While a lack of adequate resources was rated the top barrier to strategy execution in 2006, external factors were seen as rising in significance in 10 years, according to the Canadian Management Centre and the Human Resource Institute’s (HRI) global study The Keys to Strategy Execution. More than 1,500 business professionals participated in the survey that provided the backbone of the study. Overall, respondents indicated that in 10 years such factors as unfavorable economic conditions, competitive pressures and government regulations would become more significant barriers to strategy execution than the lack of resources. Following are the top 10 factors seen as barriers to strategy execution in 2006 on a scale where 1 = very little and 5 = very much.

Barrier
Lack of adequate resources 3.18
Government regulations 3.09
Lack of follow-through 3.08
Competitive pressures 3.06
Inadequate communication/feedback 3.06
Lack of performance-management links to outcomes 3.03
Culture not ready for change 3.02
Unfavorable economic conditions 3.01
Unclear goals/expectations 2.99
Conflicting accountabilities 2.98

(The Keys to Strategy Execution [Canadian Management Centre and Human Resource Institute], 2006, pp. 13, 49, 71)

To download the entire white paper The Keys to Strategy Execution continue here

In my last entry, I discussed results of research on consumer habits in packaged goods product categories and promised to go into greater detail in subsequent blog postings. Our research in both Canada and USA showed that consumers fell into 2 behaviour categories and depending on the product category the relative size of these behaviour types could vary significantly.

We labeled one category HUNTING and the other we labeled HABIT. Let me discuss a bit about the HABIT category today.

These people are labeled HABIT because they have predictable shopping patterns. There are three types of HABIT shoppers. One type typically will purchase the same brand regardless of whether it is on sale or not. You could say they are loyal to that brand. When the brand is on sale, the brand owner gets a negative return for his efforts since these folks would have bought it at a higher price if you had let them and, worse yet, might now stock up because of the bonanza.

The second habitual shopper goes to the same store always or most of the time. You will have heard the old saying “Location, location, location are the top 3 requirements of successful retailing” Well, this type of shopper proves the rule. But they might best be influenced by marketing techniques like in store merchandising and shelf placement rather than discounting which is likely a much more expensive way to reach them because all the other 5 types of consumers shop at that store too and they all get the discount you offer in that store. Worse yet, this type of habitual shopper cruises the aisles of their store looking for a deal on price and will happily move from one brand to another because her store has it on deal. We label them “In-store economizers”

The last habitual type of shopper is indifferent to brands and can easily be swayed by a variety of things. They will have moderate levels of brand loyalty spread across a short list or stable of acceptable brands. These people, in this particular category, are just not involved emotionally in your product category and think of it as a commodity. They are better influenced by giving them reasons to think differently about the category than by discounting.

Bear in mind that any individual shopper can be intensely loyal to their brand of coffee, but become an in-store economizer in the next aisle where frozen concentrated orange juice is displayed and completely indifferent farther down the same aisle for canned spaghetti.

We will turn to the HUNTERS next time.

HR can play an important role in promoting the execution of strategy because it is involved in many of the programs that influence employee behavior – development, rewards, performance management and succession planning, according to Deloitte consultants. One Deloitte survey of 350 CEOs confirmed that having a strategy was only part of the challenge; the more difficult part was executing it, which often requires a change in the company’s culture. But rather than trying to tackle large-scale culture change, Deloitte advises just a few of the most important company activities and then zeroing in on changing the behavior of those individuals who influence the accomplishment of those activities. This “bottom-up” culture change can be more effective. To start changing key behaviour, HR must first create awareness by observing behaviour and sharing those observations so that people can see how their actions may not align with the strategy. To reinforce changes, HR must provide opportunities to develop the skills and knowledge that might be lacking, identify individuals who can be held up as positive examples, and ensure that reward programs, processes and leadership support the behaviour changes. (Human Resources [London – Unwin], April 2007) (as reported by i4cp)

Although the entire continent contributes just 4% to worldwide M&A activity, analysts say that deals are picking up all across Africa. According to former U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe Tom McDonald, West Africa is seeing huge investments in the oil and gas industry from giants such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP. McDonald also says that many sub-Saharan African countries are adjusting regulations to attract investors. Alexander Msimang with law firm Vinson & Elkins says the same trend is occurring in East Africa, with activity growing in Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. It’s not just oil and gas, though; there has also been increasing activity among the finance and telecommunications industries. (Mergers and Acquisitions [Harrison], May 2007) (as reported by i4cp)

What can CEOs do to solidify their relationship with the board? Interviews with 1,200 directors who fired CEOs helped shed insight into this matter. Mark Murphy, CEO of Leadership IQ, found that the financial bottom line is often less an issue than loss of confidence. His first recommendation is to avoid whitewashing problems. Murphy found that CEOs and board members often spent the majority of their time sharing positive news, but troublesome issues don’t just go away. If the board discovers bad news first, their confidence in the CEO will diminish significantly. Second, Murphy advises CEOs to understand and respond to each director’s preferred way of receiving information. Some like data; others are more concerned with people issues; some need to hear details; others prefer long-range visions. If a CEO’s response doesn’t match the director’s request, the director may feel “invalidated” and, therefore, suspicious of the CEO. Murphy’s third recommendation is for CEOs to ensure that conversations with board members are meaningful, as mundane status updates can represent “a tremendous lost opportunity.” CEOs should mentally evaluate each meeting, asking themselves if it was worthwhile and, if not, what could have been done to make it more so. (Link&Learn eNewsletter [Murphy], July 2007) (as reported by i4cp)

1. A brand is whatever consumers think about your company or product when they hear its name.
2. Keep your brand image in mind continually, since a brand stays big only as long as consumers continue to like it.
3. A good brand name can turn even an ordinary commodity into a premium product.
4. Consumers buy brands to help them simplify their lives and organize their experiences.
5. Brands are important today because consumers face so many choices.
6. Know what your brand message should be.
7. If your brand is already established, ask questions to learn where it should go.
8. To make your advertising memorable, tell your creatives what your brand stands for and support their freedom to use their creativity to express that message.
9. Should a scandal occur, quickly use damage control to protect your brand.
10. Choose sponsorships carefully, selecting events consistent with your brand image.

(reproduced with permission from author David F. D’Alessandro)

Tactic #2: Silence

When negotiating, silence can be a negotiator’s strongest tool. If you don’t like what your counterpart has said, or if you’ve made an offer and you’re waiting for a response, just sit back and wait. Most people feel uncomfortable when conversation ceases and they start talking to fill the void. Almost without fail, your counterpart will start whittling away his or her position when you use this tactic. What do you do if your opponent uses this tactic with you? Simply restate your offer. Don’t make suggestions; just repeat your terms. This maneuver forces the other person to respond, and more often than not, they respond with a concession.

Tactic #3: The Good Guy/Bad Guy Routine

In the movies, it’s called “good cop/bad cop.” One detective seems unreasonable and inflexible, while the other acts like he or she is on the suspect’s side. This tactic is designed to get you to make concessions without the other side making any in return. If you find yourself in a good guy/bad guy situation, the best response is to ignore it. Recognize this game for what it is, but don’t play along and don’t allow the good guy to influence your decision. Let your counterparts play their game, while you stay focused on your own interests.

Tactic #4: Limited Authority

This is a variation on the good guy/bad guy routine, but instead of two people working you over, the person you’re dealing with tells you that he or she must approve any deals with an unseen higher authority. Sometimes this higher authority exists, but often your counterpart will create this figure to gain an edge in the negotiation process. If your counterpart tells you, “It’s out of my hands,” don’t automatically assume the person is being honest. You have two options: ask to deal directly with this so-called higher authority or test your counterpart’s limits. You may find that although the other person has used this tactic to force you into backing down, if you stand firm, you may get what you want.

“Talent management” leads the concerns of senior HR officers in terms of the top strategic issues in 2007, the highest-priority HR initiatives in 2007 and the top areas that consume HR executives’ time, according to the annual survey by ORC of its senior HR officer network. Respondents (89 total) represented 35 organizations, primarily U.S.-based, operating in more than one country.

• • For the top strategic issues in 2007, 61.7% chose talent management. In previous surveys, it was the succession planning and leadership development aspects of talent management that were cited most often. For 2007, it was the acquisition, development and retention of talent.
  • For the highest-priority HR initiatives in 2007, 37.1% (the largest proportion of respondents) chose talent management. Other initiatives cited were strategic HR management (22.5%) and benefit review/cost control (10.1%).
    
  • For the top areas consuming HR executives’ time, 33.3% of respondents chose talent management, followed by 23.1% who chose transforming and leading the HR function.
    (”Senior Human Resource Executives” [ORC Worldwide]. Obtained June 12, 2007) (as reported by i4cp)

Businesses should “rethink using hours [worked] as the measure of productivity,” says the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in its 2007 study “Behind the Pay Gap.” The organization examined Department of Education data on nearly 20,000 graduates over a decade and found a gender earnings gap beginning as early as a year after college graduation. In recommending actions employers and others could take to help alleviate the gender wage gap, the AAUW pointed out that “in most other countries, annual [work] hours are declining, while in the United States the trend is in the other direction.” Viewing the number of hours employees work as a gauge of productivity, the organization says, actually can cause workers to work inefficiently in order to pad their hours. Further, the AAUW noted that basing career advancement on hours worked placed women at a disadvantage because they typically assume more family responsibilities than men do. (”Behind the Pay Gap” [Dey and Hill], April 2007, pp. 2, 32, 38-39) (as reported by i4cp)

In 2007, global business leaders worked an average of 53 hours per week, according to a survey conducted by tax firm Grant Thornton. The poll of 7,200 private-sector businesses in 32 countries found that leaders of businesses in developing economies worked more than their peers elsewhere – as much as 57 hours per week on average. Grant Thornton reported that leaders in Europe worked the fewest hours at 50 per week. Leaders of firms in nations covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement averaged 54 hours, and East Asian managers, 53. (”Chinese Business Leaders” [WorldatWork], press release, June 5, 2007) (as reported by i4cp)