Henry Mintzberg wrote 25 years ago: we need better practice, not neater theories. Amen to that. Much of the writing on the ‘formal strategy process’ ignore the practical reality that strategies have a life cycle. Twenty years ago Gary Hamel observed strategies decay for four reasons: replication; supplantation; exhaustion; evisceration (but that’s another blog). The point is, strategies have a life cycle, and the process has to reflect that context.
This blog highlights some elements of a recent Board/Executive strategy workshop, with about 20 people in the room (it is a large board). It followed a deep, fundamental, strategic review and workshop I led about 12 months prior in a workshop that involved the board, the CEO and one other executive.
Thus, the purpose of this recent workshop was not a re-examination of the strategy: the strategic direction was clear and agreed. A few things had changed in the external environment since the prior workshop. Whilst this had caused the sequencing and prioritisation of some of the strategic initiatives to be adjusted, it wasn’t a case of a wholesale review. With a nod to the former UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan: what was the greatest strategic challenge of the CEO – “events dear boy, events”.
The purpose of this workshop was a chance for the board to hear from the executive on the implementation program, check alignment, and provide feedback to the executive.
My bias in any strategy process is toward conversations. Great strategies are rarely discovered primarily through analytics (thank you Jeanne Liedtka), but through conversation, action and reflection. The quality of the conversations is a one indicator of the likely success of your strategy – not just in ‘design’ but in execution.
Given this brief, what were some of the design features?
§ Early engagement with the executive to shape the content and messaging. What does the board need to know[1]? What do you want the conversation to be about? When you are the executive immersed deeply in the content, it is sometimes hard to lift yourself out of the detail.
§ Be clear about what you want from the Board? Sometimes you just need them to be aware of strategic context. But sometimes you need them to make a call, or at least give you some directional guidance. Are they happy with the pace and direction? Design with intent.
§ Bring the board into the conversation early. We began with a simple question: how do you feel as we start our day? This brought some real energy into the room. And there was strong alignment from the outset – more than I anticipated.
§ Drawing out the input from across the board. With a large board, it is too easy for some to sit back. You need engage individuals, directly invite them to contribute. Sometimes you want to provoke. My role isn’t to simply make sure everyone is being polite. I want to know the issues are being surfaced, and challenging views are given voice.
§ Synthesis. Often as facilitator we add value by synthesising the conversations as they progress. At this workshop I particularly wanted to board to ‘own’ the outcomes of the conversation. And so at the end of the day I called on a few of the key influencers to offer their synthesis. At times I would build on their comments to connect the different threads.
In the wrap up, many of the board members commented on the strength of alignment. Clarity of direction – alignment – is more than many organisations achieve. As Richard Rumelt [Good Strategy, Bad Strategy] observed:
“an organisation’s greatest challenge may not be external threats or opportunities, but instead the effects of entropy [a measure of the degree of disorder in a system] and inertia”
One of the more vocal and challenging board members commented: “I’m even more energised than I was this morning; it was a great result”. That’s a win!
[1] If you’re not familiar with it, check out Minto’s pyramid.
