Communication: Thinking vs. Doing

A large part of Strategy Execution is getting others to act or not act in certain ways.

The first step is to get on the same page with the audience so that agreements and disagreements are meaningful and relevant.

The next step is to communicate messages so that the audience spends more time on 'acting' versus 'thinking' and 'understanding'. This will happen successfully when the message is simple, relevant and understandable.

If the audience spends more than a certain amount of time 'thinking' and 'understanding' you get churn. Confusion, loss of trust, emotional dysfunction follows. Skilled facilitation and self-control is needed to get past this phase.

Considering the diversity of audiences and the dynamic nature of the environment, mixed with the communicator's style, biases and preferences, this is not easy.

So is communication a journey, not a destination?

Relationship between 'cause' and 'effect'

In solving a problem, do you understand the 'cause-effect' relationships?

Can you draw a fish-bone diagram and accurately quantify the impact of each 'bone' of the fish?

Just because its hard to do does not mean it should not be done. If you think it cannot be done, try anyway. Describe obstacles objectively, ask for help and watch the power of collaboration make the impossible possible.

If you solve a problem without understanding the 'cause-effect' relationships, then you just got lucky. Understanding the 'cause-effect' relationship after solving a problem is better than flying blind into the next problem.

Understanding the 'cause-effect' relationships is table stakes. It may not guarantee future success in addressing similar problems. The Panama Canal could not be built using the lessons learnt from the Suez Canal; it required an understanding of the realities and re-inventing the approach.

When 'Methodologies' meet 'Reality'

Every now and then someone comes along touting a new way to solve problems. However, they fail to clarify what is not solved by their approach. The marketing and PR efforts build a hype and expectations that come crashing down when the methodology meets reality. The downfall is caused not by the core proposition, but typically by the boundary conditions that it fails to meet.

When evaluating a technique/methodology, here are some questions to ask:

• Is the underlying logic and assumptions sound? Or does it have flaws or defects in logic and assumptions?
  
• Does it provide a complete coverage of the problem space? Or are there exceptions to the rule?
  
• How does it address difficulties in implementing the technique due to lack of data or problems that are hard to measure?
• How does it address the 'intangibles' (for example, culture)?
  
• How can sloppy use of the technique by incompetent managers be prevented?

Look for a technique or methodology that will:

• Adapt to your organization, instead of requiring your organization to adapt to it
  
• Build your capacity to execute strategy
  
• Avoid dependence on outside consultants in areas that are core to your business (outsourcing and partnerships are typically for 'context' work)
• Evolve with your needs
• Give you an immediate solution, with a road map to evolve to the next level