Beyond the Big Bang: Strategy as Habit
Instead of strategy as Big Bang, what about strategy as Habit? ALL organizations require strategic thinking to succeed, but few organizations actually face the dramatic moment — ever, or certainly very often. If that is true, then the sweet spot for strategy is something more routine, more “everyman”, more evolutionary, more of a living process. Strategy as Habit has 2 components, in keeping with the 2 primary definitions of the word “habit”: (1) a regular practice and (2) a long, loose garment worn by a member of a religious order. (In case you’ve forgotten that second definition: picture here). Strategic thinking is a recurrent, involuntary action. Our strategy is both a content statement and a style statement, both of which define and identify our team. Strategy is participative. Strategy has structure without being overly constrictive.
When we adjust the original diagram a bit, you start to see that the secret to strategy success — both IMPLEMENTATION and EVOLUTION — is fundamentally the staff.
The founding strategy may not start with the people, but its implementation and all subsequent strategy evolutions are hugely influenced by the people. They are the ones, after all, who design the business systems, develop their skills, train each other, shape shared values daily, and project the culture’s style to thousands of customers every day. They watch competitors on the street, and they listen to prospects who’ve declined proposals. In all but the smallest organizations, the CEO’s ability to drive the details of strategy execution in all these areas around the company is practically nil.
Le surf perso, câ€™est bon pour la boÃ®te
Les salariÃ©s passent en moyenne 66 minutes par jour sur Internet pour des raisons personnelles, au grand dam de leurs employeurs. Mais dâ€™aprÃ¨s un chercheur australien, cela ne ferait que renforcer leur productivitÃ©.
Largest ever organizational network analysis shows how social networks drive performance
1. Structural diversity and centrality of social networks are positively correlated with performance for both individual consultant and project teams.
2. Strong ties to powerful individuals, such as access to executives, is positively correlated with work performance, however having many weak ties to management is negatively correlated with work performance.
3. A team with strong ties to the management can be beneficial for work performance, having many managers working on the same project exhibits an inverted U-shape relationship with performance.
4. Participating in projects with the appropriate social capital can boost consultantsâ€˜ work performance in addition to their own social capital.
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.