program (ELP) marked its 20th anniversary with Stoking the Common Fire, an opportunity for alumni to celebrate 20 years of excellence in leadership. Throughout this year, Seattle University will also celebrate the past 20 years of Father Stephen Sundborg’s presidency. Seattle U and CLF are fortunate to have two great leaders at the helm. Fr. Steve began as president in 1997 and is highly regarded both on campus and in our community. He has been very supportive of the ELP program, which began on his watch. Dr. Marilyn Gist has overseen the ELP since 2003 and has built a program that is one of the most highly regarded in the nation. Their sustained excellence and energy in their roles has no doubt contributed to the success of SU and the CLF. The two important elements I see behind their success as leaders are vision and trust. First, both Fr. Steve and Marilyn have a clear picture of what they want SU and the CLF to look like and be, respectively. The result is a highly regarded institution and a transformational program. Second, both have earned the trust of others. They have a strong track record of personal integrity, honest communication, and good decision-making. We are fortunate to continue to be guided by their vision and hope Marilyn puts in her 20 years and beyond, as well! As we look ahead, the Center for Leadership Formation is leading the way in new and innovative programming to build on the success of our existing programs. Marilyn and her team are planning several new leadership initiatives to increase our impact, reach new audiences, and expand our offerings to working executives. We are proud of the achievements of our graduates and look forward to sharing more with you in the months to come. We are blessed to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ELP and 20 years of leadership from our president, Fr. Steve!
TrendWatch / 18 Upcoming Events /20
Joseph M. Phillips Dean, Albers School of Business and Economics
Center for Leadership Formation Staff Dr. Marilyn E. Gist Associate Dean, Executive Programs Professor, Department of Management Executive Director, Center for Leadership Formation Ariel Rosemond Associate Director Kathleen McGill Manager, Executive Programs Outreach Lorri Sheffer Programs Manager
Center for Leadership Formation Fellows Alan Mulally Senior Fellow, Former President & CEO Ford Motor Company Phyllis Campbell Chairman, Pacific Northwest, JP Morgan Chase Jim Dwyer President & CEO, Delta Dental of Washington Allan Golston President, US Program Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Jim Sinegal Co-Founder & Retired CEO, Costco Wholesale Brian Webster President & CEO, Physio-Control, Inc.
Center for Leadership Formation Advisory Board Lindsay Anderson Vice President Quality, Retired Boeing Commercial Airplanes Lorrie Baldevia Senior Vice President MCM Sallie Bondy Director, Business Operations for Boeing Fabrication The Boeing Company Mike Butler President, Operations Services Providence Health & Services
Page 2 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
Implementing Business Strategy: It takes a system Greg Magnan
“T
he leader is really important.” Alan Mulally said, discussing the success of his Working Together Management System (WTMS). No arguments from me on that point (more on leaders later). I believe that Alan’s use of the word ‘system’ is also really important, for it is in the context of a system that strategies are implemented and executed. At a simple level, systems are collections of elements connected to achieve a purpose (think circulatory system, education system, solar system, etc.). Systems are dynamic. The elements change, thereby interacting in new ways and affecting the performance (purpose) of the system. Organizations operate within dynamic systems as well. Take a moment to consider the elements of the system that is your organization. You may have identified resources, people, functions, capabilities, leaders, strategy, etc. One can expand the exercise to consider the larger system (i.e., industry) in which the organization exists (e.g., customers, suppliers, competitors)
on to the even broader economic and regulatory systems. Indeed, fundamental to strategy formulation are analyses of these internal and external elements and subsystems e.g., Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) and Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) frameworks. Take another moment to consider how these elements are changing in your organization and industry. Are there more items in flux than usual? Are they changing faster than usual? If you answered ‘no’ to those questions, you may stop reading. In the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 issues of InSights, Marilyn and Alan identified several elements of the WTMS, namely the need for a compelling vision, a comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation via the business plan review (BPR) process. (The WTMS also includes the leadership team, governance, and ‘Working Together’ principles.) While the entire system is important for relentless implementation, three elements stand out: the comprehensive strategy (including the plan and performance measures), the BPR, and
Mike Ehl Director, Aviation Operations Port of Seattle Brad Harlow CEO & President PhysioSonics Aaron Howes Vice President, Risk Management & Insurance Expeditors International of Washington O. David Jackson CEO & Managing Partner Altruist Partners Kate Joncas Deputy Mayor, Operations City of Seattle
Harvey Kanter Chairman of the Board, CEO & President Blue Nile Jim Klauer Senior Vice President, Non-Foods Merchandising Costco Wholesale John Milne Founder & CEO Avnew Health Doug Moore President McKinstry Company
“Organizations operate within dynamic systems.” the leader. The rest of this article is centered on implementation and will include the WTMS content as well as material from Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard systems execution model. It assumes the hard work of (initial) strategy formulation is complete.
THE BALANCED SCORECARD AND STRATEGY MAPS In their 2004 book, Strategy Maps, Kaplan and Norton describe the development of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), addressing their perception in 1990 that knowledgebased assets (e.g., employees and information technology) were becoming increasingly important to success. Companies, however, Continued on page 7
Sarah Patterson Executive Vice President & COO Virginia Mason Medical Center Chris Rivera Chairman, President & CEO Nativis, Inc. Dan Wall President, Global Products Expeditors International of Washington
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 3
Leading Successful Implementation
M ar
BPR’s Expected Behaviors Element Critical to the success of the BPR process is a set of Expected Behaviors that are at the foundation of a smart and healthy organizational culture. These are the “Working Together Principles and Practices.” Each component of the expected behaviors is important. They are: m People first m Everyone is included m Compelling vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation plan m Clear performance goals m One plan m Facts and data – we can’t manage a secret — the data set us free m Everyone knows the plan, status, and areas that need special attention m Propose a plan, positive “find-a-way” attitude m Respect, listen, help, and appreciate each other m Emotional resilience – trust the process m Have fun – enjoy the journey and each other Note that, in the Working Together Management System’s expected behaviors, the very first point is “People First.” When thinking about implementation, most leaders consider metrics and tracking first. But it’s actually the people in the organization who do most of the work in making strategy succeed. Engaging people fully, enlisting their creativity and motivation, and inspiring them to work together is critically important. Unfortunately, this is rarely given the recognition it deserves and is one reason implementation often fails. The issue of putting people first relates to the discussion in our last article explaining that who you are is critically important in leadership. That’s because “who I am” has a lot to do with “what I do.” If the leader does not fully believe that all people are valuable enough to contribute significantly to the organization’s success, then the leader’s views and
Continued from page 1
il yn
Gi
st
expectations will adversely affect the culture and results over time. When we truly put “people first,” this means “everyone is included.” We need to break down assumptions that only people at the top should know and oversee the organization’s strategic efforts. In fact, what we need is transparency — genuine openness — about both what we are trying to accomplish and how we are doing. Our last article also discussed how to develop a “compelling vision and comprehensive strategy.” This is the first part of the “Creating Value Roadmap” (see center spread), and the vision and strategy become the “one plan” that everyone in the organization works to achieve. So everyone is next involved in defining “clear performance goals.” Leaders from each business unit and functional skill team of the organization identify what they need to do to help achieve the overall vision and strategy. In this system, everyone knows what the plan is, everyone knows what we need to do to achieve it, everyone knows the status at any point in time, and everyone knows the areas that need special attention. The process component of BPR (discussed shortly) includes a method for regularly reviewing progress
relying on facts and data. However, certain behaviors are essential to moving forward effectively. First, we all must truly “respect, listen, help, and appreciate each other.” Meetings must not allow destructive criticism or any jokes at others’ expense. And it is critical for the leader to model this behavior first by demonstrating full respect, listening, help, and appreciation of all others. The leader must also manage the behavior of people below him or her. That means the leader cannot tolerate words and actions by others that violate the agreed-to Expected Behaviors. If the leader does not address inappropriate behaviors, people will quickly sense that we say “people first” but don’t mean it. Once that happens, they are less likely to be motivated to give their all to the organization’s goals. As we review progress, we are sure to identify problem areas. Using the WTMS’s expected behaviors, we “propose a plan” and have a “positive ‘find-a-way’ attitude” in the face of problems. It is also important to “maintain emotional resilience” when challenges arise, and to “trust the process” we are using to achieve our goals. By making sure we use these expected behaviors, the leader can make the implementation process a positive experience so that we “have fun — and enjoy the journey and each other.”
BPR’s Process Element The Expected Behaviors should be used at all times. One of those is during the BPR. This is a weekly review session conducted among the CEO and the heads of each business unit (e.g., product or service) and functional unit. Guests may also be invited but do not participate in the discussion. The meeting begins with the CEO reviewing the “Creating Value Roadmap” or “one plan.” The CEO summary presents the plan for the quarter, the current year, the fiveyear outlook, and the status/forecast against the plan. In one or two
Page 4 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
slides, this summary is provided for a number of performance measures, such as profitable growth for all of the organization’s stakeholders, and satisfaction of each stakeholder: customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and the communities in which it operates. Most units will have several sub-goals they need to achieve that support the “one plan.” Following the CEO’s summary, leaders of each unit then review the goals agreed to for their part of the organization, and what the status is with respect to those goals. For the BPR, leaders code the progress for the week on each of their goals with a green (on plan), yellow (off plan but have a plan to get on plan), or red (off plan and working to develop a plan to get back on plan) color. One summary chart for the unit quickly conveys to all what the status is for the unit as a whole. Problems are quickly seen because they are highlighted. As these arise, they are immediately assigned for “special attention” at a separate meeting prior to the next BPR. Members of the group as a whole also may have suggestions to help resolve them. Plans will be established at the interim meeting for how to improve performance on that indicator. Subsequent reporting will continue to
color code progress on that indicator as people “work together” to resolve challenges. In that way, problems are quickly identified and worked, and the status will show progress moving from red to yellow, then from yellow to green in short order. The BPR is a reliable process for relentless implementation. It allows the leader — and everyone else in the organization — to know where things stand at any point in time. It relies heavily on metrics and data. However, without the expected behaviors described earlier, it can become a management tool of fear and intimidation. If that occurs, people are reluctant to expose weak areas. And from the leader’s perspective, “you can’t manage a secret!” Instead, by coupling the expected behaviors with a reliable process that is using metrics and data, people become confident that we are all working together on one plan. As problems arise, we all work to resolve them and we are far more effective and successful together than trying to operate independently. We reiterate that the leader’s most important contribution is to hold him- or herself and the leadership team collectively responsible and accountable for defining a compelling
vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation. For this series on the Working Together Management System provides clarity on a method that has been demonstrated to work — and work very well. It can be adapted to many different industries and organizations. As the organization succeeds in its goals, all of the stakeholders succeed.
Dr . Marilyn E . Gist is associate dean for executive programs and professor of Management, Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University. In addition, she serves as executive director of the Center for Leadership Formation providing academic direction for the executive degree and certificate programs. Prior to this, Marilyn held the Boeing Endowed Professorship of Business Management at the University of Washington, where she was also the Faculty Director for Executive MBA programs. In addition to her academic roles, she has served in management positions in the public and private sectors, and has extensive consulting experience. Marilyn has over 25 publications in leading scholarly outlets. Her publications include
“ Developing Dual-Agenda Leaders” (coauthored with Professor Sharon Lobel) in the 2012 Journal of Corporate Citizenship, and ”Self-Efficacy” (co-authored with Angela Gist) in the 2013 Oxford Bibliographies in Management.
President of Boeing Information, Space and Defense Systems. Mulally served on President Obama‘s United States Export Council, as CoChairman of the Washington Competitiveness Council, and has served on the advisory boards of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the University of Washington, the University of Kansas, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of England’s Royal Academy of Engineering. Mulally is Senior Fellow of the Center for Leadership Formation at Seattle University.
Alan Mulally served as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Ford Motor Company and as a member of Ford’s board of directors from September 2006 – June 2014. Mulally joined Google’s board of directors in July 2014, the board of directors of Carbon 3D in May 2015, and the board of directors of Mayo Clinic in February, 2017. Prior to joining Ford, Mulally served as Executive Vice President of The Boeing Company, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 5
effective strategy implementation Eunice Rhee
M
any executives spend an enormous amount of energy and significant number of resources when formulating strategy. They work with top management consulting firms or go on retreats to develop strategic plans with a grand vision for the company. Once the strategy is drafted and circulated, however, nothing much happens. In fact, a survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2013 reported that only about half of strategic initiatives are successful. In most cases, nothing is fundamentally wrong with the strategy itself. Rather, the strategy is either not implemented or implemented but with poor results. In the same survey, 61 percent of respondents admitted that their companies often fail to bridge the gap between strategy formulation and implementation. It’s no wonder that Professor Richard Rumelt of UCLA says, “It is better to have a less excellent strategy which is fully implemented than to formulate an excellent strategy which is never or only partially executed.” The problem usually starts with how strategy is communicated throughout the organization. A typical prescription for strategy implementation suggests that consistent and regular communication is crucial, and executives invest a significant amount of time communicating strategy through such means as emails, meetings, and town hall discussions. A recent survey suggests, however, that barely half of middle managers can name even one of their company’s top five priorities. As it turns out, it is not the amount and frequency of communication that matters but
rather the quality and clarity of that communication that help engage employees for successful strategy implementation. Moreover, executives tend to deliver aspirational strategic direction in simple statements, such as “be innovative” or “be customer-oriented.” Yet, such highlevel statements tend to result in a translation problem, as different teams may end up interpreting the strategic direction in different ways, resulting in the organization working on distinct tasks without much coordination or integrated outputs. Thus, translating strategy into explicit guidelines and actions that resonate with employees at
targets three times more likely than when such support exists. Hence, beyond clear authority and credibility coming from executives, successful strategy implementation also requires effective systems and structure for managing horizontal performance commitments that foster teamwork through collaboration, both vertically and horizontally. A recent example is Zappos, a footwear company that transitioned its organizational structure to holacracy, which is different from both traditional hierarchy and flat organization. Under holacracy employees have many different roles, often on different teams, and role descriptions are being constantly updated by the team actually doing the job. This decision came as Zappos decided to take an initiative to reach more customers in other segments of the apparel market, which frequently required people from different teams to work together in solving repeated problems. What must also be understood is that your company does not need to always stay with the strategy if things change. After investing all the aforementioned resources and energy in strategy formulation, executives tend to view any departure from the original plan as a road to failure. In a rapidly changing environment, however, failure to adapt both internally and externally
Organizations need to be open to changing course as they implement strategy. all levels is key to engaging the entire organization for successful strategy implementation. Another issue is the greater focus on the hierarchical nature of the strategy implementation process at the expense of cross-functional, or horizontal coordination. A general recommendation for successful strategy implementation involves breaking down the strategy into manageable objectives, developing a master plan, specifying the timing and sequencing of different actions, and allocating budgets and deploying necessary human resources. In doing so, many companies rely on channeling goals and delegating tasks down the hierarchy, but such an approach has pitfalls. It tends to neglect the importance of working across functions, despite findings suggesting that insufficient support from other units makes to missing performance
Page 6 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
contributes even more to strategy implementation failures. While companies tend to pay great focus on following through with key activities determined by an established strategic plan, assumptions that executives have made at the time of the strategy formulation process are not static. Unexpected changes always occur. Competitors act and react, customer needs evolve, and regulations change. As such, organizations need to be open to changing course as they implement strategy rather than viewing it as something that needs to be pushed through the organization. Just as efficient systems and structure are required to support coordination, organizations need such systems and structure in place to manage the process of adapting to changing circumstances. It is important to foster an organizational culture that not only recognizes and rewards results but also agility, ambition, and processes, but many companies fall short in this regard. Concerning promotion or hiring decisions, they tend to place much less emphasis on a
manager’s ability to adapt to changing environments than whether or not he or she has hit the numbers. For a strategy with unforeseen consequences to be implemented successfully, managers should be willing to experiment. Creating a culture that does not punish failure and fosters experimentation such that employees can pursue novel opportunities and innovation is another critical aspect of successful strategy implementation. Amazon is a great example where failure is tolerated as it experiments with different strategic initiatives. Besides its successful products, such as Kindle and AWS (Amazon Web Services), others, such as Fire Phone and WebPay, a peer-to-peer payment service, are among dozens of offerings that have failed. As Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos puts it, “What really matters is companies that don’t continue to experiment, companies that don’t embrace failure, they eventually get in a desperate position where the only thing they can do is a Hail Mary bet at the very end of their corporate existence.”
Turning a well-crafted strategy into reality is not simple. Unfortunately, executives are not spending enough time to implement the strategy throughout the organization. While it is challenging to summarize the complex approach to optimal strategy implementation because of each company’s unique capability, history, culture, and systems, better strategic implementation involves communication, coordination, adaptation, and embracing failure. In the end, implementation is what sets companies apart more than strategy formulation because fewer corporate leaders are as skilled at doing it. Eunice Rhee is an assistant professor in the Department of Management where she teaches Strategy and Business Policy. Her current research examines how firms manage external perceptions to create value. She is especially interested in understanding how firms strategically manage external perceptions regarding their actions (“what we do”) and identity (“who we are”) using framing and categories in the context of a) firms going public (IPO) and b) controversial corporate governance practices. Her dissertation won dissertation fellowships from the Strategy Research Foundation (SRF) and the NASDAQ OMX Educational Foundation.
Implementing business strategy: It takes a system Continued from page 3
were still using financial accounting measures that considered investments in improving capabilities of intangible assets as merely period expenses, driving a short-term focus on financial measures. The BSC was developed to create a system to support investing for the future and “managing and measuring the value created by enhancing the capabilities of an organization’s intangible assets.” (Kaplan and Norton, 2004) The BSC identified four perspectives to monitor: financial, customers, internal processes, and learning and growth. Early versions considered objectives, measures and targets within each area, all four ‘orbiting’ around the firm’s mission and strategy.
As they worked with companies, Kaplan and Norton learned they were correct in their hunch—indeed, strategy, competition, and value creation were shifting from tangible to intangible assets. Companies responded with new mission and vision statements and new strategies, but were failing miserably in execution. The BSC system rapidly evolved (and continues to evolve) to aid organizations in implementing strategy. In my view, the BSC system evolution had (at least) three critical phases. First was the stacking of the four perspectives, allowing for cause-and-effect linkages among the objectives between rows. This new creation became the ‘strategy map,’
enabling companies to align and articulate the strategy to the whole organization. Second, as the ‘to-be’ strategy maps were created, gaps in capabilities could be determined and subsequent strategic initiatives (i.e., projects) to close the gaps identified. The collection of strategic initiatives, and strategically relevant metrics, provides focus to the organization and leadership team. And third, the development of a management system in which the collection of metrics and initiatives are regularly reviewed (i.e., monthly, quarterly, and annually) for performance to the strategy AND of the strategy itself. As a result, ‘strategy-focused’
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 7
Continued on page 14
Jeff Musser on Humility and Leadership MARILYN E. GIST
Jeff Musser, Chief Executive Officer of Expeditors International, participated in the Albers Executive Speaker Series at Seattle University in 2017. His presentation on “Creating a Culture of Opportunity” led to a conversation on humility with Dr. Marilyn Gist, Associate Dean for Executive Programs, Seattle University. An excerpt of this conversation follows: MG: Our culture likes a winner. In the recent past, we had baronial leaders — models like General Patton, the Godfather.... Hubris or arrogance seemed synonymous with leadership and we admired that. Is this changing? If so, why? JM: In some ways, yes. A lot of work today also requires employees who are highly skilled or highly educated. They expect to be treated respectfully. It takes humility to do that. The younger generation also expects someone they can talk to who will listen to them and be compassionate. So humility in leadership is important. I sometimes meet executives from other companies, and am surprised at how they got where they are because they are so disrespectful. Gist: Do you think humility can be taught? JM: We send people to your program for that reason. Seriously, that is one change we consistently notice when they go through it and it is part of the development a lot of people need. MG: People often consider humility a weakness in leadership. Do you? And how do you define it? JM: Humility is a strength. It’s really having confidence in yourself so you don’t have to put on a façade. And strength in leadership is not at odds with humility.
Being humble is not the same as being soft. You can have very high standards and still be humble. But, at the end of the day, I realize that I’m not the one who actually delivers the results — it’s other people who accomplish them. I play a role of getting people together to drive results. So humility is important in doing that. Now my discussions with my senior team are somewhat different. I’m sure they find them more direct. But we are a tight group with a lot of trust built up in each other. So you have to know who your audience is and deliver the right message to them. MG: What do you see as the effects of humility on people and organizational policies? JM: I believe people want to help others and want things to be successful. They like seeing a good result. If people have trust and respect for you, they work that much harder and get there faster. In terms of organizational policies, I love the quote by Herb Callaher, CEO of Southwest Airlines, “Your employees come first. And if you treat your employees right, guess what? Your customers come back, and that makes your shareholders happy. Start with employees and the rest follows from that.” Policies have to be fair to people — and be clear, concise, and firm which is not necessarily the same
as being popular. For example, we don’t allow people to work from home and we require our employees to dress professionally. Some people think we should flex on those issues, but we see them as central to the Expeditors’ way of doing business. But a sense of humility shows up in some of our other policies. For example, we expect the CEO to pay for parking in the garage just like everyone else. And we give back 25% of pre-tax profit to the operating units. About 5% goes to cover regional costs, but 20% goes to bonus pay in each branch and is allocated to employees – the people who get the work done. Another example is a recent change to our 401(k) plan in which the company used to match $.50 per dollar on the first $3K. We considered going to $.50 per dollar on more — such as the first $6K. But we decided to go dollar for dollar on the first $3K because it would not disadvantage lower-level employees who can’t contribute as much. MG: Do you think humility affects your business outcomes? JM: Absolutely. In a service-based business, if you can’t keep employees, you can’t keep customers. You can look at the tenure of our employees. Most have been here a long time because they know they can grow, and they feel cared for and engaged. Every quarter, we have a new employee orientation that I do so that they know me. That creates a trust and bond that helps people want to stay. That’s important because customers stay with us because of the relationship. And it’s our employees who build strong
Page 8 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
Continued on page 19
Alan Mulally’s Working Together Management System (WTMS)
Organizations exist to create value for their stakeholders. Common measures for business success include growth for all stakeholders. Common measures for nonprofits are service delivery and/or problems solved. Leadership is both an honor and a responsibility for creating value.
The leader’s most important contribution is to hold him- or herself and the team collectively responsible and accountable for a compelling vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation. The WTMS is a system for creating value as shown in the roadmap below:
Business Environment
Business Plan Review • Vision, strategy & plan • Status & forecast • Risks & opportunities • Special attention • Better plan
Plan
Leader and Team
vision Strategy
Performance Product Process People
Customer, employee, supplier, investors, and community satisfaction, performance measures
Step 1: Visioning The leader begins adding value by working with the team to develop a compelling vision.
An organization’s vision must first be consistent with its mission. m Mission statements identify the organization’s line of business (such as health care, aerospace, education, automotive, etc.). m Mission statements typically help differentiate the organization from others in the same industry. They often indicate something unique about “how” they operate.
An organization’s vision embraces its mission and is aspirational. m It signals what it is striving to become. m It must be compelling enough that all in the organization will rally their efforts around its aspiration.
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 9
For the Leader: The personal qualities of the leader are at least as important as the analytical process used in developing vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation. Negative personal qualities hinder value creation because the leader must operate with and through other people. m Arrogance, defensiveness, and excessive control tendencies hurt others and generate mistrust. m The effect of negative leader behaviors is that others become self-protective — they withhold information and honest feedback to avoid the leader’s criticism. m The leader is then less effective because: “You can’t manage a secret!”
Step 2: strategy The leader continues adding value by working with the team to develop a comprehensive strategy.
Positive personal qualities lead to stronger team and collective performance m Leader humility, and a service orientation, set a positive tone. m Honesty and transparency permit open sharing of areas needing special attention. m Others learn from the leader the expected behaviors for a healthy organizational culture. This creates value for everyone working in the organization.
Strategy should follow the vision’s aspiration by articulating “how” it is to be achieved. m There are numerous approaches to developing strategy. It may be driven by one or more of the following: • Organizational capabilities (strengths and opportunities) m
• External analysis (customer demand, supply chain, competitive firms, economics) • Design thinking (innovation, trying multiple ideas and embracing the concept of rapid failure) m Good strategy will guide decisions and actions so that the organization delivers value to its stakeholders.
Page 1 0 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
Expected Behaviors and Culture
One plan
Facts and data…we can’t manage a secret…the data set us free
Step 3: relentless Implementation
The leader facilitates the Business Plan Review (BPR) to ensure value creation by weekly sharing with the entire leadership team the progress on our vision and strategy.
The team should include heads of: m each business unit (product or service), and m each functional unit (finance, HR, manufacturing, marketing, etc.). The two elements of the BPR, its behavioral element and its process element must work together.
THE FIRST ELEMENT OF THE BPR IS OUR EXPECTED BEHAVIORS AND CULTURE. S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 1 1
The second element of the BPR is the process of how it works. It begins with the CEO reviewing the “Creating Value Roadmap” or “one plan” and an overview of the status at the last meeting. m Each unit then reviews the status with respect to its goals in support of the “one plan.” m For the BPR, leaders code the progress for the week on each of their goals with a green (on plan), yellow (off plan but have a plan to get on plan), or red (off plan and
working to develop a plan to get back on plan) color. Problems are quickly seen because they are highlighted. As these arise, they are immediately assigned for “special attention” at a separate meeting prior to the next BPR. m Subsequent reporting will continue to color code progress on that indicator as people “work together” to resolve the problems.
m
m
business plan performance summary Business Unit leaders and Functional Skill Team leaders agree on the status versus The Plan. Y and R are worked in our Governance forums.
Customers Business Units
G
Functional Skill Teams
R
Y
previous status
G
G
Y
R
G
G
R
Y
G
Y
Y
Y R
current status
The BPR is a RELIABLE PROCESS for relentless implementation. It allows the leader — and everyone else in the organization — to know where things stand at any point in time. By coupling the expected behaviors with a reliable process that is using metrics and data, people become confident that we are all working together on one plan. One more time: the leader’s most important contribution is to hold him- or herself and the leadership team collectively
responsible and accountable for defining a compelling vision, comprehensive strategy, and relentless implementation. The Working Together Management System has been demonstrated to work very well. It can be adapted to many different industries and organizations. As the organization succeeds in its goals, all of the stakeholders succeed.
Page 1 2 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
The Challenge of Strategy Implementation: Ensuring success when the stakes are too high to fail DAvid Shoultz
W
e arrive to the very center of Ghana after several days of travel from Seattle. On our drive north from Kumasi to Kintampo, I am reminded of why we’re here. Children play barefoot near the road in the reddish dirt, women carry water in plastic containers balanced on their heads, and there is little evidence of household latrines — open defecation is clearly a very common practice. These are the conditions in which intestinal parasites such as hookworm thrive and is the motivation for our visit and our planned work here. Globally, it is estimated that up to 2 billion people living in conditions like these bear the deleterious health effects of infection with hookworm and related parasites. My colleagues and I at the Seattlebased global health non-profit PATH (path.org) are committed to seeing dramatic improvement in these grim statistics over the next decade. Located in the Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana, Kintampo is home to the Kintampo Health Research Center (KHRC) and will be the local hub for the work that we will be undertaking here over the next several years. The focus of our efforts is on the improved treatment and control of intestinal parasites such as hookworm in children living in Ghana and other low-income countries. PATH is leading the development of a new drug for hookworm and related infections and has established a new partnership with Yale University, the Noguchi Memorial Institute for
Medical Research (NMIMR) in Accra, and local community leaders in villages and schools in central Ghana. Our discussions with these partners reveal to us the great need and the high stakes: they are trusting us, counting on us, and we won’t (can’t) let them down. After two days in Kintampo, we make our way back to Kumasi, then to Accra, and finally return to Seattle. On this journey home, I mentally catalogue the many challenges that we’ll need to successfully surmount in the coming years. Nonetheless, I am determined and undaunted; this is exactly the kind of work that Albers has prepared me to do. In his enlightening and entertaining text Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters, UCLA School of Management professor Richard Rumelt describes what he refers to as the “kernel” of a strategy. This kernel necessarily includes, “…(1) a diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge, (2) a guiding policy for dealing with the challenge, and (3) a set of coherent actions that are designed to carry out the guiding policy.” After completing my MBA at Albers several years ago, I started teaching in the Executive MBA Program, and had the great fortune of team-teaching a course on strategy implementation with Professor Greg Magnan in the Executive MBA Program (Strategy Implementation: Putting It All Together). A central component of this course was a multiweek computer simulation that the
students undertook in small teams. The simulation was designed to give students the chance to practice creating and implementing a strategy in a validated, structured, and dynamic simulation environment based on the automobile parts industry. While teaching this course with Greg, I was struck by how challenging it was for advanced, experienced, and highly capable graduate students to follow the fundamental prescription provided by Rumelt. In fact, no element of Rumelt’s kernel proved to be more consistently challenging for the teams of students than the one concerning “...a set of coherent actions...designed to carry out the guiding policy.” The majority of teams simply failed to recognize and effectively deal with what I refer to as the challenge of strategy implementation. Predictably, most teams in a given class — and most teams and individuals working in the companies, organizations, and institutions that make up our economy — failed to take into account the profound inertial forces that daily threaten and distract from even the most sophisticated and well-conceived strategy. Authors Mark Moran, Raymond Levitt, and William Malek note in their book Executing Your Strategy: How to Break It Down and Get It Done, “... studies have found that less than 10 percent of effectively formulated strategies carry through to successful implementation...something like 90 percent of companies consistently fail to execute strategies effectively.”
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 1 3
Continued on page 15
Implementing business strategy: It takes a system Continued from page 7
organizations adopted these five management principles: m Translate strategy to operational terms m Align the organization to the strategy m Make strategy everyone’s job m Make strategy a continual process m Mobilize change through executive leadership
Let’s briefly review: The BSC system articulates strategy through the strategy map, requires the development of metrics to express strategic objectives included in the four perspectives, and involves regular review of performance to targets and the efficacy of the strategy. If you are scoring at home, those characteristics appear to be remarkably similar to elements of Alan’s WTMS. (They both are management systems, after all.) WTMS vs. BSC So (how) are they different? Alan’s WTMS requires a compelling vision driven by a comprehensive strategy relentlessly implemented. The external environment, strategy and plan embedded in the ‘Creating Value Roadmap’ of the WTMS reflect the stakeholders, goals, and metrics/ targets of the organization. The BPR process of the WTMS embodies three important elements for implementation: development and use of metrics and targets across the organization, transparency regarding performance to targets, and collaboration via working together to resolve issues raised during the BPR (InSights, Fall 2016). Company leaders report status and forecasts of functional, market, and external measures in BPR meetings. At Boeing and Ford, Alan’s BPR occurred weekly. Without getting too deep in the weeds, the mechanics of the WTMS and the BSC are, in fact, very similar. The more I learn about each, the more convinced I am of the structural
sameness. At their cores, they both address value creation, strategy formulation, and alignment, and regularly review metrics and progress. These elements, however, are like the ‘science’ components of project management—quite necessary, but the real key to success is in the ‘art’ of leading. In no way am I saying that Kaplan and Norton’s BSC system does not address leadership, because it does. I am saying that the WTMS addresses the role of leaders with much more depth and nuance.
LEADERSHIP You likely have heard the phrase attributed to Peter Drucker, ‘culture eats strategy for lunch’ (or breakfast… or breakfast, lunch, and dinner). In the WTMS, and successful organizations of all types for that matter, leaders set the direction, tone, and culture of the organization AND leadership team. In the WTMS, as in the BSC, the leader holds the team (and self) accountable for establishing the vision, strategy, metrics, and implementation model and rhythm. Both approaches are meant to surface unintended gaps in execution and respond strategically to changes in the larger system. Only the WTMS, however, addresses the role of the leader in holding the team (and self) accountable for ‘working together,’ expected leadership team behaviors, and culture. It is in this capacity that the leader is responsible for ensuring culture does NOT eat strategy. Enabling true transparency, meaning leaders feel safe in telling the truth, allows for problems to surface in reviews before they become crises. Forming a culture in which crossfunctional collaboration is leveraged to address emergent challenges separates the exceptional from the good. Leaders that drive respectful treatment and trust within their teams create energy to respond to changes in SWOT or PESTEL analyses.
Forming a culture in which crossfunctional collaboration is leveraged to address emergent challenges separates the exceptional from the good. In any implementation, leaders are part of the system. As such, leaders must know the science of implementation (e.g., vision, strategy, metrics and targets, and review processes). Extraordinary companies have leaders that also are skilled in the art of developing cultures that actively execute the strategy, even as the environment changes. In this system, the competition becomes breakfast and lunch, not the strategy. So, yes: the leader is really important! Greg Magnan teaches a variety of courses at the undergraduate, MBA, and executive-levels, including operations management, sustainability, strategy, leadership, supply chain management, project management, and marketing. Dr. Magnan has received several teaching and research awards, including the 2005, 2009 and 1012 Beta Gamma Sigma Professor of the Year at Seattle University and the E. Grosvenor Plowman Award at the CSCMP Supply Chain Management Educators’ Conference in 2010. His research is focused on supply chain relationships and he has published in numerous journals, including Decision Sciences, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Industrial Marketing Management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Supply Chain Management Review, Business Horizons, and the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. Dr. Magnan was named a Genevieve Albers Professor for 2008-2011 and spent 20072008 as a Visiting Academic Fellow at Henley Management College (UK). He enjoys hiking and watching his kids grow.
Page 1 4 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
the challenge of strategy implementation: ENSURING success when the stakes are too high to fail Continued from page 13
Unfortunately, this success rate probably applies to many organizations and efforts in the field of global health, as well. Why? Because meeting the challenge of strategy implementation requires effective leadership, disciplined persistence, and structured processes that can be sustained over years or even decades. Meeting the challenge of strategy implementation is achievable for leaders and teams that are willing to follow a fairly straightforward (but incredibly difficult) set of five principles: 1. The first two elements of Rumelt’s “kernel” must be reasonably satisfied. 2. The leader must fully commit himor herself and the organization to the third element of the kernel, i.e., “a set of coherent actions that are designed to carry out the guidingpolicy.” 3. The tools, principles, and processes of project management have to form the very backbone of the organization. 4. Transparency, feedback, and accountability need to be fundamental values of the organization and each of its members. 5. Every day matters: the battle against inertia, distraction, and fatigue is a diurnal one. I am already thinking about my next trip to Ghana later this year and the one after that in early 2018. We will meet with our colleagues in Accra at NMIMR and in Kintampo at KHRC. Most importantly, we will sit down again with village chiefs, community elders, and school principals. We will review the progress that we’ve made and look forward to next steps in this strategy that we are implementing together. We will candidly discuss unexpected challenges that have arisen, we will celebrate the bits of good fortune whose provenance none
Children greeting US visitors at a school near Kitampo, Ghana.
of us fully understands, and we will reaffirm our mutual commitment to our shared goals and the “better angels of our nature.” The one thing that we will not do, I am certain, is to allow inertia, distraction, or fatigue to interfere with our work. We are resolved to meet the challenge of strategy implementation with our partners. In the communities where we’re working in Ghana, up to 40% of children may be infected with hookworm and other intestinal parasites. New drugs are needed to combat this neglected tropical disease (NTD) and it is within our reach to have such a drug approved by the US FDA by 2020. The stakes are too high for failure to be an option. David Shoultz, PhD, MS, MBA, directs two of PATH’s product development programs: the Drug Development program, which seeks to discover, develop, and deliver safe, effective, and affordable treatments for neglected diseases, and the Devices and Tools program, which focuses on advancing appropriate, affordable, and accessible technologies to improve the health of underserved populations. Before joining PATH in 2014, Dr. Shoultz served as the director of grantee and partner engagement and as a member of the leadership team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In this role, he led an
effort to strengthen the foundation’s relationships with its partner organizations to facilitate ongoing interactions and help achieve maximum impact. Previously, he served as a deputy director in the foundation’s Global Health Program, Infectious Disease, where he was central to strategy, planning, and management for four strategic program teams, including malaria, enteric diseases, pneumonia, and the neglected tropical diseases. Prior to his roles at the foundation, Dr. Shoultz worked as a member of the senior management team for a number of clinical research organizations participating in the development of new medicines, including PPD Development, PRA International, and Biomedical Systems. In addition to his faculty role at the Albers School of Business & Economics, he has been a member of the affiliate faculty for the departments of Global Health and Epidemiology at the University of Washington since 2000. Dr. Shoultz sits on the board of the Geneva Foundation, where he also serves as the inaugural chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee. Dr. Shoultz earned his PhD and MS from the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of Washington, where he also obtained his BSN. He holds an MBA from the Albers School of Business and Economics at Seattle University. Follow him on twitter @shoultztweets 1. Rumelt, Richard P. Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. New York: Crown Business, 2011. 2. Morgan, Mark, Raymond E. Levitt, and William A. Malek. 2007. Executing your strategy: How to break it down and get it done. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 1 5
Mobilizing the troops: Followership as an untapped resource in strategic planning Colette hoption
I
n an episode of the TV series 30 Rock, Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) is presented with the GE Followship Award. Her boss, Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) explains, “When I think of the free-spirited Liz Lemon I met just one year ago — so resistant to product integration, cross-promotion and adverlingus [sic] — it pleases me to see how well she’s learned to follow!” Liz’s responds, “I’m not a follower!” (She later accepts the award because of its cash prize.) This sketch reveals a truth about work life that might garner more snickers (of discomfort) than what we would freely admit. In organizations, there’s an appreciation — or maybe even an expectation — for employees to follow and execute top management’s plans with few questions and requiring little supervision. However, mobilizing people to champion and follow a strategic plan is fraught with challenges — including the fact that compliance doesn’t always amount to commitment. To help leaders work more effectively with employees in executing strategic plans, four recommendations are put forth in this article: leaders must (1) understand that employees differ in their motivations to act and abilities to evaluate their actions; (2) demonstrate flexibility in how they deal with
different employees; (3) develop self-awareness about their own followership; and (4) facilitate horizontal influence in organizations. As one step towards helping leaders and followers work together, scholars have purposefully tangled leadership and followership so that the ‘challenge’ of working in concert is not one of ‘us versus them,’ but simply, ‘us’. It is thus, necessary for organizational members at every rank to engage in “followership education.” Kelley’s (1992) five followership styles lay the foundation for followership education: m Alienated: A behavioral pattern characteristic of critical thinkers whose actions are often confused with disinterest, disengagement and negativity because they are dissatisfied with the organization’s or top management’s unmet expectations and broken trust. m Conformist: Agreeable and supportive behaviors that show commitment to the organization’s and top management’s vision; but finding comfort in deferring to dominant opinions, there is a lack of independent thought behind those actions. m Exemplary: Behaviors associated with goal-driven, independent thinkers who are enthusiastic and effective in achieving the organization’s or top management’s
vision because they can identify (or acquire) strengths that add value to their organizations. m Passive: Following instructions to fulfill one’s role, but often perceived as incompetence and laziness because of over-reliance on top management’s judgement and little initiative to assume responsibility for more than what is asked. m Pragmatist: Purposeful actions enacted by cautious and observant members of the organization who play by the rules and because of a tendency to toe the middle line, appear risk-averse and/or political. Of the many lessons imparted, Kelley’s (1992) typology explains that leaders must pre-empt the peoplerelated challenges in executing strategic plans by investing time into identifying and developing desirable employee behaviors before expecting employees to champion the vision. Consequently, leaders’ flexibility will be of paramount importance as they work to maximize the assets and minimize the deficiencies in each followership style. For example, holding open fora might entice exemplary followers who readily contribute to discussions, but alienated followers would regard open fora as top management “going through the motions” of involving organizational members, and pragmatists would use the fora to learn what majority of the organization is feeling, paying special attention to powerful members. For the latter two populations then, open fora are ineffective at obtaining employee feedback about a strategic plan and
Page 1 6 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
could precipitate the “kiss of yes” — employees agree to a plan in public, but not in private. Therefore, multiple methods should be used to obtain feedback (e.g., anonymous surveys, face-to-face meetings). Relatedly, leaders should anticipate that some employees will support the plan through their actions (e.g., following instructions) but are doing so out of fear or apathy; alas, soliciting feedback from even those who appear ‘on board’ cannot be overlooked. One might argue that leaders should select employees whose followership styles are already compatible with their leadership styles and strategic outlooks. However, that perspective fails to learn another lesson from Kelley (1992): followership styles are adaptable and shaped by organizations and top management. Therefore, even the most compatible of followers can obstruct the execution of a strategic plan if placed in a disagreeable leader-follower relationship and/or environment. To that end, the proceeding questions can help leaders reflect on the ways their leadership and organizations grow and develop followership: m How do you recognize a culture of fear wherein follower input is discouraged? m Are external influences in one’s work environment (e.g., new team members) encouraging certain followership styles? m How is the climate between bosses and subordinates? m Which resources develop organizational members’ strengths and expertise? Furthermore, the success of executing a strategic plan will depend on the match between leader and employee followership. Employees watch and model their leaders’ followership styles under the assumption those behaviors are accepted and rewarded by the organization. So, leaders should also
be aware of their own followership style in the strategic planning process: are they performing the behaviors that they find most valuable? Lastly, Kellerman (2008) argued that leader influence in orchestrating change is “incidental”; the influence of followers on other followers should take precedence. Therefore, top management’s greatest move in orchestrating a strategic plan should be listening and facilitating exchanges between employees about their purposes, expectations and roles in the plan. This could be accomplished through the use of focus groups, establishing mentor relationships in organizations, carefully selecting team members to manage personalities and existing relationships, and investing in team-building exercises to strengthen bonds between peers. Ultimately, the end result would be powerful group action triggered by the voices and beliefs of one’s peers — and orchestrated by leaders rich in followership education. Dr. Colette Hoption is Associate Professor in the Department of Management in the Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University. She teaches in the areas of general management, organizational behavior, and international management. Colette earned her PhD in Management at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests involve leadership and followership, including how to develop effective followership, antecedents to effective leadership, and the “dark side” of leadership. She has published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Leadership & Organization Development Journal and Leadership; and her work has been mentioned in Inc. magazine, The Wall Street Journal and on CBC Radio.
References Kellerman, B. A. (2008). Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers who Lead Themselves. Doubleday Currency: New York, NY.
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 1 7
Provide an example of a successful implementation of strategy. Identify two key factors critical to its success.
F
or most, business strategy might seem distant. Far removed from daily work. Occasionally, someone might reference one or two of them during a meeting. Perhaps you might see a flyer around the office outlining your business strategies. Few really take notice. Kaplan and Norton’s research revealed that an overwhelming 95% of employees are unaware of their company’s strategy. So, how to engage your workforce to strategy? The two factors I found most important go hand-in-hand: communication and alignment of strategy with the day-today. The first revolves around conveying the importance of the vision in a clear, meaningful way. If the message isn’t understood, it’s hard to tie the strategy directly to their work. This leads to the second factor. If employees are caught up with daily operations, then strategy will be perceived as something extra — other than usual work. That distances strategy. Successful strategies integrate seamlessly into the work itself. As a business, we simply cannot afford to lose sight of this alignment. At Starbucks, we recognize the importance of strategy. The Senior Leadership Team routinely hosts town halls, an all-hands meeting with time dedicated to updating partners with our strategic goals. Everything we do emphasizes the importance of tying these to our daily work, all the way down to our valued store operators. The combination ensures our strategy is circulated throughout the company, aligns the work to strategy, in order to lead in coffee and deliver the best Starbucks experience possible.
Adam Ecevedo, LEMBA ‘17 Senior Strategic Business Reporting Leader, Starbucks Coffee Company
A
s a business grows from start-up to mid-size, with an eye toward continued growth, the structure and processes that govern the organization must grow accordingly. The goal is to avoid production choke points on the process level and general frustration on the human level and to allow for efficient and scalable business practices. To achieve this, the organization’s leadership must conduct a detailed, top-to-bottom analysis of processes to inform and implement change. The foundation of this process analysis and change implementation is built on two key factors: communication and collaboration. Communication is the first element, the base upon which the second element and subsequent analysis and process change is built. Establishing solid pathways of communication among all levels of the business, pathways that travel up and down the org chart, ensures that tactical information and tribal knowledge does not become stale, trapped in departmental silos. If upper and middle management listen to each other and to the members of the teams they lead, strong business practices will emerge. Collaboration grows from communication. When individuals and teams collaborate, they build confidence to tackle larger challenges as the business grows and evolves. Establishing cultural norms and transparent channels that utilize collaborative practices across the org chart ensures a spirit of teamwork and partnership. From that grows a sense of personal investment in the business by each individual in the company. When individuals across the business are genuinely involved in the organization’s information integration and decision-making, by using the tools of communication and collaboration, the foundation for a solid, scalable, and prosperous business is established. Jarrod Nack, LEMBA ‘17 Director, Market Development – International Business, The Pokémon Company International, Inc.
Page 1 8 / A lbers S chool of B usiness and E conomics I seattle university
Jeff Musser on Humility and Leadership Continued from page 8
S
uccessful implementation of business strategy begins with the realization that development of strategy cannot be separated from its implementation and execution. Too often, managers make abstract, high-level strategic decisions without significant input from those who will be primarily responsible for operationalizing them throughout the organization. If the strategy fails to achieve its desired outcome, managers can place blame on poor execution; however, a strategy that cannot be successfully implemented is, by definition, a poor strategy. Engaging personnel up and down the line in developing organizational strategy and empowering them to make operational decisions based upon principles set by management will position businesses to achieve their enterprise goals. Another key factor that drives strategic implementation is collaboration across business units within the company. In the 21st century, creating products and services that customers value requires coordinating the expertise contained within multiple divisions of the organization. Although a company’s strategy may be well aligned and executed within each division, unless there is a system to manage horizontal workflows with cross-functional teams, there may be conflict and suboptimal performance. Breaking through organizational silos and facilitating multidisciplinary teamwork can unlock the full potential contained within every enterprise, and enable more robust implementation of business strategy. For example, at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett, we have recently engaged multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses, therapists, and other personnel to successfully drive down the cost of performing total joint replacement surgeries while decreasing complications and improving satisfaction and outcomes for our patients. James Cook, MD FACS, LEMBA ‘17 Chief Medical Officer, Providence Regional Medical Center Everett
A
successful strategy is critical to any organization’s success. Strategy implementation is the most critical piece of the process. In my view, the two most important factors in successful strategy implementation take place at the beginning of the process. The first key element is in the formation of a cross-functional team to make certain that all areas are well represented and operate on a daily basis with key stakeholders in the strategy that they are being tasked to create. The second key element is in the strategy definition and outline portion of the planning phase. A team must be able to answer three key questions prior to diving into the strategy creation: What is the desired outcome? m What roadblocks can restrain or delay any portion of the implementation? m What can the organization do to remove any roadblocks to implementation? m
Once these questions are answered thoroughly, the team can move forward, review, data and map out its strategy based upon where the data lead. Successful strategy implementation is reliant upon a core team that is interdependent and functions as a true cross section of the organization. Placing focus on the building blocks for a solid foundation will lead to successful strategy implementation. Francesca DeMars, LEMBA ‘16 Materials Manager – Kenworth Kenworth Truck Company (A division of PACCAR Inc)
relationships. They know a lot about our business, learn the customer’s business, and, over time, know how to handle a lot of situations that come up. If we had a lot of turnover, we would lose our customers’ confidence in us. MG: In selecting executives below you, is humility a factor you require? JM: Yes. We’ve had situations where someone had the technical skills to succeed but needed improvement in humility to handle a senior position. You have to think through that very carefully because you want to balance opportunity for an individual with what’s best for everyone else — not just in terms of the skills to do a job but humility and skill in dealing with people. Humility is not the only factor, but it’s a very important one. And it’s important to be open and frank with a job candidate about the expectation for humility in how they interact with people. I have let people know that if they fail on that part of the job, it will be career-limiting. MG: Can you think of a time when you could have used your positional power to get something done, but chose to use your humility instead? If so, why did you choose humility? JM: As CEO, you’re not entitled to an opinion or to express it (smile). If you say one thing, the conversation is over. People think, “That’s what Jeff thinks, so let’s do it.” Often, I will just stay silent so the discussion can continue. This has been a real learning experience for me — seeing how whatever I say tends to be taken as direction when I don’t mean it that way. So, if I want to offer an opinion, I usually preface it with, “Hey, I’m just one person in the room — just part of the discussion, so this is only an idea…” I’ve learned that there is a real difference between when you are just a seat at the table and when you are the CEO and how sensitive people are to that position.
S pring 2 0 1 7 I seattleu . edu / albers / e x ecutive / page 1 9
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Seattle, WA Permit No. 2783
Seattle University Center for Leadership Formation 901 12th Avenue / P.O. Box 222000 Seattle, WA 98122-1090
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP FORMATION connect with us!
For more information about these events and/or our programs connect with us on Facebook and LinkedIn or via: https://www.seattleu.edu/ albers/executive/ connect-with-us/#form
An uncommon education for the common good.
Stoking the Common Fire 2017: 20 Years of Excellence in Leadership For alumni and students of the Executive Leadership Program and Leadership Executive MBA at the Albers School of Business and Economics. Featuring Alan Mulally, CLF Senior Fellow and David Whyte, Poet & Speaker Two day event: Friday, September 29, 2017 12 – 7 p.m. Silver Cloud Hotel Saturday, September 30, 2017 8 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. Student Center Contact Ariel Rosemond at rosemond@seattleu.edu for more information.
ALBERS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS EXECUTIVE SPEAKER SERIES Free and open to the public. 5:30 to 6:30 p.m / Pigott Auditorium Scott & Ally Svensen Co-founders, Mod Pizza Wednesday, October 11, 2017 Nick Hanauer Entrepreneur, Venture Capitalist, Civic Activist, Philanthropist Tuesday, November 7, 2017 Diversity & Inclusion Panel Latasha Gillespie, Global Diversity & Inclusion Director, Amazon Denise Merle, SVP of Human Resources & Investor Relations, Weyerhaeuser Karen Wilkins-Mickey, Director of Diversity & Inclusion, Alaska Airlines Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:30 - 6:45 p.m. Bryan Mistele CEO, INRIX Thursday, February 1, 2018