EN
Is your plan focused on demolition or construction?
In every management meeting, there comes a moment when cutting costs and making investments are weighed against each other.
Partner contribution
The best golfer in the world lost his swing at the peak of his career
Introduction
In 1997, Tiger Woods won the Masters by twelve strokes. The largest margin of victory in the tournament's history. And what did he do next?
He started over.
Not because his swing wasn't working. Precisely because it was. His coach, Butch Harmon, had shown him that his technique would wear down his body in the long run. Tiger therefore opted for a fundamental redesign. For two years, he performed much worse. He lost tournaments he had previously won effortlessly.
And after that, he became the most dominant golfer the sport has ever known.
Most organizations don't tell that story about themselves.
Anyone who wants to fundamentally redesign their system must first accept that performance will temporarily decline. And those who only optimize what already exists will never truly get better, only more efficient at the same thing.
The Japanese principle of kaizen is about this. Continuous improvement, in small, consistent steps. Plan, do, check, act. Each cycle provides insight. Every insight can lead to an adjustment. But kaizen only works if you dare to look honestly. At what works and, especially, what doesn't. Without blame. Without losing face.
In most organizations, plans are made and then defended.
Deviations are explained rather than investigated. Review meetings become reports instead of learning opportunities. The system runs. But it doesn't learn.
A well-structured OGSM forces precisely the discipline that Tiger Woods applied. You set a direction. You measure whether you're on track. And you then adjust based on what you see, not on what you hope for.
A red indicator is not a failure. It's information.
The question is not who is to blame. The question is what you learn from it and what you'll do differently next week. That requires a different attitude than teams are used to. Less defending, more investigating. Less explaining why things fell short, more determining what changes now. Discipline over intention. Rhythm over ad hoc acceleration.
Tiger was willing to perform worse for two years to then become the best.
What is your organization willing to let go of to improve structurally?
That is the question a good OGSM conversation should yield. Not: what will you do. But: what will you differently do.
