As a leader, you recognize the importance of inspiring your team with a compelling vision. Yet, you may find that your company’s vision statement, despite its lofty aspirations, fails to inspire meaningful change. How can you craft and communicate a future that genuinely motivates your team to take action?

The Challenge of an Inherited Vision Statement

Imagine you’re a newly promoted CEO. Among the many responsibilities you’ve inherited is a vision statement. While it might look passable on paper, it has yet to inspire you, let alone your team, to embrace new behaviors or think differently.

It’s not that you lack vision yourself—after all, your success is built on envisioning possibilities and pursuing them. But translating that personal energy into an organizational vision that resonates with others is a different challenge altogether. Should you simply rewrite the vision statement, or is there a better way to achieve meaningful impact?

Here’s a fresh approach to this age-old leadership dilemma.

Understanding How Vision Truly Works

A powerful vision fundamentally transforms how we experience the present. Think about the difference between a Friday afternoon in the office and a Sunday afternoon. The former often feels better—not because of the immediate circumstances but because of our anticipation of the weekend. This sense of future anticipation changes how we perceive the present moment.

That’s the kind of shift you want to inspire in your stakeholders. You want them to feel energized by the future you’re describing, just as you are. The hallmark of success is when individuals take initiative, make sacrifices, and go beyond their job descriptions—not because they’re told to, but because they’re inspired to.

But here’s the hard truth: a traditional vision statement alone cannot deliver this kind of transformative impact.

Rethinking Vision: Introducing the Three Levels

Most organizations begin with what can be termed a “Level 1 Vision”: a concise, polished statement, often a few sentences or paragraphs, that attempts to summarize the future. However, these statements are frequently vague, generic, and uninspiring. They might sound nice but leave people either indifferent or skeptical. Some may even feel the statement describes what the organization has already achieved, rendering it irrelevant.

A better approach is to think of the Level 1 Vision as just the “headline” of a more detailed vision framework. Here’s how to expand it.

Building a Level 2 Vision

To create a meaningful vision at this level, gather your leadership team for an offsite retreat and focus on a specific long-term horizon—typically 15 to 30 years in the future. Work together to describe a vivid picture of what success looks like at that time. This Level 2 Vision goes beyond a brief statement; it provides several pages of detail, potentially including visuals, videos, or other media to bring the future to life.

The key here is collaboration. By involving your leadership team, you not only create a shared sense of ownership but also tap into a wider pool of creativity and ambition. A well-crafted Level 2 Vision should reflect the aspirations of your entire C-suite, energizing everyone involved.

However, many organizations stop at this stage. While the Level 2 Vision is more compelling than a simple statement, it often becomes an overwhelming list of aspirations. Without prioritization (and reduction), it risks becoming unrealistic, leading to cynicism rather than inspiration. Some employees may even dismiss it as “the CEO’s wish list.”

To avoid this pitfall, you must take the next step.

Evolving to a Level 3 Vision

The “Level 3 Vision” transforms lofty aspirations into a credible, actionable plan. This involves narrowing down the vision to a focused set of achievable targets supported by a strategic roadmap.

This process requires tough conversations. Your leadership team will need to negotiate priorities, confront trade-offs, and align on a clear path forward. Engaging a skilled facilitator can help ensure these discussions are productive and lead to consensus.

The outcome is a vision that stands apart from your competitors. A Level 3 Vision includes:

– Specific, measurable results: Clearly defined goals with tangible metrics.

– Milestones: Key achievements along the journey to the ultimate vision.

– A strategic pathway: A roadmap showing how to get from the present to the desired future.

– Team alignment: Full buy-in from your leadership team, ensuring commitment to execution.

With this, your vision evolves from an abstract dream into a realistic plan that inspires action.

Communicating Across the Three Levels

Once your Level 3 Vision is established, it’s crucial to communicate it effectively. Each level of vision—Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3—has a role to play depending on your audience and context.

For example, a Level 1 Vision offers a concise, memorable summary. Think of Vision 2030 Jamaica’s tagline: “…the place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business.” It’s short, evocative, and easy to recall.

A Level 2 Vision, on the other hand, provides more depth. Vision 2030 Jamaica expands on its tagline with four National Goals and 15 Outcomes, offering stakeholders a richer understanding of the country’s aspirations.

Finally, a Level 3 Vision delivers the detailed roadmap necessary to ensure credibility and guide execution.

By mastering these three levels, you can tailor your communication to inspire stakeholders while maintaining clarity and focus. Avoid the mistake of using the wrong level for the audience or situation, which can lead to confusion or disengagement.

Conclusion

Transforming vision statements into actionable, inspiring frameworks requires more than polished language. By embracing a three-level approach, you can align your team, inspire stakeholders, and chart a credible path to the future. Choose the right level of vision for the right moment, and you’ll not only communicate your aspirations—you’ll make them a reality.

If you’re part of a large public-sector organization or a multi-divisional private company, you probably operate within a framework of a “master plan.” This overarching strategy is meant to guide your organization towards its long-term objectives. Yet, despite the hard work, key milestones and targets may still be missed. How can you ensure that your organization achieves significant, measurable results?

In the case of Jamaica’s Vision 2030, the top priorities are clear: establishing Jamaica as a preferred place to live, driving economic growth, and reducing crime. These priorities are fundamental components of Jamaica’s strategic vision. But despite progress in some areas, many still feel that these indicators have not improved significantly at the ground level.

There’s still time to make headway, but achieving these goals before 2031 begins requires overcoming fundamental obstacles. These objectives are ambitious because they necessitate collaboration across various Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), each of which was structured during a time when objectives were simpler and more siloed. Bridging these organizational gaps is challenging, but a new approach to master planning offers a pathway forward.

Master Planning in a New Context

The concept of “master planning” dates back to urban development projects of the 1950s, where the goal was to unite stakeholders from diverse fields to create a shared, long-term vision. This vision might span 10, 20, or even 50 years. Once the overarching vision was clear, cross-functional teams could then develop actionable plans—short, mid, and long-term projects that would turn vision into reality.

In recent years, however, master planning has evolved, often influenced by external consultants. These outsiders offer a streamlined approach, claiming that their expertise and global experience can produce superior plans. In practice, consultants often interview key stakeholders, gather perspectives, and compile these into a comprehensive document. While the final report may appear impressive, it often amounts to little more than a wishlist, lacking the practical decisions and prioritization needed to move from strategy to execution.

This brings us to a crucial insight: effective master planning cannot be outsourced. Instead, it must come from within, led by the organization’s own top leadership. Consultants can provide guidance and support, but the real work—deciding which projects to pursue, setting timelines, and allocating budgets—must be done by those who are most committed to the organization’s success.

Master Planning on Steroids: A Bold New Approach

Dwight D. Eisenhower famously said, “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” The real power of master planning lies not in the document itself, but in the process of bringing leaders together to make tough decisions. This is the core of what we might call “Master Planning on Steroids.”

This approach is not about generating a long list of aspirational goals. Instead, it requires assembling the organization’s top leaders, putting them in a room with the data, and challenging them to make hard choices together. Rather than outsourcing difficult decisions to consultants, the organization’s key stakeholders must confront these choices head-on, weighing priorities and making the necessary trade-offs.

The reality is that this kind of intense, collaborative planning can be emotionally and mentally taxing. However, it’s essential. Consultants might create polished reports with recommendations for “more capacity” or “enhanced resources,” but these generalized solutions often sidestep the most crucial decisions. In contrast, Master Planning on Steroids forces leaders to reach consensus on specific projects, resources, and timelines.

An important advantage of this approach is its immediate applicability. Because the leaders are already aligned on priorities and resources, implementation can begin as soon as the plan is finalized. This prevents the usual delays associated with lengthy approval processes and keeps momentum alive.

Implementing a Master Plan with Staying Power

In the public sector, maintaining momentum on strategic initiatives can be particularly challenging. Political changes, reorganization within ministries, or disruptions like pandemics can derail even the most well-laid plans. Therefore, Master Planning on Steroids is as much about change management as it is about strategy.

For example, a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in Jamaica would require collaboration across several ministries, including National Security, Education, and Social Security. By using a backcasting approach—starting with the desired future outcomes and working backward to the present—leaders can outline clear, actionable projects with defined timelines, budgets, and resource allocations. This approach also includes identifying existing initiatives that may need to be discontinued to make room for higher-priority projects.

Achieving buy-in from all stakeholders is critical. When leaders are involved in the decision-making process, they are more likely to be committed to the plan’s success. Difficult, face-to-face discussions among peers foster a sense of ownership that cannot be created through an outsourced report. This ownership is crucial for ensuring that leaders do not just implement the plan, but champion it.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

Another key outcome of Master Planning on Steroids is the establishment of a culture of accountability. When leaders are deeply involved in setting priorities and making trade-offs, they are more likely to feel personally responsible for the plan’s success. This sense of responsibility drives them to monitor progress closely and make adjustments as needed, ensuring that the plan remains relevant and effective even as circumstances change.

In the end, a Master Plan on Steroids may not be bigger in terms of aspirations. Its strength lies in its grounded, actionable nature, which is far more likely to yield tangible results. Leaders who engage in this process are not just following a blueprint—they are creating a path forward that they are fully committed to pursuing.

A Roadmap to Remarkable Results

For any large organization, especially in the public sector, achieving breakthrough results requires more than a list of goals. It demands a disciplined, hands-on approach that prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and adaptability. Master Planning on Steroids provides this framework, turning strategy into action and vision into reality.

Imagine: You are a newly minted executive in a strategic planning project and notice that a single, strong person is hijacking the process. They are intelligent, but should you be relieved, or dismayed, as they take over?

Backstory: Ever since your promotion to the C-Suite, you have eagerly anticipated your inaugural corporate planning retreat. Why? This should be the place where the most realistic, impactful discussions occur.

However, near the beginning of the workshop, everyone seems to be holding back. Then, all of a sudden, the CEO, Chair or even a hired consultant announces: “I have already figured this out.”

Unfortunately, the rest of the meeting slips into a power struggle as the hijacker attempts to persuade participants that no further deliberations are necessary. Why? He’s already given the right answer. Should you resist?

Consider that even if his reasoning is brilliant, you are now caught in a fake retreat. Here’s why.

1. Key Inputs Are Being Ignored

Contemplate these classic matchups:

• Kodak vs. FujiFilm
• Blackberry or Nokia vs. iPhone
• Cable and Wireless Mobile vs. Digicel

In each competition, opposing companies prepared rival strategic plans. Today, many years later, we know that the plans on the left were failures.

From years of experience I can attest: it takes a supreme team effort to produce a plan on the right. In other words, these pre-emptive, long-term, game-changing efforts are not dreamt up by single actors.

Instead, given our complex world, they require the combined insights of subject matter experts from all parts of your company. In a strategy discussion, they bring data only they can understand.

The “strong” person who thinks today’s problems are simple is wrong. Therefore, for the sake of the organisation’s future, you must be prepared to make this point whenever your retreat slips into a one-man show. But that’s only a single way it can happen.

Another is via stonewalling. A CEO begs her team to engage in fruitful discussion, only to be met with dead silence. Her colleagues are being cautious, lazy or selfish. She’s forced to jump in to fill the gap.

Don’t let this unhappy outcome occur, either. Prepare your entire team, including the leader, for an interactive offsite beforehand.

2. The Most Consequential Discussions are Avoided

After a few months’ study, a new chairman has decided he has already mastered the top issues. During a retreat, he presents his agenda of topics to be discussed, selling his point of view convincingly.

However, the conversation takes a left turn. New data emerges, and the discussion heads in a direction he never anticipated. To respond, he tries to get things “back on track” but the energy has shifted. In his official role as chair, he gavels the discussion to order, using Robert’s Rules.

A revolt breaks out. Participants are convinced there is no greater priority than the current issue being discussed. Some become incensed, ready to walk out. They argue, “If this topic isn’t of strategic importance, then nothing is.”

Unfortunately, the chair is stuck following a bad process. He doesn’t understand that he’s undermining the freedom participants need to explore hard-to-appreciate problems. Without it, he’s turned a strategic planning opportunity into the wrong kind of struggle.

But what’s the right kind? If the team can focus on the hardest challenges, it could achieve the breakthrough their situation requires. However, he’d have to abandon his preset picture of success and go along with the flow.

3. Lack of Ownership

Ultimately, a strategic plan which fails in the above two ways will fall apart in implementation. Why? The plan won’t have the true buy-in of those who attended.

It’s a paradox. When you allow an open, messy discussion, you authorise those involved to own the outcome.

Furthermore, they’ll commit to more than you imagined, simply because you have allowed a group dynamic to build. Now they are ready for disruptive, breakthrough solutions even if it involves a personal sacrifice. They are a team.

The best approach requires your use of neutral facilitators, sourced from either inside or outside. They’ll balance the inevitable tussles a workshop is intended to stir up. It’s easier for them to do so because they don’t have a pre-set agenda.

What kind of result should they be trying to produce? Full, engaged accountability and a plan which has a high likelihood of being game-changing.

But don’t follow this advice for a “placeholder” retreat intended to preserve status quo thinking. While it will ruffle feathers, you can expect the above formula to generate superlative results.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.

As a proponent of long-term thinking in your company, you’ve likely encountered resistance. You may feel isolated, struggling to articulate the value of strategic foresight to colleagues focused on immediate concerns. This guide aims to provide you with a framework to effectively communicate the importance of long-term strategic planning (LTSP) and engage others in this crucial mindset. The Challenge of Long-Term Thinking You’ve probably experienced this scenario: In a meeting, you highlight a future your colleagues can’t see. The potential long-term consequences seem obvious to you. Unfortunately, your team, preoccupied with urgent problems, lacks the energy to consider your strategic viewpoint. They opt for the quick satisfaction of immediate resolutions. Afterwards, you realize that fundamental issues remain unaddressed. It feels like you’re only discussing surface-level solutions without questioning the underlying approach. If this resonates with you, you’re not alone. Many forward-thinking professionals struggle to convey the importance of LTSP. But there’s a way to bridge this gap and bring others into long-term thinking: the Three Horizons Framework by Curry, Hodgson and Sharpe. Horizon 1: Understanding the Decay of Current Offerings Every organization provides value through its products or services. However, it’s crucial to recognize that these offerings have a limited lifespan. Each day brings you closer to the point where your current solutions become obsolete. Consider the photography industry. Until the 2000s, companies like Kodak and Fuji thrived selling film. Today, the average consumer has no interest in this product. This decay in demand is a universal truth in business, illustrated by the following curve:

The key question is: How long will your current strategic fit last? As an LTSP advocate, you’ve likely considered this. Now, you have a visual representation to share with your colleagues, helping them grasp this concept more easily. Horizon 3: Recognizing Future Opportunities While managing current operations is crucial, it’s equally important to look for signs of future trends. These “faint signals” can be found in emerging technologies, evolving customer needs, new regulations, environmental changes, and various other areas. By paying attention to these signals, your team can craft narratives about potential futures. This foresight defines the third horizon:

Many companies overlook these disruptors by failing to plan far enough ahead. As an LTSP proponent, you can encourage your team to do more than passively observe these changes. Instead, position your organization to influence and shape these future scenarios. Horizon 2: Bridging Present and Future To transition from current offerings to future opportunities, your organization needs a bridge – this is Horizon 2:

These are initiatives that may not represent your ultimate vision but serve as stepping stones towards it. Developing these transition strategies is best done in strategic planning retreats, where all departments can contribute their insights. Integrating the Three Horizons When effectively implemented, the Three Horizons Framework allows your organization to manage current operations, develop transition strategies, and prepare for future scenarios simultaneously:

This integrated approach demonstrates how long-term imperatives can and should inform immediate actions. Conclusion: Empowering Long-Term Strategic Planning By using the Three Horizons Framework, you now have a powerful tool to illustrate the importance of long-term thinking to your colleagues. This approach allows you to: 1. Visually represent the lifecycle of current offerings 2. Highlight the importance of future-focused initiatives 3. Demonstrate how to bridge present operations with future opportunities 4. Show how all these elements work together in a cohesive strategy Remember, you’re not alone in advocating for LTSP. Many successful organizations embrace this approach, recognizing that preparation for the future is key to long-term success. Use this framework to spark meaningful discussions about your company’s future. By doing so, you’re not just planning for tomorrow – you’re shaping it. Or learn more about the LeapOut approach and the detailed strategic planning framework we use with our clients.

How long is the ideal strategic planning retreat?

“Francis”, clients sometimes ask, “Why do you recommend a two-day strategy retreat?” Usually, they want to get the most from their workshop, but also don’t wish to waste a moment. After all, top executive time is quite expensive.

Assuming that your company has agreed to such a workshop, what’s the difference between one, two, or more days?

Decision-Making vs. Decision-Announcing

Sometimes, companies just want to announce decisions which have already been made…”Town Hall” style. In these settings, you intend to inform an audience at scale about something important. But you’re happy to answer a few questions and gain some initial support. Expectations are low. Participants don’t expect an open-ended dialogue on all aspects of the business.

We recommend that these short announcement-style meetings be held separately from “decision retreats”.

By contrast, the latter are designed to foster the most powerful, breakthrough conversations possible. The stakes are deliberately boosted so that extensive, game-changing resolutions can be made.

Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, authors of Built to Last, call them BHAGs – Big, Hairy Audacious Goals.

To facilitate these discussions, attendance needs to be limited to 18 people. In this way, your team can have all the necessary talks to come to consensus. Before leaving, you should ask for a clear show of support.

This is especially true for a strategic plan, hence the need for participants representing a wide range of disciplines. But there’s more.

Discomfort Thinking About the Future

In daily corporate life, only the CEO has the benefit of spending much of her time contemplating the future. After all, it’s her job. By contrast, other senior managers are more concerned about fixing everyday problems and meeting short-term targets.

Consequently, when she sits with her team at the retreat, she has a considerable head-start. Her thinking is far advanced. As such, in my role as a facilitator, I sometimes ask her to hold back, especially if she’s an extrovert. She has the knowledge and smarts to dominate the conversation from the first few minutes, but shouldn’t. Why?

Due to the nature of this unique gathering, it takes more time for her direct reports to shift gears from short-term to long. Also, they are more likely to be introverted, which means they need a chance to think quietly. Sometimes, they may be silent for the entire first day.

Unfortunately, in a single-day retreat, the event is over before they have even left the blocks. They literally drive home thinking about all the statements they wish they had made and questions they intended to ask.

The solution is to have a second day which can maximise the team’s overall commitment. Their emotional and social involvement in the process is the key to effective implementation.

Additionally, their most valuable insights are often not revealed until the second day. This impacts the quality of the strategic plan, which begs the inclusion of their ideas.

Only a multi-day retreat gives them at least one night to think. Here’s the best way to bring different thoughts together.

Start from a Blank Canvas – Together

Successful retreats with maximum buy-in all start the same way: they pull each attendees up to speed by crafting a common base of knowledge. This ensures that no-one has an “insider advantage.” Instead, subsequent ideas are based on a shared but informed “blank canvas”.

This is a far cry from meetings where the leader announces the end-result from the start. By so doing, he unwittingly reduces participants to foot-soldiers. Following his cue, they withhold their participation, wasting time and effort.

This doesn’t work, as they all need to play a part in crafting each decision, giving their all and their full attention. It’s the only way to tap into their functional knowledge and experience required by a sound strategic plan.

When these fundamentals are in place, there is no need for more than two days. Instead, you can plan for intense discussions from start to finish, which maintain momentum once it’s established.

Before the 2008 recession, clients used to expect three-day retreats as the norm, with relaxing and fun activities sprinkled throughout. That changed when budgets tightened.

But it was actually a benefit. Now, retreats are focused affairs intended to move the needle in the right direction in the shortest time possible. They require more than ever from all concerned, but the results are equally robust.

Finally, our study underway of 50 retreats producing 15-30-year strategic plans shows that two days are ideal. Given all the conflicting needs, it weaves the path and gives the company the greatest opportunity to have an effect in a single, concentrated effort.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.

You don’t normally think for long about the lasting impact your actions have on unknown business colleagues. This is particularly true if they haven’t even been born. But is there a reason to consider far-future generations of leadership in your company?

Antonio Guterres, who heads up the U.N., recently wrote a letter to his unborn great-great-granddaughter…for delivery in 2100. He titled it a “Climate-Change Apology” and began with the following question: “Will you open this letter in a spirit of happiness and gratitude—or with disappointment and anger at my generation?”

He further admits that humanity is “losing the fight of our lives: the battle against climate upheaval that threatens our planet.” But why is he unsure about her reaction? Simple: today, he sees two paths ahead and doesn’t know which one we will take.

The first leads to a trail of destruction. The other trends to planetary salvation. Given the information, tools and technology at our disposal in 2023, both are possible.

At the end, he imagines her wondering quietly: “What did you do to save our planet when you had the chance?”

His commitment is familiar to all creators of interwoven short/long-term strategic plans. As facilitators, we help clients convert game-changing commitments into immediate actions. Here are three steps I employ.

1. Use Today’s Gripes

In a typical retreat, I ask, “What are some of the complaints you have about your organisation that should have been resolved some time ago?”

This question opens a floodgate of woes. Sometimes, they stretch all the way back to the inception of the company. In fact, older heads admit that the matters being raised were mentioned in previous meetings just like this one, but never addressed.

Then we ask: “What decisions did prior executives fail to make 10 years ago that would have prevented or resolved these issues? 20 years ago? More?”

This also unleashes a torrent of suggestions. In fact, it pays to pause before proceeding.

2. Visit the Future

We then have the team envision a strategic planning retreat like this one, but 15-years down the line. “What are some of the complaints future leaders may have regarding tough decisions you failed to make today?”

Unfortunately, this query is frequently met with horrified silence.

After a few moments of reflection, the answers come out, slowly but surely. But this is a new question for most. Managers spend their days tackling immediate issues, and don’t often take a break to consider the distant future in a structured manner.

On occasion, they may speculate over lunch or drinks, and bemoan their organisation’s collective lack of foresight. But the next day, they are back in busy-mode. “We don’t have time to do interwoven short/long-term planning!”

3. Point Out a Young Person

Finally, if there is a colleague in their twenties in attendance, I point them out by name. “Bob is likely to be in that future retreat.”

I add, “His colleagues will ask: ‘What happened at that planning meeting in 2023? Couldn’t they see what was happening?’”

Just like Guterres, Bob could have two contrasting stories to tell.

One could be a tale of courage. “Amazing experience! The executive team put itself at risk, set aside its fears, and made some difficult decisions. Today, we benefit from their wisdom.” Everyone applauds.

The alternate story could be one of cowardice and selfishness. “They realised there was a problem looming, but they decided to focus only on the short-term issues that affected them.”

Why such a contrast?

Some strategic planning teams fail to address the most salient challenges openly. Instead, they point fingers at the “Big Man”, board, government, customers, etc.

Other teams just don’t care. Attendees are coasting into the second-halves of their careers, and just want to make it into retirement with a pension. They place self before service. So their “strategic” plans don’t look past three to five years of tactics: the outer limit of their comfort zones.

You may think these are bad people, but nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, they are simply caught in a trap whose mechanics they cannot clearly see. Consequently, they do their best, but it’s not good enough.

In the end, regardless of their motivation, the result is the same. Disaster.

Jamaican companies, like many worldwide, are currently rife with short-termism. Blame COVID. Or inflation. Or the war, etc. As such, our leaders are becoming cynical.

Don’t yield. Challenge them to leave future managers of your organisation with more than a basket to carry water. Instead, ask them to create a legacy of kindness, not in the form of cash, but in the strategic decisions only they can make.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.

You finally have time to look back at outputs from prior strategic planning retreats. A quick glance reveals an approach they used which includes “pillars”. If so, be aware: there are some drawbacks to this technique that could lead to a weak plan.

But you must make a decision about what to use going forward. You need to craft an approach, but why should you be wary? To understand why, let’s go back to the process typically followed.

It usually begins with a review of the company’s vision and mission statements. Then, a SWOT and PESTEL analysis of the environment are also done. Next, the team brainstorms projects which are necessary for the organization to achieve the vision. Finally, these projects are grouped into three to five pillars based on common themes.

The final product is often diagrammed as a building with the vision and mission statements in the roof, supported by the pillars. However, its simplicity belies the fact that there are some good reasons to use a different approach.

1. Pillars are merely semi-random lists

A review of the contents of each pillar shows that the link between its items is tenuous. They are simply a list of activities which are nice to do, grouped together using some common attribute. Why is this a problem?

As Peter Compo says in his groundbreaking new book, “The Emergent Approach to Strategy”, anything that resembles a to-do list is not a strategic plan.

Instead, he reasons that, at the heart of an overall framework, should be a triad: an aspiration, a bottleneck and a strategy. What is the role of each element?

• The aspiration defines the overall goal or outcome desired.
• The bottleneck represents the primary obstacle which stands in the way of achieving your accomplishment.
• The strategy defines the way in which the bottleneck will be “beaten” or loosened so that the aspiration is easy to achieve.

Together, these three elements form a hypothesis. It represents the most important changes the organization needs to make. Plus, it evolves as further information and experiences are gathered.

Unfortunately, the pillars approach masks this important nuance. Instead, it assumes that all you need to do is mobilize staff to execute disconnected projects. If this were so, executing strategic plans would be easy.

Instead, in the real world, planning teams need to adjust their hypotheses on the fly as technology advances, government regulations change, competitors take action, and customer tastes change. Together, these shifts force changes in the original hypothesis, a fact of life the pillars approach ignores.

2. Pillars hide relationships

Pillars also over-simplify reality. A mere list of activities hides the fact that projects are always interconnected. But more importantly, they only produce outcomes after the correct chain of causal relationships is followed.

For example, if you are a retailer, you may believe that an Easter Sale will bring in added revenue. However, to achieve the final result, a number of other actions need to take place.

You must become effective at reaching your audience with a promotion. Also, the sale should be launched on the right day of the month to hit paydays. Finally, the season has to be ideal for shopping, as some folks restrain their “retail therapy” during Lent.

The point is that the strategy relies on a number of variables which need to work together, but are imperfectly understood. As such, success is far from assured. The pillar approach obscures this reality and over-simplifies the challenge.

The truth is that strategy is an art in which your actions (causes) are separated from the results (the effects) in time and space. Sometimes the gap can be decades long, or thousands of miles apart.

Fortunately, there are better tools to use, like strategy maps, invented by Drs. Kaplan and Norton. These diagrams preserve the connection between key activities. Furthermore, they are easy to understand and explain to other employees.

3. Pillars emphasize short-term thinking

None of the pillar-approach strategic plans I have seen take into account long-term strategies and results. Instead, they tend to be so simple that they only work for plans which are five years or less in duration.

As such, the lists of projects in each pillar don’t tell a long-term narrative or story which builds a timeline.

Without it, complex undertakings lasting several decades aren’t possible. Think of the planning it takes to build a cathedral over a span of more than 200 years, for example.

Consequently, the list of projects found in a pillar only works for short-term tactical assignments in which the sequence doesn’t matter. This is a major drawback. The technique can’t be used to produce an inspiring, monumental accomplishment.

To craft an alternate approach, read my Gleaner article from March 19th 2023, as an example.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.