(The fifth in a series of posts on "Is your strategy a duck?". Starting post is here.)
Benedikt's fourth component of realism in architecture is that of "emptiness". The quality of a building that allows the user to make it their own: to "complete" it. To give it some of their own meaning.
A strategy should also allow this. Employees should be able to be involved in the "emergence" of the strategy. Liedtka points out that one of the critical roles of senior executives is to set the "boundaries" of the conversations that will allow employees to put meaning into the strategy that's relevant to them and their work.
Showing posts with label Knowing-Doing Gap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Knowing-Doing Gap. Show all posts
Friday, November 9, 2007
Materiality
(The fourth in a series of posts on "Is your strategy a duck?". Starting post is here.)
Benedikt's third component of realism in architecture is that of "materiality". That is, for a building to be real "it ought to be made of stuff". A building needs to be made of materials that "look like what they are".
For a strategy to be material, Liedtka argues, it needs to clearly link to the reality of the system on the ground. It needs to take into account the details of what will be involved in implementing it. And it needs to do that credibly.
Benedikt's third component of realism in architecture is that of "materiality". That is, for a building to be real "it ought to be made of stuff". A building needs to be made of materials that "look like what they are".
For a strategy to be material, Liedtka argues, it needs to clearly link to the reality of the system on the ground. It needs to take into account the details of what will be involved in implementing it. And it needs to do that credibly.
Significance
(The third in a series of posts on "Is your strategy a duck?". Starting post is here.)
Benedikt's second component of realism in architecture is that of "significance". And what's important here is significance of the building to an individual - not the building being "symbolic of something".
Here Liedtka unpacks the idea that a strategy needs to engage at "the level of individual action". It needs to engage everyone in the organisation - including those on the shop floor.
According to Liedtka, strategies become significant when they help employees answer two questions:
Benedikt's second component of realism in architecture is that of "significance". And what's important here is significance of the building to an individual - not the building being "symbolic of something".
Here Liedtka unpacks the idea that a strategy needs to engage at "the level of individual action". It needs to engage everyone in the organisation - including those on the shop floor.
According to Liedtka, strategies become significant when they help employees answer two questions:
- "What does this mean to me in my role in the organisation?"
- "Why should I care?"
Presence
(The second in a series of posts on "Is your strategy a duck?". Starting post is here.)
Benedikt's first component of realism in architecture is that of "presence". There is something about the building that commands attention.
How does a strategy command attention? Liedtka makes clear that to grab attention a strategy must be interesting. How so? To be interesting a strategy must:
Benedikt's first component of realism in architecture is that of "presence". There is something about the building that commands attention.
How does a strategy command attention? Liedtka makes clear that to grab attention a strategy must be interesting. How so? To be interesting a strategy must:
- Combine the familiar and the novel. Too familiar and we will ignore it as nothing new. Too novel and it will seem too way out to be credible.
- Be unified and simple. Avoiding needless complexity and jargon: and easily suggesting action.
- Be delivered by someone "we know and take seriously". Usually our line manager - which of course requires that our line manager is also engaged with this strategy. (This reminds me of Aristotle's ethos of the speaker - more on this another time).
"Is your strategy a duck?"
Jeanne Liedtka asks this question in a recent article in the Journal of Business Strategy (Vol 27, No. 5, 2006). Her presenting problem is the "Knowing-Doing Gap" - why is it that so many organisations fail to turn their strategies into outcomes? Liedtka's hypothesis: too many corporate strategies are "ducks".
Liedtka takes this idea of a "duck" from the architecture book "Learning from Las Vegas" (Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour, 1977, MIT Press). Here Venturi et al define a "duck" as a "building-becoming-sculpture". A building that has sacrificed so much for symbolism that it fails to be useful as a building. (You can read a good discussion of Venturi et al's book, as well as a picture of the original offending duck, at John Lumea's blog, here).
So, the question to ask, and Liedtka asks it well, is - can strategies be ducks too? The answer is clearly yes. As Liedtka shows, there are "strategies that function as symbols, not roadmaps." Strategies that are "high level abstractions" that leave most people in the organisation "clueless" as to what they mean.
The solution is to make strategies "real". And it's here that Liedtka returns to architecture for inspiration. Michael Benedikt's book "For an Architecture of Reality" (Lumen Books, NY, 1987) sets forth four components of a building "that contribute ... to a sense of realism":
Liedtka goes on to apply these ideas to strategy - in an attempt to answer the question: what can make a strategy real?
Liedtka takes this idea of a "duck" from the architecture book "Learning from Las Vegas" (Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour, 1977, MIT Press). Here Venturi et al define a "duck" as a "building-becoming-sculpture". A building that has sacrificed so much for symbolism that it fails to be useful as a building. (You can read a good discussion of Venturi et al's book, as well as a picture of the original offending duck, at John Lumea's blog, here).
So, the question to ask, and Liedtka asks it well, is - can strategies be ducks too? The answer is clearly yes. As Liedtka shows, there are "strategies that function as symbols, not roadmaps." Strategies that are "high level abstractions" that leave most people in the organisation "clueless" as to what they mean.
The solution is to make strategies "real". And it's here that Liedtka returns to architecture for inspiration. Michael Benedikt's book "For an Architecture of Reality" (Lumen Books, NY, 1987) sets forth four components of a building "that contribute ... to a sense of realism":
Liedtka goes on to apply these ideas to strategy - in an attempt to answer the question: what can make a strategy real?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
