I love a good strategy session.
It’s great to work through traditional strategic planning models such as inputs,
outputs, outcomes, impacts. And I get why we like them: we predict the future and
then plan how we’ll get there. It gives us certainty and a sense of comfort.
Drop the fiction of prediction
Only problem is (and it’s a favourite expression of ours) we get comfort and certainty
from the fiction of prediction. And it is fiction. We can only often see to the extent of
our car headlights in the fog. We can’t see much around the next bend or what’s
after the next junction.
How about scenario planning?
We then talk through scenario planning, and it’s good stuff. Come up with various
different futures and keep a close eye on all of them. But I’m not convinced people
use it that much. And we tend to start with where we are now.
Even better: a living plan
This is flexible and agile strategy. You don’t end up with a plan that either sits on the
shelf or may even be followed. Here’s an example from Dell. (Yes, I know it’s a big US
outfit and we’re so much smaller here in Aotearoa, but bear with me.)
The “Dell agenda,” compares company aspirations and the direction of each Dell
business. Inevitably, there’s a gap between the two. Closing those gaps is what
leaders focus on. When one gap is closed, another strategic aspiration is added to the
agenda.
So, strategy is living, continuous and able to respond to changes and uncertainty.
Should we alter course?
To strategise with a living plan, you need to continually monitor your environment.
What’s happening and what’s the root cause of it happening.? Then we traditionally
ask: how well have we performed. How about a different question: should we alter
course? Again, if you’re wedded to certainty and also have a dose of the sunk cost
fallacy (we’ve invested so much already, so let’s not pull the plug now) this is a tough
question. But a good one.
I love a good strategy session - hope you do too.
Коментарі