made available at no charge to the user. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. By. Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan. Introduction. Too many leaders fool. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Lawrence Bossidy and Ram Charan [BOOK SUMMARY & PDF]. Home» Blog. Download Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done Download at: http:// maroc-evasion.info?book= [PDF] Download.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
BY LARRY BOSSIDY, RAM CHARAN PDF. Locate the trick to improve the lifestyle by reading this Execution: The Discipline Of Getting Things Done. By Larry. In their groundbreaking book, Execution, the Discipline of Getting Things Done, authors. Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan highlight the importance of. The Discipline of Getting Things Done. EXECUTION. THE SUMMARY IN BRIEF. Organizations face many challenges in today's shaky economy — com-.
The results will advance your career—and they may just persuade others in the business to do the same. They search and struggle for answers, benchmarking companies that are known to deliver on their commitments, looking for the answers in the organizational structure or processes or culture. Well, yes, in fact, and therein lies the grand fallacy.
The common view of intellectual challenge is only half true. Nobel Prize winners succeed because they execute the details of a proof that other people can replicate, verify, or do something with. They test and discover patterns, connections, and linkages that nobody saw before.
It took Albert Einstein more than a decade to develop the detailed proof explaining the theory of relativity. That was the execution—the details of proof in mathematical calculations. The theorem would not have been valid without the proof. Einstein could not have delegated this execution. It was an intellectual challenge that nobody else could meet. The intellectual challenge of execution is in getting to the heart of an issue through persistent and constructive probing.
In their budget reviews, most leaders would accept the number without debate or discussion. What products will generate the growth? What will our milestones be? Will the reward system motivate them to a common objective? She wants an explanation, and she will drill down until the answers are clear. Suppose the issue is how to increase productivity. What are the programs? Where is the money going to be saved? How much is it going to cost us to achieve it? And who is responsible for it all?
For you as a leader, moving from the concept to the critical details is a long journey. You have to review a wide array of facts and ideas, the permutations and combinations of which can approach infinity.
You have to discuss what risks to take, and where. You have to thread through these details, selecting those that count. It requires the ability to make fine judgments about people—their capabilities, their reliability, their strengths, and their weaknesses.
It requires intense focus and incisive thinking. It requires superb skills in conducting candid, realistic dialogue. This work is as intellectually challenging as any we know of. Leadership without the discipline of execution is incomplete and ineffective. Without the ability to execute, all other attributes of leadership become hollow. They are the kind of people who get caught up in the intellectual excitement of each new big idea that comes out and adopt it with enthusiasm. This, they know, is what it takes to get ahead.
Their lack of engagement deprives them of the sound judgment about people that comes only through practice. He made several acquisitions and had a great relationship with Wall Street. Joe set stretch goals, and the CFO handed the numbers down to the operating people. But Joe stayed on top of the quarterly numbers. If they came up short, he was on the phone immediately with the people in charge, telling them in the strongest terms possible that they needed to shape up.
The quarterly reviews were less than civil. By the standards of conventional management analysis, Joe did all the right things. By the standards of execution, he did almost nothing right. In fact, the goals he set had been unrealistic from day one. An execution-savvy leader would have asked that right away. Was the installation of the process on schedule?
Did the executive vice president and his director of operations know the reasons, and what are they doing about it? Neither man was much on execution. The executive vice president was a ticket puncher who moved almost every three years from one job to another. They just handed the numbers down. How would Joe have behaved differently if he had had the know-how of execution?
Organizational capability includes having the right people in the right jobs. Second, Joe would also have asked his people about the hows of execution: how, specifically, were they going to achieve their projected demand on a timely basis, their inventory turns, and cost and quality goals?
Third, Joe would have set milestones for the progress of the plan, with strict accountability for the people in charge.
Fourth, Joe would have set contingency plans to deal with the unexpected— a shift in the market, say, or a component shortage, or some other change in the external environment.
His reputation for deal making and for making savvy acquisitions had earned him the job. When the board fired him, it brought in a management team that knew how to execute.
The new CEO came from manufacturing. He and his team reviewed and discussed the hows with plant managers, set milestones, and followed through with discipline and consistency to review them. Thoman was brought in to bring change. While COO, he launched numerous cost-cutting initiatives, including layoffs and cuts in bonuses, travel, and perks.
He also laid the groundwork for a new strategy. It was a stirring vision for a company that badly needed one. Investors shared the optimism, bidding the stock price up to record highs. But the vision was disconnected from reality. Execution had been a problem for decades, and Thoman bit off more than Xerox could chew. Both moves were necessary and important. But by the end of the year, Xerox was in chaos. In the administrative transition, invoices languished, orders got lost, and service calls went unanswered.
Morale dropped. The stock price plunged from the sixtyfour-dollar range to seven dollars. The company was forced to sell some of its business to meet cash needs. What went wrong? Especially when a business is making major changes, the right people have to be in the critical jobs, and the core processes must be strong enough to ensure that resistance is dissolved and plans get executed.
Both of these building blocks were missing. But McGinn had difficulty getting things done inside the company. The company fell sooner, harder, and farther than its competitors. In a technological marketplace moving at Internet speed, McGinn did not change the slow-moving and bureaucratic Western Electric culture. He failed to confront nonperforming executives or replace them with people able to act as decisively as their counterparts at competitors such as Cisco and Nortel.
As a result, Lucent consistently fell short of technical milestones for new product development, and it missed the best emerging market opportunities. A leader with a more comprehensive understanding of the organization would not have set such unrealistic goals.
Bell Labs was working on both of these products, but was painfully slow to develop and introduce them. The missed opportunities in routers and optical gear are widely perceived as strategic errors. In fact, they show how execution and strategy are intertwined. In Lucent talked with Juniper Networks about acquiring it but then decided to develop routers in-house.
But one part of execution is knowing your own capability. Similarly, the strategic error in optical gear originated with poor execution—in this case, the failure to understand changes in the external environment. Second, in the mad rush to grow revenues, Lucent set out in too many directions at once.
Costs ran wild. The three dozen acquisitions, along with a roughly 50 percent increase in the workforce to some ,, led to redundancies, excess costs, and lowered visibility. Some recorded products as being sold as soon as they were shipped to distributors.
The result was a ravaged balance sheet. It forced Lucent to sell businesses at fire-sale prices. During the tech boom, neither industry people nor investors imagined that business could possibly drop so sharply. A leader skilled in execution would have probed his organization to get a realistic assessment of its market risks. According to published accounts, McGinn did not do so.
You cannot have an execution culture without robust dialogue— one that brings reality to the surface through openness, candor, and informality. Robust dialogue makes an organization effective in gathering information, understanding the information, and reshaping it to produce decisions.
It fosters creativity—most innovations and inventions are incubated through robust dialogue. Ultimately, it creates more competitive advantage and shareholder value. Their judgments, experiences, and capabilities make the difference between success and failure.
Choosing the right people is what creates that elusive sustainable competitive advantage. The foundation of a great company is the way it develops people—providing the right experiences, such as learning in different jobs, learning from other people, giving candid feedback, and providing coaching, education, and training.
If you 5 spend the same amount of time and energy developing people as you do on budgeting, strategic planning, and financial monitoring, the payoff will come in sustainable competitive advantage. Ask the important question: How good is this person at getting things done? When you interview, you have to create a full picture of the person in your mind based on things you can learn by probing them.
Then you need to find out about their past and present accomplishments, how they think, and what drives their ambitions. A robust people process does three things: It evaluates individuals accurately and in depth.
It provides a framework for identifying and developing the leadership talent— at all levels and of all kinds—the organization will need to execute its strategies down the road.
Linking people to strategy and operations — creating links between people, strategies and creating both short term and long term strategy milestones is essential for focus and accountability. Developing the leadership pipeline through continuous improvement, succession depth and reducing retention risk — meeting medium and long-term milestones depends on having a pipeline of promising and promotable leaders.
Asses them and decide what each leader needs to do to take on larger responsibility. Dealing with nonperformers — Some managers may be promoted beyond their capabilities and need to be put in lesser jobs. Others just need to be moved out. It is a test to leaders to how well they handle the painful actions they have to take here. Linking HR to business results — HR has to be integrated into the business processes. Linked to strategy and operations, and to the assessments that the line people ultimately make about people.
The people process begins with one-on-one assessments, but when developed and practiced as a total process, it becomes incredibly effective as an execution tool. Why, then, do so many strategies fail? A contemporary strategic plan must be an action plan that business leaders can rely on to reach their business objectives. Developing such a plan starts with identifying and defining the critical issues behind the strategy.
Once you have developed the plan, you need to ask: How good are the assumptions upon which the plan hinges? What are the pluses and minuses of the alternatives? Do you have the organizational capability to execute the plan? What do you need to do in the near and medium terms to make the plan work in the long run?
Can you adapt the plan to rapid changes in the business environment? Pinpointing the building blocks forces leaders to be clear as they debate and discuss the strategy. A business unit strategy should be less than fifty pages long and should be easy to understand. Its essence should be describable in one page in terms of its building blocks.
Staff people can help by collecting data and using analytical tools, but the business leaders must be in charge of developing the substance of the strategic plan.
Do you have the organizational capability to execute the plan? What do you need to do in the near and medium terms to make the plan work in the long run? Can you adapt the plan to rapid changes in the business environment? Without understanding how the strategy will be implemented you will face almost certain failure.
Bossidy stresses the importance of defining six or less key concepts and actions behind any strategy. By being able to pinpoint these key concepts leaders will be able to understand and implement the strategy better.
Even though a comprehensive strategy may be a lengthy document, you should be able to define the overall essence of the strategy on a single page. Staff people can help by collecting data and using analytical tools, but the business leaders must be in charge of developing the substance of the strategic plan. Identifying the best way to grow the business and make a profit. What are some obstacles preventing growth? Identify the competition.
Does the strategy have realistic short term and long term milestones? Identify each milestone.
Are there any issues that the business will face? How is the business going to make money as a result of this strategy? Is the profit going to be sustainable? Once the strategy has been finalised, the next step is to review it. Revisit questions that have been asked previously. Have these been adequately answered? Does the team understand the competition completely? Does the organisation have the capability to carry this strategy out? Is there a clearly defined focus?
Has the right idea been chosen? Can you clearly identify the link between people and operations? The people process defines who is going to help the business get there. The final piece of the puzzle is the operation process, designed to define the road ahead, the path the people can follow. Meeting those here-and-now targets forces decisions to be made and integrated across the organization, both initially and in response to changes in business conditions. It puts reality behind the numbers.
It also includes product launches, marketing plans, sales plans, manufacturing plans, and productivity plans. Everyone involved needs to be responsible for constructing the operations process. Bossidy identifies synchronisation as a critical part of the execution process. By having synchronisation within the organisation you are much more likely to execute the strategy and reach your goals.
Defining the operations process Setting realistic goals is the first step, and in order to do that, you need to make sound assumptions. Bossidy identifies this as a critical step and encourages you to spend time debating the assumptions.
The next step in the process is the building of the operations plan. You begin by setting targets. Followed by developing the action plans, short-term and long-term objectives. Also, spend time developing contingency plans.
Bossidy encourages everyone to have follow-up measures in place to ensure that everyone is staying on track and working on the right steps and the right time. Keep accountability going throughout the process.
Execution is a process. Business leaders have three key roles when it comes to the execution: selecting the right people, setting the strategic direction and coordinating operations.
Execution needs to be a core part of company culture, it needs to be the norm and something that all employees understand. It is the job of the leader to select the right people for the right roles. Bossidy has identified three processes that should be at the core of execution. The people process is all about linking the people to strategy and operations.
Having the right people understand how to translate the strategy into an operational reality. The people process defines who is going to help the business get to the end goal. The strategy process is all about linking the people to operations. A strategy is essentially an action plan. The operations process is all about linking the strategy to the people. McChesney produces a straightforward and actionable step-by-step guide that could transform the way you and your team work.