E1: What's Wrong With Strategic Planning

It’s a depressing statistic: 70% of corporate change initiatives fail, despite all the time leaders spend creating strategies and explaining them to their organizations.

• Harvard Business Review, Oct. 17, 2023

Three weeks ago, I spoke with one head who said their most recent strategic plan basically upcycles the previous one from seven years ago with different language. Another shared they had yet to finish much of what they committed to in their 2018-2023 plan but the board wanted a new one since it was, well, 2023. And, one more reported that faculty and staff said in internal meetings their strategic plan felt like a marketing exercise the new head of school needs to keep donors happy. Frankly, I’m surprised the number is only 70%.

This post is critical of the plans and the processes that lead to such outcomes. It is about our intent and execution when we conceptualize and decide on our strategy, the growing distance in our institutions between the ground reality and the leadership’s expectations, a gap in our understanding of what is strategy and what it isn’t, and the lack of alignment among the people who are charged with the vision and those who will make it happen. Clearly I’m not a fan of strategic planning as it is conventionally done; the results look the same, the strategies are rarely well-defined or widely accepted, lots of time and resources go in paying the consultant to tell the community what it already knows, even more time is spent on wordsmithing and branding, the process itself is flawed because the concept is grossly misunderstood or misled, and many frustrated years and dollars are spent in trying to build ownership and capacity after the fact.

For the longest time, I resisted invitations from school leaders to help them with their plans. Internally, I told the team that MehtaCognition will not do strategic plans. I have since reversed myself; we do strategic plans now, and we also help create implementation plans and protocols. The more frustrated I became looking around, the more compelled I felt that we couldn’t stay on the sidelines anymore. I wasn’t satisfied being a critic of the practice and practitioner without offering an alternative and putting ourselves out there to be judged as I was judging others. My rationale was also simple: If we were going to support leadership in the implementation phases, as many were beginning to turn to us, then starting correctly with the concept and vision would drastically improve the outcomes and consequences of those plans.

I have been keeping a growing list of why so many plans fail outright, do not fulfill their vision or achieve the intended transformations, and concern entire communities by creating a wider chasm between the leadership and their rank-and-file employees who are charged with execution. To give you the full list now and explain each item would take too long for one post, but I’ll start with just one. Peter Drucker famously wrote, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Strategy cannot fix culture, and yet that’s exactly what we have repeatedly observed these plans are trying to do. Let’s take a concrete example. A schedule change is a popular initiative in many of our schools. Changing the class schedule is usually prompted by a need to change pedagogy and match outdated practices to good pedagogy and philosophy. Let us assume we want to see more projects and problem-based learning, so we seek out A/B days or a 7-day rotating schedule with classes lasting between 75-90 minutes to replace the traditional 45-minute period. But changing practice will not correct the underlying values and philosophy. Unlearning current practices won’t be changed by simply changing the format; instead of one 45-minute lecture, I will now plan for and teach in the same way twice during the new 90-minute block schedule. In this scenario, we’ve used a structural solution to fix what is inherently a cultural problem. Strategy has to align with culture, but culture won’t change because your strategy says it should. An attempt to fix pedagogy by changing practice will only contribute to further entrenchment and lower morale. Instead, understand the pedagogy in place by observing practice. Identify the superstars who are already teaching the way you wish all teachers did, next find the peer influencers, and now match the overlap of those superstars and influencers. Assuming you have enough critical mass, engage those who satisfy both statuses in the change process, not just in the outcome. Hire and fire accordingly. It will probably take longer than three or five years, but there’s also a stronger probability you’ll avoid the fate of the other 70% who fail.

As you consider your own current plan or process, answer this question: how much time do you spend contemplating strategy separate from its connection to your culture? If the balance of time is tilted dramatically towards strategy with, at best, lip service paid to culture, then success will remain elusive. Strategy becomes clearer when the atmosphere - culture as embraced and practiced by your stakeholders - is well understood, clearly defined, and widely accepted.

I’m linking to one Jim Collins article from June 2000 for additional reading and context. We were supposed to know better, now it’s time to do better.