In our business, we see a lot of strategic plans. In too many of them we see this cute little two-step trick we call, “The Wimp’s Way Out”:

Step one: First, declare bland, no fail, effort-based goals. If possible, make them sound aggressive without actually being aggressive. Here is an example from one military command’s plan:

“Using Lean Six Sigma process we will aggressively attack civilian employee lost productivity due to accidents and seek improvements to accident reporting and analysis.”

Gee, “aggressively,” eh? Wow.

Step two: Then scavenge for precise outcomes a year later. Somewhere between any organization’s random fluctuations and its random flailing, there is bound to be some good news you can claim as victory. From that same organization’s plan:

“Compared with the previous fiscal year, we reduced private vehicle fatality by over 10%.”

Note that now, only after the fact, the plan specifies indisputable results. But they are only cherry-picking successes to brag about, not planning successes to achieve. This is cheating, not leading.

When Babe Ruth pointed to where he was going to hit the baseball, and then did it, he impressed everyone. But hitting a ball, and then pointing to where it went, impresses no one.

This is an excerpt  from our book,  Precision Leadership: Four Principles To Target Results That Matter, to be released late this summer.

Fancy decision making models abound in business, but they are not what leaders use day-to-day, meeting-to-meeting. Decision making in that environment is based on human judgment. Not surprisingly, good judgment equals good decision making and bad judgment equals bad decision making. Fortunately, good judgment is learnable.

But first, it helps to explore “bad judgment,” because therein lies the formula to good judgment. Think about the times you’ve accused someone of outrageously “bad judgment”; odds are the situation fell into one of these two, opposite categories.

#1: Missing the Bigger Point

You know the aphorism, “He can’t see the forest for the trees.” That represents one kind of bad judgment: Being so focused on the details that larger issues are lost.

Old joke alert: You’ve probably heard the one about the three tourists captured by cannibals in French New Guinea. To kill the tourists, the cannibals set up a guillotine abandoned by French colonialists. Tearful and shaking, the first tourist got on his knees, with his head forced into the guillotine. The blade was released and shot down the length of the guillotine only to stop a few millimeters from the tourist’s neck. The cannibals took this as a sign from above that the man was to be released, and so he was. The second tourist . . . okay, okay, we’ll spare you . . . same thing happened. As the third tourist, an engineer, got on his knees, his trained eyes squinted up at the mechanism. A smile washed over his face and he beamed at the cannibal leader, “Hey, Chief! I think I know your problem!”

Sorry.

But we see this deadly dumb focus on details all the time. We see military briefers who will, BY GOLLY, plod through each and every PowerPoint slide, regardless of the interests or needs of the audience. We see software writers who are determined to add that ONE MORE FEATURE, until a market window is utterly lost. And the list goes on and on. Sometimes it is, indeed, damnation that is in the details.

#2: Missing the Finer Points

There is an opposite problem. Although it’s not an accepted aphorism, there are people who can’t see the trees for the forest. You might get the occasional big, broad idea from them, but it will be without understanding what it takes to achieve the idea. And we’ve all seen the imperious executive spouting The Big Directive, clueless about what balls will be dropped, or other repercussions incurred in pursuit of this shiny new object, or as a result of it.

Nineteenth century economist Frédéric Bastiat used this idea in distinguishing between bad economists and good economists:

“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

The Formula For Good Judgment

Both kinds of bad judgment beget bad side effects. What’s the cure for either type of bad judgment? Combine them both. Fuse the two kinds of bad judgment together, and then you get good judgment. Kind of like sodium and chloride; separate, they’re poison. Together, they’re salt.

If you want to develop good judgment (or help someone else achieve it), learn to do both kinds of judgment, starting with your preferred style, and then consciously and deliberately, looping over to the other style, and back again a few times. That’s it.

So, if you’re a tree-type person (the engineer in the guillotine), go ahead and focus on your critical details, but then loop back the other way. Give meaning and context to the details by asking questions such as:

• What’s the ultimate point here?
• What were we originally funded to produce?
• What’s the broader impact of the decision I’m considering? Could anything negative be created by my positive intentions?

Then loop back over to “crucial details” and see if you still like the game plan or want to alter it a bit. Make a couple of little-picture/big-picture loops until you are satisfied with your thinking. That’s how good judgment works: you work from side to side, like the Texas two-step.

On the other hand, if you’re a forest-type person (Mr. or Ms. Big Thinker), then go ahead and revel in that Big Picture, but then loop over to detail-land with questions such as:

• What would be the first, concrete step?
• What will it take to make this happen, in terms of time, money, and effort?
• What might we have to STOP doing in order to do this thing?
• Who else, or what else, might I affect with this effort?

After you’ve got some of those grimy details in hand, loop back to your lofty heights and see if you still like the scenery. Again, consciously and deliberately, jog around this track a few times. It is the only way to move from a vaporous vision to an actionable one – and one that you’ll be proud of when it’s achieved.

Whether you’re a big-picture or a detail-oriented type, if you make the loop enough times, in the end you’ll be able to see the forest AND the trees. One direction will feel natural to you, but the other you will have to push yourself toward consciously and deliberately. With practice, good decision making will become habit.

Acknowledgements: It would be lousy judgment if we didn’t credit the smart guy who came up with this model. Years ago, our friend and former colleague (and intercultural communication overlord) Dr. Milton Bennett spouted this off in a class we were co-teaching. It made loads of sense and has stuck with us ever since.

There are plenty of theories on change management, and this isn’t one of them. This is a simple checklist for anyone driving big, complex organizational change.

But first, you have to recognize when you are facing what we’ll call “Big Change.” Some examples: You are changing leaders, and the new person is bringing new “direction.” Or, you are downsizing or consolidating. Or, you are fixing an organization-wide problem with maintenance, safety, or something. Or, you are moving the location of a factory. The list is endless, but you get the picture.

It’s the “Soft Side” That Makes Change Hard

There are two sides to the Big Change coin (pun intended). First, there is the “hard side,” the physical details that will – or had better – end up in a project plan, complete with pretty Gantt charts. The other side of the coin is the “soft side,” the people stuff. Of course, it’s the soft side of change management that makes Big Change hard. And if you think that the soft side is too squishy to be managed in any hard-headed way, you might be surprised. (And for Pete’s sake, don’t try to get off the hook by appointing a “change manager.” If you’re leading the change, you are the change manager!)

8 Transformational Levers: MICE ROAR

There is a handful of “people systems” that can be your transformational levers on the soft side of Big Change. If these people systems are aimed in the same direction as your change, you’ll probably succeed. But if they are pointed in a different direction, then it’s like driving a car with its wheels out of alignment: while you’re steering in one direction, invisible forces will pull you in a different direction.

This checklist calls out those invisible forces and makes them available as transformational levers. The point is to put transformational levers IN YOUR PLAN, right alongside “select moving company.” You want to get all the arrows to point in the same direction at the right time.

Most of these transformational levers can be used to get you through the change, and they can also be used on the other side of the change to sustain it. Here, we’re just talking about using them to get you through the change. For example, the first lever, Measurement, could remind you to measure how many people are, say, trained in a new process, how many have adopted the new process, how much re-work is required as they get used to the new process, and so on. On the other side of change, you will want to measure outcomes, such as the degree to which you are getting the benefits of the new process (reduced costs, cycle time, up time, whatever). But that’s another story and not the point we’re trying to make here.

So, as you read the list, think about how you might use it to get through the change; if you think about it for other purposes, that’s a bonus.

We call this our MICE ROAR checklist (thanks to Jeff Kenyon, software guru and graduate of our Implementing Strategic Change course, for sorting our list into a clever acronym). If you have thoughtfully addressed these levers in your planned change, you should do pretty well. They are:

• Measurement
• Involvement
• Communication
• Education & Training
• Reinforcement
• Organizational Structure
• Accountability Processes
• Resourcing

Here’s a little more detail on each one:

1)   “What gets measured gets done” isn’t exactly true; you must attach consequences to your outcomes. However, there is no better spotlight, nor better foundation for consequences, than measurement. You can measure processes: how well you are doing what you say you’re doing. Or, you can measure outcomes: the results of your processes.

2)   Everyone writing about change agrees that involvement of people affected by the change is important. The underlying reason is that people hate feeling out of control of important parts of their lives. In a change project this lack of comfort quickly leads to massive resistance. To avoid this you must give the people affected by the change a serious opportunity to influence the nature of the change and how it is implemented, and you must take their ideas seriously. (Some helpful clarifications on this paragraph: “opportunity” does not mean that all must give their opinions; “influence” does not mean control; “ideas taken seriously” does not equate with getting one’s way.)

3)   Along with the generalized resistance to change that occurs when people feel out of control, is the anxiety that comes from not knowing what’s going on. The problem is that people don’t hear well when they’re resisting, so their uncertainty doesn’t go away when rational explanations are offered. If anything, resistance increases, causing another escalation of anxiety and resistance. The only way to break this vicious circle is communication, and lots of it! (As a good starting point, consider William Bridges’ 7X7 principle: Communicate it seven times, seven different ways. His wise book, Managing Transitions, is highly recommended.)

4)   Education (and training) is straightforward. It simply means that people must be knowledgeable of the vision, values, goals and objectives of the organization, and must be equipped with the skills necessary for their new jobs. People must also be educated about the transformational change and trained on the skills necessary to execute the transformational change. Keep in mind the principle of just-in-time training, which means DON’T teach somebody how to do something wayyyy before they’ll be able to use it; they just forget.

5)   We all know that people generally do whatever gets them rewarded. It’s pretty obvious that the reinforcement system needs to be changed whenever there’s a strategic change to the work that people do. We take a broad view of the reinforcement system, and include in it the way people get paid (and what they get paid for), their benefits, other financial rewards, and non-financial forms of reward and recognition.

6)   The term Organizational Structure refers to three things: (1) Accountability Hierarchy, the lines and boxes on an organizational chart (who’s accountable to whom for what), (2) process design (the lines and boxes on a process flow chart), and (3) position descriptions. If you have names that you plan to match with positions, that is good to include also. As with all transformational tools, you will have some elements that you install only during the transformational change, and some that will endure after the transformational change. Therefore you will have some Organizational Structure considerations that are temporary – say, the design of the project team. And you will have some design considerations that are permanent, such as the design of the organization being changed.

7)   Accountability Processes – sometimes called performance management – are the processes by which you hold people accountable. Implementation of strategic change, by definition, affects the work for which people are held accountable. So at this time it is especially crucial to have processes through which to ensure the three elements of accountability (clarity of request, buy-in, and performance consequences — we’ve written about this here.). During the change you will need more frequent review goal setting/review intervals. For example, during a big change with the entrenched staff of a not-for-profit organization, we found weekly review intervals to be especially helpful in turning things around. As the change took root, then monthly intervals sufficed.

8)   Resourcing is about getting the right people into the right jobs, either by external recruitment or through internal postings. It also includes succession planning. Big change often shifts the requirements of key positions, calling for different personal attributes and skills by the people in those positions; when it does, resourcing efforts need to have been thought out in advance and kicked into gear.

We are big believers in checklists (for inspiration on that point, see Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto) and we hope you find this one useful.

Are there other “people systems” you would add to this list?

Wendi: I’m writing this from a little restaurant at the San Francisco airport.  I’ve had a longer than usual travel day – more time than usual to observe and appreciate the people working on behalf of my travel experience. As I looked closely today, I realized that almost all of them – the janitor in the restroom, the flight attendants, the gate agent, and now the server at this restaurant – have delivered exceptional performance. Each of them has had a sincere smile. Each one has been proactive, understanding and then taking care of my needs. It almost feels odd. Did someone toss magic fairy dust into the air today? I must investigate.

So I just spoke with Lori, my server at the restaurant. I asked her what caused her to be so good – to keep such a positive, proactive attitude.  Here’s what she said: “Consider that YOU play a role in this. When you bring positive expectations and notice what I’m doing well, it makes it easier for me to be good.”

Wow! Not only is she articulate, she’s right. There is something powerful – sometimes even magical – about noticing and explicitly reinforcing good performance. By the way, I think I just got reinforced for good performance!

A scowl crosses the face of some people when they hear the term “strategic planning.” These people have been to the off-sites with bright ideas and sticky notes, they’ve seen the slick “final plan” with cool clip art, and then they’ve seen . . . nothing. Nothing happening. Nothing changing. And then they realize: This was a stupid waste of time. Strategy execution isn’t part of the deal. Leadership wasn’t serious.

For leaders who are serious, for whom strategy execution is part of the deal, we’ve always seen these three ingredients work.

1. A steady accountability drumbeat. Even leaders who are terrific at communicating their goals and strategies will come up short if they don’t build in an accountability cycle. Each member of the leadership team must regularly (say, monthly) stand in front of boss and peers and report progress on his or her piece of the strategic plan. The conversation flows like this:

• “This is the measurable impact I committed to achieve.”
• “Here is how I’m doing.”
• [optional] “These are the changes I’d suggest to our direction,” and/or “This is the help I need from my boss or peers.”
• See ya next month!

This is a great conversation, and it’s what drives everyone to realize, “Oh crap! The stuff in this plan is actually my day job!” Also, these conversations create self-correction and improvement in the strategic plan. That means that your strategic plan doesn’t have to start out perfect; you can settle for the 60/40 solution and get going!

This group readout not only helps the organization stay focused, but it also keeps leaders aligned with each other and constantly mindful of how they are affecting each other.

Of course, your strategic plan must spell out what each team member is supposed to accomplish. Otherwise, you have a wish list, not a plan, and accountability is impossible.

2. Strategic initiatives managed as projects. Strategic plans almost always name something new that has to be accomplished. Regardless of industry, there will be “initiatives,” each with a beginning, middle, and end – and an outcome. That’s a wordy way of saying that there are projects to be managed. As soon as you realize you’ve got some projects on your hands, you can lean on the well-known body of knowledge called “project management.” Here are some of the more salient points.

• Put ONE person in charge of the project. There’s a reason ships don’t have two captains. Even big ships.
• Establish a clear goal, a clear timeframe, and a budget. Progress reports (we’re back to the accountability cycle) need to be couched relative to (a) work accomplished vs. schedule and (b) work accomplished vs. budget. Make sure you get both.
• Stand up a project team with team members who have clear accountabilities and clear understanding that for this project, they work for the project manager. (Obviously, the project manager must have some clout. We covered this topic when we discussed the perils of accountability without authority.)

There’s plenty more to say on this topic, but this’ll get us started for now.

3. Innovation Switched On. Many organizations’ plans identify gaps between where they are and where they want to be – and they cite “innovation” as the way to close that gap. In an earlier post, we discussed Prahalad’s prescription for quantum innovation (See “We Can All Play In The Innovation Sandbox”). In addition,

• Encourage constructive failure. The innovators’ dictum to “fail fast, fail often, and fail cheap” boils down to this formula: non-fatal failure + learning = discovery. You need discovery for innovation, and the more discovery the better.
• But failure + blame (or stories, reasons, and excuses) = uh, FAILURE. When you see this happen, at least act annoyed.
• Reward innovative solutions, reward learning from failure, reward people for reaching across boundaries to create solutions.
• Contests work for a while (so use them), and demonstrating that you take “different thinking” seriously – whether or not you use it – always works.

These three ingredients do a pretty good job of turning strategy into results. Any that you’d add to the list?