New York — March 8
Few executives (3 percent) say their companies are very successful at executing corporate strategies, while the majority (62 percent) say their organizations are only moderately successful — or worse — at strategy execution, according to a new global survey commissioned by American Management Association (AMA) and conducted by the Human Resource Institute (HRI).
The AMA/HRI survey, “The Keys to Strategy Execution,” included responses from 1,526 managers and HR experts from around the world.
The survey was conducted in conjunction with AMA’s affiliates and global partners, including Canadian Management Centre in Toronto, Management Centre Europe in Brussels, AMA Latin America in Mexico City and AMA Asia in Tokyo.
“Our survey found that executives and managers are trained to plan strategies, but too many fall short in execution due to a lack of skills and the existence of a process to facilitate implementation of plans,” said Edward T. Reilly, AMA president and CEO. “The findings show that strategy execution will improve as executives learn how to focus and align daily activities to strategic goals.
“To ensure this, top leaders must be committed to clear, direct, and constant communication.”
The companies that reported relatively high success at executing strategies, however, seem to reap real dividends. That is, organizations that were good at executing strategies also were more likely to cite success in the marketplace, as measured by self-reported revenue growth, market share, profitability and customer satisfaction.
The AMA/HRI survey gauged respondents’ ability to implement strategies in two ways: by asking them to rate their execution success and by asking them about the extent to which they use and value 57 different strategy-implementation practices.
The research team found that, above all else, clarity is crucial to the execution of strategy.
The pivotal role of clarity was demonstrated by the fact that “creating a clear strategy” was ranked as the most important practice.
What’s more, out of 57 different approaches to strategy execution, “defining clear goals to support strategy” was ranked second in importance, “ensuring clear accountability” was fourth and “having a clear focus on implementing/executing strategy” was sixth.
The problem is that organizations are not achieving clarity to the degree they should.
Although clear strategies and clear goals were of top importance, they were only ranked 11th and 10th in terms of the extent to which companies use those approaches.
There was a particularly large difference between the extent to which companies value a clear strategy and the extent to which they actually deliver a clear strategy.
Companies that perform better in the marketplace are much more likely than lower performers to provide clarity. In fact, out of the top six major areas of difference between higher and lower performers, three of them (clear strategy, clear goals, and clear focus) deal with clarity.
Another major finding of the survey is that alignment practices are widely used and highly valued among responding organizations.
Alignment practices account for four out of the top 10 most commonly used strategy execution methods. They are also among the top 10 most highly valued practices.
Among the most highly ranked practices are “aligning strategy with the corporate vision/mission statement,” “aligning organizational goals with strategy,” “aligning business units’ goals with organizational goals” and “aligning business units with strategy.”
Higher-performing organizations are considerably more likely than other organizations to use certain alignment strategies. Specifically, higher performers are more likely to align organizational goals with strategy and to align incentives, rewards and recognition with strategy.
Speed and adaptability are also differentiators between higher- and lower-market performers.
To a much greater extent than lower performers, higher performers demonstrate “the ability to quickly and effectively execute when new strategic opportunities arise.” Another differentiator is “having an adaptive organizational infrastructure.”
These findings suggest adaptive organizational infrastructures — in combination with clarity and alignment — help organizations react more quickly to new strategic opportunities.
Leadership practices also influence strategy execution, but there seems to be an overall leadership development deficit in this area.
Organizations do not build “execution-focused leadership capabilities” or use “succession planning to develop leaders who are good at strategy execution” to a sufficient degree, given the importance that respondents attach to these practices.
Higher-performing organizations, however, use these practices to a higher degree than their lower-performing counterparts.
The survey also discovered organizations that have the same CEO for more than five years say they’re better at strategy execution than organizations with less seasoned leaders.
An analysis of the survey’s Strategy Execution Index shows the same trend.
Therefore, it appears that stable leadership is linked to strategy execution, an important finding at a time when CEO “churn” rates are at record highs.
An alternative interpretation of the data is that leaders who are good at execution are more likely to retain the top job over long periods of time.
The greatest barrier to strategy execution, the survey found, is a lack of adequate resources. Not only does the proper allocation of resources increase a strategy’s chances of success, it’s a clear sign from leadership that the strategy is viewed as a high corporate priority.
Every organization has different execution challenges, but the AMA/HRI survey suggests mastering certain basics such as clarity, alignment, leadership, adaptability and resources goes a long way toward enabling companies to turn their best strategic plans into organizational successes.
- 5 Forces Shaping the Future of HR
- Why ‘Leaders Eat Last’
- Update on the SEC and ISO initiatives for human capital reporting
- We can’t ‘flow of work’ our way into the future
- 3 steps to improving conversational capacity
- From bystander to upstander
- From hardship to hardiness: 5 strategies for turning crisis into a catalyst for leadership development