Putting Leadership Back into Strategy

Cynthia A. Montgomery

Article | Harvard Business Review | January 2008

Putting Leadership Back into Strategy

Abstract

In recent decades an infusion of economics has lent the study of strategy much needed theory and empirical evidence. Strategy consultants, armed with frameworks and techniques, have stepped forward to help managers analyze their industries and position their companies for strategic advantage. Strategy has come to be seen as an analytical problem to be solved. But, says Montgomery, the Timken Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, the benefits of this rigorous approach have attendant costs: Strategy has become a competitive game plan, separate from the company's larger sense of purpose. The CEO's unique role as arbiter and steward of strategy has been eclipsed. And an overemphasis on sustainable competitive advantage has obscured the importance of making strategy a dynamic tool for guiding the company's development over time. For any company, intelligent guidance requires a clear sense of purpose, of what makes the organization truly distinctive. Purpose, Montgomery says, serves as both a constraint on activity and a guide to behavior. Creativity and insight are key to forging a compelling organizational purpose; analysis alone will never suffice. As the CEO - properly a company's chief strategist - translates purpose into practice, he or she must remain open to the possibility that the purpose itself may need to change. Lou Gerstner did this in the 1990s, when he decided that IBM would evolve to focus on applying technology rather than on inventing it. So did Steve Jobs, when he rescued Apple from a poorly performing strategy and expanded the company into attractive new businesses. Watching over strategy day in and day out is the CEO's greatest opportunity to shape the firm as well as outwit the competition.

Keywords: Leadership; Growth and Development Strategy; Managerial Roles; Mission and Purpose; Organizational Change and Adaptation; Creativity; Competitive Strategy; Competitive Advantage;

Format: Print

7 pages

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Montgomery, Cynthia A. "Putting Leadership Back into Strategy." Special Issue on HBS Centennial. Harvard Business Review 86, no. 1 (January 2008): 54–60.

The case describes the investment of hedge fund, Totem Point Management in Analog Semiconductors (ADI) as a way to discuss forecasting and valuation in growth companies. In June 2016, hedge fund Totem Point invested in ADI at around $55 a share. In general, Totem Point aimed for their investments to yield 50 percent returns over a two-year time horizon. It was now 2018, and Totem Point was evaluating whether to maintain its position in ADI, expand it, or close it and walk away with its (substantial) winnings from the investment. Though the stock had done well in the prior two years, it had recently seen numerous downgrades by sell-side analysts, as its price slid 15 percent from a historic high. The question facing Totem Point, was whether it would grow by a further 50 percent over the next two years. To answer this question, Totem Point considered growth trends in each of ADI’s main end-markets: industrial applications, consumer applications, automotive applications, and telecommunications applications. If these end-markets expanded over the coming two years, ADI would do very well, but if they failed to expand, the stock would stagnate. Totem Point’s task was to figure out which scenario was most likely and what that scenario would mean for the stock’s price.

Relative total shareholder returns (rTSR) has become the predominant metric to isolate managers' idiosyncratic performance. Among _rms that explicitly use rTSR in relative performance contracts, 60%―those that choose specific peers as benchmarks―select rTSR metrics that do a remarkable job of filtering out the systematic component of returns in adherence to the informativeness principle. However, firms that choose index-based benchmarks retain substantial systematic noise in their rTSR metrics. We document that the selection of noisy benchmarks is associated with compensation consultants' preferences, which are uncorrelated with observable firm attributes. Firms with weak governance are more likely to choose indexes, not because of opportunism, but because they do not adequately scrutinize outside experts' advice. Collectively, our findings provide a new explanation for why some executives are evaluated based on systematic noise, and novel evidence on how compensation consultants can impact firms.

Faculty & Research

Putting Leadership Back into Strategy

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author