Avoiding the strategic planning process
Farley, L. (2011). Avoiding the Strategic Planning Process. boardwalk, Summer 2011, 6-7.
Why you been avoiding strategic planning?
The majority of people sitting around your boardroom table are likely passionate about the mission of your organization. It’s probably the main thing that brought them to the table; bringing ideas, enthusiasm, and excitement about the possibility to contribute to the great work of the Board.
At one end of the spectrum, significant numbers of people have high levels of awareness, enthusiasm, and skills regarding strategic planning. They appreciate the tremendous benefit of a purposeful and coherent framework to enact the mission and vision. Some will be dedicated to creating momentum and fostering the kind of change that will move your organization into the future.
Some will be eager to have the opportunity to address organizational issues, and possibly the chance to build support and accountability into your processes.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are pessimistic views and mindsets can ruin strategic renewal before it has commenced. Why does this happen?
1. Past Experience. There may be a significant amount of hesitation, confusion, and fear associated with strategic planning for those who may have had negative, and possibly detrimental, experiences in the past. Anyone who has spent a day, or more, in retreats and meetings that accomplished nothing, had their plans fizzle and fail, or just had their plan shelved, do not want to repeat the process of endless planning with no action.
2. The Present. Frustration and anxiety may be part in parcel with lack of capacity, or resources. Some members fear strategic planning will divert resources, preoccupy the organization, or expose deficiencies that will waste time when there are more pressing issues at hand. Board members and leaders may find it difficult ask hard questions and worry about being confronted with some issue, or problem, during the strategic planning process that they would rather avoid. They do not want to look weak, out of control, or disorganized, in front of clients, membership, and funders, and therefore decide to not engage in the strategic planning process.
3. Accountability. Some community boards don’t know, or forget, that Board of Directors are put in place to represent the membership, and the community, with some definite responsibilities: fiduciary (legal responsibilities of oversight and stewardship), strategic (major decision about resources, programs and services) and generative (deep inquiry, exploring root causes, and values). Without a plan, and without understanding and taking full responsibility for the role of board member, the members may begin to burn out from trying to micro-manage operations to protect themselves from liability.
Some make the chronic mistake of implementing strategic planning as an event, rather than a dynamic and continuous process, which invariably guarantees that the plan cannot be used effectively as a tangible reference with measurable goals, deadlines, and accountability. When a plan is poorly conceived, poorly introduced, or poorly executed, lack of confidence in the process, or the product, may lead some participants to discredit the outcome destroying the organization’s momentum, or result in program areas being neglected.
4. Uncertainty. Some boards may be operating under organizational inertia – doing what has always been done, and what is comfortable, and hence, limiting progress and potential. Non-strategic planning organizations who that think planning results in paralysis suffer the inability to assess the present, or predict the future. These boards may have been caught up in interminable research, data collection, and analysis blocking any decisions or action. Uncertainty can fall into many categories, but here specifically we are talking about fear of success, and risk aversion.
Organizations may wonder if they can live up to the demands of success, have concerns that a plan will lead to idealistic expectations for program delivery, or wonder if/when success has arrived when specified measures of achievement are slow to emerge. On the other hand, risk aversion, or perceived lack of payoff, hinders the impact of a plan though a decline in effort and action because the cost of failure is high.
5. Impact. An organization that has experienced a lack of transformative and helpful deliverables, because they have utilized generic theories, and generalized strategic formulas in their planning process, may not even believe that a strategic plan could work in real life. Or, members of your group may experience reservations about which planning model to follow, focusing their attention on which is the most appropriate methodology to use, while deferring the process until the “way” is found.
6. Significance. There may be a fear that there will be no connection between the plan and the practical activities of the association. This can happen if a plan becomes a laundry list of activities without determining what success will look like, goals are so vague, they are meaningless, or the organization aims higher than they can ever possibly achieve. All of these things can lead to a list of why it is impossible for your organization to plan and reach any goals.
7. Politics. While a written plan should create focus and accountability, personal agendas, lack of consensus, too many options, insufficient commitment, and waiting for the “right” opportunities can contribute to disagreement about future direction, or worse. Leaders may hold off on strategic planning for fear that meetings will end up as gripe sessions, or hours of aimless wandering to reach consensus.
“There is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful of success, than to step up as a leader in the introduction of change. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm support in those who might be better off under the new.” —Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Sources:
Board Development Program, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit, Workshop Handout #3, Governance as Leadership, Copyright 2011, adapted with permission from Governance as leadership: reframing the work of nonprofit boards by Richard P. Chait, William R. Ryan and Barbara E. Taylor, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2005.
Broder, P., McClintock, N., & Amundson, W. (2002). Primer for directors of not-for-profit corporations . Ottawa, Ont.: Industry Canada.
Davies, L., & Ring, L. (2003). About strategic planning. Davies/Ring Consulting.
Ebersole, G. (n.d.). Ten major fears that scare small businesses away from strategic planning. Trend Hot News. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from http://strategic-planning.trendhotnews.com
Executive Director Guide. (n.d.). Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada.
Kreisler, B. (2005, Spring). Governance as leadership: a New model for nonprofits. bright ideas, 24(3), 45-46.
Knecht, P. R. (2006, August). The board’s role in strategic planning: eliminating the confusion. BoardRoom Press, 17(4), 1-2.
Pealow, J. (n.d.). Strategic management and accountability for First Nations: best practices to consider. Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada.
