Do Your Partners Really Buy-in to the Firm Strategy?

Source: David Maister—Professional Business, Professional Life

Most strategies are built on the assumption that people in the organization are committed to working as a team. But some, maybe most, would rather operate independently so that rewards are not dependent on the contributions of others. In addition, some people are dissatisfied working under a strategy that sacrifices present for future rewards.

Maister asks his clients’ personnel if they would rather be compensated for their own achievements or for team achievements, and whether they have a long-term view, even at the sacrifice of more immediate rewards.

Twenty percent or less favor a teamwork approach based on the long term. Thirty percent to 40 percent prefer to go it alone and live for today. If this pattern exists in a firm, how likely is that firm to develop a unified strategy and a distinctive brand identity? Maister believes an organization of “independent short-term players” might be successful, but only through the efforts of individual entrepreneurs, not through a firm-wide strategy. (Editor’s note: Imagine the implications for succession planning for the long-term future of the firm.)

Many firms think of themselves as groups of loyal team players but in fact are highly diverse. They may be loyal, but they cannot adopt a widely accepted strategy. To create a strategy without widespread commitment is futile.

Most organizations fear having candid discussions about this.

What should be done? Maister provides four possible courses of action:

1. People with highly diverse personalities can exist in the same firm only if they are in different divisions. Maister doesn’t think this is a solution for a CPA firm.
2. Firms must recognize that failure to commit doesn’t mean the vision is wrong. Most who don’t truly buy in to the firm’s vision won’t buy in to any vision. Getting them to change is difficult, perhaps impossible. The most effective course is to select people who are compatible with the firm’s vision, and release people who aren’t. But there’s hope—many people will adapt to a value system even if it’s not ideal from their viewpoints.
3. Failure-to-execute is a commonly perceived malady in CPA firms. This article suggests that failure-to-execute may be caused by failure to believe in each other and their future together. The remedy—to split up the organization—may be severe, asking those unable to work collaboratively to leave.
4. The final option is to ignore the problem. Many organizations achieve some level of success despite failure to truly pursue a unified strategy.

The problem is likely to be aggravated by the proliferation of mergers and lateral hires.

From David Maister—Professional Business, Professional Life 2007, http://davidmaister.com. For the complete article, click on the following link: http://davidmaister.com/articles/1/103/.