Dansk
A new study shows that almost half of the CEOs surveyed disagree with their own company strategy. This may sound like a big problem, but it may not be the case at all.
Even though this year's VL Day in May (VL is a Danish network of business leaders) is long over, one piece of news from the meeting is worth remembering. Namely, 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 been involved in deciding.
If the survey is representative, almost half of Danish top executives disagree with the strategy they shall implement themselves. The result is so significant that you immediately think: Disaster!
Because if the leaders who are implementing the strategy don't believe in it themselves, how will it ever turn into reality?
Disagreementcan be fruitful in the right setting
I'm 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, if we give it the right framework.
Firstly, the facts need to be in place. Strategies based on assumptions have no place on earth. You can say anything you want, but it must be backed up by facts. Otherwise, it's just "something someone thinks".
Facts don't necessarily remove the disagreement. Nor are they meant to. But facts create the basis for constructive disagreement and allow for a real discussion of strategy.
Disagree - thankfully
Secondly, it's actually quite natural that we - even in management - disagree about the future. New technologies, trends and transitions hit us all the time. No one can predict the future.
Just read the last six months of predictions about the housing market or employment in the newspapers. 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 that management teams can have different analyses of the 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. Here, disagreement can be fruitful because it brings more scenarios into play - and can create an even more solid starting point for the company's strategy and position.
Ongoing discussion is important
Thirdly, we must recognize that gone are the days when a strategy can live unchallenged for three or more years at a time. Today, strategy needs to be reassessed and adapted far more often. Therefore, strategy work must be inclusive, flexible and adaptable.
Naturally, this also means that the company's strategy is constantly up for discussion. While on the surface this may look like catastrophic disagreement, my experience is that, when used correctly, this ongoing discussion leads to much stronger and more rooted strategies.
So before we conclude that the study's results are a disaster, I need a few more facts on the table.
This column was 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.