Reflections on a surprising week in Italy…
Robin Maiden
Managing Director, Chameleon Consulting & Co-owner of Rumah Homes & Puffling Cottage
For some that know me well it won’t be a surprise that I reflect on things sometimes too much, for others it might be a surprise that I reflect at all…
Nevertheless, I tend not to post my reflections here. Despite feeling somewhat uncomfortable & vulnerable but with the encouragement & agreement of our new client partners to post (having approved this wording & requested anonymity), I’d like to highlight a few things from this past week’s strategy workshop/meeting facilitation.
I hope they provide some helpful hints & tips for you & I’m more than happy to go into even greater depth (just drop a comment/message).
These reflections are not so much about how to run good meetings/workshops but more about how such investments of time & budget allow teams to craft the best possible strategy.
Article format:
Summary of key reflection points:
NOTE: These may not seem revelatory at first – but the real value comes in pushing the boundaries of these definitions and the resultant quality of interactions & therefore outputs – jump to the deeper dive for more content
1.????? Remove process shackles
2.???? Total concentration
3.???? Freedom to operate (for us)
4.???? Freedom to operate (for group)
5.???? Banish the battery of AAAs
6.???? Ruthless honesty
7.???? Giving themselves options (not “wiggle-room”)
8.??? New strategy checkpoints
Context:
Often, I feel somewhat “incomplete” at the end of projects. Getting great feedback, seeing teams shift gears or come together more or build new confidence/skills is great, but the ex-Pharma leader in me sometimes misses the ability to make the final decisions, drive the change, celebrate the downstream success etc. (And, to be fair, sometimes I’m glad to avoid the difficult decisions, but overall I miss them!!).
This week saw a first “real” engagement with a new cross-functional, senior leadership team. A team that is relatively newly formed in an organization that has had a turbulent few years’ and faces some complex pathways to navigate over the coming forecasting period. I was very nervous as some steps in our “normal” process had been bypassed for the sake of focus & urgency, but it left me feeling somewhat “undercooked” going in (perhaps this has an impact on the reflections).
Often, when asked to help facilitate “away day”/offsite strategy meetings we are given a pretty tight leash/scope (which can limit our value, or so we perceive it) and far too often we are engaged due to some perceived advantage we hold in a specific therapeutic area or similar (personally, I find this concerning as I’ve seen, too often, strategy/launch failures due to imported “class effect” thinking from hiring processes etc vs the clarity that comes from what some might perceive as inexperience or naivety).
What felt different?
We were given complete trust & freedom by the Chief of Staff to design a process that was new to the team & unusual for Pharma (not the typical consulting or strategy approach).
Initial uncertainty about our (agreed in advance with sponsor) provocative design & style was overwhelmingly applauded midway through the process; as new ways of thinking were realised & consequently new market opportunities & possible strategies & hypotheses emerged.
Despite being a new team & not having done as much scoping/investigations 1:1 with attendees as we would normally like the trust with us & between team members was truly revelatory (for this we make little or no claim; this has to be due to the set-up by Chief of Staff & team leader). The level & depth of discussions around problems & potential solutions was tremendous.
The acceptance that their existing strategy was bad (related to Rumelt’s “test”) was quicker than anticipated. So, we didn’t have any team members “holding on” to what has gone before
The acceptance of Roger L Martin’s strategy cascade/framework was quicker & easier than could’ve hoped (even after nearly 10 years of using it & refining our usage/approach). So, we spent less time convincing it was the right approach vs actually using it!!
The acceptance (& eventual celebration) that you cannot make data-based future decisions (= strategy) was v surprising yet v helpful (behavioural economics/heuristics is a well-known concept but very poorly prescribed in a strategy/decision-making context – but clearly has a massive impact here). But, by twisting the thinking to focus on a preferred future desired state for the organization with clearly identified areas of focus, clear ways to win, aligned with ideas for new business models, skills, structures etc coupled with new/different ways to measure success and seek insight to determine which of the hypothetical future pathways/scenarios was likely to lead them to success.
?
领英推荐
Deeper dive into key reflection points:
1.????? Remove process shackles:
These shackles can range from infernal slide templates to an insistence on matching strategy to long-range financial forecasts (as if creating a strategy story will make them more believable or more likely to happen) to the harbouring of misconceptions on the strategy creation process (planning is not a substitute). We also removed an agenda. Everyone asks for one, but what help are they if you are off-site & committed?). We instead focused on objectives & key discussion points. We worked until we felt the topic had been exhausted. We worked into the evenings. We worked through breaks. No one uttered any discontent; the focus wasn’t on agenda slippage it was on outcomes. This group went further & created a future-looking review period/new strategy process (more later)
2.???? Total concentration:
As an extension of the prior point, but worthy of separate note. 100% commitment 100% of the time is what we achieved. Partly due to the calibre of people, partly due to our skill (hopefully), partly due to the set-up by Chief of Staff and we think partly due to the location & timing of the workshop. We’ve all run / attending meetings where this was the intention. How often, in reality, do we see it achieved? This time we did. Amazing!
3.???? Freedom to operate (for us):
Again, possibly an extension of point 1, but also e separate topic. We were given almost a completely free rein to design & run the 2+ day workshop. It was scary (for them & us) but we observed the best crafted strategy output we have ever seen. The trust given to us allowed us to push boundaries and achieve far more than we have with other & similar groups. In 12 years of doing this, this was a first. And by some distance.
4.???? Create wider freedom (for the group):
Lecce, in Puglia, will not be the first place on any teams list for a Pharma leadership team meeting. It could be. It should be? The sense of quiet & history & beauty, unconnected to our normal industry haunts, our day jobs and the local helpful people, beautiful food & drinks made the wider group relax & focus on the task rather than “everything else” that keeps everyone “busy.” We created a “flow” that at times I’ve only ever observed in long established & highly successful sports teams or read about in the literature. It was amazing to witness. This group, with this strategy & future intent appears destined for great success.
5.???? Banish the battery of AAAs:
Ambiguous Analogies & Acronyms are the bane of my life. “It’s like when we tried this” is not often helpful (& with the agreement of all this week, when we heard it, or equivalents, we were allowed to challenge with “in what way?”, or equivalents, or more directly, “no, it isn’t, let’s give it a fresh look”). Also, being more precise and descriptive helps more discussion & investigation. This team did exactly that. We banished KOL, UMN – unmet medical need, DOL, HCP, PSG, CSF, KSI, OKR, KPI & all other TLAs – three letter acronyms, or 4 or 5s. This was a major contributor to deeper, wider understanding & removal of unnecessary confusion. Whilst we were at it, we removed other industry terminology & focused on a new vernacular; strategy language. ?Also, we agreed to not place what felt like important elements where we had been v specific into amorphous/nebulous platitude-like groupings, so, no “that’s culture, let’s put it with this other one that feels a bit like culture too” or “let’s put these 4-5 down as ‘soft skills’” (BTW, I hate that term, nothing about them is ‘soft’). The strict application of this rule we feel eliminated some downstream ambiguity & significant potential to miss the mark.
6.???? Ruthless honesty:
We were allowed to be provocative in the agenda, the tools we used, our challenge etc & the group responded so well. They were well briefed in advance and the safety in the room plus no disruptions to break the flow all contributed positively. Strategy creation is uncomfortable and poor strategy can often come from a lack of problem definition or acceptance of one’s own role in the problem. There was general acceptance that this team hadn’t operated well enough in the past, that their approach to strategy had held back their functions/teams. There was no rancour, there was instead a determination to be better. From a clear starting point, not from some position that can be “spun” into something more positive. The new problem definition & strategy for how to win is aligned & cohesive & the workstreams to ensure the new capabilities, people, systems etc required was honestly laid out (I would’ve called this last bit GTM models – but we’ve banned TLAs!)
7.???? Giving themselves options (not “wiggle-room”):
The work of Lovallo & Sibony, Nutt, the Heath brothers & many others has shown that decision-making can be improved (to the Power of 6 as we term it) via a number of relatively simple to complete steps. This team embraced these ideas. So, each critical decision was not a binary do we or don’t we, it was which of these various routes seem best for us. The current not considered scenarios are not lost they will be essential elements of the next step…
8.??? New strategy checkpoints:
The group decided until end 2024 approx every 6-8 weeks to reconvene for a specific meeting to review the assumptions that have underpinned their decisions this past week. There will be no other agenda items. They will not be linked with LE / financial reviews. There will be precise focus on the following;
There are 3 important aspects here:
If it becomes apparent that the wider organization cannot implement (for whatever reason, even if more resources are added etc) mission critical elements to convert the opportunities central to the strategy then the whole strategy will need to be review. This is where those aforementioned, & not discarded, scenarios become crucial to identify pivots and to do it seamlessly & quickly (as discussions have already occurred & no need to start from zero)
If it becomes apparent that the market (for whatever reason) is doing something so different & unplanned but with such impact that strategy needs to change, then again strategy change will happen.
In both these options it was already decided that no “blame” would be attached to functions or individuals. The future is uncertain. Best guesses have been made, but they are guesses none the less & everyone in this team signed up to the final decisions. I mentioned earlier the degree of trust on this group (lower level of Lencioni’s pyramid) but these kinds of actions showed this group can operate at the peak of the pyramid & will hopefully avoid all 5 dysfunctions of a team (I’m certainly confident of it)
?
Reflections for future engagements?
Final thoughts
We are obviously indebted to this new team & look forward to ongoing discussions & support and their kindness to allow this post.
But, also, as this is late-July & my family & I love Italy & especially our visits to Puglia I’m also glad to have spent time here, with them, on vacation as we “top & tail” work with some valuable battery recharging. An unexpected but wonderful ‘side-effect’ of working for yourself & with great people…