Strategic planning vs. strategic imagination
April 14th, 2008
During a recent presentation, I began to make the case against strategic planning when I was confronted, once again, with the usual “okay, so what do we do instead” response. Since this conversation thread emerged near the end of my session, there was no time for a full riff on the subject, so I shared a few brief thoughts and invited the attendees to e-mail me with any follow-up questions.
In the time that has passed since that talk, however, I have finally realized something that should have occurred to me years ago: there is simply no way to make a compelling process argument against strategic planning. No matter how much we rail against the inherent inadequacies of strategic planning, which are far too numerous to mention, the “what do we do instead” crowd will always successfully minimize those shortcomings with the “we do it differently” argument, or diminish alternative approaches with the claim that “it’s all just semantics.” The association community, with some exceptions, is committed to strategic planning because it chooses to be, and it chooses to be because it doesn’t want to be convinced otherwise.
Last week, Umair Haque, who is quickly becoming my favorite blogger, had a great post on his new Harvard Business School blog that really crystallizes the issue:
Strategic imagination is tremendously difficult because it requires us to put aside yesterday’s tired assumptions and orthodoxies, and begin to actively rethink from scratch the way value can be, should be, must be, will be created.
The surest, most lethal killer of strategic imagination is being reined in by orthodoxy: thinking that tomorrow must be like yesterday. (Emphasis added)
This is the definitive explanation of what is wrong with strategic planning in any form: it is grounded in the belief that tomorrow must be like yesterday. Above all else, it is this deep-seated assumption that has made strategic planning an enduring feature of the association landscape. The vast majority of leaders in our community are terrified by the prospect of imagining a future that looks radically different from a past many still revere and a present they find disquieting but familiar. Associations have always been more comfortable with incrementalism, despite the fact that it is a total mismatch with the times, and thus threatens our community’s future prospects. As Umair writes:
Edge strategy isn’t for incrementalists. Those who think games built for an industrial era are still the only ones worth playing need not apply.
Rather, it takes a profound appetite for revolution: a profound ability to let go of yesterday’s stale, tired, and thoroughly toxic orthodoxies - to explode the shrunken, stunted strategic imagination the industrial-era firm suffers from.
Do you believe your association’s tomorrow must be like its yesterday? Or are you willing to imagine a future for your organization that requires revolution? If you’re still embracing the work of strategic planning, the answer is crystal clear.
If you're new here, I hope you will consider subscribing to the P.I. Blog. Just click on this link to add it to your RSS reader. You can also receive e-mail updates by subscribing via the box located on the blog itself. Thanks for visiting!
Entry Filed under: Principled Innovation Blog, What's New?, Social Media, Innovation, Associations, Extreme Makeover, The Association Innovator, Simplicity, We Have Always Done It That Way, PI Services, Garage Memes, Governing Simply
Ben Martin and P.I.
Association exec Ben Martin, CAE is P.I.’s Architect of Participation. Jeff and Ben help clients harness the power of the Web through the strategic application of social tools.
Strategic alliance with Gulo
P.I is pleased to work with Chicago-based Gulo Solutions LLC to provide a wide variety of technology and strategic services to our association community clients.
4 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Cline | April 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Re:
Jeff, although your ideas are right on, I think the above statement is a bit inaccurate. There are strategic planning methodologies that do not depend on or build on yesterday. The process expounded and practiced by John A. Warden III - Winning In FastTime is a 100% future oriented process that essentially eliminates opportunities for its practiioners to build strategies based on the past.
I would encourage your readers to explore and John’s blog–Strategic Thinking by John A. Warden III to see how strategic planning can be 100% future focused and tap into one’s strategic imagination.
2. Ellen | April 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Jeff - I agree that any association’s survival depends entirely upon its willingness to separate “what we’ve always done” with “what we need to do now and in the future.”
Having said that, as a mid-level staffer, I’m often frustrated by the lack of strategic direction or focus at a level that would help drive the decisions our education committee must make.
For example, if the association’s strategy is to maintain current membership levels (in our association, this actually makes sense), then we would follow Plan A to expand our reach of current offerings within that membership base. However, if the association’s strategy is to expand our membership (which is also a viable option), it would require movement into a segment that’s traditionally been a minority for us, and would mean following Plan B to expand the types of programs we’re offering.
So I’d still advocate that however you define it, some future-thinking has to be articulated, whether you call it strategic planning or not.
I can’t speak for those asking, “What do we replace strategic planning with?” but I certainly understand why they might be asking the question.
Perhaps it’s because the view is different from the foxhole than it is from the fighter jet flying overhead.
3. Ed Adkins | April 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
While I don’t agree with categorically dismissing strategic planning, what you’re saying about the fight between innovation and incremental progress is right on.
The two don’t necessarily have to fight though- just because they serve different purposes. Strategic Planning can just as easily serve innovation by setting a course and allowing for flexibility- just don’t let the strategy officer anywhere near the innovators! (looks around and runs)
Along the lines of what you were saying, though, here’s a great example of the fight between innovation and stratplanning from disney: http://micechat.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2683.html
4. Ethan Bauley | April 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
If you would like to get deeper into Umair’s work on edge strategy, check out John Hagel and John Seely Brown’s book “The Only Sustainable Edge”, which essentially redefines strategy and sources of advantage.
edgeperspectives.typepad.com
johnseelybrown.com
edgeperspectives.com
Mind blowing stuff…Umair stands on their shoulders (by his own admission)
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed