Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure
Guy Kawasaki has a very thoughtful post on his blog How to Change the World, about a new book by Michael Raynor titled The Strategy Paradox : Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure (and what to do about it.)
A 'sound byte' from the book:
"You could say that Apple’s and Sony’s strategies were great strategies that simply happened to fail. They failed not because of any shortcomings in the strategies, but because of shortcomings in each firm’s ability to predict what sort of strategy would succeed."
Readers of this blog will have noticed a thread over the past year, that is very similar to this observation. Successful strategy is not about a grand plan. Rather, it is an integrated process that prepares the organization for a range of futures by creating what I have previously called a state of "dynamic resilience." This involves making smaller bets on a range of initiatives, rather than betting the firm on just one outcome and, as part of the strategic process, growing the firm's resources and skills to be able to capitalize on opportunities that emerge and ward off threats. In other words, to adapt and evolve.
As I have just said in a comment on Guy's blog: "All too often, I find myself facing blank stares from clients who want me to help them to (only) craft a plan that will lead them to greatness. This is only possible where the future is certain. Which, of course, it is not."
Crafting strategic plans is OK, I guess, for consultants who are happy to live only in the "giving advice" space. Not for those who measure their success by the degree to which their clients successfully execute their intent. Edge International has always existed primarily in the "execution" space.