You're smart. You're a business leader of today thinking about success tomorrow. That's just the way the world turns these days. It's fast-paced and unforgiving if you don't have a well-oiled strategic plan.

I was reading a great blog article by Joshua Ehrlich today on Harvard Business Review's site. I receive their "Management Tip of the Day" every day and on most days, honestly, I read it take what I can from it and move on. Today though, was different. As I read it, I realized that I really struggle with moving too fast. I don't stop and think long enough, and as I mentioned in today's "Pulse Video Update," I bet you do too.

When faced with a challenge, the article suggests two very simple, very easy to execute tasks—we just have to take the time, be patient and allow the magic to happen. I know what you're thinking though (because I thought the same thing). "I put my phone away and close my door for some 'me' time when I really need to plan." That's good, but it's not good enough.

Ehrlich suggests completely "clearing the deck." Not only ignore your electronic devices, but also clear your calendar of unnecessary meetings, don't take any calls, and don't be afraid to ask for help in getting some of the more administrative tasks done while you plan. 

I don't know about you, but I am definitely guilty of trying to think strategically and logistically simultaneously—not always the best plan.

Think coffee for the next suggestion. Ehrlich says to let your ideas percolate (I've always loved coffee, but for some reason I have always been "in love" with the word percolate. It's just one of those elegant words that makes the writer in me smile.) 

Anyway, where was I?  . . . 

Oh yeah. We all need to let our ideas percolate. It's surprising to even me that with as much as I love the word, when it comes to strategic thinking I often don't allow my thoughts to do just that. Ehrlich says to truly get everything out of our ideas, we need to let them stew for a few days. Let the true juices of the idea flow out and sometimes we may be lucky enough to end up with a winner on the first try—but it's doubtful. 

So maybe you're reading this over your morning coffee, but even if you aren't, remember most great ideas come from multiple percolations.

Percolate for perfection.

A recent Booz & Company survey of more than 2,350 global executives reveals significant concerns about, and lack of confidence in, their own companies’ growth and strategy efforts. Among the findings:

• 53 percent of executives do not believe their company’s strategy will lead to success.
• 64 percent say they have too many conflicting priorities.
• 54 percent say their company’s way of creating value is not well understood by employees or customers.
• 83 percent say their company’s growth strategy leads to waste, at least some of the time.
• 67 percent say that their company’s capabilities do not fully support their strategy.
• 55 percent say that allocating resources in a way that really supports the strategy is a significant challenge, particularly as companies chase a wide set of growth initiatives.

“These are troubling symptoms. It’s clear to us that this low ‘company confidence’ is a result of companies’ tendencies to chase too many unrelated growth initiatives,” said Booz & Company Partner Paul Leinwand, co-author of The Essential Advantage: How to Win with a Capabilities-Driven Strategy. “Instead of asking the question ‘What are we great at and how can that help us grow?’, companies often look for markets that seem ‘adjacent’ or in a similar sector but where they may not have the capabilities to succeed.”

Though it may seem easier to chase new avenues of growth, these are often highly risky and take attention away from the core business that usually has significant "headroom for growth," says co-author and Booz & Company Managing Director Cesare Mainardi.

The survey data concludes that too many unrelated growth initiatives lead to failure and frustration. Executives who say their company has the fewest firm-wide strategic priorities (one to three) are the most likely to report above-industry average revenue growth (as compared to those having more priorities or no list of priorities at all).

“Based on the survey results, we believe that the key question leaders and top executives should ask is, ‘How can we get focused on the right initiatives—the ones that are best for our company?’” Leinwand said. “To get to the answer, executives need to explore a set of more fundamental questions: ‘What is the company great at doing? What are the few crucial capabilities the company can bring to bear more effectively than anyone else?’”

The survey findings support the benefits of this “capabilities-driven” approach to developing strategy: Those executives who say their company’s differentiating capabilities fully support the company’s strategy are almost twice as likely to report above-average revenue growth for their company as all the others in the survey.

“The real challenge for leaders and top executives is selecting the opportunities that are best for the company and turning down many that are alluring but do not offer a real chance to win,” Mainardi said.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

Or so goes the Japanese saying...

While the truth of this phrase varies from one organization to another, all companies have at least a few executives that can avoid the hammer, according to author Perry Buffett in "Using Influence to Get Things Done" from the latest issue of strategy+business. And the influence of these executives far exceeds their job titles--when they address potentially controversial subjects, their colleagues and bosses pay attention.

"These executives get things done, whereas others, often with more formal authority and power, command, cajole, and threaten to no avail."

Beyond simply getting things done, Buffett asserts that employees of such executives reap the benefits, too.

"Big problems are solved, executive decision making is enhanced, and the organization is flattened somewhat, making it more flexible and less rigidly tied to a top-down, command-and-control environment."

OK, so the important piece. Not everyone is or is capable of being such a proactive, influential executive, but others (even non-executives) can still strive for innovative excellence in working with the C-suite. s+b provides five factors for using influence (including what-not-to-do warnings), one of which is highlighted below.

"Leave your personal agenda at the door."

Fail to follow this significant piece of advice at this risk of your career:

"Although the ability of executives to influence others often enhances their careers, self-aggrandizement isn't their primary motivation. Some executives forget this fundamental truth. They become Machiavellian, playing politics in order to build their power base, or in the flush of success, they become drunk with power. They forget that personal success is a by-product of serving their companies well. With few exceptions, these executives lose credibility with their peers. Their motives are questioned and they eventually cannot muster the support on which their influential competence depends."

Tony Golsby-Smith raises a good question on the Harvard Business Review blog: Is your budgeting process killing your strategy? 

I'll admit, I never thought of the two as separate activities. From my experience, strategy always relies on budget. However, Golsby-Smith—founder and CEO of 2nd Road, a training and consulting firm headquartered in Sydney, Australia—suggests that you should free strategy discussions from budget talks. 

"Ideally, developing a strategy should be exciting: strategy making is about creating a future for your organization, and engaging your people in that process," he wrote. "But all too often, the budget-planning monster weighs an organization down with endless inputs and bureaucracy and rules. The monster does not create coherence. It does not create energy. It does not excite people. No wonder companies have trouble inventing new products, services, and futures."

Golsby-Smith's ideas are worth reading and thinking about. In your experience, can the two processes be separate? Why? 

October is International Strategic Planning Month (although I can't quite find the agency or org that sponsors or promotes it). Josh Leibner and Gershon Mader are taking advantage. The authors are using the occasion to leverage their book: The Power of Strategic Commitment: Achieving Extraordinary Results Through TOTAL Alignment and Engagement. For those who don't have time to read the whole book, here's a cheat sheet of Leibner and Mader dos and don'ts. 

• Actively ask for input from all departments and levels
• Promote and incorporate others’ ideas
• Ask your staff what they would start, stop or continue in your position
• Routinely balance out your meetings by discussing both strategic and tactical issues

• Make strategic development an exclusive club limited to the higher-ups
• Stifle strategic thinking by not being open to and acting on others’ feedback
• Try to maintain control by micromanaging
• Solely focus on and encourage tactical thinking in meetings

I asked several industry professionals this month what innovation they have introduced to positively affected the way their companies do business. Here are a couple of responses. Find more answers in September's issue of One+. 

“I taught my sales team to know their products better than anyone else, ask great questions, listen to answers and always create solutions. The most important lesson I needed to get across to each one of them was to build solid customer relationships and keep their reputations above reproach.” —Rick Hud, U.S. Midwest-based national sales manager for the San Francisco CVB

“I’m really working to update communications between my clients and myself. Some of them prefer high-tech, high-touch. And some of them prefer for me to be ‘smiling and dialing,’ and I’m happy to accommodate. There are a lot of options out there.” —David Law, new national accounts director for the Arlington CVB