As with many enabling strategies adopted by organisations, World’s Best Practice (WBP) is often elevated to the corporation’s mission and vision statements. The corporation then inevitably chases this objective because the mission statement implies that being “best” is why (or one of the reasons that) the organisation exists.

The reality is that few if any shareholders make their investment on the basis of the best practice position of their intended investment. They may however, make their investment on the basis that best practice brings an outcome that the investor seeks. But it is not the best practice per se, that is the attraction but rather the outcomes from best practice to which the shareholder is attracted.

As with most corporate strategies, there is a cost associated with their choice and their implementation. When the choice of a strategy such as WBP is made because it is only through being at WBP that shareholder objectives can be satisfied, then the decision is rational.

It is when management likes the concept of being at WBP and chases such a standard for reasons other than enhancement of shareholder objectives, that dysfunction and tension (and conflict) occurs between organisation and owners.

Many organisations chase WBP because they see that WBP is a status position they would like to aspire to and have for their own organisation. Yet the WBP standard is often far in excess of the standard required in the corporation’s own market place to satisfy its current or potential customers.

Where a company operates or intends to operate in a global market then WBP may be a relevant differentiator in the company’s market place. But then again it may not.

If WBP in say, the order-to-deliver process in a certain industry, is half a day, and the industry’s best practice in a company’s market place is 5 days, then there is no justification in chasing WBP unless at half a day, the company will be able to secure additional advantages (such as increased sales or economies of scale) that will lead to enhanced shareholder objectives.

If such “elasticity” does not exist in this particular market, then the investment (and other costs such as organisational change) required to achieve a half-day standard will detract from that which shareholders desire.

As with all such generic corporate aspirations, they, and WBP is no exception, are not a standard panacea for corporate visioning or mission definition. Such enablers must be determined by their suitability, their context and their ability to deliver or enhance defined shareholder objectives.