SET YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN UP FOR SUCCESS: Problem, People, Process

Strategy development is hard, uncomfortable, and easy to unintentionally undermine. It’s also an invaluable opportunity to bring people together, get out of the weeds, get creative, and set your organization up for meaningful change management. Intentional upfront investments can dramatically improve the process and outcome. 

In this note I’ll highlight opportunities to set yourself up for success in your strategy’s problem statement, the people you engage at various stages, and a few thoughts on effective process.

If your organization is one that navigates a dynamic environment - funding, partners, operating space - it may make sense for your plans to be shorter in their duration or some other functionality that allows the plans to remain actively responsive WHILE setting your organization up for the future. I’ve seen a number of great strategic plans go by the wayside on account of external events. If you think this could be the case, conserve your resources, do major planning when you expect stability.

On problem definition: 

If you can be crystal clear on the problem you are trying to solve with a strategic plan, fantastic. But don’t feel beholden to this, it is something that can come up organically. It does need to be sorted out before going to a large audience.

What IS important to be clear on is the TYPE of work your plan is meant to achieve.
I usually see three approaches: 

• Resolve root cause issues. 

• Position for the future

• Solve the symptoms of root cause issues that cannot be prioritized. Address painpoints for your organization or team without dealing with what caused them.
  Personally, I’m not sure that this makes for a strategic plan as it’s more tactical in nature and limited in scope. I do think it’s important to call it what it is to set expectations. I’ve seen a few times where a leadership team had a narrow view of the outcome of a plan, which quickly made participants in the process question what they were doing/why they were there. 

On Participation: 

In the absence of intentionality around participation, often there will be a pendulum swing between two common approaches. 

One is for the senior leaders to define a vision and then put it to full organizations to weigh in on. While broad participation is good, this is often ineffective as it’s leading through a narrowly defined vision. Often the feedback isn’t useful because it’s largely reactionary.  If this approach is used and shows that there is a broad gap between the team’s perspective on direction and leadership’s, not only has valuable time been wasted, but that gap will worsen a likely morale issue. 

The opposite approach - a vision developed through consensus - typically lacks strategic vision or realism and reinforces to senior leaders that they have to lead the process. 

To prevent or break this cycle consider: 

• A realistic look at your talent: Who are the creative out of the box thinkers? Who understands the major facets of challenges your organization needs to work through? Who will speak up, and can disrupt biased thinking without shutting other people down? Who are your yes people? There might be a better role for the yes people in the implementation of the plan rather than in it’s creation. Set expectations by being upfront and transparent about who is involved in what aspect of strategic planning and why. People may not agree but it’s hard to argue with skills-based logic. 

• Once you have your participation plan, check it again for bias. Are there human resources that have been overlooked or are overutilized? Do you have the right mix of perspectives, a representative mix of seniorities?

• If your workplace has ways of working that you’d like improved, there is a great opportunity in setting behavioral expectations of participants in your strategic planning process. 

I know this is a lot of work upfront but it beats a plan that doesn’t work. Much of this effort can have a dual use in talent reviews and performance appraisals, so while it is an investment it will create efficiencies. 

On process: 

There is no perfect process. Do what suits you, iterate as needed. Leave perfect at the door.

Upfront consider: 

• How much money (people’s time) you are willing to invest as a reflection of how important the outcome is right now.
  There are times when a strategy is critical and times when it isn’t. If it’s not actually critical, then communicate expectations around time and effort proportionately. 

• Think about how you’d normally approach strategy development and Think Again. Consider a completely different approach. How could doing differently get you a better outcome? What are the tradeoffs? 

• Once you are clear on your way forward (for now), set expectations for what to expect and when. People get jittery about change, even if there is no ‘there-there.’ Get ahead of this with forward communication. 

Good strategic planning is messy, like a creative process. Have fun with it! It’s an important space to set up for constructive disagreements to challenge assumptions and prepare your organization for its next iteration. Get your vision on the table, edit, iterate, compromise.