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