In my post two weeks ago I discussed the importance of knowing when to use a “top down” vs. a “bottom up” approach to make change happen, and shared some key principles to help make this important decision.

In this post I want to take it a step further and provide “practical tips” for those that frequently find themselves facilitating groups dealing with these questions (consultant, coaches, facilitators, managers, etc.). The intent is to help them be more effective at what they do based on a deeper understanding of the following specific dynamics:

(more…)

The following is an extract from A.G. Lafley (CEO of P&G) and R. Martin’s book “Playing to Win (How Strategy Really Works).”

1. They define strategy as vision: they offer no guide to productive action and no explicit road map to the desired future.
2. They define strategy as a plan: a detailed plan that specifies what the firm will do does not imply that the things it will do add up to sustainable competitive advantage.
3. They deny that long-term (or even medium-term) strategy is possible: not only is strategy possible in times of tumultuous change, but it can be a competitive advantage and a source of significant value creation.
4. They define strategy as optimization of the status quo: the optimization of current practices does not address the very real possibility that the firm could be exhausting its assets and resources by optimizing the wrong activities.
5. They define strategy as following best practices: some organizations define strategy as benchmarking against competition and then doing the same set of activities more effectively. Sameness isn’t strategy. It is a recipe for mediocrity.

Be inspired, take action, help others by sharing…

 Olearys via Compfight

A while ago I was working with an executive team leading them through the process of defining an organizational structure capable of achieving their ambitious long-term goals. As I was planning the roadmap for this initiative I was immediately confronted with a thorny issue confronting most facilitators and coaches doing this kind of work. From which end do I attack the question? Do I zoom out and start from the “destination” (“big picture” vision) and work back to the reality of today, or do I zoom in, starting with a detailed diagnostic of where we are today, and build up to the “destination.”

In having both succeeded and failed at answering this question, I’ve concluded that there is no on-size-fits-all answer. However there are some clear guiding principles, and cautions, that I’ve found to be invaluable in helping make the right decision. First, the principles:

Go Top Down: if the “desired state” (vision) is thought to be completely different than where you are today, start with the macro view (“the destination” or vision). Clearly, it doesn’t make sense to start off entangled in the “mire of today” if you’re going somewhere completely different (it doesn’t absolve you from having to bridge the gap, but it comes later). In other words, if you’re fundamentally shifting the paradigm, “beginning a new chapter,” or leaving the “past in the past” this is the way to go. Where does this approach typically make sense? Startups, turnarounds, transformation breakthroughs, new initiatives, etc.

Go Bottom Up: if the progress you want to make builds upon, extends, or even complements the “current state,” start from the detail and work up. In this case it’s important to have a detailed understanding (diagnostic) of where you are today so that you can continue the journey and trajectory that has been started. There’s no need to build from scratch if you already have a solid foundation. Rather you’ll want to take time to make sure you understand and leverage it as much as possible. Where does this approach make sense? Typically in areas where you’re improving on the current paradigm – process improvement, annual strategy reviews, cost optimization, budget planning, etc.

So what happens if you get it backwards? There are risks…

If you substitute the “bottom up” for the “top down” approach you’re basically assuming that the keys to future transformation lie in the current reality (many do this!) and will define the vision based on today’s activity. The danger is that you could be spending significant time essentially re-organizing the “deck chairs” (actually preserving the same problems) when you should actually be building a new boat.

On the other hand if you substitute the “top down” for the “bottom up” approach you’re building the future independently of you’re current foundation (assets, ongoing initiatives, etc.) and potential constraints that come with it. The danger is to build something completely disconnected from current reality while ignoring, or even destroying, much of the good raw material you already have in your hands.

In summary, it’s clear that neither approach is superior to the other. Both are effective ways to make progress. The secret lies in knowing which to use when. To give you clarity in applying the principles and making the right decision, take time to think about two fundamental questions. First, what is the magnitude of change you want to accomplish? Second, where are you starting from?

Picture:  David Goehring via Compfight