Year after year, we talk about execution, yet it remains difficult. Methods, concepts, tools, and systems are all in place; what's missing is consensus among stakeholders. Consensus breeds shared intent, shared intent enables collaboration, and collaboration leads to success.
As the year draws to a close, we take stock of the year's harvest, with expressions of joy, complaint, or anger... Various emoticons are also telling: the year's goals were not executed properly, performance fell through again, and the company faces year-end reviews, which are as nerve-wracking as a court trial, leaving people anxious, depressed, and disheartened. How exactly can execution be effective, fostering a thriving situation of self-motivation, spontaneity, voluntariness, and healthy competition? From years of management practice, in execution, we lack neither tools, nor systems, nor slogans and concepts; what we lack is consensus on execution. Therefore, without consensus, there is no internal drive for execution. Consensus on goals, tools, time, capabilities, customers, resources, etc. Only by clearing these cognitive deviations in execution and using tools to integrate these consensuses into a plan can we have execution power and achieve the expected execution results.
Reaching consensus or forming consensus is the prerequisite for driving execution.
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." This is a quote often cited when discussing execution. It conveys two meanings: one is to stimulate productivity through interest; the other is to achieve action through consensus on goals and vision.
Here, we discuss why our team and channel partners execute certain plans or matters "reluctantly," and how to reach consensus to improve execution.
Where does resistance come from?
- In a marketing organizational restructuring, as soon as you voice your idea, someone may raise vehement objections. Because we did not discuss with stakeholders in advance or gain their support.
- In an adjustment of compensation and performance appraisal indicators, before you finish presenting on stage, some people start forming factions to oppose. Because we may only focus on organizational interests, ignoring the feelings and consensus of those being assessed.
- A promotional activity plan may end up shelved and not executed. Because we may neither listen to regional managers' opinions nor seek suggestions from distributors, completely ignoring the actual conditions of regional markets, or not considering whether such activities have been done before and whether the results were satisfactory.
Clearly, when we fail to reach agreement on a plan or matter, we inevitably encounter the following problems in execution:
First Team members or channel partners do not understand, diminishing their willingness and interest in execution.
Second Ignoring the feelings and initiative of team members or channel partners gives those executing a sense of "going through the motions" and feeling their interests are overlooked, undermining the execution environment and easily leading to negative execution attitudes.
Third During execution, passive execution and reluctant cooperation distort the process and intent, easily breeding problems that significantly impact execution performance.
Fourth In our execution decisions, we are more likely to include plans or matters that lack feasibility for execution.
But why are we so hasty in making decisions that lead to the above problems? I believe there are several main reasons:
1. We think reaching agreement on a decision takes too much time and communication cost. Any decision we make, whether small—such as changing the work focus, responsibilities, or interests of team members or channel partners at a certain stage, which may cause conflicts among departments that need to cooperate—or large—directly affecting the rise or fall of the entire enterprise—requires communication with all parties directly involved if we seek unanimous agreement internally. This naturally requires time and communication cost. Additionally, at the moment we make a decision or issue an execution order, we often have the habitual mindset of "the sooner, the better," which inevitably leads us to think we don't need to spend much time communicating.
2. We worry and fear seeing "annoying" objections during the communication to reach agreement, so we use the will of power and the authority of position to obtain superficial agreement and execution when issuing orders. Communication to seek consensus is both a process of gaining recognition and support and a process that may involve diverse opinions. For most managers, no matter how democratic their discussion style or how open and inclusive their mindset, objections are somewhat jarring. Who wants to listen to those jarring voices?
3. The "I'm the boss, I decide" mentality is at play, even ignoring the interests and demands of team members and channel partners. I am the owner of this company, the manager of this regional market, the manufacturer's representative for this brand... I am the boss. When making a decision, what does it matter whether I consult others? This mindset lurks in many managers' minds.
4. We have developed a strong decision-making style where once we decide on an outcome, no one can change it. If you are such a manager, whatever you say or decide, your team members may only nod in agreement. Gradually, you may develop and reinforce the belief that "relying on subordinates to participate in decisions and improve upon them is unreliable."
Clearly, this situation is also related to the problem of over-reliance on individuals in decision-making and non-standard decision procedures.
Now let's explore: How to reach consensus at low cost while minimizing impact on decision sensitivity and timeliness.
Strive to reach consensus as much as possible. This does not mean seeking absolute agreement, but rather making your decision more scientific and safe, and winning more recognition, understanding, and a good foundation for execution. Adequate communication in advance cannot satisfy everyone, but it helps to "seek common ground while reserving differences"; it helps them better understand the background and necessity of your decision, how you weighed pros and cons to arrive at the optimal plan, and reach as much consensus as possible. This consensus greatly helps reduce execution resistance caused by incomplete agreement on specific details, thereby ensuring smoother execution and higher performance.
Put yourself in others' shoes. Some things are clear at a glance; not everything requires communication to reach agreement. Therefore, you should step into the shoes of team members or channel partners to review your decision and see which aspects need more thorough communication to improve management performance.
Be understood. In daily work, create more opportunities for team members and channel partners to understand you, trust you, and recognize your abilities and the stance and principles behind your considerations. As the saying goes, "when water flows, a channel is formed." With such groundwork, your ideas will be more easily accepted and recognized by them.
Leverage key people. It is not necessary to communicate with everyone involved in a decision. Often, some people accept your decision while others do not. In such cases, you can mobilize those who accept your decision (sometimes even your superiors who agree with your decision) to influence those who object. Even if you go personally, you only need to find a few key figures among the dissenters whose status and capabilities match, and communicate with them. This effectively shortens the communication process and reduces costs.
Communicate in advance or imprint the decision with the executors' mark. Few people oppose themselves. You can involve those directly related to a decision in the decision-making process, leaving their imprint on it. For example, when adjusting the compensation and performance appraisal system, first discuss with some regional managers in a small circle; when launching a promotional plan, send the proposal to some regional managers or distributor representatives for their input.
Patch up shortcomings. Identify the shortcomings of your decision and patch them in advance. If necessary, present multiple alternative solutions you considered earlier and explain how you weighed pros and cons to make the decision.
Some will do as you say, but more will do as you do. Whether with your team or channel partners, once you lead by example in a decision, showing sufficient determination and maintaining enough pressure, it also helps reach consensus in execution.
Standardize decision procedures. Make your decision procedures more reasonable and standardized, rather than stubbornly clinging to the "boss" hat and being opinionated. At the same time, be wary of your power being exploited by those with selfish motives or ill intentions. Once a decision is tainted with personal interests, it may unbalance the management chain. In such cases, encountering resistance and destructive factors is only natural.
We say that to have execution, we must have consensus. This consensus is not 100% unanimous agreement; it is consensus among the majority of employees, core backbone, or key managers. It is not a fake democratic consensus that seeks unanimous agreement at any cost, because influenced by the enterprise's development stage, employee quality, and maturity, people lack respect for rules. Giving too much democracy and freedom, which one cannot handle, may lead to abuse of democracy and even greater tragedy. Therefore, consensus is the consensus of those who share work, knowledge, and intent, not simply a majority.
Year after year, we talk about execution, yet it remains difficult. Methods, concepts, tools, and systems are all in place; what's missing is consensus among stakeholders. Consensus breeds shared intent, shared intent enables collaboration, and collaboration leads to success. I hope that in execution, we do not always walk on a path of unsatisfactory results.
The 2017 (3rd) FMCG + Internet Conference will be held in Chongqing in November 2017. The conference will closely focus on the theme "New Forces, New Ecology," inviting 1,000+ distributors, 500+ brand owners, 200+ B2B platform founders, and 100+ investment and financing institutions to jointly explore a new chapter of cross-border integration!
Click the link below to review the highlights of the first and second FMCG + Internet Conferences:
2016 "FMCG + Internet" Summit Forum
-END-