Dansk
New research shows that almost half of the executives surveyed disagree with their own company strategy. On the face of it, this sounds like a big problem, but it may not be the case.
Although this year's VL Day in May is long over, one piece of news from the meeting is worth remembering. Namely the two CBS professors Thomas Ritter and Flemming Poulfelt's study, which shows that 47 percent of VL group members more or less disagree with the strategy they themselves have helped to adopt.
If the survey is representative, almost half of Danish top executives disagree with the strategy they should implement themselves. The result is so striking that you immediately think: Disaster!
Because if the leaders implementing the strategy don't believe in it themselves, how will it ever come to fruition?
Disagreementcan be fruitful in the right setting
I am neither a professor nor a soothsayer. But many years of practical strategy work in small and large companies tells me that disagreement is not as big a problem as you might think.
In fact, in my experience, constructive strategic disagreement is far more fruitful than tacit indifference, provided we give it the right framework.
Firstly, the facts must be in place. Strategies based on assumptions have no place on earth. You can believe anything, but it must be backed up by facts. Otherwise it's just something "someone thinks".
Facts don't necessarily remove the disagreement. That's not the point either. But facts create the basis for constructive disagreement and allow for a real discussion of strategy.
Disagree - fortunately
Secondly, it's actually quite natural that we - also in management - disagree about the future. New technologies, trends and transitions hit us all the time. No one can predict the future.
Just take a look at the last six months of predictions about the housing market or employment here in Finance. When even the best experts on something as "old-fashioned" and data-heavy as housing, inflation and interest rates seem to be surprised on a weekly basis, it's no wonder management teams can have different analyses of their company's future needs.
In a strategic context, it's not about agreeing 100% on the future, but about finding answers to different scenarios as they could unfold. This is where disagreement can be fruitful, because it brings more scenarios into play - and can create an even more solid foundation for the company's strategy and position.
The ongoing discussion is important
Thirdly, we must recognize that the time has passed when a strategy can live unchallenged for three years or more at a time. Today, strategy needs to be reassessed and adapted far more often. Therefore, strategy work must be engaging, flexible and adaptable.
Naturally, this also means that the company's strategy is constantly under discussion. While on the surface it may look like catastrophic disagreement, in my experience, ongoing discussion, used correctly, results in much stronger and rooted strategies.
So before we conclude that the results of the study are a disaster, I need at least a few more facts on the table.
This column is published in Jyllands-Posten Finance and in Jyllands-Posten Erhverv on July 7, 2013.
We have minimized the risk of misunderstandings
Nichlas Hassing, Co-founder & Creative Business Director.