My colleague, Ross Peters, and I often caution schools about structuring a “strategic planning” process that results in exhausting the community before the work of implementing the strategy begins. In many ways, the heavy lifting begins once a strategy is chosen. All schools hope that the bet(s) they make on strategy will work, but since they are projecting into the future, they can’t be sure if their well reasoned wager will deliver as originally conceived. Over time, it’s likely to need modification. I like Amy Edmondson and Paul Verdin's approach to strategy as a hypothesis that you are constantly in the process of adjusting. The key with a hypothesis is that it can only be tested through action.
Edmondson and Verdin see this hypothesis approach to strategy as “strategy as learning,” which is in sharp contrast with the view of strategy as a stable plan for execution. And though hypotheses may be directionally correct, the devil is in the details, and hypotheses generally require ongoing revision.
For many schools, strategy is voted on by the board, the “plan” is set, and then faculty and staff are asked to execute. At the end of the five year strategic planning cycle it’s not unusual that one or more aspects of the strategic plan have not been realized. Some will point to flawed execution while others will point to the strategy.
I recall watching a school from afar – EXPLO Elevate was not part of the work – announce a signature program central to its new strategy. The program was novel and I was interested to see what it would look like once brought to fruition. I expected it was going to be an iterative process to build. The program made its way to a prominent place on the school’s website, but the description was hazy. I wondered if this was poor messaging or vaporware. A few years later, a couple of Elevate colleagues met with the faculty member who was assigned to lead this new program. As it turns out, she was told to get it up and running with little direction, virtually no resources, and no staffing. No doubt there was a flaw in execution, but she was set up to fail. Little thought had gone into ensuring the capabilities, skills, and resources were there to deliver. Those missing components could be blamed on execution, but in fact were not examined as part of the strategy design process.
I commend the school for aspiring to do something novel and somewhat bold. But aspiring and doing are two different things. Execution is dependent on a set of organizational capabilities and a method of management that too often never makes it into a school’s overarching plan on how it will deliver on its aspirations. When working with a hypothesis you need to be conducting experiments and pilots. What data will help you know you are on the right track? How will you collect it, analyze it, and glean insights that will feed into changes in execution? And should the gap become too large between aspiration and reality, are you willing to step back and modify your strategy?
Coming up with a good hypothesis rooted in mission and a comprehensive situational assessment and analysis is the first step to strategy. That’s what gets you started, but remember: it’s the start of the race, not the end.