Colombia

Strategic future

Despite best intensions, strategic planning exercises sometimes fizzle out without producing desired results, leaving participants disillusioned and reluctant to re-engage…or worse.

Sound familiar?

Fortunately, there is a better way.

This section describes a different kind of strategic planning - one which begins in the future, includes the setting of outrageous goals, and is characterized by different terminology.  

For example, a description of an organization’s future reality, might read:

- ”the organization's new being is a fully integrated, highly recognized and respected organization representing the interests of all its members … ".

And a description of the strategic outcomes of that future reality might read:

- the leadership team becomes complete with its past as it was known it to be, honouring all that has been accomplished, with respect and dignity;

- the leadership team transforms itself into a newly integrated, high performance team which develops guiding principles and practices, demonstrating unprecedented abilities for teamwork, communications, management, and planning;

- this newly integrated leadership team shifts from a reactive, fly by the seat of its pants culture, to being a well orchestrated and managed team, employing the competence, excellence and mastery of all team members;

- the newly integrated leadership team develops a 5-year actionable, dynamic strategic plan, formulated collectively, communicated powerfully, demonstrating implementation day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year;

- the newly integrated leadership team restores the relationship with its constituencies in such a way that new conversations for possibilities, opportunities and action emerge;

- the newly integrated leadership team designs and *enrolls its entire constituency into its new beginning and its organizational culture, committing to complete integration, collaboration and co-operation, effectively creating a forward thinking network of conversations;

* enrollment is defined as generating a possibility in another person’s listening, such that the other person, group, team, or organization takes action consistent with that possibility

Notice, the approach starts in the future, at the end point, and works backward to the present.

Using this different methodology, the newly integrated leadership team creates the organization’s strategic future, transports itself there, and documents the action plan that got it there. 

Using this different methodology, conversations take place against a background of relatedness, either for possibility, to identify opportunity, to specify action, or to resolve breakdowns.

With this different methodology, the newly integrated leadership team redefines its business, and commits to, and documents:

- its strategic intent (e.g., “the leadership team leads the transformation of the organization into one which is recognized and respected as being world class”);

- its strategic purpose (e.g., “the organization outperforms on every expectation”)

- a bold promise of what the organization will be in 5 years (the new being)

For example, if the organization's strategic purpose was - “within 5 years we outperform on every expectation”, the leadership team would document:

- what that would look like and feel like, and

- what each member of the team would need to do to make that happen

Under this different strategic planning methodology:

                      ...planning is everything; the plan is nothing

Strategy Development

Strategic planning in most organizations doesn’t really matter anymore. Sure, the process often consumes an enormous amount of time and produces reams of data, but rarely does it drive top leadership's decisions or an organization's overall strategy.

Why? For starters, the model most organizations use for strategy development is not well aligned with the way top leaders make decisions. Indeed, strategy development in most large organizations is a “batch” process - market and competitor information is first analyzed, threats and opportunities are identified, and then a multiyear plan is defined.

This process usually takes place annually in strict accordance with a predetermined planning calendar. Strategic decision making, by contrast, happens continuously - often driven by an immediate need for action - and does not conform easily to a preset schedule.

Ultimately, strategic planning can’t have an impact if it doesn’t drive decision making. And it can’t drive decision making as long as it remains periodic and calendar-based. Thus the key to making strategy development matter is to focus on continuously identifying and addressing the strategic issues that can most affect the organization’s value.

Why traditional strategy development fails

The batch model for strategy development has at least two major shortcomings.

- The time problem. In many organizations, the planning process does not afford leadership sufficient time to address the issues and opportunities that most affect performance. Many issues particularly those spanning multiple businesses, crossing geographic boundaries, or involving entire business systems - cannot be resolved effectively in a three or four-month planning window. As a result, top leadership does not use the strategic planning process to address these complex problems. They turn instead to some other process for guidance and make their most difficult strategy decisions outside the planning cycle.

- The timing problem. Even when the time allotted for strategy development is sufficient to make tough decisions, the timing of the process often creates problems. Markets and competitors are dynamic. New threats and opportunities emerge that cannot possibly be predicted in a traditional strategic plan. When these threats and opportunities arise, top leaders can’t wait until the next planning cycle to take action. They must act quickly to safeguard the organization’s performance.

A continuous strategy model

A few leading organizations have recognized the weakness of traditional strategy development and are employing an entirely different model for strategy development and execution - one in which assessment and action are under continual review.

For example, the strategy development process is organized around a strategy agenda that lists the issues and opportunities that top leadership believes must be addressed for the organization to deliver superior performance. Some issues are broad; others are narrower. But every issue on the strategy agenda has a direct, measurable impact on the organization’s intrinsic value and therefore must be addressed as part of the strategy development process.

Once the top leadership team agrees on a strategy agenda, its members establish clear accountabilities and milestones for resolving each item. One member of the team is made responsible for ensuring that a particular issue on the strategy agenda is addressed in a timely and effective manner. Unambiguous decision timetables are established for each issue, specifying when the team will make a final decision. This process drives high quality decision making and accelerates the pace of strategy development and execution.

The continuous strategy development model differs from traditional strategy making in at least two fundamental ways:

- Different outputs. The output of strategic planning has traditionally been a strategic plan. The outputs of continuous strategy development are quite different. Under a continuous approach, strategy isn’t a plan; rather, it's a direction for the company and an agenda of issues and opportunities to drive change in that direction. This process focuses top leadership on what matters most - setting the right strategic direction - and allows decisions to be considered in the context of that direction, in real time.

The notion that strategy is something that can be planned well in advance and then executed is out of step with our rapidly changing world. Since no top leader, not even the most brilliant strategist, is clairvoyant, strategic development today should produce not a plan but a direction and an agenda.

- Clearer accountabilities. Ironically, as elaborate as most traditional strategy development processes are, they establish few real accountabilities. No one individual can be held responsible for ensuring that a multiyear strategic plan is effectively executed. Even if everything were to go according to plan, most top leaders move on before any multiyear plan can be realized, and few control all elements of plan implementation during their tenure.

While leaders can’t be held accountable for carrying out a multiyear strategic plan, they can be held accountable for addressing key strategic issues. Each item on the strategy agenda should have an individual accountable for addressing it, along with a timetable for its resolution. At the end of the year, if an issue remains on the agenda - that is, if no decision has been reached and no action taken - top leadership can incorporate this fact into its evaluation of the appropriate leader’s performance.

Because accountabilities are clearer under a continuous strategy development model than under traditional strategic planning, this approach frequently accelerates the pace of strategic decision making and thus fuels value growth. Many top leaders have grown skeptical of strategic planning. Is it any wonder? After all, if the purpose of strategy development isn’t to drive an organization's strategy, then what is its purpose? And if driving an organization’s strategy isn’t about influencing top leadership’s decisions, then what is it about?

For strategy development to be worthwhile, the traditional development process needs to be redesigned to focus, not on developing a static plan, but on continuously addressing the issues and opportunities that will have the greatest impact on long-term value for shareholders and other stakeholders.

Great Teams - it’s all about trust

Does your team perform at or near its full capability? Does it achieve its objectives, producing measureable results? Is the team a “real” team and do team members enjoy working together? Do team members communicate well together, and does it behave as a united, harmonious group? Has the team discussed and agreed to a clear vision, a defined mission and well articulated goals?

If so, congratulations - you are a member of a great team!

Five characteristics of great teams

- Trust: When team members really trust each other they feel comfortable with each other; no individual feels threatened or vulnerable. Each member of the team feels respected, honoured and valued.

- No fear of conflict: When team members feel comfortable with each other, able to challenge each other’s views, as they seek to genuinely understand each other’s opinions, motivations and feelings, they have no fear and they are able to discuss and resolve issues effectively and efficiently.

- Commitment: Absent fear of conflict, criticism or retribution, team members resolve issues readily, ultimately supporting and committing powerfully to action plans.

- Accountability: Given unwavering commitment, team members readily assume responsibility and accountability for their words and actions, always in the best interests of the team.

- Achievement: When the interests of the team are foremost in the minds of team members, overall team results take precedence over individual interests, driving teamwork and the achievement of team results.

Leadership versus management

Great teams don't happen without great leadership and great management. Leadership inspires, whereas management explains what is expected and measures results; leadership guides, whereas management navigates, explaining the who, what, why, where and how of things; leadership provides hope, whereas management analyses performance, communicating with and motivating the team; leadership is visionary, able to describe the future, whereas management maintains a steady course towards desired goals and objectives; leadership rallies the team to do what’s right, whereas management identifies issues and solves problems.

Leadership and management are clearly complementary; both are required for great team performance...but leadership trumps management