As an activity in leading the strategy execution process, management by walking around refers to

Many people might think that the history of strategy and management has no relevance to understanding strategy-execution today. Some may even think studying strategy history is a waste of time. After all, strategy, formulation, implementation, etc., are still hot topics in business schools today - they're not obsolete.

However, studying the history of strategy and management is not to apply it directly to present practices or to try to predict future practice. It's more about understanding some fundamental concepts on which modern strategy theory stands - basic concepts which remain relevant regardless of whether they are new or old - but making sure you know their origins also provides valuable insight into some aspects of strategy execution. Plus, it makes for an interesting study.

Many argue that strategy-execution is an area where strategy theory has fallen short. The strategy-to-execution gap has not closed since the strategy's conception. Still, strategy execution remains a challenge for many companies - so studying the history of design and management may help us understand why this is the case.

Table of Content

• Management history is essential because it helps people learn from past mistakes, adapt to current strategy-execution challenges, and prepare for future issues.

• Is studying history important when teaching about management?

• Do you think strategy is all that important in business?

• What is strategy history (and strategy-execution history in particular)?

• Do strategy history examples predict strategy dynamics?

• Studying management and strategy-execution history- Conclusion

There are plenty of books on strategy history that you can read to learn more about strategy history yourself; all you need to do is find some strategy history books at your local library (or online) and start reading! Or, if you prefer learning in a more structured way, look into one of the MBA courses on strategy history. Many universities offer these courses nowadays because there is demand from students who want to learn more about strategy theory before they get into strategy practice.

No matter what strategy history books you choose to read, make sure that they provide insight into strategy theory and strategy-execution - they should be about strategy, not management! If you start reading strategy history books about management, then your strategy history knowledge would be limited to managerial concepts rather than strategic concepts.

Management history is essential because it helps people learn from past mistakes, adapt to current strategy-execution challenges, and prepare for future issues.

1.0

Henry Mintzberg once said that strategy has become "a catchphrase of our time" (qtd. in Heffernan). This catchphrase mentality has led to a strategy fixation, which can impede strategy execution efforts. For example, research shows excessive planning often leads to strategy-planning gridlock ("Strategy"). Strategy fixation also arises when managers focus on creating strategies rather than executing them.

Another major problem with current strategy-execution thinking is that strategy and execution are separate issues. In the strategy-execution model, strategy is top-down, and execution is bottom-up (Quinn and Hilmer).

Strategy and execution should be interrelated and simultaneously run alongside each other to produce the best results. The strategy-execution idea that strategy can happen without simultaneously executing it would have been unfathomable to managers of earlier eras such as Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Dara Khosrowshahi (CEO of Expedia) J.C. Penney's Ed Eskandarian, or FedEx founder Fred Smith ("Strategy"). These leaders viewed strategy and execution as one inseparable activity, not two sequential activities where strategy sets direction and execution follows strategy (Strategy). One way strategy-execution thinking can shift forward is by applying management history lessons. For example, in the late 1800s, when Ford started his business, he used techniques like demanding constant production and creating vertical integration to bring strategy and execution together ("Henry").

Another strategy-execution issue arising in today's world is strategy becoming extremely complex. Heffernan notes that in the past twenty years, technology has changed exponentially while at the same time, companies have become more global than ever before. The strategy-execution result is that managers do not have everything they need to do their jobs well at their fingertips.

Strategy/management historians prove that strategy and execution will always be inextricably linked. Additionally, strategy/management historians suggest how design and implementation should be carried out for the most significant effect. Using management history to guide strategy-execution efforts helps managers overcome today's strategy-execution challenges and prepare for potential future strategy-execution problems.

Most strategy discussions are not riveting; they often revolve around the latest strategy fads or rehashing problems with strategy execution (welcome to all things strategy-related).

The point of departure for this discussion was an article by Rakesh Khurana, who argues that it is time to toss aside "the case-study method" to teach strategy. That's right: time to stop doing what most strategy professors do routinely in their classes, examples of which are commonly known as cases.

Partway through the conversation, my inner voice asked why I am so critical about strategy and unenthusiastic about teaching strategy? What's wrong with strategy? It isn't like strategy is totally useless. There wouldn't be strategy consulting (or strategy articles). Plus, strategy has been around for a long time; it's not like strategy is some new, modern fad that will be over next year.

My inner voice asked me: why did management historians create and perpetuate an image of strategy as an antidote to administrative problems (e.g., Chandler and the rise of the large corporation)? Why do we still use cases with strategy lessons or implications?

Is studying history important when teaching about management?

2.0

More specifically, why is studying management history important?

Nowhere in business schools (to my knowledge) do strategy professors teach strategy using history. The previous research about the process (not strategy consulting) has used history, including the strategy field's founding father, Michael Porter. Without strategy cases, strategy professors would fall back on theory-oriented courses (e.g., game theory).

Do you think strategy is all that important in business?

3.0

If so, this article may be of interest to you. The authors contend that strategy has been studied for more than how strategy gets executed. If we want to learn about strategy execution, it will help to look at the strategy-execution examples from the past. Even though they are not exactly current (and perhaps old), these examples can still serve as lessons for today. The following paragraphs detail why studying strategy execution in history is important and what kind of impact examining strategy-execution in history can have on today's businesses. <be> <be>

What is strategy history (and strategy-execution history in particular)?

4.0

Studying strategy history in business entails studying how strategy has "evolved" over the years. It also involves looking at what strategy examples can be found in the past and why they are relevant to modern businesses. Even though strategy is not new, it has evolved (for instance, primarily about planning to sometimes about executing). In addition, strategy-as-planning may have been more dominant before certain technological developments were introduced into management thinking.

For example, an operating system was developed for computing machines, which shifted from strategy-as-planning to strategy-as-execution. The development of this operating system also introduced a strategy-as-process perspective into strategy, which allowed strategy to become more focused on strategy execution.

The strategy history of strategy execution is even more specific (and this specificity often makes such strategy examples of interest). Strategy execution is not just about "executing"--in other words, it's not merely an afterthought or additional detail of the strategy process. Instead, strategy execution is part and parcel of developing strategy; in fact, some business management gurus (and consultants) think that the planning and executing steps of strategy should be reversed: first, we plan, and then we execute. In any case, particular examples from the past that deal with actual strategy-execution problems. These can be studied as models for strategy execution and strategy-execution strategy.

Do strategy history examples predict strategy dynamics?

5.0

It can be argued that strategy history examples demonstrate what strategy dynamics will happen in the future. This makes them very valuable for strategists, managers, and other business professionals who want to learn more about how strategy actually gets done today (or should get done).

For instance, studying strategy history shows us that companies like IBM and Xerox developed "horizontal" strategies (in other words, these were aimed at serving many customers by allowing many kinds of customers' needs to be met) while also developing "vertical" strategies (in other words, these were aimed at serving a few kinds of customers by allowing them to meet own specific needs: they did the same thing for all of their customers). Consequently, strategy history examples show us that strategy is not just about choosing one strategy or the other. Rather, strategy may well entail using both horizontal and vertical strategies.

Strategy history examples are also valuable because they demonstrate how strategy dynamics have changed over the years. For example, strategy management has evolved to include "managing by walking around" rather than being limited to hierarchically-controlled management styles that have been more prevalent in the past.

Today's strategy management styles are much more informal and democratic than previous ones were. What strategy history can do for businesses today is give them contextually rich lessons to draw when considering their strategy executions (and planning and execution steps). This provides strategy history examples to help managers make the strategy more effective and efficient.

Strategy history research is not only about learning strategy dynamics (that strategy management styles, for example, have shifted towards informality). Strategy history can also provide strategy lessons wherein managers find it easier to know what to do next to bring strategy into the present day.

For instance, studying strategy history could show us that businesses that are slow to change tend not to do well over time (at least not as well as their competitors, who are quicker to change). This provides an "actionable" strategy lesson: if companies want to outperform their competitors, they should be receptive to changing strategy--this should allow them to grow even faster than others by staying ahead of the game through strategy changes.

Other strategy history examples worth looking at include strategy lessons showing us that strategic management is more than "doing strategy" (in other words, strategy management is not the same as strategy execution). Instead, strategy management is about making strategy happen; it's important to remember that strategy execution cannot be done without strategically-minded individuals who are willing and able to execute on strategy already made by influential strategists.

studying management and strategy-execution history- Conclusion

6.0

Why is studying management history important?

One of the biggest reasons studying strategy history is valuable is to shape future leaders (and managers) into more effective strategists. Strategy history shows us how businesspeople have accomplished this in the past--it provides real-world examples of what people did right and wrong to make strategies happen. These can serve as strategy management lessons that strategy leaders can learn from and adapt to their strategic needs.

This is important because being a strategy leader involves doing more than just managing strategy dynamics: strategy management includes leading people to get them to do what strategy says should be done. In other words, no matter how practical the strategists are, if they don't have anyone who understands strategy well enough to carry it out, all of their efforts will be wasted.

Studying lessons from history for business

Keeping Score & Rats in Hanoi- Strategy Execution

GSD- Getting Shit Done- Chapters 1-3 - SlideShare

#87 BRIDGING THE STRATEGY EXECUTION GAP WITH BENJAMIN WANN, AUTHOR OF GETTING SHIT DONE

Strategy Execution- Corporate vs. Historical Case Studies

Getting Shit Done by Executing Like a Leader

"Do or do not; there is no try."

-Yoda

"Decide. Commit. Act. Succeed. Repeat."

-Tim Grover

"Leadership without the discipline of execution is incomplete and ineffective. Without the ability to execute, all other attributes of leadership become hollow."

-Larry Bossidy, Execution

If Getting Shit Done were your typical business or management book, at this point in the story, I would carefully select and share several soon-to-be-dated examples of corporate heroism that serve to back up my thesis in a meaningful way. I'd cherry-pick examples and stories to tell you what an executive or their team did, leading that executive to become an American household name. Like hundreds of authors before me, I could reference the likes of Steve Jobs at Apple, Jack Welch at GE, or even Jeff Skilling at Enron.

But… there's a big problem here.

Strategy-Execution- corporate case studies aren't fully accurate or complete

Corporate case studies are often used to teach strategy and execution, but they can be misleading. First, cases typically focus on successful companies, which gives students the impression that all businesses are successful. Second, cases often simplify complex situations so students can easily understand the main points. However, this simplification can lead to a distorted view of reality. Third, cases usually only present one perspective, which may not be accurate or complete. Finally, many case studies are outdated and no longer relevant to today's business environment. As a result, corporate case studies should be used with caution and supplemented with other teaching materials.

The entire narrative changes depending on which company or stock you look at and at which point in time. Take, for example, in 2001, when Enron was the darling of Wall Street. For years they were hailed as one of the best and most innovative companies to work for; in that same year, the company fell apart due to a massive fraud scheme. Without a doubt, you will still find books and magazines published around their heyday glorifying Enron's business model and leadership team.

The problem with these sorts of corporate quasi-case studies is that they are so incomplete with their short-sided nature and incomplete narrative that they are laughable.

The flaw with using corporate "heroism" storytelling is that no outsider will ever have an accurate and full picture of what really went on inside an organization. Even when we get stories worth sharing, it's almost always only good news as companies spin the truth to pursue an agenda. PR and legal departments are a bit leery of sharing tales of failure, negligence, and other faults that could lead to investor class-action lawsuits.

In my humble opinion, no one should give a shit about what Enron executives and their PR departments said about what made Enron such a fantastic work environment; you're buying into someone's narrative, not the facts and truth.

STRATEGY ExECUTION- ENRON

Corporate vs Historical Case Studies

Fortune: “The #1 Company to work for in the top 100”

Ken Lay: “My personal belief is that Enron stock is an incredible bargain at current prices, and we will look back a couple of years from now and see the great opportunity that we currently have.”

True leadership lessons are timeless. They never falter or become obsolete through the years, centuries, or even millennia. Just ask the Greek hoplite soldiers featured in Chapter 4. As we've learned throughout this book, we should look for other ways to learn from what others have done and the lessons that could be shared.

The Enron scandal is a prime example of strategy-execution failure. The company was originally founded as a gas pipeline business, but it eventually diversified into other areas, such as energy trading and broadband communications. However, Enron's top executives became obsessed with growth for growth's sake, leading the company to engage in risky and illegal activities to meet unrealistic financial targets. As a result, Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001, and its collapse cost investors billions of dollars. The Enron scandal warns other companies to carefully align their strategies with their execution plans. Otherwise, they may find themselves facing similar consequences.

Strategy-Execution -Examples and case studies from history

So, where should we look to find the stories, examples, and case studies illuminating timeless leadership lessons?

Military history, of course!

Military history helps us understand what has worked in the past to continue to apply those lessons today. Military examples work well because they are so spartan—either one army or the other commands the battlefield at the end of the day. The casualties are counted, the damage is surveyed, and the winner is declared. We can study past events and understand Who did What and When to put the lessons into an educational context.

Even more, military history teaches people to accept ambiguity, to become comfortable with it, and to reject cut-and-dry formulas. History offers a framework, a way of thinking, a way to search for patterns that recur from one situation to more broadly assess the parameters of what's possible, the boundaries of likely action, or possible success.

Corporate vs Historical Case Studies in Strategy Execution

By looking back to our shared history of military conflicts, it is here that we find a rich source of information because history is an objective study of what actually happened. Because so many different people capture the same events from multiple viewpoints, we are left with a complete, accurate, and meaningful story of the events that transpired. Here, a general can say whatever they wish after a conflict, but facts and figures rule the day and set the narrative. You either won or you didn't, and these claims can be independently verified.

Too often, management authors try and apply a new theory to explain the world around them, but as the saying goes, "There is nothing new under the sun." There is no point in reinventing the wheel. Each time we face what we think is a new challenge, others have faced the same dilemma many times before in one form or another. To study and master strategy-execution, we must find events, examples, and stories where time has thoroughly vetted the truth.

Strategy-Execution- historical case studies are fully accurate and complete

There is no question that historical case studies can be of tremendous value to business leaders. By studying the successes and failures of past organizations, executives can learn essential lessons about strategy and execution. However, it is important to remember that case studies are not always accurate or complete. In many cases, they are based on second-hand accounts and written long after the events in question occurred. As a result, they may not always provide an accurate portrayal of what really happened. Nevertheless, historical case studies can still be valuable tools for business leaders, provided that they are read with a critical eye.

Examples of history strategy-execution case studies

One of the most important aspects of any business is strategy-execution. To be successful, a company must not only develop a sound strategy but also can execute that strategy effectively. Unfortunately, many businesses fail to do both. A prime example of this is the British East India Company. During the 18th century, the company was immensely successful due to its highly effective military operations in India. However, by the early 19th century, its fortunes had declined. The primary reason was that the company failed to adapt its strategy to changing circumstances. Instead of relying on its military might, it should have focused on developing stronger economic and political ties with the Indian people.

As a result, the company lost its grip on power and was eventually dissolved by the British government. Another example of poor strategy-execution can be seen in Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Napoleon was one of the most successful military commanders in history, but his campaign against Russia was a complete disaster. The main reason for this was that he did not consider the harsh winter conditions that his army would have to face. As a result, his troops were ill-prepared and suffered tremendous losses. In both of these cases, inadequate strategy-execution led to eventual failure. These examples underscore the importance of having a sound strategy and the ability to execute that strategy effectively.

Strategy-Execution- Why leaders need to study history

Leaders today face many challenges, but those challenges are not new. Many of the same issues that leaders dealt with in the past are still relevant today. For example, developing and executing effective strategies is as important now as ever. By studying history, leaders can learn from the successes and failures of their predecessors and develop a better understanding of how to tackle the challenges they face. In addition, history can provide insight into the factors that have influenced the development of various industries and organizations. As a result, leaders who take the time to study history will be better equipped to deal with the challenges they face and make informed decisions about the future.

Strategy-Execution- Recommended Reading

Strategy-Execution

1. 67 Signs Your Organization Lacks Execution

2. 100+ Amazing Quotes About Strategy

3. Strategy Execution- What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Improve

4. 116 Strategic Questions to Ask Senior Leaders- With Sample Answers

5. Execution: The Underappreciated Sister of Strategy

Sun Tzu & Strategy-Execution Leadership

There is one anecdote, in particular, worth sharing that explains how the famed Chinese general, Sun Tzu, built an expectation for excellent communication in his army:

Art of War brought Sun Tzu to the notice of Ho Lu, King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: “I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing your soldiers to a slight test?” Sun Tzu replied: “You may.” Ho Lu asked: “May the test be applied to women?” The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies to the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies and placed one of the King’s favorite concubines at each's head.

He then bade them all take spears in their hands and addressed them thus: “I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand? ” The girls replied: “Yes. ” Sun Tzu went on: “ When I say ‘ Eyes front, ’ you must look straight ahead. When I say ‘Left turn, ’ you must face towards your left hand. When I say ‘Right turn, ’ you must face your right hand. When I say ‘About turn, ’ you must face right round towards the back. ” Again, the girls assented.

The words of command, having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order “ Right turn. ” But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: “ If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. ” So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order “ Left turn, ” after which the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu said: “ If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is their officers' fault. ”

So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the King of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion. When he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: “ We are now quite satisfied as to our general’s ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded. ” Sun Tzu replied: “ Having once received His Majesty’s commission to be general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept. ”

Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound.

Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: “ Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your Majesty’s inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey. ” But the King replied: “ Let our general cease drilling and return to camp. As for us, we have no wish to come down and inspect the troops. ” Thereupon Sun Tzu said: “ The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds. ” After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle an army and finally appointed him general. In the West, he defeated the Ch’u State and forced his way into Ying, the capital; to the north, he put fear into the States of Ch’i and Chin and spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.”

Sun Tzu & Strategy-Execution Leadership

The message from Sun Tzu is clear- communication is a vital tool for setting clear expectations and accountability at both the organizational and individual levels. In the example, Sun Tzu succeeded because he knew that both words and actions are critical to achieving compliance. Sun Tzu mastered clear and concise language; he did not say he would punish the officers and then quibble. Nor did he just start hacking and slashing away. When pressure was applied, Sun Tzu held firm with the strategy by not conforming to the king's whims by granting a pardon when his new officers failed to follow the directive.

The code and expectations were crystal clear and unflinching. The rules were set, then followed. Each person in the story had a role to play, and the organization’s success hinged on owning the expectations set forth. Buy-in was achieved, conflict was embraced, and through this, alignment was demonstrated. That is what is required for strategy-execution.

From the example in the chapter introduction, Sun Tzu relied on clear and concise language to define the general's responsibility as the first step in demonstrating command of his new troops. Although initially faced with failure, Sun Tzu stayed true to his strategy when assessing the failure. He blamed himself first and clarified the message for his soldiers. Sun Tzu did not fault his troops for being lazy or dumb. Instead, he reflected inwards to analyze his own behavior and accepted blame.

“If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not

thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. “

After issuing marching orders to his troops for a second time, Sun Tzu was disappointed to see that the soldiers once again failed to comply. Moving forward, Sun Tzu used clear and concise language once more to assess the situation and apply a remedy.

“If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is their officers' fault.”

This time heads rolled. Replacements were found. And by the third time the orders were issued, the new troops followed the general’s commands flawlessly.

What didn’t happen in this scenario was that Sun Tzu didn’t send out a two-page memo/email to each person in his command with their orders attached. He didn’t pull together a committee to deliberate the issue. He didn’t hem, haw, or squander the opportunity. The statement left no room for ambiguity or fuzzy responsibility. Sun Tzu observed, communicated, and acted to literally “execute” on his junior officers' failure to move the organization forward.

What does the leadership technique known as managing by walking around involve?

What does a successful strategy execution require?

Which of the following statements accurately describe the process of executing a business strategy?

What makes the managerial task of executing strategy?