3 Times When You May Need To Change Your Strategy

We all do things that are crazy.

One of my things is telling people that they shouldn’t be changing their strategy.

I do it when business owners – or CEOs – say things like “It’s time for our annual strategy meeting”. The implication – for me at any rate – is that they change their strategy every year.

But that would be just plain wrong.

Changes to a well thought-out, well-crafted strategy shouldn’t be driven simply because it’s been in place 1, 3 or 5 years.

A strategy shouldn’t necessarily be changed even if it isn’t producing results. In this situation I always look at how well (or badly) the strategy is being executed before I look at the strategy itself.

So when should a company review its strategy? And what makes that review and any subsequent adaptation, revision or recreation necessary?

Here are three occasions.

1.    When the company has outgrown its strategy.

There’s research which suggests that companies can “plateau” when they achieve certain levels of revenue. Depending on the industry those levels are around $5 million, approx. $10 -12 million, somewhere between $18 – 30 million and so on.

Typical symptoms of “plateauing” are upward spikes in revenue which can’t be maintained, increasing lead times delivering the product or service, decreasing levels of customer satisfaction and higher employee turnover.

The plateauing occurs because the things – e.g. strategy, processes – the company has done up to that point in its life can’t support any more growth. It’s like expecting a teenager to fit into the clothes they wore when they were eight.

To rekindle growth the owner either has to change the strategy, the way it’s executed – or both.

2.    Significant internal change.

This occurs when, for example, a company develops a game changing new product or service or finds a new way of doing its existing business. This gives it an edge over its competitors by e.g. reducing costs or increasing efficiencies.

To reap maximum benefit from this new competitive advantage the owner will have to adapt or change the existing strategy.

3.    Significant external change.

In this case the owner or CEO has to react to e.g.:

  • A competitor who is taking advantage of a significant internal change.
  • The industry “maturing”. In other words the business has been around long enough for a number of competitors to have become large enough to e.g.:
    • Reduce their costs and pass this on as reductions in the selling price or,
    • Buy up smaller players who introduce game changing technology or process improvements. This is also known as industry consolidation.
  • Major changes in e.g. the economy, labour pool, legislation governing the industry, or all of the above.

Continuing with a “business as usual” approach under any of these situations is clearly not going to be effective.

To be fair, when business owners and CEOs say “It’s time for our annual strategy meeting” they usually mean that it’s time to start the annual business planning process. That is something that must be done every year.

And, since we have services which can make the annual business planning process more effective, perhaps I’m not as crazy as I look – I mean sound…….

If you enjoyed this you will also enjoy 2 Things That Cause Bad Strategy

Click here and automatically receive our latest blog posts

Share

Tags: business owners, business planning process, CEO, competitive advantage, competitors, economy, industry, Jim Stewart, plateau, processes, product, ProfitPATH, revenue, service, strategy

Comments

  1. Alan Kay says:

    Great post. The good news about changing strategy is that organizations now understand that things keep changing. Adapting to change has become a business – ask the change management folks at Prosci. Resistance to change is now seen as a behaviour among a gradually decreasing minority. That said, the situation may be changing, but does it dictate strategic change? Or, does it require adapting the strategy to the situation? Hence, changing strategy should be a conscious choice, not an outcome of events that have already happened.

    The role of the CEO becomes vital. They are in charge of being prescient about the future, i.e., anticipating change that may require a change in the strategy. Easy to say, hard to do.

  2. Jim Stewart says:

    Alan, you make an excellent point. Changing, rather than adapting, a strategy could be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Building flexibility into a strategy and then remembering where those points are, are keys to success these days. Jim

Add a Comment

*

Post History