Category: Strategy

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.

We all know what it’s like to be inspired by a vision of the future. It feels good, as if we are responding to a higher purpose. But why do corporate visions fall often flat?

In 1991, I led a vision statement exercise for my AT&T, New Jersey organization. The project took several weeks and included two workdays.

Over 50 persons in the department were involved. After a number of activities we (the planning team) felt quite proud of the final document. It was signed and mounted near the entrance.

We were energized. And wanted to do much more.

Fast forward to 2023, and now I admit that the hard work we did would be insufficient today. While the creation of a vision statement was a breakthrough activity at the time, it would hardly move the needle now. Why?

Things have changed. If you intend to motivate staff with a view of an inspiring future, you must use more precise tools. Here are some insights.

1. Follow the “Fool-Yourself Rule”

Thanks to Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Twitter, and Tik Tok, we are flooded with inspirational memes. Perhaps your friends also send 5-10 quotes with a pretty background each day.

Given the overwhelm, you probably aren’t as easy to arouse as you used to be. In fact, now you could be a bit jaded.

This isn’t a personal problem and there’s nothing wrong with you. The most likely explanation? You have raised the bar.

For example, statements that everyone can claim to be true don’t lift you up. Case in point: “Thankful I am near the top of my profession!”

Anyone can post this accolade on their timeline because it lacks specific measurements. It’s vague. Unclear. And falls flat.

Today, the same problem pervades corporate statements. Check your company’s vision. If it sounds as if it’s already been done, then it’s failing the test. So does the AT&T department vision of old.

Today, effective organizational visions prevent people from fooling themselves into thinking they have arrived. Instead, they create a useful tension because they evoke a clear gap.

2. Fill in the Details

Today, we are exposed to would-be inspirations via text, image, videos, audios, and interactives. Dynamic communicators use these elements to paint vivid portraits of their visions.

In like manner, we need to create detailed pictures of the future. For example, in addition to saying “a company that is diverse” we would say:

– no more than 50% of our staff comes from any tertiary institution.

– at least 35% of employees originate from other CARICOM countries.

– no single gender dominates new hires by more than 10%.

These specifics raise pointed questions such as: Why are these numbers chosen? What is the target year? What is today’s baseline?

They provoke a followup: “How will we get there?”

In the past, company leaders could get away by saying “Trust Me”. But those days are gone. Now, a written strategic plan must bridge the gap between today and tomorrow before employees buy in.

3. Detail the Steps

Use your strategic planning retreat to create a vision, give it details, and link it back to 2023 with a plan. Start with a structured, high-level brainstorm to bring everyone together on the same page around your vision. You can begin with words, but make sure it has a date such as Vision 2030 Jamaica.

Then, once agreement is reached, convert the words into metrics. What will be the KPI’s in the chosen year? Also, craft a list of interventions needed to move the numbers in the right direction.

Finally, use a modern tool – back casting – to connect your vision for the future with today in a single timeline. How does it work?

Simply start with the future and work back towards the present. For example, if you choose a 25 year target, start in 2048 and work backwards to this year.

But here’s an important tip – don’t try to do this exercise in a large group. Instead, hand-pick a small one.

During its deliberations, the smaller team crafts a logical and feasible timeline. It should be conservative. Easy to understand. And showcase a host of cause-and-effect relationships so that others can follow your logic.

But above all else, it must be credible. Now, any stakeholder can be taken through the long-term strategic plan and believe in it.

This is all a far cry from the vague vision statement we put up at the entrance at AT&T. That document had neither a target year, nor specifics, nor a means to accomplish its goals.

If your company is still parading a vague vision statement in its corridors, retire it. Create a new detailed vision for a specific year that energizes staff.

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 are about to begin a fresh round of strategic planning. The team is eager, but before the retreat starts, you have a tricky decision. What length of time should your organization create a plan for?

Some already have strong opinions. The head of sales wants a 2-year plan. He needs the retreat to be short so he can go back to hitting his numbers.

At the other end of the spectrum, the V.P. of innovation and research wants some clear guidance on which technologies to pursue. The choices are wide, and a poor decision could doom the organization. She is thinking of a 40-50 year planning horizon.

They are both persuasive, but you need to make a choice. What are your next steps as the sponsor of the upcoming strategic planning retreat?

1. Punt the Decision

Fortunately, there is an approach that relieves you of duress. Given the importance of the planning horizon, get the team to make the choice during the meeting. How does this work?

First, explain to them why this is critical – the specific year and time elapsed (e.g., 2043, 20 years). It’s a critical one that deserves the input of all involved. As such, it should be crafted in real-time, face to face, but only when all the facts are on the table.

Therefore, the act of choosing the horizon should not be the first item on the agenda. Instead, begin by following a process to share pertinent information from all areas together in one place so that the team has a common understanding. During this preliminary session, remind the team that the next session will require them to choose a planning horizon. Ask them to keep this in mind as they review past performance and today’s issues.

This should actually help them remain hopeful. Why? Some of your company’s challenges probably only have complex, long-term solutions. In prior meetings, leaders gave up because they didn’t have enough time available. Now, they do.

When the subsequent session begins, explain the mistake of choosing a planning horizon which is too short or too long. Offer them the following two “warnings” to help pick the optimal timeframe.

2. The Too-Short Warning

Ask the team, “What happens if we choose a tiny horizon?” They may admit (after some reflection) that a 2 to 3-year plan will simply extend the past. Why? It’s only human.

They won’t say it out aloud, but people unconsciously prefer continuity and hate uncertainty. Our default mentality is to pick a predictable future. A short planning horizon keeps things comfortably the same.

But what about the power of a transformation? You should also remind them that if they don’t use time as a deep resource, they won’t create a Jim Collins-like Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). Such objectives are meant to inspire and uplift. They give meaning and add resilience, especially to younger staff.

Also, with a short planning horizon, key problems which need time will remain unsolved. Plus, you’ll also be missing important trends. For example, a 5-year planning horizon blocks you from seeing developments which take 7 years to mature. By contrast, if your competitors consider a longer time frame, they might include the trend in their thinking to their advantage.

Finally, aggressive executives love short-time frames because they see it as a way to force staff to work harder, and achieve results sooner. The problem is that some projects (like pregnancy) can’t be rushed. Don’t pretend that magic is real, or you’ll see employees merely going through the motions, doing the minimum.

Why? At its heart, short-termism is a synonym for selfish leadership. “My current needs trump your future needs.” It’s as if the team is also saying, “Instead of making difficult decisions now, we will leave them for you young folk in the hope that you still have time.” It’s the very opposite of sustainable business thinking.

3. The Too-Long Warning

Sometimes team members become true believers in long-term reasoning. They say “the more the merrier!” and call for a one-hundred year planning horizon. They may even cite examples of Asian organizations which do so.

However, you should take a look at your environment. Chances are, a planning horizon which is too long will mystify stakeholders who can’t relate. Instead of being inspired, they’ll become cynical.

Also, you might not have the resources or skills to plan too far out. Remember, whatever horizon you choose must be connected back to today.

Get your team to find consensus on the optimal time horizon in a healthy, real-time debate. It will set the stage for the success of your organization’s strategic plan.

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.