Compromise is a dirty word in the resource allocation process

Compromise, we all have to do it. Apparently its the way business works (sure does in my personal life!), staff engagement is driven thru buy in, everyone has a voice, and when you have a bunch of equally senior folks with conflicting drivers, you need to hammer it out… reach a compromise.

The only problem with compromise is just that, you don’t have clarity, you have a compromise. A middle ground of nothingness, a buggars muddle.

Strategy is determined by what comes out of the resource allocation process, not by intentions and processes that go into it. Clayton Christensen

As a strategy guy, I’m not a fan of compromise. I’ve seen too many good strategies get watered down by compromise. People insert wriggle room into the plan and you end up with a half baked delivery… Steve Job’s was a lot of things, uncompromising one of them, yet you can’t argue with the success he drove… is there a correlation? Apparently yes according to McKinsey‘s.

In a startling finding [that is sarcasm] , apparently if you adjust your resources depending on the initiatives relative market potential (that is put your resources behind the strategy, not everywhere) you get good results…. like 40% better total shareholder return. Empirical fact based evidence that compromise is bad for business.

So go forth, stay true to the direction, make choices!!!   be uncompromising,   get better results

2 thoughts on “Compromise is a dirty word in the resource allocation process

  1. Pingback: The two types of innovation | unreasonablemen

  2. Pingback: Who trapped VMWare in the innovators dilemma …and how do they get out | unreasonablemen

Leave a Reply