Something absolutely unique happens during the execution of a growth program: on the one hand, it’s exhilarating in its novelty and the new ground being tilled. You are out talking to new clients, industry gatekeepers and thought leaders. Because of this, projects are usually led by those who enjoy stepping up to the challenge and taking risks.
On the other hand, it’s incredibly stressful both personally and organizationally because you are taking people, processes and the underlying technology to (and past) the limits to establish a new capability. In each of these cases there are gatekeepers and stakeholders of the current way of doing things that will resist the emergent path like a three year old resists taking a bath.
A good analogy from my material science background is die casting vs welding. When we are casting, we are making the same part from the same materials over and over again. When we are welding, we are fusing two, always different materials, with a very turbulent process that combines heat, gas and chemistry that is all happening at a shocking rate of speed. The outcome of this process is a third (and unique) metallurgy – a unique blend and set of characteristics that better serve what we need the combined parts to do.
Doing transformative growth work is more like welding than casting.
Diagnosis Before Prescription
The first problem with most popular books on innovation is they lead with a prescription and show how it has worked well in a firm or two. What goes unspoken, is where the prescription does not apply, and in fact might actually push the work towards a negative outcome if the firms and teams are at a different point in their journey.
There is nothing more frustrating as a leader than when you go to implement a strategy and realize there are applications gaps in the material. Many authors overextend the application of their models and though not intending to, can strand leaders mid cycle. Acknowledging that no amount of planning will make for a perfect journey, we can make sure we do our due diligence on process boundaries and real-world applications before committing our precious time, budget and resources.
The second problem is that as leaders, we step up to the challenge with unique backgrounds, training and experiences that have shaped our way of seeing and doing. This all sets up deep patterns in our thinking, and we tend to push these into our operating model as leaders. We often adopt those items that reinforce our thinking and pass over those items that don’t fit with our view of the world. This is called confirmation bias, and every leader has it and needs to build systems that bring disconfirming information into their sphere to be considered.
The third issue is that firms go through distinct behaviors depending on their stage in the life cycle. Each of these stages demand different leadership skills and behaviors of its team. The most challenging time for firms is when they are graduating from one stage to another. Suddenly all that seemed familiar no longer works, and the skills to lead forward are anything but natural. It’s at these times that bootstrapping leaders hit the bookshelf, and try to guide their firm with predictable results.
This is why I call leading growth an expedition – not a tour. Pulling out a book and guiding your firm is like walking to the airport and attempting to fly based on the operations manual for the airplane. You can gain a lot of head knowledge, but the experiences and demands of flying will come at you too fast to allow you to build the application of your head knowledge without crashing the plane.
Building the Right Project, the Right Team and the Right Plan
The approach we use is different. Rather than using a one-size-fits-all strategy, we’ll work to get razor sharp on the external shift, as well as the challenge it presents to a client’s organization. We then orient every effort and resource toward closing that gap from the client’s viewpoint. We look at a firm’s strengths and gaps relative to this perspective and build a custom plan that lays out a clear path and precise action steps that will efficiently close in on the objective.
What does this look like in real life? A firm usually “feels a need from their market” that has prompted them to pencil out an intention, and many times they have started to put together a plan. In the case of a mechanical filtration manufacturer with great IP, they knew they needed to diversify “up the stack.” We were able to help them identify some leading customer use cases and do some deep interviewing. Having done this, we settled in on food processing solutions as a good entry point for an “IOT” ready product.
In doing this work we found that they needed to update some of their product management processes and add some industrial automation talent to a very strong mechanical-centric team.
We also built in clear delivery expectations for the team, so that unrealistic performance metrics do not get applied to the group too early. This can easily create an early end to an otherwise promising project.
You need a Custom Approach
The approach that keeps things on track for the maximum impact is always anchored to the key external shift and the bigger picture of the firm’s current reality. By planning a clear set of intentions across the spectrum of people, processes and technology, we can get to the win or pivot faster.
After having done dozens of these, I am increasingly convinced that firms need to have a solid diagnosis and custom plan before embarking on the transformation journey. The risk in piecemealing the journey is that you may never see closure and impact to the bottom line.
If you’d like to talk, feel free to reach out via my direct line at (847) 651-1014 or use this link to set up a call.
Related posts you can benefit from…
