how do you weigh strategy

8/3/2019 How Do You Weigh Strategy

1/39


2/39

Perhaps the most interesting responses were to the questions themselves. GopalPadinjaruveetil commented that "there are no obvious answers to these questions and theanswers lie somewhere else [for example] good leadership." Yan Song said, "To askwhich of these components is more important is equivalent to asking which part of ourbodyhead, torso or heartis more dispensable." Gerald Nanninga suggested that "it may

be as relevant to ask how much is the level of my execution diminishing my level ofprofits."

Eddie Jiang provided an alternative way of thinking about the relationship of these threefactors by suggesting that they are multiplicative rather than additive. "Organization success= Culture x Strategy x Execution." This argues for a different way of formulating thequestions.

Several commented on the importance of the thought behind the questions, leading to yetanother question: Are their important differences between these responses and the relativeemphasis placed on strategy, execution, and culture in today's business school curricula? If

so, why? And can they best be addressed? What do you think?

Original Article

During the course of research for a book I'm writing, I have had the opportunity to talk witha number of managers about the degree to which strategy, execution, and culture contribute tothe success of their organizations. After several such conversations, I at first reluctantlybecause I feared that respondents would regard the questions as too complex or evenirrelevantbegan asking each of them three questions intended to attach numbers to anotherwise abstract conversation. The questions are:

1. If your organization's performance (operating income) = 100%, roughly whatpercentage is accounted for by the quality of the organization's strategy (clients wetarget; products, services and results we offer; the way we organize and compensatepeople, etc.) vs. the quality of the organization's execution of its strategy (the qualityof our people, work, processes, decisions, etc.)?

2. If your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly what proportion of its effectiveness isdependent upon and accounted for by the organization's culture (widely-sharedvalues, beliefs, behaviours, rites and rituals, etc.)?

3. If the execution of your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly what proportion ofits effectiveness is dependent upon and accounted for by the organization's culture?

To my surprise, my respondents neither found the questions too complex nor irrelevant. Oneeven made it the subject of a management meeting at which he had forty of the most seniormembers of his organization tackle the questions.

Now I ask you, as a change of pace from our previous columns, to address the questionsbased on your experience. Can you respond, or are the complexities of each questionpossibly requiring more complete or different definitions of strategy, execution, andculturetoo great? Are the three dimensions of the questions the right ones? Do they coverall or nearly all aspects of competitive success? How would people in various regions of theworldor in for-profit vs. not-for-profit endeavoursapproach this set of questions

differently? How would you respond to the questions? Why did you respond that way? Whatdo you think?


3/39

Reader Comments:

1. What if you had a plan to be president of the USA? You could have a perfect plan. Abrilliant one! One, that if put on practice, it would give you a 100% chance of beingthe next president of the USA.

There is a catch. It's extremely hard to accomplish and you can't do it alone. Actually,you need the best people available, you all have to be believe you can do it and aboveall, you have to learn how to work together.

Other than that, the plan is perfect.

It's all about people. It's all about making ideas become reality.

Reality is made of people, doing small things, every day. It's not about abstract ideasthat in the realm of imagination look good.

Is strategy good? Of course it is. It gives us a goal, direction, things to care about,helps us to work together.

But it's not everything. And actually, it's not even a must.

You can win without a strategy. You could be lucky. You could have other peoplewho care about you and help you in your objectives. Your competitors could make thewrong choices.

There are an infinitude of variables that just makes every good strategy a good guess.

If I could put it in numbers I would say that 30% is strategy and 100% is people!

That's right. Strategy gives you an edge, but it's nothing without people.

Paulo FassinaPlannerSamurai

2. Based on over 30 years of consulting and executive experience: 15% strategy 50%execution 35% culture An outstanding strategy weakly executed will always betrumped by a weak strategy with outstanding execution. Culture is a key part ofexecution. If the strategy or execution conflict with the culture, bet on the culture.

Bob LeggePresidentLegge & Company, LLC

3. Firm culture is the critical mass that is needed to drive the execution of managementideas that, are their very heart, are ideas that are first and foremost derived from thegeneration of strategic planning.


4/39

Firms and enterprises need core culture foundational anchorages to uphold the pillarsof strong performance, robust risk management, loyal corporate citizenship, anddedicated and thoughtful client and employee satisfaction.

Only then, once the foundation and the ivory pillars are set, will adequate ambiance

be available for the execution of management ideas.

Culture and strategy are generated by humans. In this ever-growing global andtechnological advanced age we live in the execution of ideas are merely delegated tocomputers and automated programs. Thus I say, 2/3 weight to humans for culture andstrategy generation and 1/3 weight to technology for doing the monkey-workexecution of ideas.

I will not be surprised if, over the next decade, there is more of a shift towards morereliance on technology, thus re-balancing the weight distribution less toward Humaninvolvement. Following this logic, will workers be over-compensated and over-paid

for their title in the future? However, is this not the very case at point as we speak?

Perhaps we will always need humans for culture and strategy formation, but at whatexpense to the "real" value-added end-performance that is generated by robusttechnological infrastructure?

Anonymous

4. If I could liken strategy, execution and culture to human anatomy - I would reckonstrategy to be similar to the brain, which processes information and develops a plan totackle known and unknown issues of life; with execution I would associate the hands,legs, and the sense organs in general because they help us perform whatever needs tobe done and finally with culture I would associate the whole human body because thehuman body derives from a genetic structural makeup we don't have much say on atany given moment of time. Of course, culture just like the human body can be shapedover a period of time.

Just as with the human body - there is little the individual pieces (viz. brain, bodyorgans and the body itself) can accomplish individually. It is the "combination" whichhelps us to achieve "things". Similarly in an organization - while I accord equalimportance to strategy and execution, I put culture on a slightly higher pedestal.

Having a good culture is like having a well-designed free-way; if you have aMercedes-Benz (good strategy) and are a good driver (good execution) you can cruisealong at impressive speed, but if you have an in-a-shambles freeway - you can't reallydo much despite having an excellent strategy and execution. An argument can bemade however with respect to the example cited here as to what happens if you don'thave a Benz and but have an old ungainly vehicle instead? To this I have to say thatreplacing the old vehicle with a new Benz requires far less effort than paving thefreeway. Similar argument can be made with respect to execution. Hence theargument about culture's supremacy.

Fixing the culture of an organization is a long haul. One can hireconsultants/strategists to fix strategy and one can hire good executionists to make sure


5/39

the task is done. But - culture is something that cannot be "hired" or changedovernight.

People of course are the key ingredient. But I believe that's somewhat a given underthe circumstances. Without people - nothing is possible - the impossible and the

possible both. It's people who make things happen (or not happen). Among strategy,execution and culture - a good culture is hard to get in legacy and even harder to buildfrom scratch and both a good strategy and superlative execution are required to builda meritorious organization.

Saurabh DwivedyAl Futtaim Group - Dubai

5. I feel that as a past manager of a division of a large corporation that Strategy is about55 percent of an organizations income. I would say that approximately 25% of theStrategy's (100%) effectiveness is culture. As for Execution (100%), I would say

culture is about 60 percent.

There does seem to be a large discrepency between Culture vs. Strategy and Culturevs. Execution. I believe this is due to where (who) the Strategy is created and theflexibility of the stategists. Often a new product or innovation may not fit acompanys culture but is a good strategic move for the organization.

Successful execution of a plan needs a 'can-do' attitude and a culture of strong beliefsand behaviors. A culture of strong positive attributes can make a strategy or planwork. Put another way; good habits = success, bad habits = failure.

I look forward to reading your book. This is a great area to study.

Charlie Cullinane

CJ Cullinane

6. Question 1. It is difficult to apply question 1 to major organizations within 3rd worlddeveloping countries due to their monopolistic state-controlled business. Potentially aweightage needs to applied to normalize performance to penalize the preferentialtreatment (pt) accorded especially for state-owned companies. Perhaps there is a

universal quotient for pt that can be used taking in GDP, capitalization, market sizeand competitiveness.

After doing the above, would we be able to divvy up performance success factorsbetween people, process and culture (execution) and strategy?

Paribus ceteris, the 2 sides of the coins are inseparable, as one impacts the other.Execution is a result of strategy, and if the management has not place sufficient brain

juices ensure that the execution elements are also covered (e.g. the people that theyhire in order to carry the task ), then it would be like architecting a building that's 4feet high to increase sq footage thus rental space.


6/39

Naturally, organizations are not that dumb, however more often than not they are"blind" due to the dearth of information and asking the right questions to get the rightanswers quickly enough. Secondly, if there is any culture that should be imbued, itsthe organizational need for "memory" in order to constantly improve.

Question 2) Although the question is straightforward, measuring the impact of"culture" would be like trying to quantify the weight of wisps of smoke coming out ofan underground smouldering fire. Where corporate leaders are dominant and it's"depth" shallow, then it is easy for them to extend cultural influences. But more oftenthan not, in deeper and wider organizations the influence are minced with emotionalbaggage and thought processes of the line managers.

Secondly, unlike a military system, businesses are required to quickly change itssystem, style and hierarchy to the market and speed in execution. For example; fromprivate to field marshal, that hierarchy has been left relatively unchanged for morethan a century. Therefore allowing one element of "culture" to seed and take root.

In summary, where the organization is more fluid, leaders determine performance andfor the bigger more hierarchical organization it will be its culture. E.g. fear of signingdocuments, towing the line etc.

Question 3. Humbly question 2 and 3 should be one; (although I academicallyappreciate the delineation between a "perfect strategy" and a "perfectly executedstrategy") the reason why it should be combined is the results of how fast a businessneeds to run - there's almost zero time to seek a perfect strategy. Hence, for me, aperfect strategy is one which is "executed". Period. That which is not are only worthas much as the paper and binders that it's in. Regardless, I am not alluding to a ad-hoc/shorterministic thought processes but "strategy on steroids".

Alas, the answer to question 3 is the same as 2, IMHO.

Dr. KervokianConsultant

7. The performance of the organization depends upon many factors but the greatestamong them is the execution of strategy in time. And strategy depends upon culture ofthe organization.

Good culture is catalyst for good strategy. Good culture means people are responsible,motivated and committed to their duty and there is a transparency in the organization.Good culture is created out of the vision and efforts of a leader and followers embracethe visions in the organization. So, good culture is created by a good and effectiveleader. Therefore, culture acts as a platform to bounce ideas, take risk, take decisions,be creative and innovative etc. Strategy without culture is useless. Even the beststrategy without good culture is almost impossible to implement. So in this way,culture has more weight-age than strategy.

Now, take strategy and execution. There is a huge gap between strategy and

execution. The gap is cognitive inertia, inaction, and resistance to come out ofcomfort zone. The more the gap, more it will be difficult to execute the strategy and


7/39

vice versa. Here comes the role of true leadership who can overcome these perceivedobstacles through his courage, action and will power. So, leadership has more weightin executing the strategy. And execution has more weight than strategy in this way.

I strongly believe that execution has the maximum weight i.e. 60-65%, culture has 20-

25% and strategy has 15-20%. The reason why I put strategy in the lowest position isthat it can be copied easily with slight modification and alteration etc, but leadershipcan't be copied.

Even if you copy the leadership style, it is only style; to execute, you need couragethat can't be copied. Power of courage comes from within and can't be copied. So,leadership execution has the maximum weight to make culture and strategy into highperformance.

Ajay Kumar GuptaManagement Professional

Master in Management, AIM, Manila

8. Many of today's managers underestimate the essence and impact of theirorganizational cultures. The elements that control workplaces, values, ethics, and theuntold rules and stories are often ignored, and business strategies, alone, are assumedto do the job.

Drucker's statement "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" is wholeheartedly presentingthe pain that people face in their workplaces. Growth plans and articulated businesstactics cannot be sustainable without a framework of cultural values and rules. Fix theculture first, then define a strategy and an execution plan. If you operate within aculture of deception, ignorance and lack of accountability, no matter how robust orconcrete the business plan you develop, it will fail its first encounter internally beforeexternally with the market.

Mouaz AlZayyatPMO managerAl-Rostamani Group

9. I think that strategy is certainly important in terms of kind of like a road map. If I amtraveling from say Texas to Chicago it would help if I had an idea on how to get

between the two points in terms of a broad framework, but the plan still has to beexecuted. The most brilliant of strategies on paper often fail when put into actionbecause of major unaccounted for variables. The largest of these variables would beyour people and culture.

Corporate culture cannot be overestimated in terms of its value to the success orfailure of any strategic plan. Put into a numbers perspective I would say that 10% ofsuccess is attributed to the strategic planning process, 30% to the actual strategic planexecution and 60% to the people driving the execution, the corporate culture.

The key to a good manager is to match people and their talents with the right tasks

and to ensure those tasks blend well with corporate culture. Without this you havelittle chance of success.


8/39

Harry J Tucci Jr.Managing PartnerKatahdin Resources

10.My opinion is that it is a virtuous circle that can break at any of the three points. Itstarts with a happy, innovative culture that generates a strategy for success. In theexecution phase, the strategy is implemented by an organization with a commitmentfor success. And back to strategy based on feedback from an organization with anopen culture. I think culture is the most important variable. I would give it 40% and30% to strategy and 30% to execution. Culture is the only sustainable advantage.

Drew WilliamsonAdvertising ConsultantMBA Arizona State University

11.I'm reminded of a quotation that hung on my boss's conference room wall. I believe itcame from a former CEO of HarleyDavidson..."All the money's in the execution".Which suggests an awful lot about how an organization is constructed, staffed, it'sculture, and how people feel about working in it.

Regarding "strategy"...I remain of the opinion that is a word that means differentthings to different people. I tend to favour the word idea. And am reminded of anadage that asked...."What's the business's idea?" And said that one's idea very oftendictates strategy.

Example...FedEx's "idea" was to deliver a package anywhere overnight when that ideaseemed preposterous. And besides, who would pay for such a thing? But that simplesounding idea dictated a strategy that revolves around airplanes and tight scheduling.

Perhaps we agonize too much about "strategy" and culture, and their result, "thenumbers". A really good idea...well executed...can result in good performance. Is itreally much more complex than that? Canvassing executives for their take on what'simportant might provide for interesting, but anecdotal, conversation. But add a litmustest too......ask them what they'd regard as the best business idea they've had in theircareers. And why. That might tell you something too.

Edward Hare

Retired Director...Strategy and PlanningFortune 250 Manufacturer

12.I've been looking at this from a different lens. I started with engagement, which led toleadership and now I'm planted in culture.

The tie is this....leaders really hold or drive the strategy and culture of the company.How those leaders get to their positions and stay there depends, primarily, on theculture. If the company is a meritocracy, you tend to find leaders who come up with astrategy that makes sense and fits and the culture promotes the execution. If theculture values other facets (not necessarily stated) like longevity or risk management,

then you will get a potentially insulated strategy and a culture that drags on anythingbut the status quo.


9/39

To literally answer your question: 1. 40 strategy/60 execution 2. Varies but 70% ofstrategy dependant on culture 3. Same.

Ann Mamallo BlessingWhite

Ann MamalloDirectorBlessingWhite

13.Strategy, Execution and Culture are inseparable. It is like Speed, traction anddirection that are required while driving a car. Strategy provides us the direction, andthe execution will define the speed at which we capture the market. I will compareculture to the traction; we do need to change gears at times and propel theorganisation forward, especially during tough times. Who else but inspired employeeswill do this since work is--at its core--a fundamental human endeavour. In my view, itis unreasonable to associate each to a certain % as i believe the 3 needs to exist in the

eco system for an organisation to succeed.

SanjeevHead of Business Operations, CT&OThomson Reuters

14.Culture 50%; Strategy 35% & Execution 15%.A sound organizational culture is abasis for solid planning and flawless execution. Culture is the people; Strategy is ideasand execution is the technology. Organizations that always survive the worst marketstorms is because they have a sound culture. This culture will always be harnessed bya detailed planning process and knowledge management system. A sound plan willalways lead to flawless execution.

Jobe MabasoC.E.OJozan International; South Africa

15.Question #1 49% quality of organization's strategy 51% quality of strategy executionThere is somewhat of a symbiotic relationship here; though, I believe execution winsout.

Without good direction, even the best executed strategy may miss the mark. Thedesign and structure of strategy, operations, support systems, and internal qualitysystems must be a point of emphasis - almost to the extent in which these structuresare executed. However, the actual execution is where the rubber meets the road. Evenwith good strategy, an organization will be ineffective - unable to get out of thestarting blocks - without good people, work methods, and decisions processes.

Question #2 100%. The content of an organization's strategy is a derivative of itsvalues, beliefs, behaviours, etc. The strategy is developed by the people who representthe culture. Organizations then need people who are aligned with the organization'sculture to deliver and execute on the strategy. Even if the execution is seamless, if the

people's values are not aligned with the organization's values, then the results


10/39

delivered will miss the mark. This is the case, both in terms of creating satisfiedcustomers and creating value for stakeholders.

Question #3 100%. If the execution is 100%, then I would think that the culture of theorganization is such that it emphasizes a high degree of quality - a General Electric

for example. I find it hard to consider an organization that is able to sustain itselfthrough optimal execution without such a cultural infrastructure. To achieve a highlevel of execution (in strategy), a large proportion of its effectiveness must result fromthe values, beliefs, behaviours, etc. that are put in place to emphasize quality.

Finally, consider the importance of people/culture, strategy, and executioncollectively. Without a doubt, my priorities are (1) people/culture, (2) execution, and(3) strategy. Given this prioritization, I also understand that if the right people are noteffectively executing the right strategy, then customers are not satisfied, employeesare not loyal, and stakeholders receive less than an optimal return.

Clinton CokerDirector Global ExcellenceSunGard Global Services

16.I think Yogi Berra had it right. Success is 1/2 strategy, 1/2 execution, and 1/2 culture.James Biltekoffconsultant

17.Is one really more or less important than another? I think the triad of strategy,execution, and culture is inextricably linked through cause and effect relationships. Inthe non-profit sector, I am convinced that the process of developing strategy is asimportant as the outcome; critical to success is a strong culture (existing ORredefined) that highly values the mission/vision that the strategy fulfils; and executionis only as good as the defined strategic objectives and the culture that drives it. It is adelicate balance, but doesn't organizational success demand that each component beequally strong?

Sue Dahling SullivanChief Strategic OfficerCiti Performing Arts Center

18.Just thinking about D-Day in the context of your question. Strategy was okay, but notperfect. A great deal of things occurred on that day that was not planned for. Even Ikehad drafted a message to announce the failure if it occurred. The culture of the Alliedsoldiers on that day of surviving and fighting was the guts that drove the execution.Even as many failures and unplanned events unfolded the culture and trainingsustained the men to the ultimate execution of victory on that day. Strategy, cultureand execution are vital for success, but it is the human heart and willingness tosacrifice that forces execution to success.

Phil Clark

Clark & Associates


11/39

19.I see where you are "getting at" Respondent #3.... I can see how A.I., ArtificialIntelligence for the layman, will the next wave of the future. There will be a massive"re-shuffling" of weight distributions for the Holy Trinity of success: strategy,execution, and culture. Although I may add that there is indeed a "luck-factor" thatshould also be considered.

Anonymous

20.I'm sorry, Jim, but I think the wording of these questions is very dangerous and canlead to faulty analysis.

Take question #1 for example. Let's say that I have a relatively poor strategy. If thatwere true, then the only way I could create profitability would be by out hustling thecompetition. In such a scenario, nearly 100% of my profits would, by necessity, haveto come from execution. If you got enough people answering that way, one mightconclude from this research that strategy is unimportant, since nearly 100% of the

profits come from execution.

The fallacy here is that income is not a fixed amount. It can vary. Perhaps my profitstoday are $100 and I get nearly $100 of that profit from execution, because mystrategy is lousy. However, what if I had a great strategy? Then, perhaps my profitswould be $300 even with mediocre execution and $500 with great execution.

So in reality, even if I say that today nearly 100% of my profits are due to execution,that does not mean that strategy is not as important, if not more important thanexecution. I might be a lot more profitable with even lower levels of execution if I justhad a better strategy. In other words, it may be as relevant to ask how much is thelevel of my execution diminishing my level of profits as it is to ask how much is itcontributing to my level of profits (and the same could be said for strategy).

If our goal is to provide insight into improving profitability, then question #1 isrelatively worthless. I might consider replacing it with a 3x3 grid. One axis would bequality of strategy (poor, average, great), the other axis would be quality of execution(poor, average, great). In the middle square put an index of 100. Then ask people tofill in the squares with how much they think that index would change in the 8 otherboxes (for example a score of 200 would imply that profits would be double fromwhat can be obtained in the middle square, and 50 would say that profits would be cut

in half). Then, I would ask them to indicate which square they thought their companywas in today.

Although still just opinion research (which has serious limitations) at least now Iwould have something more akin to a dynamic, predictive model. Now you wouldhave a much better feel for how executives see execution and strategy impactingprofitability.

Better yet, you could do a correlation over the entire sample size between which boxexecutives put themselves in and their true profitability (probably normalized in someway over the sample based on company size and industry). Then you could

statistically see how each of the nine squares impact the current profitability ofcompanies. To make this part more interesting, you might want them to grade the


12/39

quality of their strategy and execution on a 5 or 10 point scale rather than a three pointscale.

As for question #2, a good strategy either takes advantage of (exploits) the culture orprovides a plan to pro-actively change the culture as part of the strategy. I'm not sure

how you separate them. Question 2 implies you can separate them. In addition,whatever % I do not give to culture means that the strategy effectiveness is comingfrom someplace else. What is the someplace else? The strategy? The execution? Theimpact of the global economy or other external factors? Luck?

Question #3 has similar issues as #2.

And, as I mentioned earlier, this is all opinion research. It is not quantifiable. At best,it can tell you what the prevailing bias or "fashion" is in business lore.

Finally, I am reminded of an old line my father used to say. To paraphrase, "Most

successful businesses succeed not because of the quality of their leadership or thelevel of their execution, but because they happened to be in a spot so compelling tocustomers that weak leadership and weak execution could not overcome thecompellingness of the spot they were in."

Gerald NanningaVPRetail Ventures, Inc.

21.Performance is based on vision, energy and will supported by resources. Strategydirects resources. Execution is a continuous process of will. Recently, probably due tothe economic shock we have all experienced, companies seem to be rudderless,becalmed, or driving activities by numbers alone. Still, many are rethinking everyaspect of their business. It is frustrating and difficult for them, but many will succeedby force of thought and introspection, not strategy in the HBS context.

I met an ancient Odawa shaman, Josephine Mandamin, last month who was walkingaround the Great Lakes carrying a bucket of water. She blessed the water eachmorning, praying for a healing. Odd as it sounds, minnows gathered when she prayedin Ojibway. I asked why she carried the water bucket, heavy as it is. She said, "eachof us, all of us are water. The water is carrying me. It began me and carries me

downstream, it knows the way, I follow it." Odawa believe that we cannot act, havestrategy in effect, unless we see seven generations back and seven forward. It is calledThe Great Law. Dismiss this act of vision at your peril, she intimated. And this is aspiritual vision, not something generated from a weekend at Lake George.

I'm struggling here in Michigan, as many are, seeing one hour ahead is often achallenge. But the question you are asking does bear on the process. You suggest thatany activity or strategy can exist, as if in its own context. But many companies haveno context at all, no bearings. If the water carries us, and the economy we havecreated is damaged, by us we should presume, there is no strategic answer. Porter et alnotwithstanding, we have entered a period where we are passengers adrift on a very

dangerous sea. The idea that we shape our future now, that we can create context fordecisions without seriously examining the very basics of our actions, is false.


13/39

Frankly HBS and we its progeny have absolutely no clue. Until we admit it, the entiremythology of strategic action is self delusion. Josephine had no money, and had beenwalking for three years. But she has purpose. Resources meet her every day. What isour purpose? Quarterly metrics? Percentages?

Tom DolembofounderNewNorth Institure

22.Any concept, credo, or action can be considered successful with the correct amount ofcommunication, vectored properly. Without the proper amount of communication,strategy, execution, and culture are merely words.

Sherpa

23.Im really convinced that all three are very important: strategy, culture and execution.However, the third one is the most because that's the one that makes things happen.

Mercedes FernandezConsultantLexay CA

24.From my experience as a manager and a doctorate student of business administration,I would say that those questions could be on different levels of complexity accordingto the nature and size of the organisation as well as the nature of the industry andbusiness environment it's operating within.

To be more specific I will take my company as an example. I am working in a realestate investment company that could be regarded small to mid size. The businessenvironment consists of the real estate market and industry as well as the country'seffecting factors like economics, culture, norms, government regulations and politicalstability. Those and other factors don't only shape the customer preferences in the realestate market but also imply the outlines of the corporate strategy. The strategyenables the company to achieve its ultimate goals and deal with its challenges.

To be able to do so, strategy should take in consideration all the soft and hard factorsshaping the business. The strategy should accommodate for the interests of all stake

holders including shareholders, customers, suppliers and even employees. All thatalready said, taking my company as an example, more than 60% of the performancecould be traced back to strategy, while about 40% to execution. Corporate culture onthe other hand has a significant effect on both strategy and execution. However, themajor effect of corporate culture would be on execution. That's mainly due to thenature of factors affecting strategy and the factors affecting execution.

While strategy is shaped by internal factors (like vision, mission, goals and partiallyculture) as well as external factors (markets, competition, environment.etc), theexternal factors have more direct and larger impact. Therefore, in my case too, theculture may contribute about 20-30% to the strategy effectiveness. On the other hand,

because the internal factors are the major drivers and contributors to the efficiency ofexecution, keeping in mind that execution is mainly carried out by individuals who


14/39

are highly affected by culture, I would give an approximate effect of 60% to corporateculture over execution.

Basel KakahDeputy General Manager

Al Mawarid General Contracting

25.What wonderful questions and what interesting perspectives from your respondents.My experience differs from that of Mr. Legge; I have found that a mediocre strategyexecuted with enthusiasm and precision can often succeed where a stronger strategyexecuted with less enthusiasm and precision will wither and fall by the wayside. Thiscertainly doesn't excuse leaders from working to develop superior strategy. In fact, Ithink it suggests exactly the opposite.

During the past several years, our organization has been working with the Afterburner

group, a team of former fighter pilots who have brought their process to the businessworld. Theirs is a world where strategy leads to intelligently selected tacticalobjectives which, when executed against, can result in continuous success. Theiremphasis, however, is that the culture is organized to hold everyone accountable fortheir part in the process.

Businesses seem to be afraid to perform the inward analysis necessary to make trulyrevolutionary changes possible. The Afterburner team contends that this inwardanalysis (critical for a successful debrief) is what makes improvement possible. In theworld of psychology (my discipline) this same type of honesty is what separates trulyeffective and mature individuals (those who are self-actualized) from all the rest.Whether we are speaking of individuals or organizations, it is the culture that allowsthis critical piece to occur completely.

As many of your respondents have mentioned, culture seems to beat out strategy interms of success if they are out of alignment and incongruent, but wise leaders willunderstand that working to develop the culture can free up resources in theorganization at the point of both strategy and execution. The leader then takes more ofa "vision casting" role, allowing individuals and teams within the organization tobring their expertise, creativity and passion to the table in the process of answeringthe call to make that vision reality.

Ultimately, when discussing the questions of strategy, culture and execution, theoverlap becomes most important. If each of these aspects of the business process arerepresented on a Venn diagram, with each one being adjusted in size, based onvarious factors, and location, representing the level of congruence, a more clearpicture of the organizations ability can be created.

With that as background, I would offer my short answers as follows

Q 1 - 25% strategy - 75% execution Q 2 - 90% - If the strategy isn't aligned tocapitalize on the existing culture, the strategy will never be executed Q 3 - 90% - See

above.


15/39

It may be worth mentioning in conclusion that if a strategy is seen by the staff asconflicting with the culture, reactions ranging from passive/aggressive responses tomass exodus are possible. And while it is sometimes necessary to make changes inculture, sometimes the best people to initiate those changes are someplace other thanthe board room. Again, the team from Afterburner helped us immensely with this.

I love your forums and your questions. Thank you for inviting the participation.

Todd J. WenteDirector of Faculty DevelopmentCollege America Services Inc.

26.Question #1: In my opinion, as high as 90% of performance is attributable to thequality of the strategy. Sure you can be lucky and be in the right place at the righttime, but it's hard to perform if you don't have the right solutions, addressing a realneed, provided to the right customers when they are needed, and in a way that

differentiates you from competition.

Question #2: As a strategy consultant that strongly values the role of culture, I teachthat highly person-centred cultures are more innovative, achieve greater buy-in andare fun places to work. But I also know that you can have a highly effective strategyin a command and control type culture. It's possible to have a brilliant visionaryautocrat at the top of such an organization. But this also leads us to question #3.

Question #3: Here's where culture truly makes a difference. The statistics onsuccessful strategy execution are appalling. Maybe in the old days the autocrat couldmandate that you execute his strategy, but the times have changed. Now we need aworkforce that understands the strategy, understands their role in it and is empoweredto make a difference in it. The empowered culture, that tends to be more innovative,can now apply that innovation in helping the company successfully execute thestrategy. I would argue that strategy execution is 90% dependent on culture.

Pete DeLisiPresidentOrganizational Synergies

27.Jim, I agree that your 3 variables of strategy, execution, and culture are absolutelykey. I also think that a number of the comments on the people dimension, includingpeople competency and culture, are useful. I am currently doing some work in Chinain a previously earthquake ravaged area of Sichuan province and continuouslyimpressed by the resiliency of the people dimension. Best regards, Mike

Mike LeahyProfessor of Health SciencesLinfield College

28.I keep going back to the old story about putting the big rocks in first. I'm sure Coveyspeaks of it in his books. And for me the biggest rock or foundation is culture. Be it a

family, organisation, church or school, strategy and execution will be short-lived and


16/39

in many cases actively undermined, if you haven't got the strong foundation of goodculture; the key attributes of which are openness and trust.

As the story goes, you can always fit the pebbles, gravel, sand and water around therocks (strategy and execution) but if you haven't got the rocks in first they won't fit in

after you've added all the other things. It takes a major effort to empty the containerand start again which is why so much energy is directed towards strategy andexecution; to fulfill the short-term success criteria for individual leaders/CEO's not tocreate sustainable success for the organisation as a whole. When a leader is preparedto put personal ego second to the good of an organisation then culture becomes theprimary vehicle from which strategy and execution easily flow.

In the reverse, it's pushing the proverbial up hill and is why I believe we see a trendtowards 3 year CEO's instead of 10 or 20 year CEO's; they burn out quickly whenthey're force feeding organisations strategy that is in conflict with culture no matterhow good that strategy is.

Jane ClarkeProject management ConsultantCity

29.It is great to see this subject is taken up (again) During the late 90's when theBalanced Scorecard was actively promoted we commenced research in Australiafocussed on medium sized organisations that found the implementation process of theBalanced Score Card too difficult. We ended up developing a questionnaire ( it maybe executed on line) using the same formula. We DID find some initial hesitationusing this "measuring tool" however, we found the strength of the tool lies in the re-use of the tool after some form of intervention has taken place in the organisation. Ourresearch also showed that in 90% plus of instances the parties participating in theprocess rated the "people component" of the organisation least developed.www.ascenture.com.au is the website (it is active but has not been serviced for sometime) under the heading TOOLS you locate the free analysis tool asking similarquestions of Culture, Strategy and Implementation with an overlay.

Cheers, Alex Fok, Sydney, Australia

Alex Fok

Directorspecificity Pty Ltd

30.I've recently heard a saying which I think is making a lot sense: "When individualmeets system, system always wins; when strategy meets culture, culture alwayswins."

So the questions could not be considered separately and the 3 components are not anaddition to become organizational success, but rather multiplication. i.e.:

Org. succession = Culture * Strategy * Execution


17/39

Defects in any of the components can lead the result of the equation to 0% even if theother parts are rated at 100%.

Eddie JiangHR Director - China Rx

GlaxoSmithKline

31.I have been exploring somewhat related dimensions. First I keep the strategydefinition quite understandable: Where are we going, why are we going there, howare we getting there and what is different about how we are doing it. Mission, Visionetc are intertwined with this definition.

Secondly my paradigm considers: Trust, Cognition at all levels of the organization(knowledge in an understandable form), and Communication. All of these and otherelements contribute to successful implementation.

Strategic success can be only be achieved if we engage the majority at the bottom ofthe organizational pyramid.

Gerard DanfordFacultyHaaga-Helia University

32.Since culture can be changed and aligned to strategic aggressiveness and thereforeexecution, thus all are equally important.

Another important aspect is the environment turbulence level whether you are in astable or in an unpredictable market, and all those 3 above mentioned aspects shouldbe aligned.

NicolaasChief Commercial OfficerDHE

33.My comments are based on experience as CEO of a religious hospital, obviously anot-for-profit corporation. My comments may surprise persons unfamiliar with not-for-profit health care.

I attribute 100% of operating income to the strategic plan and its execution. It is aneasy call. In the 90 years prior to initiation of our strategic plan, the organizationrarely had positive operating income. At the end of 6 years we had $20 million in cashand investments compared to $600,000 at the outset.

Q1: However, your question is what % of success is The Plan versus the Execution. Igive 20% to the Plan and 80% of success to Execution. We could have "stumbled" to20% income increase just from the plan. Beyond that, not so much without execution.

Q2: 80% of Execution depends on Culture, but Culture may have to change.


18/39

One could assume from your question that Culture is "fixed" and therefore Strategymust be "fitted" to the culture. I believe the Culture may need to be changed to fit thestrategy, if the success, even continued existence, of the organization depends onimplementation of a new Strategy. I further believe a visionary leader/manager oftenmust bring about a change in culture. An example...

When first making CEO "rounds" of patient care units I often asked: "How are thingsgoing today?" Typical response was: "Terrible, we are so busy."

Over time I explained to staff that as a high fixed cost operation, incremental patientvolume was key to profitability, their job security and salary increases.

After we had implemented many successful strategies to increase volume (topic foranother day), the same question resulted in the following response: "Great, we arereally busy." Everyone in organization was "on board."

Q3: Sorry, I don't see a lot of difference between Q2 and Q3.

Thanks for opportunity to think about your questions and how they affect mythinking.

DAVID SEMPLECEOHealth Care Research & Education

34.There is a saying that the fish smells from the head, in our case, leaders. Consistency,commitment and hard work are the main components of success. It all starts and endswith people and their freedom to be innovative, different and ready to make mistakes(and been forgiven for this). Execution, strategy and culture issues, at the end, due toover analysis, might be steering leaders and teams away from their focus. Simpleconcepts/things are the hard ones to understand, and execute. So, my answer to allquestions is 100% culture.

Christina LegakiManaging DirectorPioneer Hi-Bred Hellas SA

35.Relationship between the strategy and its execution reminds one of the parable of thetwo lame and blind men. The blind could not see the path and the lame could not walkit, but when the lame person was hoist on the shoulders of blind person with the lameshowing the way to the blind, they reached their destination quickly.

Similarly, Strategy without execution is a lame duck and execution without a strategyleads to a blind alley. But when they combine, the effect is reinforcing and synergic.

When culture is brought in for consideration along with strategy and execution, thethree form the interacting and interdependent arms of a triangle in a state of flux. Therelative importance of strategy and execution depends on which of the two is more

complex. However, once the equilibrium between the two is achieved, path to desiredoutcome becomes open if the culture aligns with the strategy.


19/39

In fact culture constitutes the base of the triangle. It is critical to the success ofstrategy and its implementation. One has to merely recall the cases of Mergers andAcquisitions. Most of them fail not because of the inadequacy of resources ormeticulous planning but because of the inability of the two organizations to maketheir cultures compatible with each other.

Y.G. ChoukseyProfessorInternational School of Business & Media

36.In my earlier post, I forgot what for me may be the most important point of ourdiscussion -- namely, are we asking the right questions? Organizational performanceisn't just about the quality of the strategy and the role of culture in its effectivenessand execution. These are critical and necessary, but not sufficient.

A more systemic view is needed that recognizes that there are other dependent

variables for successful strategy execution. These are the business processes, thestructure, the human resources, the information/knowledge resources, and themanagement systems, i.e., what we measure and control. These, including culture andleadership, constitute an operating model that must be aligned with the strategy if thestrategy is to be successful. Using the Treacy/Wiersema value discipline construct asan example, the operating model is vastly different for a product leader than it is foran operationally excellent company.

Pete DeLisiPresidentOrganizational Synergies

37.The simple framework of strategy, execution and culture used to work pretty well incapturing and managing the essence of business in more "peaceful" times. It is stilluseful in many cases. But as the pace of social, political and global change continue toaccelerate as it has in recent decades, the distinctions and separations between thesemodes or facets of business life cycle have shrunk dramatically. In many cases andincreasingly, the key competitive advantage is no longer any one of these componentsbut a new way of thinking, changing and aligning them dynamically.

In other words, we ought to be thinking or strategizing about changing our culture

even while we are executing and adapting our last strategy. To ask which of thesecomponents is more important is equivalent to asking which part of our body - head,torso or heart - is more dispensable. I guess the verdicts depend on how it is beingmeasured and who is counting! But the essence clearly lies outside the frameworkitself.

In the type of work that I do, it is still fundamental that we articulate a clear strategy,build an adaptive execution team and nurture an innovative culture. It is even morecritical that we do so dynamically and pragmatically so that we don't paralyzeourselves by waiting for others to change nor blindly follow yesterday's recipes forsuccess.

Yan Song


20/39

Program ManagerAbbott Laboratories

38.The key word in your questions, expressed or implied, is "effectiveness." I've learnedthat a wide variety of strategies and executions over time can coexist with an

organization's ingrained culture. Strategies and executions, even highly effective ones,come and go. You've all built and executed enough of them, and moved on to the nextones. Culture is a far different kind of animal than a strategy. The Nadler-Tushmanmodel identified "Congruence" as a concept of fit between pairs of inputs andbetween the components of an organizational transformation process.

"Fit" is a measure of the appropriateness with respect to desired organizationaloutputs. High congruence, fit is good, strategy and execution is bound to work wellthrough completion. BUT...while the "fit" of a given culture can catalyze the successof given strategies and bolster executions, an ingrained culture that may not be a ggood fit (low congruence) can also survive well beyond well executed and temporally

fleeting strategies -- even, ironically, ones that focus on culture change. ForcefulCEOs and senior leaders can drive strategies and executions where the culture may bea poor fit.

But those cultures may simply quiescent during the push, only to reach up years oreven decades later and pull the organization back down to its roots, even after years(or decades) of continuous incremental change. It is what is known in the literature as"deep structure," the genetic beginnings of an organization from which the descendedorganizations can likely never escape entirely. Much like discovering that Mommyhad a nose job and daddy had braces, deep structure can and often does visit uponsecond and third generation organizations the cultural roots traits of its parentorganization.

So, considering a culture for a given strategy and execution is crucial. But it is crucialto know that after the strategy has played itself out, no matter how well executed,deep structure may be lurking below the surface, waiting to pull the organizationalback to its early forms.

Rob JonesIngoodCompany

39.The performance of a organization depends mainly on:1. The work culture2. Implementation and monitoring of the objectives3. Desire for innovation4. Training to enhance performance.

Dr. Ramesh ShahPresidentv2synergygroup

40.Strategy, culture and execution cannot be separated and considered one without othersbut order in which I have quoted them is not an coincidence. To start let`s make smallassumptions:


21/39

Strategy - concept where to go, considered as one or more major but as well theindividual at all levels of activity.

Culture - people with whom we want to go.

Execution - 'just' work.

Those three aspects are like very precise mechanism and can be compared to. On thetop of it we have strategy it is the biggest gearwheel it gives direction and motion fororganization. Culture is like oil in pinions. Without oil it will not work long time andmechanism will break inevitably. If we put to big pressure of one of those aspects wewill have machine not working. If the focus is well located we will have outcome -which is execution, great execution. Thats why execution is the most important partin process. By execution company creates its end product which should be sold. Butwe cannot forget how the execution was performed.

It is extremely difficult to put allocation of focus for this aspects as it depends frommany aspects (product, market, culture, size of company, etc...).

So when we are listing aspects in order first is Strategy (route direction) then Culture(hikers) and at the end Execution (mountain). We cannot start trip from the mountainand end by setting up the route.

Constantly on the end is a mountain and it is my 100%.

Anonymous

41.Strategy, execution and culture are interrelated; to bring success or failure to anorganization depends on external and internal factors. External factors such as thecompetition, the timing of the execution and the economic environment. Internal onesare many but the culture is the centerpoint and key for the strategy and the executionto succeed. For example, do the frontline managers trust and believe the seniormanagement direction, is the communication two-way communication, is thereteamwork spirit among the front line managers, is the organization environment safeto report the mistakes and failures as they occur or are all the negatives pushed underthe carpet? At the same time, to change a culture needs a lot of heart, mind, and time.

Ahmed Y. IssaGM-Key accountsAujan Industries co

42.The degree to which strategy, execution, and culture contribute to the success of theirorganizations.

How would you respond to the questions? 1. Operating income = 100%, Strategy=25% , Execution of its strategy =75%

The context: Public service (not for profit) in New Zealand with heavy emphasis on

strategic planning as the paradigm. While we charge our customers for the services


22/39

we provide, we have a captured audience. Our strategy is cost leadership (valuediscipline of operational excellence) which is heavily dependent on execution.

The efficacy of execution this year (project delivery and maintenance costs) enablesus to minimise cost overruns (capex and opex). This helps us fund our costs for the

given year and keep price movements minimal. Volumetric pricing (to encourage longterm conservation), however, gives us a high operating leverage profile which in anyaverage year lets us completely fund our high fixed costs, but in a recessionary year(as in 2008-09) when commercial usage falls massively in a very short space of time,is let's just say not ideal to our leverage. Thus Strategy provides the impetus orrelentless focus to the Execution but Execution trumps in our unique context.

1. If your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly what proportion of itseffectiveness is dependent upon and accounted for by the organization'sculture (widely-shared values, beliefs, behaviors, rites and rituals, etc.)? Seeresponse to questions below.

2. If the execution of your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly whatproportion of its effectiveness is dependent upon and accounted for by theorganization's culture?

100% Culture is all that matters actually when it comes to execution. In public service(having worked in 5 different government departments- federal and local) the culturedetermines the execution. An example of effectiveness would be the IRS or IRD inNew Zealand. They are very effective because their culture is predominantlycompliance driven and they have over a period of time aligned their focus towards it.Similarly with an organisation which is public owned (not listed), which deliverslifeline utility services, if it is driven by an engineering culture with a focus on gettingthings done then execution is a big part of the culture.

Can you respond, or are the complexities of each question--possibly requiring morecomplete or different definitions of strategy, execution, and culture--too great?

To question 1 the response is easy as it provides a objective quantitative (financial)measure to which you assign the qualitative constants (or variables) which need to bemeasured.

Question 2 asks to compare two very qualitative measures strategy (positioning) and

culture (despite one of them having a percentage assigned to it) which engenders adegree of difficulty in visualisation of what is being compared with what. Is question2 meant to be: Does organisational culture determine the development of strategy (thefixation with a particular strategy)? Can an effective strategy be developed this way? -My reply would be yes, organisational inertia does lead to the fixation with thedevelopment of similar strategy as the incumbents are geared to think that way.

In public service what worked yesterday is what would work tomorrow. Innovation isusually a buzz word rather than an actual way to deliver services in a better way.Strategic renewal is more myopic. Moving from one equilibrium to another isevolutionary and more a function of government intervention. Disruptive innovation

is not part of the agenda.


23/39

Question 3 is answerable as it relates to execution where success means execution toplan or close to plan (on time within budget and within scope). Execution can bevisualised/is accessible via a proxy term.

Are the three dimensions of the questions the right ones? Yes, they are as they cover

the main aspects of the existence of an organisation whether for profit or not forprofit.

Do they cover all or nearly all aspects of competitive success?

They cover nearly all aspects of competitive success but they do not include oneelement - is success for the long run - defined as the next 20 years responsiblestewardship of the public's assets or is it for the short run - defined as the nextreporting period? Also: whether firm governance is structured to keep that particulardefinition of success top of mind. Focus here would be the key.

How would people in various regions of the world--or in for-profit vs. not-for-profitendeavours--approach this set of questions differently?

The responses as can be seen above provide the context of a not for profit in a countrywith moderate lifeline resources on the other side of the world. It covers success in thelong run as compared to a for profit company which would look at the short run (saythe next 5 years or depending on how they are capitalised as a long run dividendproviding entity or a short run capital gains providing entity to its shareholders).

Why did you respond that way? I guess the context determines the response. And thecontext here is of a lifeline resource which everyone takes for granted but needs longrun investment and stewardship.

Yadeed Basil LoboPublic Service- New Zealand

43.Strategy, Execution and Culture are three pillars on which a successful organization isbuilt. All are inclusive and vital for the growth and maintaining the leadershipposition in their line of business.

Sadiq

Geological EngineerZenath Contracting

44.Wonderful Responses!Very thoughtful, insightful, and at times, very blunt.

This is a TRUE democracy of communication and speech.

Genius is in simplicity....period.

If one could formulate a prescription for the Culture, Strategy, and Executionparadox, this is what it would seem to be...


24/39

Culture = Meaningful Human Dimension Execution = Monkey Work Strategy =Monkey Work

Let us strive to be very honest with ourselves...I am assured that the correspondingweights assigned to each of the component prescriptions above would NOT be rocket-

science.

Anonymous

45.For a viable enterprise to survive and thrive, get these right in the first place:1. Shared Value2. Strategy3. System4. Structure5. Staff6. Skill7. Style

Note: This, however, is inapplicable to Malaysia where its business culture hingesmost on Cronyism, Ethnic Protectionism, Nepotism, Dishonesty, and Product Piracy.

Thomas OngSole ProprietorConsultants

46."A vision without a task is but a dream, a task without a vision is drudgery, a visionand a task is the hope of of the world" -From a church in Sussex, England, 1730

The question that Mr. Jim Heskett asks is "How Do You Weigh Strategy, Execution,and Culture in an Organization's Success?

My opinion, based on my experience as CEO: 1. Strategy: 25% 2. Execution 50% 3.Culture 25%

Thorsteinn GardarssonCEOAction Day

47.In Powershift, Alvin Toffler posits that to excel in any endeavor, be it in business,politics, or any other field, one needs strategy, resources and organization. He refersto these as the 3 M's: mind, money, and muscle.

The right mix in the use of these components depends on prevailing conditions. Butan organization's success will first depend on its strategies to attain its long term (orstrategic) objectives. This where the mind (at the top level) comes of utmostimportance. The level of certainty that such strategies will work will in the enddetermine the success or failure of the organization.

This is not saying that financial and human resources are less essential. The tacticalmaneuvers at the department level and the operational activities of those in the front


25/39

lines, although of equal importance, must be attuned to the organization's strategicobjectives.

Fidel M. ArcenasConsultant

TIEZA

48.Strategy, Culture and Execution are all interrelated to produce the maximum anddesired result. Of course strategy and execution is of prime importance to produce thedesired result however lack of desired culture may provide friction effect to thedesired result therby reducing the quality and volume of output.

The loss incurred due to impact of culture cannot be ascertained as it will havemultiple effects in the immediate term, short term as well as long term perspectives.Having said that it does not mean that an organisation which lacks desired culturedoes not produce any result if strategy and execution are right. Undesired culture

reduces the effectiveness of strategy and execution in a big way.

Culture defines the future of any organisation and it is normally derived from the topleadership and the best approach would be a decisive and leadership by exampleapproach. It takes time to improve the culture of any organisation however given achoice it would be easier to establish desired culture in a new organisation rather thanan organisation which has developed undesired culture throughout the years.

Gopal SharmaSenior ManagerNB Bank Ltd

49.In the context presented, CULTURE is the independent variable - STRATEGY andEXECUTION are dependent variables. That said, for Q.1 my answer would be 50/50.I've never seen poor strategy overcome with great execution; nor have I seen greatstrategy offsetting lousy execution. Based on my experience they should be a singleitem - Strategy/Execution vs. two mutually exclusive items.

Regarding Q.2 and Q.3 my answers are 100% for the simple reason that anorganization's culture drives how an organization thinks; that in turn frames theproblems it sees; which determines what it works on - and what an organization works

on defines what it is. In what I've witnessed, in a competitive environment, and if youask why enough times, culture is what separates the winners and the also ran.

The three dimensions you selected are all internal. I'd consider combining Strategyand Execution (which are very different organizational challenges and combining hasits risks, but . . .) and adding back a dimension that is externally focused and capturesmarket dynamics.

The questions are clear and answerable; and regardless of geographic location andcorporate formation I've never seen the basic approach change - although I've seen awide range of different "packaging" describing the same approach.

Joe Schmid


26/39

Oak Leaf Consulting, LLC

50.At a quick glance, the answers to these questions seem simple and straight forward.From the answers from the other respondents, Execution and Culture beat strategy inthe sense that the general belief is that if you have good execution and a culture that

happens to be aligned to the chosen strategy then success, as measured byorganizational performance (operating income) will follow.

The reason why the answers follow this pattern is that if you look at the logic, strategycomes first and execution and culture are generally SUPPOSED to follow. From myexperience, most strategies fail because the execution and culture that were supposedto follow don't. Most of the companies that had failed strategies did because executionwas nonexistent and culture was not changed to suite the new strategy.

A shift in strategy most often demands a change in culture but since this is so hard formost companies, the easy way out is generally taken, i.e., try to implement the new

strategy while maintaining the espoused culture. If we analyse most companies thatchanged strategy it was because the culture had become a problem. Changing cultureand hence ensuring execution is a herculean task and so some companies alignstrategy TO culture.

The problem with this is that strategy by definition has to be defined based on marketvariables and market opportunities identified - it is outward looking. When strategy isdefined to align with the existing organizational culture, it may not necessarilyembrace those market issues it is supposed to - we have here failure defined evenbefore execution begins.

For those that undertake the task of effectively changing the culture (... and believeme culture CAN be changed), there are many uphill tasks - breaking functional silos,dealing with letting those who won't change go, even dealing with powerful unions.Those who come out on top, definitely see the results they are seeking.

The truth is, when the task of changing culture to align to a new strategy is tough,most companies just give up. Those that don't, ultimately reap the benefits. For thosewho want to know more about the new strategy, old culture, old organizationdilemma, I recommend the book - "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance".

Lawrence MissipoPartner Director3GEN Gestion Estrategica

51.On the basis of experience, I would suggest 20% of strategy, 40% of execution and40% of culture. It is critical that an organization knows what it intends to achieve. Inthe same way as a building needs an architect's plan to start with, without strategy, anorganization may proceed in disjointed, uncoordinated fashion without any directionor purpose.

Execution brings home the bacon. An organization needs well qualified, experienced

and trained soldiers to execute the battle strategy and win the battle. A culture is a softissue that must never be ignored in the formulation and implementation of strategy. A


27/39

culture that is resistant to change will relegated strategy into the dustbins of theorganization. A culture of indifference to customer needs will spell the doom of everybusiness. Culture is a crucial matter that must be considered both at the formulationand implementation phases of strategy.

Carl AbruquahGhana Commercial Bank Ltd.

52.Personally, I'm inclined to go with those who put most of the emphasis on culture. Butone has to be struck by the lack of unanimity on this issue. Given such basic termsand concepts, why should there be so little agreement?

Looking at the answers above, the question has some things in common with thegame of paper, rock, and scissors. All have conditional definitions. If culture definesthe ability to execute (as some have suggested), isn't that rather like paper coveringrock, even though rock breaks scissors, which in turn cut paper?

A closer-to-home example: imagine asking which is more important--trust,credibility, or integrity? It's a mish-mash. And the solution is not better definitions:there is no single definition of those terms--they are all situational, intentionallyvague, and the meaning we get from them is quite conditional on the context. AsPotter Stewart said about pornography, the fact that you know it when you see itdoesn't mean you can define it.

What you get in all these cases is a lot of multi-collinearity, or overlappingdefinitions, or situational meaning (pick your favourite system of nomenclature).What does one do in these situations?

Perhaps rather than insisting the question must have an answer, and averaging all thevotes to find one, the best approach may be to define some areas which all terms(strategy, execution, culture) seem to cover in common: and then identify some otherareas which tend to be the unique province of one term or another.

With that approach (which this dialog is accomplishing in some form), I think thesurvey is interesting and valuable. But if we limit the approach to finding the 'right'answer, we will have missed all the meaning by insisting on an inappropriatequestion.

Charles H. GreenCEOTrusted Advisor Associates

53.Working in private equity where you do see five years of performance after the capitalinvestment, I would say it is a sliding scale depending on the industry. Average scoreprobably: 15% strategy 30% execution 55% culture.

The culture of the Post Office, for example, is very strong and distinctive and theirexecution gets done, but could it be done better with an Apple culture? No doubt. But

the Post Office culture stays rooted until execution slips beneath survival. Then,Apple culture might be considered. Otherwise, why bother.


28/39

The Apple culture is far, far harder to build and maintain though, the Post Officeculture is the easiest culture to create and maintain.

The culture fit to the execution is critical - post office, military and fast food outlet arequite similar in culture as consistent, repetitive delivery is required. That takes a

culture of logistics, discipline, stay the course (don't dish out stamps or fast food thatyou thought would be good. Centralized control rules.) As long as the culture allowsthe execution to be at an acceptable level, the culture remains.

As a private equity investor, the decision to commit capital is around the culture of themanagement. Is it a good culture? Is the execution acceptable? If the level ofexecution is below desired levels, then is the culture so entrenched, no change couldhappen - that would be a problem.

If investing in the Post Office, their culture is so entrenched; they would not be able tochange the execution so it would be a pass.

This is why GM is worth a look again as the top level management teams were takenright out - all of them - plus the unionized factories axed. Now leadership at GM israpidly evolving the culture and if you can't get it done this week, don't come to workon Monday.

Their culture is the most important and largest part of change to make executiondiffer. The strategy of going to three models instead of many is minor compared to thestaffs' understanding of what behaviours are now acceptable.

Jacoline LoewenDirectorLoewen & Partners Private Equity

54.Strategy and its execution is essential. Too many small and large businesses develop astrategy, only to find it is difficult to execute, and rather than go back and revise it asnecessary, it goes into the waste basket, as soon so does the company.

Culture plays a large part in successful long term businesses, but takes years todevelop.

Rowland G. Freeman IIICounselorSCORECounselors to America's Small Business

55.Successful execution of a company's strategy over the long haul is dependent on astrong business culture. All three are necessary, but not equal to be successful. Wehave metrics to measure our performance, which will also highlight that the strategymust have been a good one, but not why or how it was successful. Culture is thekeystone, but more elusive to measure.

Regardless of profit or non-profit, or whatever region in the world, the business

culture will influence success or failure. Culture is what the people working in thebusiness believe it is. While the culture may change from company to company and


29/39

region to region, it's importance is still the same. A poor strategy can be saved byhaving a business culture that responds to the business environment during executionand modifies their approach, so they can be successful. There are many good articlesand books written about these successes.

Another way to view this is how many businesses (and managers) were extremelysuccessful, then tried to execute the same strategy in a different country withouttaking into consideration the local culture. There are also many good articles andbooks written about these failures.

So, yes, these three dimensions do cover what businesses need to be successful. Mysuccessful triangle of dimensions would be 20% Strategy, 30% Execution, and 50%Culture.

Businesses and business schools do a great job teaching strategy and execution as adiscipline. For long-term global success, however, we need to better understand and

teach about people, cultures, and their effect on an organization's success. Thisdiscipline is just as important as understanding a P&L, since it will ultimatelydetermine the bottom line.

David BroderickDirector, Global Services DeliveryCAI

56.I strongly believe the firm culture is the fundamental and the basic for any strategy toevolve. Strategise, based on the core culture and execute the strategy. All the three areinterlinked and are important for any project to succeed.

Ashok R.SChief ExecutiveHaneda Infra

57.Commencing any activity without a well thought out plan for action will lead to gropein a blind alley to surely result in a fall and consequent hurt. Hence, it is mostimportant to start with proper planning, i.e., strategising.

Thereafter, it is important to implement ,i.e., execute of the strategy. Now, by whom?

Obviously by men and machines. These have also to be guided by some work culturewhich needs to be accepted and acted upon by all.

Now, it is rather unscientific to throw estimates - in mathematical terms - as to whatshould be the percentage of each of the three factors. Estimates have been made bymany readers which I went through rather with a shudder for they vary too much;these, I would venture to conjecture, are in direct proportion to the psyche of theperson and/or his/her experiences in various situations.

Jim's questions, though not complex or irrelevant, cannot result in data which couldbe totally relied upon as a base for arriving at plausible conclusions.

Kapil Kumar Sopory


30/39

Company SecretarySmec (India) Private Limited

58.1. Strategy is that which connects the organization vision ('the desire to be') to its

mission ('ability to be'). A well formulated strategy considers execution andassociated risks, contingencies & mitigation measures. It also factors ininherent organizational cultures & values & beliefs that influence the outcomeof execution. So strategy in our context may take up 40% of the weight.Strategy is after all a well crafted plan. Execution is all about realizing theplans using resources available. The resources particularly human, areinfluenced by the organization values, beliefs etc which we broadly term asculture. The ability to execute the strategy - i.e., an unstinting attitude to stayfocused, relentlessly pursue the goal in a united fashion, being passionate &committed to the goals, managing the integrity (fair practices) and intensityrequired to realizing the goal are all in the organizations culture. A supportive

org culture would make execution a lot simpler. So I associate close to 25-30% of the importance to the culture; with a perfect plan and supportiveculture, the results still need to be produced. So execution weighs in to theextent of 30-35%.

2. The choice of the organization's strategy is not just based on macro factors butalso on internal micros which can be leveraged; For eg. we cannot have astate-of-the art product strategy just because such a market exists, if theorganizations culture doesn't nurture innovation. A OEM productmanufacturer may not do well in a retail service / direct channel business evenwith the same product because the prevailing culture is too focused ontechnical specialization without an empathy (a value/belief) for its users,unless it embarks on a culture change mission. You cannot expect a blue oceanstrategy by an organization that believes in conservatism (risk averse); if astrategy is deemed good (retrospectively based on the outcome) itssuccess/formulation can be correlated to the corporate culture to the extent ofat least 25%-30%. The outcomes in turn reinforce or weaken the prevailingculture and its impact can be felt in the future choice of org strategy & itsexecution. The orgs choice to strategize or not is also dependent on the cultureof the organization in many cases.

3. Values & Beliefs which are widely shared (as corporate DNA) influence notonly the strategy but also the choice of its execution. For eg. A widely shared

belief system like - Quality first, Innovation, results through fair businesspractices shapes the organizations offerings which would be leading edgeproducts/solutions with a high quality. Here the final product itself is theoutcome of execution of the strategy - but the qualifiers for the product(quality/innovation) is a result of the corporate belief. Without the guidingprinciples/values, in spite of a very good execution system the offering maylack the charm that distinguishes it from other offerings. In addition, the basicability to understand & respond to the organization's strategy can be directlyrelated to the culture. You cannot expect a flexible offering from an org that initself is very rigid and doesn't value agility.

Many organizations including us thus orient the staff periodically on the valuesystems/culture of the organization through workshops & other communication


31/39

sessions pretty effectively. Thus i would say that the culture influences theeffectiveness of the execution at least to an extent of 30-40% if not more.

In essence, I visualize the factors - The Organization Strategy, its execution strategyand the culture are three sides of the strategy triangle, with the ''culture' as its base.

They are tightly coupled (change to one will affect the other & vice versa).

Naveen KashyapHead - India R&D Operations

59.All are very important, however good execution leads cultural change instead of thecontrary.

A good strategy with good execution is what defines great companies from others.

I think people should change or be changed for a dynamic execution of a good

strategy. Those who lead the way should accept the market dynamics and create thewinning culture by day to day decisions, starting top down.

For the first question: Performance is 60% for strategy, and 40% for execution.

With outstanding execution of a good strategy, performance will be good, butoutstanding strategy and good execution, the performance will be outstanding.

For second and third: nothing can be done without maintaining enablingorganizational culture.

Huda AlmidaniHR ManagerIssa Group

60.Culture eats strategy for breakfast. If aligned it's about flex in strategy and focussedexecution in parallel. If change in strategy, buy in from the top and behaviours fromall around will break any strategy - unless it is one of wholesale reduction of costs forexample, where money is controlled centrally - a change strategy will never even seeits way past the powerpoint unless you drive broad buy in, invest in capability(people, tools, incentives) and be patient enough to let the culture change - dilemma

as culture change will take longer than average strategic lifespan. The fact that CEOtenure is now less than average strategic horizon really does not help!

JohnHead of ODGSMA

61.I am going to answer this question.Are the three dimensions of the questions the right ones?

When I first read these questions I initially thought these are trick questions. Then themore I thought about them I realized these are "wicked questions" (something similar


32/39

to "Wicked Problem" propounded by West Churchman), and there are no obviousanswers to these questions and the answers lies somewhere else.

Let me explain the 3 concepts Strategy, Execution and Culture and provide thelinkage to the real answer.

Strategy: refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

Execution refers to ability to get things done (or execute).

Culture refers to behaviour of the individual, enterprise and society. (" I would saythere is no such thing as culture, there are only behaviours, behaviours create culture".- Herrero Learndro 2005 article - Forget Culture change behaviours).

What drives these 3 things - the answer is Authentic Leadership.

All these 3 things above are by products of good leadership. Just like gasoline, LPGand Bitumen are by products of Crude oil, Strategy, Execution and Culture are byproducts of good leadership.

So just like you cannot have gasoline, LPG and Bitumen without drilling Crude Oil,you cannot have Strategy, Execution and Culture without leadership.

Hence going back to the original question "Are the three dimensions of the questionsthe right ones?"

My answer is NO, the real dimension of the 3 questions is leadership.

Gopal PadinjaruveetilEnterprise ArchitectCapgemini

62.I appreciate the range of comments and discussion. Most interesting for me is therecurrent theme that leaders share that strategy, structure and culture areinterdependent. I can't tell you how many CEOs we have worked with have lamentedthat they have a great strategy, a solid operating model and top leaders, but thatexecution is lagging. They turn to us to shift the culture.

For 30 years, we have focused solely on working with CEOs and senior leaders inorganizations around the globe to transform their cultures in order to enable strategicexecution. It's clear to us, based on decades of field experience and results, thatculture plays one of the biggest roles in the success or failure of all strategies andinitiatives and in financial performance.

A dysfunctional culture is why most major system implementations are behindschedule, over budget and fall short of expectations. It is why new organizationalstructures don't fully deliver on the promise. It's why new CEOs often fail, and whysafety and quality issues persist. It's why companies that don't have service cultures

struggle to support growth.


33/39

Early on, we coined a phrase to describe this phenomenon. We called it the "Jaws ofCulture." All organizations, no matter how successful, have historic habits. Whilewell intentioned, some of those habits get in the way, especially when strategy oroperational structure changes or when stretch goals are needed. We call these culturalbarriers the "Jaws of Culture."

Dysfunctional organizational habits act like jaws in the culture that can chew up yourstrategies and initiatives. Some common examples:

1. Turf issues, trust issues or silos get in the way when changes requirecollaboration across the enterprise.

2. Passive-aggressive resistance shows up when major changes need to beimplemented quickly.

3. People blame others or make excuses when results aren't where they shouldbe.

We also noted that cultural traits often got in the way when organizations wanted toimplement a new strategy or change the structure, such as from a holding company tomore of a shared business model. When the strategy of an organization changes, theculture is usually a step or two behind. This lag is like an anchor on a boat and slowsprogress.

Our model of culture change involves shifting the mindset of the organization. Thiseliminates the lag and creates the right behaviours to best support business initiatives.

It's great to see so many leaders weigh in on this important topic.

Jim HartPresident and CEOSenn Delaney

63.First, Well begun is half done. Hence, a well thought of strategy plan with built-infeedback mechanism is essential for starters.

Second, ideas are impotent without action. Hence, thorough follow-up in execution ofstrategy is much important.

Many organizations across industries are successful & they do have different cultures,hence if the above two points are followed diligently, culture of success alreadybecomes in-built.

Thus, Organization Performance = 50:50 Strategy Planning: Execution.

VenkatDeputy General ManagerAGL

64.Strategy is nothing but a plan with approach and tactics. Without a strategy therecannot be an execution. Culture of an organization is nothing but an enabler foreffective execution as well as making strategies by people. Therefore there must be


34/39

synergy between strategy, execution and culture. Lack of proper strategy will notyield desired results, however best be the execution and good culture of work. In anutshell, the maximum weight goes to strategy while the next in the line is execution.

High performance of the organization depends on the culture of the organization

where effective strategies are made and work executed as targeted. There are anumber of examples for this conclusion - take the case of Dell in US, it is theirstrategy of direct marketing which worked.

In India, the case of Nirma is an example of an effective strategy- low pricing of thedetergent and its availability across the country to attract common man which made abig success denting into the market share of well established brand, Surf detergent.

Behind all these principles, it is the people who make things happen and everyorganization must develop the competencies of people to make successful strategiesand execute it effectively and provide a congenial work culture in the organization.

Surendranath A.General Manager-HRBMM Ispat Ltds

65.Brilaint strategy needs excellent execution to deliver success. Culture is within theperipherals and it could be managed with excellent execution. Execution is theleading variable in this trinity followed by strategy and then culture.

John EmmanuelChief Operating OfficerReliant Research, Nigeria

66.Where capabilities fit? I'm learning that strategy execution requires capabilities, theirconnection with culture and the difficulty to adapt the latter to a changing strate

how do you weigh strategy

Documents