Many business owners are in the middle of their business planning or budgeting process for 2012.
So, for those pressed for time, I’ll summarize a timely article by Richard Rumelt, adapted from his new book “Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters”, and published in the McKinsey Quarterly.
Here are Rumelt’s 4 hallmarks of bad strategy.
1. Failure To Face The Problem
A strategy, according to Rumelt, is a response to a challenge. But if the challenge isn’t defined, it’s impossible to assess the quality of the strategy. And if you can’t do that you can’t reject it as bad or improve on it.
For example in 1979 International Harvester produced a Strategic Plan which was thorough and rich in detail. The overall direction was to increase share in each of their served markets while reducing costs.
Unfortunately the Plan didn’t address Harvester’s main problem – its inefficient work organization. This stemmed from grossly inefficient production facilities and the worst labour relations in US industry.
This problem could not be fixed by driving people to increase market share or by investing in new equipment. Harvester survived for a couple of years but began to collapse after a disastrous 6 month strike. The rest, as they say, is history.
2. Mistaking Goals For Strategy
Rumelt describes a CEO who had a plan to grow revenues 20% a year with profit margins of 20% or more.When asked how this aggressive plan would be achieved, the CEO replied “With the drive to succeed – by picking stretch goals and pushing until we get there”.
The CEO then quoted Jack Welch who said “We have found that by reaching for what appears to be the impossible, we often actually do the impossible.” But he had forgotten that Welch also said “If you don’t have a competitive advantage, don’t compete.”
Rumelt argues that a company needs a unique internal strength or an opportunity created by a change in the industry for this type of growth. Stretch goals and motivation alone are not enough.
He illustrates the inadequacy of this “push until we get there” type of thinking, by referring to the great pushes in the 1914-18 war. The troops who were slaughtered didn’t suffer from a lack of motivation – they suffered from a lack of competent, strategic leadership.
3. Bad Strategic Objectives
This can take the form of a long list of things to do – often labeled strategies or objectives. These lists result from planning sessions in which the focus is on doing a wide variety of things, not a few, key things.
Rumelt refers to the planning committee for a small city whose strategic plan contained 47 strategies and 178 action items. Action item number 122 was “create a strategic plan.”
Another type of weak strategic objective is one that is “blue sky”. It’s typically a restatement of the desired state of affairs or the challenge- and skips over the fact that no one knows how to get there.
Good strategy works by focusing energy and resources on a very few, pivotal objectives and builds a bridge between the critical challenge and action. Thus, the objectives a good strategy sets stand a good chance of being accomplished.
The final hallmark of bad strategy is a restatement of the obvious, combined with a generous sprinkling of buzzwords. Rumelt’s example is a retail bank which said “Our fundamental strategy is one of customer-centric intermediation.”
An intermediate is a company that accepts deposits and then lends the money – in other words, a bank. The buzz phrase “customer centric” could mean that they compete by offering better terms and service. But their policies didn’t reveal any distinction between it and other banks.
So “customer-centric intermediation” is pure fluff. Eliminate it and the bank’s fundamental strategy is being a bank.
5. My final words
In my next post I’ll finish summarizing the article and talk about why there is so much bad strategy.