The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 1 of 6
Survey
Better strategy for business units: A McKinsey Global Survey
Executives are most positive about the outcomes of strategy formulation for their companies’ business units
when they work at companies that use a collaborative approach. And while they say following best practices
yields better results, they use those practices less often than they think they should.
Web exclusive, July 2007
When a company formulates strategies for its business units, it reaps what it sows, executives say. Those
who work at companies that frequently apply best practices—such as assessing trends, risks, and competitor
reactions—and take on the challenge of fostering collaboration between executives at the corporate and
business unit levels are more positive about the outcomes.
The latest McKinsey online survey1 of executives around the world reveals tension throughout the process.
Corporate-level managers tend to perceive their companies’ processes for developing business unit strategy
as collaborative, while their colleagues at the business unit level more often see the strategies as mandated
by the corporate center.
Most respondents do agree, however, that their companies have some way to go before the formulation of
business unit strategy meets the rigorous standards associated with best practice. For instance, while eight
executives out of ten surveyed say it is relevant to identify the top business, social, and environmental
trends that would affect a business unit’s strategy, only half report that their companies frequently do so.
What’s more, executives have mixed feelings about the results. While a large majority of respondents say
the process aligns business unit leaders with the strategy and makes managers committed to the
implementation of strategy, relatively few report that it fosters creativity or incorporates the priorities of
employees at all levels.
Notes
1 The McKinsey Quarterly conducted the survey in June 2007 and received 2,700 responses from a worldwide panel of executives.
The respondents are involved in formulating, monitoring, or implementing strategy at either the corporate or business unit level and
work for public and private companies in a wide range of industries. Close to half of the respondents are C-level executives. All data
are weighted by GDP of constituent countries to adjust for differences in response rates.
Three approaches
Equal shares of respondents report taking a collaborative or a corporate–led approach to developing business
unit strategy at their companies. Thirty-seven percent say corporate and business unit representatives share
the work, and as many say strategy is formulated on the basis of targets set at the corporate level in areas
such as growth, profit, or market share. Twenty-three percent report that the business unit formulates its
strategic plan, which is then reviewed by the corporate center.
Executives at smaller companies are more likely to report taking a collaborative approach (Exhibit 1). The
larger the company, the more likely it is to use a corporate-led process. How executives characterize the
process at their companies also depends on their affiliation. Managers involved in strategy on the business
unit side more often view strategy development as being led at the corporate level, while corporate-level
executives tend to see it as a collaborative effort.
Best practice and real practice
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007
The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 2 of 6
Companies know what steps to take to formulate an effective strategy, but they don’t take them as
frequently as they should. The survey asked about critical best practices (such as assessing trends, economic
drivers, risks, uncertainties, and competitor and stakeholder reactions), as well as others such as providing
more than one strategic option and using case studies and analogies to guide decisions.
A strong majority of the respondents describe nine such practices as relevant for the formulation of strategy
in their companies’ sector or sectors. Explicitly taking into account the organization’s strengths and
weaknesses is the practice seen as most relevant (Exhibit 2). Two particularly sophisticated practices—the
use of case studies in a business unit’s own industry and examples or analogies from other industries—are
the only two that a majority do not consider relevant.
However,
a gap of 15 percentage points or more separates the portion of respondents who consider these best
practices relevant from those who say that their companies frequently use the practices. The gap is
particularly wide—almost 30 percentage points—for two activities: identifying and assessing the top trends
that would affect a business unit in the next three to five years and explicitly defining a business unit’s
industry and its role within the company’s portfolio.
What’s more, serious shortcomings emerge when we pressed executives about the specific actions their
companies take when applying some of the best practices. For instance, while 65 percent say it is relevant to
take the reactions of competitors into account, and 41 percent say their companies frequently do so, no
more than 29 percent say their companies often discuss and analyze the prospects of other players entering
their markets. Only 10 percent say they frequently conduct gaming exercises to test the probability of such
market entries and potential responses to them.
Companies with a collaborative approach do somewhat better overall than those with a corporate- or
business unit-led approach. And executives at collaborative companies are significantly more likely to say
they frequently take into account expected reactions from competitors and analyze top trends.
Taking the lead
Although there’s general agreement on what companies ought to be doing, there is much less agreement on
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007
The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 3 of 6
who’s in
charge.
The
overall
response
indicates
a roughly
equal
split
between
the
corporate
side and
the
business
units
about
who is
taking
the lead
in
formulating and monitoring strategy, but while corporate-level executives most frequently see a small group
of senior corporate managers as taking the lead, respondents at the business unit level are more likely to
see business unit leaders as being in charge (Exhibit 3). Both groups overwhelmingly agree that business
unit leaders have the main responsibility for implementing the formulated strategy.
Getting satisfaction
The quality of an approach to formulating strategy can be measured in part by whether participants are
satisfied that the process meets goals such as involving those who carry out strategy, identifying growth
opportunities effectively, and fostering creativity—all of which presumably increase the chances of making
and executing successful strategies.
A clear majority of executives agree that their companies’ approaches to formulating business unit strategy
help to align business unit leaders with the strategy and guarantee a commitment to its implementation,
ensure that those who execute the strategy are involved in making it, and build a shared understanding of
market dynamics (Exhibit 4). But only a minority agree that their approaches foster creativity, incorporate
priorities of employees at all levels, and effectively identify growth opportunities outside of the core business.
What’s more, corporate executives hold a consistently rosier view than business unit executives do.
To dig
deeper into the satisfaction of executives with strategy development, we combined their levels of agreement
with each of the outcomes in Exhibit 4 into a single composite measure2 and divided the respondents into
three groups: those who are satisfied (in overall agreement with the statements), those who are neutral,
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007
The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 4 of 6
and
those
who are
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007
The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 5 of 6
dissatisfied
(disagree with the statements). According to this analysis, executives who are satisfied are the likeliest to
describe the process at their companies as collaborative. Specifically, executives at companies with a
collaborative approach to strategy represent 37 percent of the sample but 42 percent of those who are
satisfied with their process.
In addition, there is a strong and consistent correlation between satisfaction levels and the frequency of
using best practices in strategy formulation. For instance, 57 percent of executives who are satisfied with the
process say they apply one of the least-used best practices: frequently providing more than one option when
making strategic recommendations. Only 31 percent of the neutral executives and 23 percent of the
dissatisfied ones report using that practice (Exhibit 5).
Notes
2
This
measure
was
constructed
as an index
of the six
outcomes
in Exhibit 4.
Each
respondent
received an
index score
ranging
from a low
of 6 (if he
or she
selected
“strongly
disagree”
with all six
outcomes)
to a high of
30 (if he or
she
selected
“strongly
agree” with
all six). The
index
values were
then
grouped
into the
categories
of satisfied,
neutral,
and
dissatisfied.
Achieving strategic targets
In the end, though, the effectiveness of strategy formulation must also be measured by whether the
company achieves its strategic goals. The frequent use of best practices in the process seems to help
somewhat.
For instance, of respondents who report that over the past three fiscal years their companies performed
better than the strategic targets they had set, 62 percent say their processes frequently take these targets
into account and assess risks, compared with 56 percent of executives at companies that performed on
target and 47 percent of those that performed below target (Exhibit 6). Indeed, the outperforming
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007
The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
Page 6 of 6
companies were more likely to make frequent use of 7 of the 11 practices.
About
the
Contributors
Contributors to the development and analysis of this survey include Jungkiu Choi, a McKinsey alumnus; Dan Lovallo,
a professor at the University of Western Australia Business School and an adviser to McKinsey; and Anna Tarasova, a
consultant in McKinsey’s Waltham, Massachusetts, office.
Copyright © 1992-2007 McKinsey & Company
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx?L2=21&L3=37&ar=2038
25/8/2007