The best laid plans...

I was part of a strategic planning committee for our college a while back, and at times was a tiny bit frustrated that some on the committee were acting very much like many of our students when it comes to critical thinking and planning in just wanting to leap to intuitively gleaned and superficially considered conclusions.  I suppose I was becoming a bit of a thorn to some in trying to structure the task in the traditional strategic planning fashion, especially on the SWOT analysis part, but I backed off some and became reasonably content with a process that seemed somewhat incomplete and unsophisticated, particularly for an organization's 5 year plan, as it occurred to me that a rigorous strategic planning process probably would yield only a marginally better result than the "top-of-the-head" "here's my opinion" type of ideas people were throwing out.  

Part of this stems from the discontent I had been feeling in the latter years of teaching a strategy course as I came to have some doubts about the value of rigorous strategic planning as described in so many books and articles.  This is because I am becoming increasingly impressed by the role of randomness and uncertainty in the world.  My wife will often be frustrated by my lack of a definitive answer for planning for what to me is the distant future, as all I can do is express desire, intent, and probability, and the same seems true, to a degree, for organizations.  There is so much that is unforeseeable that all we can do is reduce the amount of uncertainty and be comfortable with the concept of ambiguity.  What this means is that we can be guided by principle and develop somewhat imprecise goals, with strategies and tactics that reflect the mission but may be nimbly altered as circumstances change.  

But this is more than just contingency planning or prepared nimbleness, as it is more than alertness and flexibility that drive an organization.  At the core of company or product is value, which often is more than just economic value and includes some psychological value.  People like to buy from those that they like.  They like products that express shared values, and reflect something of themselves (and we are all "brands," in a sense).  The same is true for other stakeholders as well.  If you think smoking is bad and selling tobacco is evil, you probably wouldn't invest in Altria. (and probably why Philip Morris changed their name to reduce the perceived association with tobacco)  If you're an employee, of course you'd like to work for a company that believes in what you believe in, which often includes important elements of corporate culture, i.e., hiring "good" people, empowering employees, and all those things that make work a little less like work.

 

In other words, the endless hours developing and relying on a detailed strategic plan that will have to be  frequently altered, needs to be based on and balanced with the consideration of  the vision and culture driving the organization.  This seems obvious, doesn't it?  Well, ask people at any level in an organization and see how many times you get a clear answer as to its vision, values, and culture (at most, some might be able to parrot the mission statement).  It was during one of our strategy meetings that this dimension of vision and culture became clearer to me, as after an idea was forwarded one of the members of the committee got excited (as excited as one can be in such a meeting) and said, "I'd like to work at a place like that."  My point, then, is that while strategic planning has a place, particularly in satisfying investors/creditors and clarifying one's thinking, the sine qua non is having a clear vision and values that resonate with stakeholders, and being able to not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk.

image from stonyfield.com