Strategic Planning is neither
You spend months crafting a 'Strategic Plan', and everyone works to it diligently. Yet in every Board meeting, questions pop up, like: But are we really focusing on the right things?, or How do we know our strategy is working?
The problem might not be your organisation – it might be that you're trying to make one document serve two very different purposes.
Some of the most fruitful conversations with clients last year were in unpacking ‘Strategic’ – specifically with ‘Strategic Planning’. It sounds great but obscures the problem – it often means there isn’t a good Strategy in place. I’m going to go into why and why it matters
I like the simple question posed by psychotherapist and critic, Adam Phillips: If it were the opposite, what would that be like? In this case, we can ask ourselves, what is Unstrategic Planning? How would we know the difference?
‘Strategic’ as a modifier
Before getting into Strategic Planning, I want to critique "strategic" as an over-used modifier more generally. It tweaks a noun in a few different ways:
Longer timescale – ‘you’ll see benefits in the next five years, not the next five weeks’
Value comes from short-term sacrifice – ‘this is tough now, but it will be worth it’
Speaks to a purpose beyond an immediate group – ‘we have to suck this up, in the interests of the whole organisation’
Makes stopping activities in favour of others an option – ‘we are terminating these activities to put resources to those activities'
The common denominator is expansiveness: in time, in conceptualising value, in seeing choices in complexity. But why wouldn’t we see these as simply being good? A good leader will look longer term, will stop non-profitable activities. Strategic vs Unstrategic now looks more like a scale of More vs Less competent – or possibly, of having the power to make such decisions.
Strategic is a status marker. For the activity…
Without the word ‘strategic’, it’s not champagne, just sparkling wine; one term adds prestige but what’s in the bottle is basically the same. There’s great prosecco and bad champagne, but champagne does sound better, right? For something to be high status, a lower status must exist. You can’t look up to champagne without looking down on prosecco.
…or for the role
This person here isn’t (just) a Manager, they’re a Strategic Manager. What does that signal to you? Power, prestige, a higher pay grade, closer to the senior leadership.
Notice how few organisations have just one ‘Strategic X’. As soon as Cameron gets the title Strategic XXX Manager, Sam is unhappy to be just plain old YYY Manager. So suddenly organisations have a proliferation of Strategic role titles.
The distancing effect of ‘Strategic’
There’s an artificial separation from operational activities implied by ‘Strategic’. First, it implies that only so-titled Strategic staff should (or have competency to) think about long-term implications, and secondly that major decision-making should be separate from operations.
In addition, it reinforces a hierarchy – roles not labelled ‘strategic’ are excluded from 'strategic' conversations, and their insights are not heard.
In summary: Strategic is Bullshic
Strategy AND Planning
The milk is spilled and there’s no point crying about it. The overuse of the word ‘Strategic’ is here to stay. What I want to do is reclaim the noun Strategy.
What I’m most concerned with, where I see the conflation doing the most damage, is in the notion of Strategic Planning; this manages to be bad Strategy and bad Planning.
Strategy fundamentally describes purpose and context, and sets out the choices that will need to be made to achieve this purpose – whether that’s straightforward profit, or an NFP’s complex balance of multiple intertwined outcomes. At it’s most basic, it is an answer to the question ‘why?’, and may contain things like:
Purpose
Value proposition
External and internal context
Theory of change
Risk appetite
Planning describes activities to be tackled. It doesn’t deal in choices; it speaks of resources, timelines, dependencies, and execution. It is an answer to the questions ‘What, who, how, where and when?’ and may contain
Roadmaps
Accountabilities and targets
Program and Project Planning
Annual budgeting exercises
Operation of ‘BAU’
Change Management and transformation
Both are important – you must have the roots and the branches. ‘Strategic Planning’ ends up being neither. It doesn’t really tackle ‘why?’ and is usually a list of unobjectionably obvious tasks
Why is it persistent? First, it sounds pretty sensible. They’re two solid ideas, smooshed together. After all, you wouldn’t want unstrategic planning, would you?
Second, it offers huge reassurance to the Board and CEO. A Strategic Plan is a list of tasks creating confidence by virtue of structure. Whereas a true strategy is a bit murky; as a response to the ever-shifting contexts of the external world it doesn’t have the clarity of a plan.
Third, it suggests efficiency. Rather than go through two processes to make two documents, maybe just have one? But it’s a false economy if the product is of little use.
And finally, you need different people in the room for each, working in different ways. Strategy development is sense-making, and structured input from across your organisation is essential (the reception team know things the CEO doesn’t). Planning is more detailed, and does not need to involve the Board.
Summary of the difference between a Strategy and a Plan
The difference in how you bake them
Neither Strategy nor Planning are superior to each other – you might as well ask if it’s the steak or the chips that make the meal so good. As I’ve assisted organisations do both over the past 18 months, I can say that while deep understanding of each is essential, at any given time I am supporting a team very differently.
Strategy development is open-ended, creative and insightful. It involves fostering comfort for ambiguity; it is questioning, broad and exploratory; it is enhanced by metaphor, allusion and hope. A sprinkling of optimism enables development of the best Strategy
Planning is precise, rigorous and methodical. It involves an intolerance for ambiguities and a fervour for clarity. It is enhanced by questions of practicality, accountability and measurement. A sprinkling of pessimism enables development of the best Plan.
Strategy consults widely, but is ultimately the work of the Board. Planning consults widely but is ultimately the work of the Executive. And the CEO is the fulcrum between the two.
These are all difficult things to do. It involves stepping away from the day to day and using a different lens.
Fin
I’ve found it both enjoyable and stimulating, for me and my clients, to support this work and I look forward to doing so in 2025. I'll continue my quiet campaign against Strategic Planning, and if you think the ideas here are helpful please hit the 'like' and share this newsletter with any colleagues stuck twixt Strategy and Planning.
Wishing you a great 2025,
Paul
