CEO Tips | Strategic implementation is not in place. Who should be blamed for this?

The value of a strategy lies not in its formulation, but in its implementation. Most enterprises will focus a lot of resources and energy on strategic execution, but the results are often not ideal. What are the key indicators of an effective strategic goal that must be clarified? How to set up a regular evaluation progress and a clear accountability mechanism during the strategic execution process? How to do strategic communication well to double the effect of strategic execution?

With these questions in mind, the 36Kr "CEO Tips" live stream invited Zuo Qian, co-founder of Chief Organization Officer, and Fang Zhengjun, founder/CEO of Zhongzhi Scientific Instruments, to discuss who should be responsible for the inadequate strategic execution.

The main focus of this live stream is on the following issues:

1. Many companies do not lack strategies, but rather strategies that can be executed. A common phenomenon is that although the direction is clear and resources are invested, the results are not good. How to view this phenomenon?
2. Lack of communication, alignment, and understanding can greatly reduce the effectiveness of even the best strategy during execution, or even make it impossible to be implemented. How to communicate well during the strategic execution process?
3. When resources are limited and there are too many strategic goals, it may lead to insufficient support for key businesses, affecting strategic execution. When resources are in conflict, how should they be allocated?
4. During the strategic execution process, everyone is working on their own, and there are many barriers between departments and teams. How to break down the "walls" between departments to make the strategic execution more smooth?
5. Even if the goals are clear, resources are sufficient, and communication is smooth, if the employees' execution ability is not strong, the strategy will also be difficult to be effectively implemented. What kind of organizational culture is more likely to improve employees' execution ability and achieve the strategic landing?
6. What are the three most important points for the enterprise strategy to be implemented in place?

The following is the conversation between the two guests and 36Kr, and some of the content has been edited and sorted:

36Kr: Many companies do not lack strategies, but rather strategies that can be executed. A common phenomenon is that although the direction is clear and resources are invested, the results are not good. How do the two of you view this phenomenon?

Zuo Qian: In the past seven or eight years, we have provided professional services to enterprises of different sizes. These enterprises generally face a problem: Although the executive team has a relatively clear understanding of the strategic direction, they often encounter organizational problems during the execution process. If the organizational execution ability is insufficient, the strategic landing will be affected. When many companies review at the end of the year and find that the goals and strategies set at the beginning of the year have not been achieved, it will involve talent inventory, organizational structure adjustment, and organizational design optimization. In the process of serving client enterprises, I am both an observer and sometimes feel like a "victim". Because many times, people directly attribute the problem to strategic execution, while ignoring the possible problems in the strategy itself.

The goal has not been achieved, and the strategic execution has deviated. Always blaming the execution for the problem? Could it not be a problem with the goal and strategy formulation? Many times, the goal and strategy are determined by the top leader. How could a wise top leader be wrong?

Could it not be a problem with strategic communication and deployment? The goal and strategy are the consensus of the leaders, and they are communicating and deploying them. How could the highly paid and highly capable leaders be wrong?

Moreover, it is the leaders who analyze and judge the reasons behind "the goal and strategy have not been achieved". How could they easily admit that it is their own fault. Therefore, the poor execution ability of the middle and grassroots teams has become the common attribution for "the goal and strategy have not been achieved".

This blame, the middle and grassroots teams do not take, could it be that the executive team or even the top leader will take? Therefore, the adjustment of the structure and personnel of the middle and grassroots teams is inevitable, which poses another problem for the organizational work.

The top leader is "passionately confident", the senior management is "in unison with迎合", and the middle and grassroots are "the survivors are the winners". This "human farce" is repeatedly staged in some companies.

This obsession will make the enterprise always "close to the truth" in the realization of the goal and strategy, but just "cannot find the truth".

Fang Zhengjun: I very much agree with the significance of the strategy. It is like an internal driving force. For our entrepreneurial company, if it is used well, it can unite people's hearts. But we are engaged in hard technology entrepreneurship, we need to conduct independent research and development, and we must follow the laws of development. We cannot be in a hurry. We have set a big goal, something similar to a vision, such as the goal of "breaking the limit of human visual perception". Whether the company has 20, 200, or 2000 people, they can pursue it. Then, if the strategic execution is not in place, who is responsible? At our current stage of development, it is definitely the responsibility of the company's leader.

After the strategy is formulated, we also have a process of adjustment and optimization. For example, the vision of "breaking the limit of human visual perception" was only clearly put forward last year. Although the direction was similar before, it was not so specific. Then how did we adjust? I will often find opportunities to talk about the vision and strategy, and seek feedback from my executives who have been with me for several years. If they respond enthusiastically, it means that the strategy is easy to understand and deeply rooted in people's hearts; if they do not understand, then I have to adjust, otherwise the strategy will be difficult to execute.

36Kr: Lack of communication, alignment, and understanding can greatly reduce the effectiveness of even the best strategy during execution, or even make it impossible to be implemented. How to communicate well during the strategic execution process?

Zuo Qian: The practice of Mr. Fang's company that he mentioned, I believe, is not only applicable to small and medium-sized companies, but also can provide inspiration to many large companies. The first point that Mr. Fang emphasized is that they attach great importance to the vision. In the current context of rapidly changing external environment, the traditional "complete strategic" planning may no longer be applicable. Many large companies are seeking a second curve, undergoing transformation and iteration. At this time, it is necessary to abandon the pursuit of a perfect and complete strategic plan and instead accept a "simplified strategy" or a "vision-based strategy". The core of this strategy is to have an exciting vision and to determine some key tasks around this vision. The second point, Mr. Fang mentioned that they will use various occasions and opportunities to communicate the strategy to others, including not only the goals and strategies, but also the vision. This is also very worthy of reference. Some senior leaders may think that their time is precious and are unwilling to communicate too much. Many top leaders and executives overestimate their strategic communication ability and also overestimate the understanding ability of their subordinate teams towards the strategy. If the subordinate teams do not have a consensus understanding of the strategy, the strategy will only be the self-enthusiasm of the top leader and executives.

But in fact, when the strategic communication is in place, the execution effect is doubled. There are many specific practices that can be borrowed in this regard. There are four tricks to do a good job in strategic communication:

The first trick is not to be lazy and write down the strategy. What is only thought clearly is "gaseous", what is said clearly is "liquid", and only what is written down is "solid". Through writing and revision, the quality of thinking can be improved, and in medium and large-sized organizations, the communication efficiency of writing is higher.

The second trick is to carry out structured expression and presentation. For something relatively complex like a strategy, it cannot be simply said in a few words orally, but should be presented and expressed in a structured manner. In this regard, some tools can be borrowed, such as the strategic house, strategic map, OGSM, etc.

The third trick is to confirm the "key tasks" when communicating the strategy. How to ensure that the subordinate teams have a sufficient understanding of the strategy? It is far from enough to rely on eye contact, and signing and sealing are also of no avail. An effective way is to go one level deeper and confirm the "key tasks". Ensure that the next step of the subordinate team is to do the right thing, thereby ensuring that they have a sufficient understanding of the strategy.

The fourth trick is to communicate 21 times. This is what I learned when I was working at Longfor Group. Our CEO particularly emphasized that important things should be communicated 21 times. Jack Welch believes that the CEO is not only the Chief Executive Officer, but also the Chief Explaining Officer. He said that an employee gives 40 hours of his life to the company every week, which is also an investment. Therefore, the company's CEO should constantly explain to the employees what the company is going to do and why, just like constantly explaining to the investors. It is very normal to say the same thing hundreds of times. For you as an executive, you may feel that you have said it so much that you are sick of it, but for many others, it may be the first time they hear it.

In addition, "repeating important things 21 times" is not only the need of the strategic audience, but also the need of the strategic communicator. Because some people "also have a brain in their mouth", in the process of repeatedly saying one thing, they are also constantly thinking and iterating, thereby continuously improving the quality of the strategy.

In summary, these four tricks can help many companies solve the problem of strategic communication: write down the strategy, carry out structured expression, talk about key tasks when communicating, and communicate repeatedly. These methods are not high-tech. The key is whether they think strategic communication is important and whether they are willing to invest time. Executives should not expect to complete the strategic communication work of the entire company by speaking for several tens of minutes at the annual meeting. Strategic communication requires continuous investment and attention.

Fang Zhengjun: I strongly agree with Mr. Zuo's point of view. Because I used to play such a role. I will seize any opportunity to repeatedly emphasize our strategic vision. Our company has one or two core member meetings every month, where colleagues responsible for R & D and marketing conduct brainstorming. Privately, we joke that this is a "brainwashing meeting" because we emphasize transparent communication. When we get together, we will discuss specific issues and continuously strengthen our strategic vision. For example, when the technical director calls me to communicate technical issues, after five minutes of talking about the problem, I will also spend an additional five minutes telling him how important what he is doing is to our strategy and vision, and how much contribution it makes to scientific research users and even to the progress of human science and technology. Therefore, I may seem a bit wordy in front of my colleagues, because in daily communication, more than 30% of my time is spent repeatedly talking about our strategic vision.

36Kr: When resources are limited and there are too many strategic goals, it may lead to insufficient support for key businesses, affecting strategic execution. When resources are in conflict, how should they be allocated?

Zuo Qian: In Mr. Fang's communication on different occasions, he does not adopt a fixed communication method, but rather reflects and adjusts the goals, strategies, and resource investment according to the feedback and interaction of the team. Currently, many companies tend to use "strategy generation" rather than "strategy formulation". The strategy is not fixed after a few people's careful consideration, but is gradually formed through communication, execution, and adjustment. This generated strategy has a "foundation", which stems from the enthusiasm, sense of achievement, and sense of meaning of the employees.

Returning to the issue of insufficient resources, many companies need to make judgments based on the feedback of the team during the execution process and adjust the strategy accordingly. The strategy involves where to "fight" and where to "omit". When resources are limited, choices must be made. Not all areas must outperform others. It is also important to dare to use resources unevenly. Choosing to achieve no competitive disadvantage in certain areas is also part of the strategy. The executive team should not just stay in the office to view data reports, drink coffee, and chat, but should often stand next to the execution team to observe. Although they cannot "get their hands dirty", they should at least "get their feet dirty". Only in this way can they understand whether the resources are insufficient and whether the strategy exceeds the matching of capabilities. If the goal and the ability are not balanced, then this is not a good strategy, but an unrealistic expectation. The company scene described by Mr. Fang actually reflects what many medium and large-sized companies should learn.

Fang Zhengjun: In the strategic execution, I particularly care about the ability boundary, both individual and the company's. Sometimes it is not that everyone is not active, but that some colleagues do not understand the strategy well but are too active, which may lead to improper resource allocation. For example, we have always positioned ourselves to be experts in time-resolved imaging, benchmarking against international first-class standards to achieve domestic substitution. But the colleagues in the marketing department are good at scientific imaging and have been communicating with me about whether to add new products. Although the new product may bring tens of millions of income, it conflicts with our definition of time resolution. The company also does not have the ability to open a new product line, and we cannot dampen their enthusiasm.

In this case, I think the generative strategy mentioned by Mr. Zuo makes a lot of sense. Everyone's starting point is for the good of the company. Through many communications, we can always find the connection point between the seemingly off-strategy things and the company. Under limited resources, integrating what he is good at into the company's strategy has finally surprised me. The time-resolved field has not been separated, his knowledge accumulation has also been grafted onto the strategy, and it has also generated benefits without adding an additional burden of resources. This goes back to the topic of communication. We need to be patient and not simply reject anyone. Maybe it won't work in one year, but it will take two years. As everyone grows, the connection point will always be found.

36Kr: During the strategic execution process, everyone is working on their own, and there are many barriers between departments and teams. How to break down the "walls" between departments to make the strategic execution more smooth?

Zuo Qian: Most companies will encounter challenges in horizontal collaboration during the strategic execution process. It needs to be recognized that seamless cross-departmental docking is almost impossible to achieve, and a certain degree of friction is also reasonable. This indicates that there is tension between various departments, and the tension is also an internal motivating factor that can force each department to improve the quality of work within its scope of responsibility. However, in important collaborative work, improving efficiency is still the key.

Some companies conduct cross-departmental collaborative training at the middle and grassroots levels to teach collaboration skills, but in fact, the effect is limited. The core challenge lies in the global perspective/role sense of the executives, whether they can be harmonious while being different. If the executives cannot think from a global perspective but rather from the perspective of their respective departments, the executives are the biggest obstacle to cross-departmental collaboration. If the executives do not take the role of a member of the executive team as the first role, but rather the role of the department head as the first role, the executives will inevitably act on their own. Some executives shirk responsibility when the work is not completed, or seize credit when achievements are made, which will reduce the willingness of others to collaborate with them. And executives who are good at collaboration will not compete for credit and shirk responsibility, which is crucial.

In the specific cross-departmental collaboration, the setting of goals and tasks is also important. Many companies use tools such as OGSM, OKR, etc., but their effects are uneven. The executive meeting needs to convert some key collaborative issues into topics to expose conflicts and contradictions in advance.

Another small trick is team-building activities. The team-building expenses should not be limited to within the department, but should be used across departments, preferably with the upstream and downstream departments. The initiator should bear the cost, so as to establish interpersonal connections and facilitate cross-departmental and cross-professional understanding. In an informal and stress-free environment, one can more deeply feel the nature and characteristics of the work of other departments, which is very helpful for collaborative work.

Fang Zhengjun: Actually, it has always been a process of running-in. It is definitely an extravagant hope to achieve perfection, but we can work together towards a better direction. I think if there is a lack of collaboration between departments, the fundamental problem is that each department may have forgotten the company's strategy. The key to solving this problem is to unite everyone with the strategy, especially the department executives. When everyone has the same goal, even if the company does not have an assessment or additional incentives, they are also willing to make more efforts because the executives identify with the company's future and strategy. Several core members of our company have team-building activities every two months, and the relationship is like brothers who have gone through hardships together. In this way, it becomes easier to help each other, and they do not care too much about gains and losses. In addition, we encourage internal transparent communication. As long as there is dissatisfaction, it should be said immediately, with the aim of making the company better and solving problems as soon as possible. In this way, there will be fewer problems between departments. In terms of assessment, our company is still small in scale and does not have a too complicated assessment. I think assessment is a double-edged sword. If it is too detailed, it will limit cross-departmental collaboration. We encourage innovation and give high rewards for innovative achievements, and innovation often comes from cross-departmental cooperation.