News

Posted on

Jaded Staff: Why Past Corporate Change Projects Could Be the Issue

As a leader, you likely have ambitious goals for your team. But the more you share your vision, the more resistance you seem to face. So, how do you move beyond jaded staff members and their skeptical responses to new futures?

A Real-World Example: Jamaica’s Key Challenges

In a recent discussion among thought leaders, three major issues emerged as Jamaica’s toughest challenges: crime, literacy, and high energy costs. Yet, they also agreed that the public is jaded, worn out from unmet expectations and dashed dreams. Like employees in many organizations, there’s a deep-seated cynicism that has taken hold.

For CEOs and government leaders, the typical response has been to “stay positive” or “push harder.” However, when there’s a legacy of failure, these well-meaning platitudes can often make things worse.

Let’s explore this dynamic through Vision 2030 Jamaica, a national development plan that, despite its initial inspirational promise, has become a barrier to achieving new aspirations.

A Picture-Perfect Start

Recently, the Prime Minister announced that Jamaica is unlikely to achieve “developed country” status by 2030. News outlets highlighted this as a failure of Vision 2030, the nation’s first comprehensive National Development Plan. However, there’s a deeper, more complex story here.

When Vision 2030 was introduced in 2009, it was an exemplary initiative by the standards of that time. The effort achieved something rare: bipartisan hope, even during the global financial crisis. Other countries, as well as the United Nations, took note, asking Jamaica for guidance on how to foster broad participation and consensus.

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see the gaps in how Vision 2030 was managed. This isn’t surprising with 20-20 hindsight—leaders today are way more knowledgeable and experienced than they were 15 years ago. But more importantly, this plan, which once inspired, has become an obstacle to future goals. Why?

Why All Projects Need a Decisive Closure

If you’ve led a team through change, you may have wondered why your staff remains skeptical, despite your best efforts. Here’s a potential explanation for why cynicism persists.

Imagine a scenario: a boyfriend who cheats once may not repeat the mistake. But if he never apologizes or makes amends, the relationship suffers, even if his partner doesn’t speak up.

The same principle applies here: any Jamaican government aiming to promise a bright future must confront Vision 2030’s shortcomings. This is also true for all the organizations that contributed to its creation, including NGOs, businesses, political parties, and community groups.

Consequently, avoiding a confrontation with Vision 2030 would be a mistake. Any promising vision for the future must build on the successes and address the shortcomings of this plan. Here’s how to approach this task.

Resetting or Retiring an Organization’s Vision

Just as a relationship marred by betrayal needs to be reset or ended, a corporate vision sometimes needs a refresh or complete halt. Using Vision 2030 as a guide, here are steps to consider:

1. Acknowledge Both Successes and Failures

– Begin by reaching a consensus on what went well and what didn’t. This fosters learning and promotes transparency.

2. Reset or Retire the Vision

– With a shared understanding, decide together whether to rejuvenate the vision or move on altogether. This buy-in is critical.

3. Establish a New Horizon

– After addressing past shortcomings, use the renewed energy and insights to set a fresh, achievable goal.

“The truth will set you free” is more than a cliché. Embracing hard-earned lessons often strengthens an organization, just as scar tissue becomes tougher than uninjured skin. In Jamaica’s case, celebrating some achievements of Vision 2030 may help lay the groundwork for future progress.

For instance, one of Vision 2030’s significant contributions has been the integration of monitoring practices across government entities. This has fostered a disciplined reporting system among over 100 government organizations and affects more than 100,000 civil servants. This level of alignment is rare, even in exemplary private sector companies.

Your leadership team should appreciate this capability, as it’s an essential foundation for any future large-scale initiative. Without such discipline, major change efforts would struggle to gain traction in Jamaica.

Vision 2030 has created a powerful engine for transformation, one that shouldnt be ignored or downplayed. Neither should it be reinvented. As such, any brand new national vision, such as one for 2060, is bound to falter without first addressing the strengths and weaknesses of its parent: Vision 2030.

It’s natural for C-suite leaders or board members to feel impatient and want to leave past challenges behind. But bypassing these issues isn’t the answer. By addressing and learning from previous failures, leaders can transform their teams’ skepticism into optimism and create a pathway toward genuine, lasting change.

In short, to move forward, embrace a clear-eyed look at what has come before. For leaders dealing with jaded staff, acknowledging past disappointments is a necessary key to unlocking a motivated, engaged workforce, ready to tackle the future.

This article is based on a Jamaica Gleaner column from November 10, 2024.

Posted on

Beyond Repeated Failure: Defining a Strategy Triad

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

Posted on

Elevate Underperforming Boards: Prioritizing Board Self-Examination

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.

Posted on

Master Planning for Complex Organizations: A New Approach to Achieve Exceptional Outcomes

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.

Posted on

Avoiding Bad Strategy and Fake Retreats

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

Posted on

Being Inspired in Public Sector Planning

As a leader in a government Ministry, Department, or Agency (MDA), you’re deeply committed to creating strategic plans that make a significant impact. However, it’s easy to get caught up in bureaucratic compliance, which can divert you from making the meaningful contributions you desire. So, how can you truly make a difference?

For those outside of government, the hundreds of pages of planning guidelines sent to MDAs may seem overwhelming, prompting the question: “How does anything get done?” Having provided strategic planning services to organisations in Jamaica for over two decades, I understand this challenge.

The guidelines are well-intentioned and represent hard work, but sometimes, a collection of good ideas doesn’t lead to a single great one. This is often the case with the instructions MDAs receive for completing their corporate business plans.

As a result, it can be tempting to simply comply with the minimum requirements, especially under the watchful eye of a demanding Permanent Secretary. Unfortunately, this approach falls short of capturing the true power and potential of strategic planning. So, as a Managing Director, CEO, or Director General, how can you create plans that truly transform our nation’s future? Here are a few strategic planning frameworks that you might not find in official documents but can make a big difference.

Engaging Employees and Stakeholders

Your organisation’s strategic plan should be more than just a document that preserves the status quo. It should serve as an opportunity to articulate a visionary future.

Consider the original intent behind Vision 2030, conceived sixteen years ago. Although there are only five years left to its conclusion, the inspiration it once provided has waned, overshadowed by bureaucratic processes. What remains are short-term targets that feel increasingly out of reach.

But remember the initial goal: to inspire citizens with a bold vision. The framers envisioned a Jamaica that would be the top choice for everyone to live in—a transformative vision during a time of recession-induced cynicism.

As a government leader, you should think beyond 2030. In your next strategic planning exercise, aim for more than just compliance.

Instead, strive for a pre-emptive, game-changing strategic plan that stands on its own. A plan with a grand vision could help you fulfil the dreams of our citizens while attracting the best minds, the bravest souls, and the hardest workers to your cause.

In other words, if your strategic plan is an opportunity to achieve great things for those in need, you’re on the right path. These individuals are likely looking for a vision and turning to you for leadership.

But don’t stop there. Some of your employees are ready to contribute more than just the minimum. This is your chance to engage them fully.

However, if being aspirational and visionary isn’t enough, consider another approach that’s more immediate.

Handling Threat Zones

As an expert in your field, you have the ability to anticipate emerging trends—trends that might be invisible to the average Jamaican citizen but are clear to you. You have strategic foresight.

More importantly, you can foresee where small threats might converge into larger, more significant challenges—what we call Threat Zones.

Take COVID-19, for example. Countries like New Zealand, South Korea, and Vietnam anticipated the pandemic and acted accordingly.

Similarly, as a leader in your MDA, you can identify approaching Threat Zones. When these arise on your radar, you should act. The best response? Develop a pre-emptive, game-changing long-term strategic plan.

Consider the meme circulating that suggests this year may be the coolest one for the rest of our lives. That it, we only have hotter days and months ahead. While you can do little to prepare Jamaica for this in the short term, a strategic plan with long-term outcomes—such as those looking ahead to 2055—could make a significant difference.

The advantage of this forward-thinking approach is that you’ll be better prepared for whatever national vision replaces the current one. Your proactive planning will benefit citizens and inspire your team to think big.

This approach can also help your team move beyond mere compliance. Now is the time for leaders to develop the kind of selfless strategic foresight that Jamaica needs.

Posted on

The Power of Pre-emptive Strategic Planning

As a company leader invested in the future of your enterprise, it can be frustrating to see others content with handling issues only when they arise. How can you instill a culture of forward-thinking in your organization?

In many local organizations, strategic planning is often viewed as a luxury—an activity to be deferred until more stable times, when there’s ample time and money. For others, it’s merely a compliance exercise. Large companies and governments may conduct planning sessions just to meet requirements, with little emphasis on meaningful strategy.

In both scenarios, strategic planning is often deprioritized. The COVID-19 pandemic has further entrenched this mindset, turning strategy into a low-priority, habitual afterthought in the C-Suite. However, if you’re ready to break free from this mindset, consider adopting the concept of Threat Zones.

Defining Your Organization’s Threat Zones

A Threat Zone is a period, spanning several months or years, during which multiple threats converge. Individually, these threats might seem manageable, but together, they can create a perfect storm.

For example, a hurricane like Beryl in 2024 requires specific conditions: warm ocean waters, low vertical wind shear, high humidity, proximity to the equator, a weather disturbance, and atmospheric instability. Individually, these elements are harmless, but together, they can be catastrophic.

Similarly, a Threat Zone in an organization requires relatively innocuous elements, yet their combination can be transformative, but in the good way. Unlike hurricanes, they can also offer opportunities.

Consider Fujifilm and Kodak, which had similar revenues in 2000. However, Fuji recognized the Threat Zone emerging in the film industry, while Kodak did not. Today, Fuji’s revenue is 20 times that of its former competitor.

You might think your organization is immune to Threat Zones, but that’s a dangerous assumption. In my August 4th, 2024 Gleaner column, I highlighted the fact that even government agencies can be defunded and disbanded if they fall into this trap.

Take a lesson from Andy Grove, former Chairman of Intel. His book, “Only the Paranoid Survive”, details how Intel nearly went bankrupt in the 1980s due to a Threat Zone. Fortunately, a group of middle managers anticipated the threat and prepared the company for a switch from memory chips to microprocessors, despite Grove’s public stance.

How Can Your C-Suite Develop Foresight?

Threat Zones can be internal or external. Internal threats might include product-market fit, succession planning, and employee engagement, while external threats could involve climate change, government regulation, or inflation.

However, there’s no universal list. Your leadership team must identify which Threat Zones are relevant to your organization. Even if you bring in consultants, their help is limited; only your C-Suite can accurately determine your Threat Zones and when they might arise.

This requires rapid consideration of:

– Current trends that, while weak, cover a wide range of causes. Many start with the PESTER framework—Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Economic, and Regulatory—but also include competitors and substitutes.

– Past results indicating long-term deficiencies that previous leadership teams have ignored, leaving them for future C-Suites.

– Insights across financial, customer, operations, and human resources. Even with incomplete data, plans must be made.

This task is too complex for any outsider or single individual, no matter their intelligence. Only a cross-functional leadership team can effectively conduct this analysis.

Planning Around Threat Zones

It’s tempting to quickly break down Threat Zones into individual threats, but resist this urge. Instead, use long-term strategic planning tools to tackle each one as an entity.

After identifying and assessing the impact and timing of Threat Zones, select no more than five to focus on. These should represent the most significant dangers or opportunities.

When crafting your long-term vision for a specific year (e.g., 2050), start with a narrative that addresses these five zones. Only then should you translate the vision into measurable targets.

As you work backward from these 2050 metrics to the present, create projects that address each zone. Define each project to include immediate actions.

Now, you’ll be taking pre-emptive action with a strategic plan that is game-changing.

Posted on

The Power of Pre-emptive Strategic Planning

As a company leader invested in the future of your enterprise, it can be frustrating to see others content with handling issues only when they arise. How can you instill a culture of forward-thinking in your organization?

In many local organizations, strategic planning is often viewed as a luxury—an activity to be deferred until more stable times, when there’s ample time and money. For others, it’s merely a compliance exercise. Large companies and governments may conduct planning sessions just to meet requirements, with little emphasis on meaningful strategy.

In both scenarios, strategic planning is often deprioritized. The COVID-19 pandemic has further entrenched this mindset, turning strategy into a low-priority, habitual afterthought in the C-Suite. However, if you’re ready to break free from this mindset, consider adopting the concept of Threat Zones.

Defining Your Organization’s Threat Zones

A Threat Zone is a period, spanning several months or years, during which multiple threats converge. Individually, these threats might seem manageable, but together, they can create a perfect storm.

For example, a hurricane like Beryl in 2024 requires specific conditions: warm ocean waters, low vertical wind shear, high humidity, proximity to the equator, a weather disturbance, and atmospheric instability. Individually, these elements are harmless, but together, they can be catastrophic.

Similarly, a Threat Zone in an organization requires relatively innocuous elements, yet their combination can be transformative, but in the good way. Unlike hurricanes, they can also offer opportunities.

Consider Fujifilm and Kodak, which had similar revenues in 2000. However, Fuji recognized the Threat Zone emerging in the film industry, while Kodak did not. Today, Fuji’s revenue is 20 times that of its former competitor.

You might think your organization is immune to Threat Zones, but that’s a dangerous assumption. In my August 4th, 2024 Gleaner column, I highlighted the fact that even government agencies can be defunded and disbanded if they fall into this trap.

Take a lesson from Andy Grove, former Chairman of Intel. His book, “Only the Paranoid Survive”, details how Intel nearly went bankrupt in the 1980s due to a Threat Zone. Fortunately, a group of middle managers anticipated the threat and prepared the company for a switch from memory chips to microprocessors, despite Grove’s public stance.

How Can Your C-Suite Develop Foresight?

Threat Zones can be internal or external. Internal threats might include product-market fit, succession planning, and employee engagement, while external threats could involve climate change, government regulation, or inflation.

However, there’s no universal list. Your leadership team must identify which Threat Zones are relevant to your organization. Even if you bring in consultants, their help is limited; only your C-Suite can accurately determine your Threat Zones and when they might arise.

This requires rapid consideration of:

– Current trends that, while weak, cover a wide range of causes. Many start with the PESTER framework—Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Economic, and Regulatory—but also include competitors and substitutes.

– Past results indicating long-term deficiencies that previous leadership teams have ignored, leaving them for future C-Suites.

– Insights across financial, customer, operations, and human resources. Even with incomplete data, plans must be made.

This task is too complex for any outsider or single individual, no matter their intelligence. Only a cross-functional leadership team can effectively conduct this analysis.

Planning Around Threat Zones

It’s tempting to quickly break down Threat Zones into individual threats, but resist this urge. Instead, use long-term strategic planning tools to tackle each one as an entity.

After identifying and assessing the impact and timing of Threat Zones, select no more than five to focus on. These should represent the most significant dangers or opportunities.

When crafting your long-term vision for a specific year (e.g., 2050), start with a narrative that addresses these five zones. Only then should you translate the vision into measurable targets.

As you work backward from these 2050 metrics to the present, create projects that address each zone. Define each project to include immediate actions.

Now, you’ll be taking pre-emptive action with a strategic plan that is game-changing.

Posted on

Ep 19 – Enduring the Messy Stages of Strategic Planning

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit longtermstrategy.substack.com

Your company is in the middle of a strategic planning project. Things are going according to plan but there are several competing schools of thought about the future of the organization.

In discussions, voices are being raised as competing ideas are shared. You are beginning to feel nervous because the opinions cannot be reconciled easily. Should you intervene or allow it to run its course, even though things are looking like a mess?

Tune into this episode to hear from me and my special guest, Chris Fox, as we tackle this wicked problem together.

I’m Francis Wade and welcome to the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy Podcast.

Here is a video of the excerpt from this episode, for free subscribers.

To watch the full episode, join JumpLeap as a subscriber. This supports the work I’m doing on long-term strategic planning. It appears below the Subscribe signup box.

JumpLeap Long-Term Strategic Planning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Posted on

Ep 19 – Enduring the Messy Stages of Strategic Planning

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit longtermstrategy.substack.com

Your company is in the middle of a strategic planning project. Things are going according to plan but there are several competing schools of thought about the future of the organization.

In discussions, voices are being raised as competing ideas are shared. You are beginning to feel nervous because the opinions cannot be reconciled easily. Should you intervene or allow it to run its course, even though things are looking like a mess?

Tune into this episode to hear from me and my special guest, Chris Fox, as we tackle this wicked problem together.

I’m Francis Wade and welcome to the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy Podcast.

Here is a video of the excerpt from this episode, for free subscribers.

To watch the full episode, join JumpLeap as a subscriber. This supports the work I’m doing on long-term strategic planning. It appears below the Subscribe signup box.

JumpLeap Long-Term Strategic Planning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.