“Why should I change what has made me successful in the last 10 years?” was the question that we, who are responsible for building the strategy for the coming years, promised to answer with the slogan of putting ourselves in the shoes of the commercial team, this in order to provide the reasons to believe in this process, as I said a good business mentor, transcendental processes should always be established “for good” and without impositions, no matter how directional they are conceived.
And this is just one anecdote that exemplifies the usual battle between the short and long term and the multiple barriers that can be found in strategic construction processes. That is what my collaboration today is about with a nod to AgroMarketing, which is the DNA of this space.
No dedicated team: In the countryside, the centralization of the decision-making process is common, however, those agricultural ones that, due to their size, prioritize key functions and establish departments of technical-agronomic advice, purchases and administration, however, construction of the strategy in the medium or long term is apparently an optional subject.
But do not think that this happens as a consequence of the size of the operation of these entrepreneurs who ultimately become businessmen, no. This also occurs in companies that, by not having a team thinking about the future status, usually “competes” with the day-to-day operation, since they are the same teams trying to execute both in the short and long term. Sound familiar?
Resistance to change: Imagine for a moment the enthusiastic agronomist just out of college trying to contribute to the productivity of his grandfather’s ranch. He proposes that you implement sustainable practices that will allow you to reduce your carbon footprint and monetize those changes… but in the next decade. You can already imagine the answer.
If you sow a seed of a crop such as corn or wheat, you will see the result in a few months and although agricultural cycles require patience, this experience does not always facilitate understanding for the incorporation of innovations that break the status quo, so it is It is valuable to return to the question with which I began this text: “Why should I change what has given me success in the last 10 years?”
Live with the consequences: One of the most recurrent criticisms of external consulting companies is that their approaches can become partial since they will not be responsible for the implementation or its results, however, it is usually just as challenging when the follow-up is internal, since we We are faced with another circumstance: structural changes.
Without generalizing, it is natural that there is rotation in the positions of the organization that are responsible for structuring a strategy, implementing it, measuring it, correcting it and starting again, and although the causes of these changes can be multiple, such as development opportunities, low unexpected events or lack of planning, what must be anticipated is the way in which follow-up is imposed.
Think that, on the one hand, a strategy has a cycle of approximately 5 years to see sustained results, the permanence in a strategy role can be around 3 years (I must tell you that on this last point there is no consensus on the matter in the different sources that have been consulted).
It is unthinkable that the entire team is thinking about the strategy and the future because then there will be a lack of attention to the operation, which is the basis of a business that needs to function and generate benefits for customers and earnings for shareholders. However, my intention is to analyze if we invest adequately in increasing internal capacities to elevate strategic thinking.
I’d love to know what you think about @soyjuanbecerril… we’ll meet very soon.