Month: October 2024

Studies consistently show that most strategic plans fall short.

The reasons are varied, but a common mistake stands out: teams often assume they understand “strategic” planning, only to end up misguided, compromising their organizations’ success. Often, what they call a “strategic plan” lacks real strategic thought.

How Missteps Occur

If you’ve ever reviewed a company’s strategic plan, you’ve likely seen a list of ambitious goals. They may be grouped in catchy ways, but as you read through, doubts surface. Why?

You sense the organization may lack the resources or focus to achieve all these objectives simultaneously. The longer the list, the more you suspect it may be abandoned when daily issues arise, with lofty goals slipping out of view.

Redefining “Strategic”

One way to prevent this common pitfall is to rethink how we use the term “strategic.” Today, the label “strategic” is often used casually to signal importance, so much so that it’s lost its impact, and audiences tune it out. This isn’t just a communication issue. When teams invest time in a strategic retreat, they expect the final plan to be truly strategic, yet often that’s not the case.

Typical brainstorming sessions encourage a mix of ideas and positive intentions without much structure. The result is often an extensive report of hopeful outcomes, which can look similar to other plans within the industry—ultimately, another reason for failure.

Enter the Strategy Triad

Peter Compo’s book *The Emergent Strategy* introduces a helpful redefinition of “strategic” by proposing a triad approach:

1. Aspiration: A meaningful, challenging goal that requires effort and won’t happen automatically.

2. Bottleneck: The main obstacle preventing the organization from achieving its aspiration(s).

3. Guiding Principle: A decision-making rule to help navigate actions that address the bottleneck.

Consider a store aiming to increase profits. If the biggest bottleneck is low brand recognition, the guiding principle could be to improve brand awareness through multiple channels—online, in-store, and through partnerships.

Applying the Strategy Triad

At a recent strategic planning retreat, a leadership team was challenged to apply the triad. Initially, it was difficult; identifying bottlenecks from new perspectives required collaboration and creativity, especially without cross-functional data, which led them to rely on firsthand experiences. Yet, they successfully defined bottlenecks and guiding principles that empowered employees to align their daily choices with the strategic plan. This alignment is what leaders want but is often rare.

Why Alignment is Rare

Leadership teams often avoid the challenging, healthy conflict required to build a robust strategy triad. They may take the easier path, creating lists of goals rather than diving into critical strategic planning. Alternatively, when discussions become too heated, leaders may intervene prematurely, cutting off debate and limiting essential buy-in.

To achieve meaningful alignment, it’s important to work through differing viewpoints until agreement is reached. Though challenging, this process builds the intellectual and emotional commitment needed for successful execution. By persevering through difficult conversations, leaders can significantly improve their strategic plans’ success and longevity.

---

Francis Wade | Not everything is strategic | Business | Jamaica Gleaner

Imagine you’ve joined a board, only to discover it’s deeply mediocre. This is your third meeting, and it’s becoming clear that the issues you sensed in the first two weren’t incidental—they’re ongoing. How do you address this underperformance?

Luckily, you aren’t the only one who’s noticed. Some members recognize that long-standing issues have held the board back for years, and while they’ve tried initiating change, nothing has stuck. These are complex, systemic challenges that won’t be resolved by casual discussions, pep talks, or a thoughtful email. Swift, strategic action is needed. But how?

I recently encountered insights from consultant A. Cecile Watson that shed light on why boards need their own strategic approach. Her perspective inspires these key reasons for why your board must implement a self-care plan.

Why Boards Should Prioritize Self-Examination

Boards are often envisioned as serving the organization’s needs. If all members align with this vision, things should function smoothly. Small differences can be ironed out, much like in the “Form-Storm-Norm-Perform” teamwork model, which illustrates the stages groups move through to achieve high performance.

However, boards today face a high-pressure environment, dealing with complex VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) issues from the outset. While they might receive briefings, individual and group development often gets overlooked in the rush to deliver.

This traditional expectation—that boards serve swiftly, even if under-informed—faces scrutiny in Watson’s latest article. She argues that boards must practice self-reflection and strategy if they’re to excel. Smart people on a board don’t guarantee a high group IQ or EQ; in fact, group performance can suffer if proactive measures aren’t in place.

What does your board need? A new level of self-care. Watson suggests that boards operate as a kind of strategic unit, managing their performance preemptively. Failing to do so only perpetuates mediocrity.

The Case for Board Self-Strategy

Typically, boards focus on “strategic planning” for their organization’s future. Watson’s approach takes this one step further: boards must also strategize for themselves. As a unit, they need the space to address their own evolution.

This doesn’t mean ignoring corporate planning. In fact, I’ve previously recommended that board members actively engage in their organization’s strategic retreats, where they contribute to shaping long-term goals.

Yet, once these retreats end, some boards must adapt as well. For instance, one board I worked with chose to refresh its membership, reducing both the average age and tenure of its members to bring new perspectives aligned with the strategic plan.

In another case, a board had grown complacent. Members showed up sporadically, often unprepared. This lack of accountability permeated the organization, undermining its standards and culture.

Unfortunately, board evaluations alone rarely spark transformation. Instead, Watson advocates for a written Board Strategy, a guiding document that steers the board’s actions.

Creating a Strategy for the Board

Watson advises boards to define a vision for themselves and set measurable milestones to ensure the plan stays on course. While this may sound overwhelming for already busy board members, it’s ultimately about cultivating the right mindset, not rigidly following a checklist.

Adopting these principles can help your board become resilient, better equipped to navigate future challenges, and able to avoid the slow slide into mediocrity that affects many corporate teams.

---

Enjoying this short post? Consider joining the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy and Podcast, full of long-form content on game-changing strategic planning.

This post was based on an article published in the Jamaica Gleaner.