When good Go-To-Market Strategies may not be enough to succeed 1/3

09 October 2013

I have decided to develop a few posts regarding why Go-To-Market strategies may not be effective enough if not coupled with good management techniques, as well as with good managers.

 

As usual, these are strictly my personal thoughts, and do not necessarily reflect my Company's view.

 

What's hiding behind the magic words: "go to market"?  In marketing discipline, the term Go-To-Market strategy typically refers to the channels a company will use to connect with its customers/business and the organizational processes it develops to guide customer interactions from initial contact through fulfillment.

 

However, I would argue that any go-to-market strategy may turn useless without the presence of a parallel, effective, delegation framework, supported by an adequate management system.

 

Any company should first define its strategy, and the business model to sustain it.  Then, in turn, its operational model and the business processes to support it.

 

Last, but surely not least, they should hire the people who could execute against that model.

 

The IT applications, although essential, are supposed to “simply” automate the Company’s business processes, and it is a highly recommended practice that the IT strategy and the automation strategy be fully aligned to the business priorities.

 

While strategies may change, processes and delegations frameworks must also change and adapt: even processes which may have proven successful under certain circumstances, may suddenly turn out cumbersome and slow the business down.

 

Speed is key, especially in today’s world.  Speed is a key factor not only to succeed in the marketplace, but also to drive internal change or to boost internal behaviors.  Without sounding too simplistic, I believe speed has been at the very core of Sergio Marchionne's strategy to drive the Fiat's comeback in the sleepy automotive industry.

 

How could we address these challenges?

 

I have always been intrigued by the many similarities between management techniques and military discipline.  It's not that i necessarily like it, but I feel there is a stronger than expected correlation between the two.

 

The latter is teaching the business that the higher it is structured and predictable, the more it should be managed through a rigid hierarchical chain, in order to preserve its margins and carefully maneuver through changes.  This is requiring well staffed headquarters and people who are studying and planning all the logistics aspects in detail.  Think about an established maintenance business, as an example.

 

On the opposite, when the battlefield is requiring flexibility and changes, there is nothing better than truly delegating the officers who are closer to the action, of course in a coordinated fashion.  In this case, lean processes, and the ability to make timely decisions will be then critical success factors.  Typical examples are to be found in the consulting businesses.

 

Apparently, having pushed decision making down to brilliant generals on the battlefield was the key to success in the Six-Day War in 1967.

 

On the other hand, I have read that the inability to allocate the right resources at HQ level vs the field was one of the causes for the German Army’s setback during WWII: the HQ was made up of sophisticated people who ended up generating too much bureaucracy and complexity which eventually slowed down the field operations.

 

In today's volatile markets, business leaders face a challenge similar to the soldiers in the battlefield: how to succeed through "the fog of business."

 

The traditional war techniques with the Commander-in-chief establishing in detail the battles' strategies, and leaving mere execution on the battlefield may not be enough to succeed in today's high-speed world, if we are talking either about army or business.

 

The traditional tools of management — strategy and planning — are no longer sufficient.

 

Strategy doesn't give employees enough guidance to know how to take action, and plans are typically too rigid to adapt to rapidly changing environments.

 

Business leaders are recognizing the importance of pushing decision-making down the organization and out to the front line. But delegation can lead to invisibility, inconsistency and even chaos. Leaders must then create mechanisms that keep everyone aligned to the mission and coordinated in the field.

 

Doctrine is the military's mechanism for managing these issues, by pushing decision-making closer to the ground while providing the lines to guide decision-making and action. Doctrine creates the common framework of understanding inside of which individuals can make rapid decisions that are right for their circumstances.

 

In management we name empowerment this very similar mechanism, and the military doctrine may then offer a model for executives looking for new ways of exerting influence without centralized control.

 

To be continued...