【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 e good news was that the KPIs gave the top team metrics for measuring success. The bad news was that there were 100 of them, and they weren’t prioritized. “It was clear that execution would suffer unless we identified the most important ones, says AeroMexico CEO Arturo Barahona. “So we discussed which ones connected most directly with our strategic priorities and where we were in the business cycle, and each team member settled on five chief goals.” By gaining clarity on key objectives, the team greatly increased the odds that signals would transmit clearly down the line. Getting buyin at the topHay research on teams has shown that it’s not unmon for team members to nod their heads in agreement when new strategies are set in meetings, then go back to their division or department and carry on exactly as they had before. In effect, they end up sabotaging the plan. That’s why gaining buyin is essential to effective execution, and dialogue is what makes it happen.IBM created an executive team consisting of six technical leaders at an applied research unit. Their mission: build strong relationships with top research universities so that IBM could recruit innovative scientists capable of developing breakthrough products. The problem was that the , all worldclass scientists, were used to peting for research dollars and dismissing each other39。s ideas to advance their own. Getting them to work jointly and be held accountable for business results was going to be very difficult.In the first group meeting, the vice president simply assigned accountabilities to the various team members. I could see the scientists digging in their heels, says Harris Ginsberg, an internal leadership consultant who attended the meeting. No one was going to dictate to them what they should do. Even if they39。d said yes to the VP39。s directives, adds Ginsberg, they would never have followed through.Ginsberg, who helps IBM business units clarify and execute strategy, knew the key was to get the scientists talking to each other. So he coached the vice president to change her behaviors. Rather than hand out directives, he suggested ways she could stimulate team dialogue about how to meet objectives. Ginsberg also counseled other team members about the need for a consensus process on an interdependent team.They all got it. At the next meeting the VP said, Our mandate is to create breakthrough products. Without access to talent at the top universities, we won39。t succeed. How are we going to get it? At first, Ginsberg recalls, she met silence. Finally one team member raised her hand. She was willing to get out there to the universities, and be more visible, go out with the recruiter and the senior human resources people, said Ginsberg. She also agreed to help some upanding scientists learn how to develop relationships with universities.A second team member said he would help her make some calls. The ice wasbroken and all the team members eventually took on group responsibilities. Itwas all about dialogue, says Ginsberg. Until the individual leaders embraced the unifying elements of the strategy for the good of the enterprise, they only attended to their own mission. The dialogue helped them buyin, agree to some shared activities, and begin to work more collaboratively.2. Set up systems and processes to create clarityWhy is executing strategy so difficult, even when the plan is clear? Because good execution only happens when employee behavior is aligned with strategy. And many managers can’t, won’t or don’t create the “transmitter opportunities” required to get people to do the right things. Managers: can’t because they don’t know how to talk with their subordinates about change and/or poor performance。 won’t, because they find it unfortable to give candid feedback。 or, simply don’t realize that successful strategy execution will never happen without ongoing performance dialogue. Part of the solution to this problem is creating systems and processes that force performance dialogue. General Dynamics Defense Systems (GDDS) in Pittsfield, MA, is one pany where creating such systems has contributed to dramatic results. From 1999 to 2001, attrition among its valued software engineers dropped from 20 percent to percent. Union grievances dropped from 57 to zero, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, best of all, earnings and profit margins doubled. What GDDS didIn 1999 the $200 million plus defense contractor challenged its employees to improve the pany’s negotiating leverage on bids, and thereby increase margins and profitability. To acplish this goal, senior management directed all departments to chase out costs, and created numerous processes to transmit the costcutting strategy down the managerial ranks right to the shop floor, which is where they felt many of the best costcutting ideas would e fromCarmen Simonelli, director of facilities and security, says his department’s goal was to push labor costs 5 percent below budget, with a “stretch” goal of 6 percent. That was ambitious given that direct applied labor costs had been running 1015 percent over budget. But Simonelli’s team slashed applied labor hours to an unthinkable 20 percent below budget. Annual savings amounted to about $440,000 on a $2 million budget, or nearly $10,000 per worker.How did they do it? The key, Simonelli says, was the processes the pany put in place to enhance dialogue and carry the message to the shop floor. For example: The Learning MapThe pany made it easy for employees to understand its broad goals by creating a “l(fā)earning map,” which graphically outlined how each department and team linked directly to core objectives. All employees saw at a glance how their jobs fit in. Supervisors and assemblers in Simonelli’s group, for example, could readily see that by reducing applied labor hours in a project, GDDS could increase margins, shorten