Strategy & Direction
Covers of three books. The one on top references the Magellan expeditions.
In the complex world of addressing social or environmental issues, not-for-profit and social sector organizations must retain focus, while also being flexible. At a strategic level, a clear focus helps funnel attention toward our specific part of a very complex landscape. Allowing for a marine metaphor (hence, the Magellan book), the waves can get so high, or the visibility so poor, that we navigate solely on our fixed compass point. “Mission drift” can be an apt descriptor when focus wanes. This said, flexibility (reacting to external changes) and creativity (proactively creating different options) will be required. Sticking with the exploration storyline, overall progress can be the result of navigating around an obstruction, or of pausing efforts to allow headwinds to pass such that next-day effort provides more net forward movement.
The word “strategy” arose from military activity, so it is understandable that there can be both an offensive (inspiring?) flavour to its setting, as well as a defensive (begrudging?) sentiment. My mental picture has always distinguished two “big meetings” that happen:
Meeting #1 - There is a cool and calculated discussion that exposes options and vets them for practicality. Each option will carry risks, and when scrutinizing these options, the group aligns on an acceptable amount and type of risk. The clear-eyed logic of that discussion informs decisions that focus—and knowingly limit—our future activities and options. The session might close with someone saying, “In making these difficult decisions today, those we face tomorrow will be less difficult or even self-evident.” This would be followed by knowing nods.
Meeting #2 - The group now needs wider buy-in: How can we make our ideas accessible, exciting, reinforcing and inspiring to as many people as possible, while also making sure that as few people as possible will see them as scary, cold-hearted, unrealistic and/or intimidating? Clarification of strategy usually involves some change, if not in direction, in emphasis; if not in action, in attitude. This second meeting has lots of energy as everyone understands the importance of the task ahead. Hill Street Blues was past my bed time when I was a kid, but we might close with a similar send-off as someone with stature says, “Remember people: Culture eats strategy for breakfast!”
In reality, the conversations about decisions, big and small, are always emotional. Choosing involves limiting options, which is always going to be hard for someone, even if those in the discussion have “got their heads around” that particular decision.
The importance of this logical/emotional mash-up will be evident in the relationship between an Executive Leader and their Board Chair as they:
Stop each other from trying to revisit important decisions that we have made;
Discuss how to deal with others who are trying to revisit decision that we have made;
Engage with each other to revisit the logic behind the decision to see if it still holds;
Decide if/when/how to adapt when a significant item has either changed or come to light since we made important decisions; and
Discuss a number of other “little things” that could lead to big issues if not bounced around by two people, with different perspectives, who can be straight with one another.