Long Strategic Planning sessions

Yes...

...and the result was little or no change from what we had been doing before the meetings.

John

I have had a similar experience, and a phrase from my old college computer science classes seems apropos: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

I think it's great that you were able to view this strategic planning process with a critical MT eye. In the future, when it's YOU running the strategic planning sessions, people will be amazed at how effective they are.

And I see this is your first post. Welcome aboard.

Cheers,
BJ

The MT format is not the only effective format. The output matters, along with the level of engagement employees feel. Almost all successful strategy efforts include:

- Unwavering commitment from the CEO
- Emphasis on specific actions/programs/projects
- Easily articulated and understood mission

For example, when Sun Microsystems was introducing the SPARC chip, Scott McNealy repeated: "All the wood behind one arrowhead." He meant that Sun's strategy and future was in SPARC. Those of us designing and building products could make decisions day to day: is what we're doing going to help the SPARC chip be successful? No "action teams" were needed to help us align.

It is unfortunate that the focus is on weakness rather than opportunity. That's more of an 'operational excellence' initiative (which is good!) than it is a 'strategy.'

John

Length shouldn't matter. Shorter is better.

The McNealy quote isn't Sun's mission statement - it was his way of articulating the strategy so that we all knew whether our actions were aligned.

John

Regarding your 'action teams' - here's an approach that's worked well for me several times. It's based in my bias that none of the real work takes place in these meetings anyway. And yes – it’s focused on a much more tactical level than deciding on a new mission statement. But it’s a great way to get work done!

BACKGROUND:
Twice a year, as part of an all-hands meeting, I'll bring a list that I refer to as our "Shared To-Do List." It's nothing more than a collection of things we know we need to get done, but they tend to get pushed out by day-to-day events (examples: update our online project management system, develop ways to improve group relations between our NY and Minneapolis teams, develop a new format for reporting results to our clients).

They're all things I want to get done, but I don't want to assign them myself - I want some buy-in.

THE TECHNIQUE: "LITTLE TEAMS"
After I go through the list of all the To-Do items, I explain that we'll form a "Little Team" to address each one of them. And I keep the structure of the Little Teams very simple: each team must have at least 3 members, but not more than 5 members. My reasoning is that fewer than 3 puts a lot of burden on the members (because after all, they’re going to get this done above and beyond their daily work), but more than 5 gives people too much opportunity to hide and let others do the work.

When I first used this technique, I was concerned with trying to “mix” the membership of the Little Teams (getting people from different departments to work together, etc), but that was a little too much social engineering. Really, when it came right down to it, I wanted people to volunteer to help get something done that really interested them.

After a quick scatter of people to picking projects, we would end up with 6-8 projects, each with 3-5 people populating them. That means that as much as half of the To-Do list projects would NOT get Little Teams, but hey – I have other methods, and I try to keep the long view.

While we were still at this meeting, I’d give the newly formed Little Teams a half-hour or so to accomplish specific objectives:
· Refine the To-Do item into a project statement
· Call out any technical or other resources you think you may need
· Rough out a workplan
· Define your first deliverable that you will produce within 10 days

All the Little Teams reported out these four items in front of one another (peer pressure is a good thing).

Then my job was to help the keep the Little Teams accomplish THEIR objectives, and to report their progress to one another. And to celebrate their success VERY publicly! (memos, pizza lunches).

I was thrilled by how much pride people took in their Little Team assignments. And it was a great way to get things done!

This was based on my strong belief that meetings aren’t where the actual work gets done, but they can be used to focus the team, organize ourselves, and to step up and accept responsibility for getting something done as a small team.

I’ve probably left lots of details out – if you’re interested, I’d be happy to answer any questions.

I agree that shorter is better for a couple of reasons.  First of all, extensive planning usually leads to less time being available to actually make decisions.  Secondly, the more complex plans are often seen as being bullet-proof, leading managers to believe that they will always be perfect.  Unfortunately, the research done by Mankins (http://organizationdecisionmaking.blogspot.com/2010/02/excessive-planning-can-get-in-way-of.html) says that static plans end up becoming obsolete in the real world business environment.  Therefore, the best thing to do is to make the planning process constant and ongoing rather than simply deciding to invest a specific amount of time at the beginning.