The Success of Strategy: It Isn't What You Think

The key to success continues to be a subject of wonderment to me. I study and observe over and over again the number of times great minds move in a direction with great conviction only to discover that they got lucky. It's as if moving with conviction makes you much more likely to get lucky . . . if you are smart enough to adjust.

I always enjoy talking with successful people about how they got where they are. And the most frequent response is that 'it was an accident' or 'there really was not any overarching plan' or 'the phone rang and I picked it up'. The serendipities of success seem to be the rule, however the fact remains that these people were looking for success and determined to find it. It's just that the path moved a bit.


Two examples:

Recently reading William Manchester's The World Lit Only By Fire, Manchester discusses how the great Spanish and English explorers found a new world while attempting to find a sea route to the east. Their ambition was to replace the land-based commercial routes (which produced a dozen different hands touching, charging and moving the goods) for a sea route with lower pricing and more predictable business relationships. In the end, the big win was finding a entirely new source of business, land and wealth. Ironically the Portuguese were more successful in attaining the sea route to the east (note: in fact they discover Brazil when one of their ships gets lost in an extreme storm rounding the Cape of Good Hope; sounds a bit far fetched, but that's the story), but in the long run lost the opportunity to redefine their and our world.

The second, more recent, example involves the founders of Microsoft and its genesis. One story has it that Bill Gates et al saw their future in the developing of software for computers. Certainly this viewpoint and its wisdom is unquestionable. However the critical moment, say some business historians, came when IBM needed an operating system for their new line of computers and the Microsoft guys bought one they had used in the past. They licensed it to IBM, thereby funding Microsoft's dreams. Gates was going after one thing; it drove him to seek something else which in the end enabled him to do exactly what he wanted. But let's be clear, the Microsoft kingdom was built on the success of the licensing of an operating system, not the fun, neat software they were building. There were and have been plenty of developers of fun, neat software who never made it out of their garage. The operating system license was the key to the success.

So what's the arithmetic here? Well, it seems that moving with conviction and even daring, gives one a chance to be successful; however having the ability to adjust as opportunities evolve along the way becomes even more a predictor.

Strategy: The Cost of Great Decisions

Leadership and organizations have to understand the cost of getting to a decision and the organization's ability to execute those decisions.

On the one hand sit decisions that determine the strategic direction. These are inherently costly and time consuming. As they should be.

However once the strategic decisions are determined, every other decision should be about getting execution done which follows the strategy. And the cost associated with making those and the time those decisions take up should be minimized. In fact the determinating factor should be can those decisions be executed appropriately and how fast?

Once a strategy is determined: a decision that is 70% right/accurate/special that gets executed beats a 100% right decision that doesn't . . . every time.

Key Measurement of Strategy is Ability to Say No

Everyone claims they have a strategy.

One of the best ways for testing any person's or company's strategy is the organization's ability to say 'no' to opportunities.

Strategy should inherently focus an organization's resources and investments. And by definition, a strategy then limits what can be invested in.

So next time you are considering a strategy, ask yourself and your partners, what does this eliminate? If if doesn't eliminate much, then its pretty useless.

The arithmetic here is where there aren't easy and enforceable "no's", there won't be great "yes's" and will limit returns for the strategy.

What is real innovation?

Sometimes innovation seems kind of a beauty thing . . .in the eye of the beholder.

But more and more, I appreciate the innovation which helps us do and accomplish what we've set out to accomplish.

I hear of tactics and technology which redefine what individuals and organizations can do. But sadly most times, no one asks why we should ?

What makes an idea or innovation worth pursuing?

For organizations without clearly defined business strategy, its almost impossible to wrestle the myriad of wonderful innovations that come its way. Politics (loudest voice) and copying competitors can become the decision making norm.

Once again this is why doing the hard work of making a clear decision on what a firm's strategy (does this word even communicate anything anymore?), business model, culture, mission, goal is so critical.

We can accomplish great things, but not if we are spending the bulk of our time trying to accomplish objectives not consistent with the above or doing lesser things which eat inordinate resources and contribute below the highest rate of return that shareholders deserve.

Generally speaking, meaningful innovation returns inordinate returns to the shareholders and do so without violating the strengths and business model of the organization.

Avoiding the Flavor of the Month Club in Marketing Technology

I had the thrill of watching the consulting arm of Ernst & Young at the end of the 90's. They printed money working with the leading companies in the world around primarily putting in technology solutions to operational or system challenges.

However E&Y was always clear about what determined whether their technology solution would return value to the client: the technology had to be tied into an established business process. In fact a part of some assignments would include working with the client to develop or evolve a relavent business process which would require the technology solution in order to acheive the value goal.

Within law firms, this rule is rarely considered or understood. Its why CRM is a pipe dream in most environments and CRM software implementation is a vain exercise.

The question always has to be asked first? What established business proces is this supporting? For instance, if a firm isn't currently comfortable sharing its information with one another and there aren't truly functional cross-practice Industry Groups and/or Client Teams, what is the point of a CRM tool? Well, for many firms so far the point is to have a powerful mail list program.

The 'build it and they will come' orientation to organization evolution mostly fails. It only works when people are looking for a way or place to do something that they don't currently possess or their current way is broken. Better mousetraps are always more expensive and often miss the mark of the user's or purchaser's needs.

So as we are thinking about impacting our organization by investing the shareholder's monies in new marketing technology, we base our investments on how the organization is currently moving into the marketplace.

Otherwise the arithmetic on initiatives not conncected to current business process is that you have just bought into the flavor of the month club. These are usually good ideas that have no place to connect or grow within the organization. And they will not generate the value you desire.

6 Criteria for a Marketing Technology Approach That Works

Many of us are fortunate to work for organizations which expect us to help build a better team, business model, business development process, etc which returns more profit to the shareholders.

However as our industry evolves, it still has a tendency to being reactive, faddish and unstrategic. So when it comes to making marketing technology decisions, we can get caught up in a dysfunctional process that eats up resources.

So with finite (in some cases shrinking) resources and growing expectations, how do we make marketing technology decisions?

Here's the criteria I'm using these days which helps me focus on what will deliver value in a lean and focused environment:

1. How will the marketing technology benefit our client? (Now wait Allen, isn't this about us. No, it is always about the client.) If we are an organization focused on serving clients and providing value for them and marketing / bus dev's chief function is to facilitate that relationship, then the technology has to be seen in this light.
Will the technology help us understand the client better? Will it help us focus better on their most important needs? Will it help us have a better relationship with them? And do the clients care about any of this?

2. How will the technology make our firm more profitable? Not more active or work more hours; how will it return more money to the shareholders?

3. Does the technology fill a hole, demand or fit the business process involved with executing our strategy? Not will it benefit everyone in the firm, but will it increase the value and productivity of our go-to-market strategy?

4. Will the technology integrate with the other firm technology? Will it work in concert with the firm financial system, the CRM system and all content management technology? No one needs a stand alone resource.

5. Does it make the marketing function more efficient? Can we do better work and do it more quickly? (In an environment where resources are shrinking, I would add that it be personnel neutral? Sometimes we don't have the extra personnel slots to manage new technology.)

6. Is is scalable? A holdover from my days at E&Y, we always want to make sure our technology fits in with most any reasonable growth scenario.

Oh yeah, and I guess you need to check if you can afford it. I don't list this only because you'll have plenty of help in this area.

Bottom-line is that we have to accept the arithmetic that marketing technology can't be about flavor of the month fads or what others are doing. Mid-tech and even low-tech solutions have their place (note: Southwest Airlines built the most succssful domestic airlines based on customer's simple needs and simple solutions). Figure out your criteria and stick to it.

Win or Lose on Your Own Terms

Please note that I previously submitted this as a guest blog at Eric Fletcher's Marketing Brain Fodder blog (http://marketingbrainfodder.blogspot.com/). Eric has taught me the ropes in blogging and in social media, although is not responsible for my lame efforts. See what you think:

As servants of an organization and the leadership of that organization, we often find ourselves within a reactive mode of management and execution. Short periods of that are understandable, but overtime the value we provide is eroded and our personal energy often diminishes dramatically.

So each of us must take a careful look at our own organization and make some decisions and accept some arithemetic. What are its strengths/weaknesses, our own personal capabilities, our role, the organization's expectations and our relationships within the organization? From that information and in order to be professionally authentic, you have to make two decisions:

1. You have to choose what (strategy, targets, relationships, etc) is most important and focus your best self there.

2. With apologies to Gene Krantz, failure is an option in business and usually not a career ender. (In fact, most of us have needed failure to learn great lessons and go on to better things.) There's always a chance things will explode and you will lose. You have to choose on what basis you can be fine with losing. This decision will allow you to focus your energies more efficiently and not act/react like a spineless functionary.

Let me give you some of mine:

1. What is most important:

Growing my firm's Industry Group and Client Team revenue (note: this is separate from our Practice Groups and is consistent with our firm strategy.)
Supporting my team: individually and collectively. I'm responsible for helping them grow professionally and being a success.
Provide ideas, solutions and execution which further our firm's leadership's plan.
We don't do any project, RFP, idea, event, etc without preapproved funding and an attorney champion on each. Even if we think it’s the right thing to do. (My work must be subject to the interest, will and approval of my shareholders. If that's not enough for me, I cease being a servant of the organization.)
2. On what basis am I comfortable losing:

I can't please everyone. So I respond the best I can to the above priorities knowing it won't satisfy some people.
They decide they don't like me or I'm not a good fit. If true, this would be for the best.
I didn't play the politics correctly. I play the politics based on the priorities above. If that doesn't work, we let the chips fall.
Nothing sacred or holy about this list; just a place to stand and operate from. Make yours make sense for who you are and where your organization is.