Strategic Planning, Part V: Exploring Weakness

Strategic Planning, Part V

Exploring Weakness

Labor Day is upon us. With the traditional Fall budget season just ahead, many organizations see this time of year as an opportunity for renewal. It’s a fitting time to continue our discussion of strategic planning.

The strategic planning journey reveals much about the organization. A thorough planning program includes a critical, candid analysis known by the acronym S.W.O.T.: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Saving Weaknesses for last, a brief description of the other elements is as follows:

Strengths are key achievers, processes, products, services and intangibles such as goodwill that together are considered organizational advantages.

Opportunities are desirable outcomes as yet unrealized: an opportunity to be the leader in a market segment, for example, or to be the outstanding service provider in a non-profit community. Opportunities typically flow from Strengths though they can be discovered through Weaknesses.

Threats are actions or exigencies that could delay, inhibit or completely derail the organization’s plan for success.

The two elements of the SWOT analysis that we naturally enjoy discussing are Strengths and Opportunities. Those that take more time to identify and quantify are Weaknesses and Threats. This process yields valuable information about where the organization needs to improve, yet sometimes a planning team just can’t get there. Whether it’s an issue with one or more members of the team or someone’s pet project that hasn’t delivered results, some groups loathe confronting the demon for fear of upsetting a colleague or having to admit that something they worked on isn’t perfect. While understandable such ostrich-like behavior is dangerous.

Weaknesses, whether involving people or strategies, are no less an integral part of the community at large. Discerning the future requires that we see the present, for all that it represents, not just the parts we like. A strong commitment to strategic planning includes being willing to talk about in depth what isn’t working, what may be “gumming up the works.”

Acknowledging publicly what we don’t do well affords us a sometimes surprising corollary opportunity: seeing what the organization would look like when we tackle the weaknesses. Armed with knowledge and freed of the need to keep our weaknesses hidden, we can usually quickly design a workaround that gets us back on track toward meeting our strategic goals.

Be honest and be well.

Chuck-

Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions

Strategic Planning, Part IV: I'd Rather Be a Tiger

Strategic Planning, Part IV

I’d Rather Be a Tiger

It is often said that managers maintain the status quo while leaders invoke change. Surprise! Change is not always a leader's preference. In fact, mention change to some in the executive suite and eyes begin glazing over.

The first time I encountered this apparently anti-leader behavior I was surprised. Years later I can’t count the number of times I’ve witnessed otherwise wizened hospitality execs arguing not whether the pace of the company’s change is sufficient, but whether the company should be changing at all. Their lobbying platform: “more of the same” could be just fine for some processes or products, at least for now.

Perhaps, though a static environment, however well reasoned, is generally what you don’t need. As the axiom goes, competitive advantage is attained and maintained by staying ahead of the pack. Why then would change, if truly an engine of innovation, not have such a good reputation? And why, despite mandates for action from a CEO and/or the Board of Directors, would some still argue against change? Why not just get on with it?

My colleague who first uttered the anti-change argument did so in front of his peers at a strategic planning session where, with no small amount of hubris he decried the whole point of us being there: “No one ever has any idea how it’s going to play out,” he said, shifting in his chair. As my friend went on we noticed the CEO fixing a hard stare at him, but this didn't stop him. “We get all fired up about changing this or improving that,” our co-worker continued. “Bigger portions. Smaller portions. With mayo. Lose the onion.” My friend wasn’t finished. “We spend a bunch of money asking ourselves and the guests a lot of questions.” “Meanwhile,” he added, “we have a business to run. And what happens after a few months? The ‘C’ word is forgotten.”

Without exactly meaning to, my colleague nevertheless put his finger squarely upon the problem. The real issue with change is not the change itself. It’s getting the whole team to commit to the process that drives change – and to stick with it. If you’ve been through strategic planning you know that the regimen is rigorous. It sometimes leads to frustrating dead ends, or projects that begin handily enough but lack staying power. The prize for your resoluteness is occasionally … nothing.

The mere mention of change still disturbs some industry veterans. The famed Yoga Berra used to say, provoking laughter, “it’s de ja vu all over again.” For the seasoned hospitality industry executive, he or she has “been there before” and can thus perhaps be forgiven if repulsed by the image of yet another series of meetings that produce firm agreements, a concrete action plan, but little more. If you talk one-on-one they acknowledge their attitude smells of sour grapes but they insist they are not alone in abhorring the, as one former colleague called strategic planning, “colossal waste of time.”

The detached observer sees this apparent conundrum as an opportunity to fix what ails rather than jettison the strategic planning process. When you are one of the participants, however, it’s not so easy to see this patently obvious conclusion, let alone convince your peers of its merit.

Sometimes therefore, lacking a disinterested third party’s coaxing, we agree to disagree, and the choice for the executive team, no doubt to be later handicapped as woefully insufficient, is to do nothing. Quixotically it sometimes takes a stinging defeat – the loss of your great idea to a swifter competitor, for example – to move a timid team even cautiously toward change.

Real change can be the lifeblood of a great hospitality team, creating and replenishing a nourishing vibrancy. This is what I’ve always thought that the top tier of mature brands -- Marriott and Disney come to mind -- do so well, as they must! They recognize that without a rigorously enforced annual planning cycle, old assumptions take root, choking off innovation.

Invariably results will vary according to the intensity of the leadership team’s commitment. Just as one team may be circumspect about change, a competitor is playing hard offense, sizing up the competition, crouching and preparing to devour it. Strategic planning can help both kinds of teams, the timid and the tigers.

You don’t have to say it: like me, I know you’d rather be a tiger.

Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2008

Charles A. Conine & Hospitality HR Solutions

www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com