During my manufacturing career I spent many hours in customer waiting rooms. I always read the company mission statement if they were bold enough to have it mounted on the wall. I must admit up front that I have never been comfortable with the idea of mission/vision statements because I always thought that it was a statement of what the company would like to do not what they are really capable of doing.
In other words I thought most of them were ethereal statements not really grounded in the reality of their business. Most of the statements always used boastful words and flowery language. They also were speculations on the future such as “becoming the world leader in…”and they used vague language and unsubstantiated claims such as “industry leader and commitment to excellence”. I always wondered if the real intention was to just make everybody feel better with positive words and happy talk.
What I learned after many years was that many managers were very comfortable with painting some kind of a future vision of what could be done but avoided a written plan that explained how it was to be done.
I was reminded of the what vs. how dilemma during this last election season when practiced politicians displayed their skills of generalization. It really does take a lot of skill to capture the spirit of the argument without getting into the specifics. Politicians have taken generalization to a new height by emphasizing the What of a subject or issue with inflammatory words, misstatements, selective facts, and very vague promises which allow them to reverse the statement at a later date. It appears that the rule of politics is to never address the How part of the issue because then you could get pinned down by the opposition. But this approach makes it very hard on voters to understand enough to be able to select a candidate.
An example in the last election was Calvin Smith a retired high school teacher in Columbus Ohio who said, “I’ve heard enough visions. I want concrete step by step instructions.”[1] I am sure Mr. Smith exemplifies many voter frustrations from that election.
The philosophical approach which speaks in generalizations and flowery platitudes can be seen everyday in politics, advertising, television etc. I call this the Galen Drake approach. He used to be on the radio back in the 60s and would spend 3 or 4 minutes sounding very authoritative and erudite but say nothing. It would be something like: walk up the hill, walk down the hill, and you can say you walked.
You can always determine whether a leader is going to commit to what vs. how because of the methodologies they favor. Instead of assigning individual responsibility they like to use committees, conferences, panels, partnerships and studies rather then taking action. This is particularly true in big government agencies who are supposed to address big issues.
A good example is the issue of training skilled workers. Since 1990 the National Association of Manufacturers has sponsored 5 major studies on skill training and why we need to train more skilled workers. Here it is 23 years later and a study by Deloitte last year said we had 600,000 jobs in manufacturing that could not be filled because of unqualified workers. These large corporations know what they need to do to fill their needs but they do not want to make the investment for comprehensive training programs that take thousands of hours to complete. It appears they would rather continue studying the problem
Another good manufacturing example is President Obama’s goal of creating 1 million manufacturing jobs in his second term. Usually these goals die after a period of time and fade away from the public. But this time the Alliance for American Manufacturing is keeping track of the number of manufacturing jobs and they call it the #AAMeter. The meter shows that by th end of March 2012 only 39,000 manufacturing jobs have been created leaving 961,000 jobs to go in Obama’s final term. The administration has not done very much in How to create manufacturing jobs. The alliance wants Obama to confront China on manipulating their currency and reduce the number of defense products and parts being made in China. But so far, the administration is operating in the What and not in the How.
The best example I can use to illustrate the what vs. how paradox is the infamous strategic planning process still taught in business schools. Strategic Planning for all practical purposes has not produced the results that are implied by the name. It has been a failure for large publicly held manufacturers, in terms of accurate forecasting and predicting the future. And it certainly has been a failure for small and midsize manufacturing companies who really need “breakthrough” performance or a plan that will transform or turnaround the company.
Professor Henry Mintzburg wrote a book titled the “The Rise and fall of Strategic Planning”[2] which reveals why it was a failure for so many companies. He makes the point that the process of doing Strategic Planning became more important than the results. Both the professors teaching the course and the people implementing strategic plans were focused on the what of the strategic planning process not the how or implementation. People who like quantification and processes loved strategic planning because the process makes them feel they have really accomplished something.
As obvious as this sounds, many strategic planners decide the strategies first and ask the managers last (top Down Planning). As an example, top management may decide that a sales increase is needed in a specific product line or that there must be an increase in market share. But the reality is that the sales manager may need additional sales people, more funding for promotion, or special products developed for new markets to be able to achieve these objectives But most of the time the strategic plan focuses on the what not the how.
It is much easier to come up with a mission/vision statement then it is a plan on how to achieve the goals. It is much better for politicians to speak in generalities so they can’t be pinned down by the opposition and they can reverse their opinion. It is much easier to write a strategic plan based on generalities and internal perceptions then it is to dig out all of the needed market information. And it is much easier to write a plan that discusses general strategies from the top down then it is to write a plan that defines each strategy in terms of measurable objectives with written department plans that explain who is assigned each task from the bottom up.
I guess it is human nature to like the what because it is a good cover. It allows people to appear to be solving problems and making progress without really having to do it. It is like a perpetual rain dance. If everybody dances and chants all night, in the morning they are physically exhausted and feel they gave the dance everything they had. Rain never comes but people feel better about themselves and the problem. This is lot easier then packing up the whole tribe and moving to the next state where there might be water.
In American Manufacturing today most manufacturing companies want to grow. The point of this article is that just creating the vision for growth isn’t going to get you to growth. If you want to grow you must get past what and into the How. It begs the following questions?
- How will you convey the company’s growth goals and measurable objectives to all employees?
- How will you develop specific strategies for each department such as sales, service, engineering, promotion that can achieve the goals?
- Is there a way for managers to convey their needs and the obstacles they must overcome to develop specific strategies?
- What if the strategies will require more investment then is in the budget?
- Can the plan be specific enough to describe the tasks that need to be accomplished?
If this sounds like a lot of work – it is. It is much easier and simpler to just have a vision or a mission. Next time you are in a meeting in your company, listening to a speaker at the at the PTA, or listening to your local politician during an election, ask your self – does this meeting have a chance of getting beyond the what and into the how?
