Excellent article! Great defense of the strategic plan. Strategy alone isn’t transparent and doesn’t capture commitments. Made this video to argue the point: http://youtu.be/ccJMqFXJTmk
I agree 100%.
While every organization has to be adaptive in the short term, if you don’t know the size of the community change you are trying to catalyze, how can you possibly be strategic about getting there? For some organizations, those outcomes take 10, even 20 years to realize, as you pointed out in your example. I worked with an arts organization that is still holding steady to the core elements of strategic plan it committed to in 2006, virtually all of which remains relevant today.
To me, the identification of the organization’s logic model, especially the results it is trying to achieve for the community(near and far), its core strategies (related to its theory of change) and the capacity investments it needs to make to achieve those objectives are critical to the ability to be adaptive and think strategically in the moment.
Unfortunately, most NPOs (and their boards) are comforted with a plan that has the detailed operational plans included, even if those are the ones around which they need to be most flexible. Yet those types of plans are the ones without a heart and tend to sit on the shelf as they can’t react quickly enough to community change or opportunity.
Agree with the thrust of the article and Gayle’s further comments re strategic plans that become a little too straight-jacketed with operational details - especially those that do not include any strategies re being adaptive in scanning and responding to emergent challenges and opportunities as well as response change management design thinking and planning.
Suggest those arguing that strategic plans are useless and that ‘continuous strategy assessment’ is far better in today’s fast moving environment, seem to be missing the point - that is a strategy, there is no avoiding the term.
I’m battling against a bias as I write my response to your position on strategic plans. That bias is an alignment with A.G. Lafley and Roger L. Martin’s thoughts on strategy and a belief that for strategy to be useful, it has to be adaptive.
Now that my bias is out in the open, I want to take your idea a bit further, if you don’t mind.
It seems that the wisdom of leadership is an undercurrent in addressing each of the assumptions you mention. Pulling from another Harvard Business Review article—this one from May 2011 by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi—the authors explore Aristotle’s discovery of episteme and techne and complement them with a different form of knowledge:
“Aristotle also identified *episteme*, or universally valid scientific knowledge, and *techne*, or skill-based technical know-how. If episteme is know-why and techne is know-how, phronesis is know-what-should-be-done. For instance, because no univeral notion of a good car exists, episteme cannot answer the question ‘What is a good car?’ That will depend on who is using the car and why, and it will change over time. Techne is knowing how to make a car well; phronesis is knowing both what a good car is and how to build it. Thus phronesis enables managers to determine what is good in specific times and situations and to undertake the best actions at those times to serve the common good.”
This lesson in Greek philosophy, while meritorious on its own, is particularly helpful in the context of the strategy vs. strategic planning debate. Whether considering strategy, strategic planning or any other choices that have broad implications, leaders are laden with taking on a high level of responsibility. It is their job to “know-what-should-be-done.”
Thus, wise leaders must put strategy into context. For some leaders and their organizations, adaptive strategy will work best. For others, the more traditional strategic planning process will yield the biggest benefit. Regardless, as participants in this ongoing debate, we must help leaders put strategy in context. To do that, we must broaden the discourse to include a both-and paradigm that allows leaders to use their own wisdom to make the best choice for their organization at any given time.
Strategic thinking, planning and action has been around since the cave man sought a better way to hunt. It will be around until the last day the world exists as some of us try to find a way to get around the inevitable. Great article. Thanks.
I totally agree with the both-and paradigm that Paul spoke to. My point was that to dismiss strategic planning as no longer relevant is incorrect, or at least incomplete, not to suggest that strategic planning per se is the only way for organizations to set direction and succeed. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
with the emergence of big data planning has greatly changed. the principles of strategic planning remain the same what has changed is how monitoring and evaluation is done, its now a more proactive process with real-time data on both sides (input & output) for M&E which is a critical change management tool for strategic management
The implementation phase of the strategic management is very critical. That’s where the continuous review, updating, and maintaining the relevance to the changing time(adaptive problem) comes in. A good strategic planning is not a guarantee for success.Balanced Scorecard combines the both sides. Norton and Kaplan have done good job on providing the tools.
Excellent article. I am tired of people saying strategic plans are useless because they’ve only been involved with bad planning and poor planning facilitators.
Not only does emergent strategy place ‘a company in a reactive mode, making it easy prey for more-strategic rivals,’ but it can also turn a nonprofit into an ever-opportunistic chameleon, undermining its strategic position and differentiation.
The ‘both-and’ paradigm is a compelling notion, but a strategic plan implies a time-specific period of action in which an organization will make certain proactive decisions, as opposed to simply reacting, however strategically, to new circumstances and opportunities. A good strategy guides a board and staff to place prudent bets and navigate change.
Strategy to me has always been about a planning process that forces an organization to make important choices about how it is going to make a positive dent in the world and—implicitly or explicitly—what it will not do, such that it has the focus and resources to succeed.
Agreed about the risk of being an ever-opportunistic chameleon. And, the balancing act for each organization will be settled uniquely and vary over time. I agree that for the most part a 3 - 5 year plan in the nonprofit world will serve most organizations extremely well, and remain relevant if it has been thought through well and achieved meaningful buy-in. I’m not prepared to say categorically that this is always the case, for all organizations, hence the nod to the “both-and” idea. However I agree with your description of strategy and a strategic plan and consistently find this approach to be very helpful to board, staff and stakeholders!
Great reflection there! I love the arguments around the faulty assumptions that have mislead or sent us into a mix. This increases my confidence as I facilitate Strategic Planning Processes for Non Profits.
COMMENTS
BY Alison Brewin
ON May 7, 2015 11:45 AM
Excellent article! Great defense of the strategic plan. Strategy alone isn’t transparent and doesn’t capture commitments. Made this video to argue the point: http://youtu.be/ccJMqFXJTmk
BY Mike Allison
ON May 7, 2015 12:16 PM
Thanks Alison. Love the short video with ways to use a strategic plan!
BY Gayle L. Gifford
ON May 7, 2015 12:46 PM
I agree 100%.
While every organization has to be adaptive in the short term, if you don’t know the size of the community change you are trying to catalyze, how can you possibly be strategic about getting there? For some organizations, those outcomes take 10, even 20 years to realize, as you pointed out in your example. I worked with an arts organization that is still holding steady to the core elements of strategic plan it committed to in 2006, virtually all of which remains relevant today.
To me, the identification of the organization’s logic model, especially the results it is trying to achieve for the community(near and far), its core strategies (related to its theory of change) and the capacity investments it needs to make to achieve those objectives are critical to the ability to be adaptive and think strategically in the moment.
Unfortunately, most NPOs (and their boards) are comforted with a plan that has the detailed operational plans included, even if those are the ones around which they need to be most flexible. Yet those types of plans are the ones without a heart and tend to sit on the shelf as they can’t react quickly enough to community change or opportunity.
BY Marieka Easterley
ON May 7, 2015 04:27 PM
Agree with the thrust of the article and Gayle’s further comments re strategic plans that become a little too straight-jacketed with operational details - especially those that do not include any strategies re being adaptive in scanning and responding to emergent challenges and opportunities as well as response change management design thinking and planning.
Suggest those arguing that strategic plans are useless and that ‘continuous strategy assessment’ is far better in today’s fast moving environment, seem to be missing the point - that is a strategy, there is no avoiding the term.
BY Paul Brown
ON May 8, 2015 06:47 AM
I’m battling against a bias as I write my response to your position on strategic plans. That bias is an alignment with A.G. Lafley and Roger L. Martin’s thoughts on strategy and a belief that for strategy to be useful, it has to be adaptive.
Now that my bias is out in the open, I want to take your idea a bit further, if you don’t mind.
It seems that the wisdom of leadership is an undercurrent in addressing each of the assumptions you mention. Pulling from another Harvard Business Review article—this one from May 2011 by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi—the authors explore Aristotle’s discovery of episteme and techne and complement them with a different form of knowledge:
“Aristotle also identified *episteme*, or universally valid scientific knowledge, and *techne*, or skill-based technical know-how. If episteme is know-why and techne is know-how, phronesis is know-what-should-be-done. For instance, because no univeral notion of a good car exists, episteme cannot answer the question ‘What is a good car?’ That will depend on who is using the car and why, and it will change over time. Techne is knowing how to make a car well; phronesis is knowing both what a good car is and how to build it. Thus phronesis enables managers to determine what is good in specific times and situations and to undertake the best actions at those times to serve the common good.”
This lesson in Greek philosophy, while meritorious on its own, is particularly helpful in the context of the strategy vs. strategic planning debate. Whether considering strategy, strategic planning or any other choices that have broad implications, leaders are laden with taking on a high level of responsibility. It is their job to “know-what-should-be-done.”
Thus, wise leaders must put strategy into context. For some leaders and their organizations, adaptive strategy will work best. For others, the more traditional strategic planning process will yield the biggest benefit. Regardless, as participants in this ongoing debate, we must help leaders put strategy in context. To do that, we must broaden the discourse to include a both-and paradigm that allows leaders to use their own wisdom to make the best choice for their organization at any given time.
BY Michael Donahue
ON May 8, 2015 12:23 PM
Strategic thinking, planning and action has been around since the cave man sought a better way to hunt. It will be around until the last day the world exists as some of us try to find a way to get around the inevitable. Great article. Thanks.
BY Mike Allison
ON May 8, 2015 04:22 PM
I totally agree with the both-and paradigm that Paul spoke to. My point was that to dismiss strategic planning as no longer relevant is incorrect, or at least incomplete, not to suggest that strategic planning per se is the only way for organizations to set direction and succeed. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
BY Selma Moya
ON May 12, 2015 06:15 AM
with the emergence of big data planning has greatly changed. the principles of strategic planning remain the same what has changed is how monitoring and evaluation is done, its now a more proactive process with real-time data on both sides (input & output) for M&E which is a critical change management tool for strategic management
BY Tekle Bushen
ON May 14, 2015 11:23 AM
The implementation phase of the strategic management is very critical. That’s where the continuous review, updating, and maintaining the relevance to the changing time(adaptive problem) comes in. A good strategic planning is not a guarantee for success.Balanced Scorecard combines the both sides. Norton and Kaplan have done good job on providing the tools.
BY Jane Garthson
ON May 14, 2015 02:39 PM
Excellent article. I am tired of people saying strategic plans are useless because they’ve only been involved with bad planning and poor planning facilitators.
BY Sean Kline
ON May 20, 2015 04:22 PM
Not only does emergent strategy place ‘a company in a reactive mode, making it easy prey for more-strategic rivals,’ but it can also turn a nonprofit into an ever-opportunistic chameleon, undermining its strategic position and differentiation.
The ‘both-and’ paradigm is a compelling notion, but a strategic plan implies a time-specific period of action in which an organization will make certain proactive decisions, as opposed to simply reacting, however strategically, to new circumstances and opportunities. A good strategy guides a board and staff to place prudent bets and navigate change.
Strategy to me has always been about a planning process that forces an organization to make important choices about how it is going to make a positive dent in the world and—implicitly or explicitly—what it will not do, such that it has the focus and resources to succeed.
BY Mike Allison
ON May 21, 2015 10:31 AM
Agreed about the risk of being an ever-opportunistic chameleon. And, the balancing act for each organization will be settled uniquely and vary over time. I agree that for the most part a 3 - 5 year plan in the nonprofit world will serve most organizations extremely well, and remain relevant if it has been thought through well and achieved meaningful buy-in. I’m not prepared to say categorically that this is always the case, for all organizations, hence the nod to the “both-and” idea. However I agree with your description of strategy and a strategic plan and consistently find this approach to be very helpful to board, staff and stakeholders!
BY Leonard Satali
ON October 16, 2015 12:18 AM
Great reflection there! I love the arguments around the faulty assumptions that have mislead or sent us into a mix. This increases my confidence as I facilitate Strategic Planning Processes for Non Profits.