Author: fwadmin_chron

Your company proudly touts its “comprehensive strategic plan.” But while its creators are satisfied with its depth and detail, perhaps it’s time to rethink. Narrowing its focus might just save it from failure.

Somewhere in your email inbox, there’s a lengthy strategic document waiting to be read. It’s so long and dense that you haven’t even glanced at it. You’re not alone—no one has. Reading it would take hours, and your plate is already full.

Deep down, you worry that months—or even a full year—might pass before you carve out time to review it. But while the plan gathers digital dust, you don’t question the good intentions behind its creation. You may have even contributed some ideas early on. Yet, because you weren’t part of the team that finalized the document, its nuances escape you.

The responsibility for crafting the final version fell to a group of well-meaning colleagues who embraced the idea of being “comprehensive.” And therein lies the potential problem.

---

From Strategic Plan to Wishlist

What if the plan is less of a strategy and more of a wishlist? Think of a child’s letter to Santa: an ambitious catalog of hopes, many of which are unlikely to come true.

The issue isn’t that the individual ideas in the plan are bad—on the contrary, you probably support most, if not all, of them. The problem lies in the fallacy that “more is better.” In strategy, this belief can be dangerous. It’s easy for leaders to fall into the trap of saying “yes” to every new proposal, particularly in the C-suite.

But this “yes to everything” mindset often results in an unattainable dream masquerading as a plan. Failing to say “no” plants the seeds of failure.

Perhaps this pattern is familiar. It might even explain your reluctance to engage with the document. After all, a strategy overloaded with too many good ideas often adds up to a bad one.

---

A Case in Point: Apple’s Comeback

Consider Steve Jobs’ return to Apple in 1997. One of his first moves was to cut most of the company’s product lines. By focusing on a single ecosystem, Apple transformed itself into the world’s most valuable company.

This example highlights the power of focus. Now, how should you respond to your own bloated strategic plan?

---

Announce: The Process Isn’t Finished

Reject the current wishlist and restart the planning process with a fresh approach. A helpful tool to guide this next phase is Peter Compo’s Strategy Triad, which comprises three components:

1. Aspiration – Your primary objective.
2. Bottlenecks – The key obstacles standing in the way.
3. Tasks and Policies – The actions needed to address the bottlenecks.

Use this framework in your next strategy session to sharpen your focus. Here’s how:

1. Start by selecting your single most critical objective.
2. Identify the bottlenecks preventing success and narrow down to the few actions required to overcome them.
3. Move on to the next objective, applying the same process.
4. Eliminate wishlist items that don’t directly address the bottlenecks.
5. Prioritize a small number of high-impact initiatives that fit your resources and budget.

While this streamlined approach seems logical, expect resistance.

---

Handling Pushback

Objection #1: “This Will Be Too Difficult”

Narrowing the plan means forcing tough choices. Colleagues with conflicting priorities will have to confront their differences in open discussions, which can create tension.

The solution? Use a neutral facilitator. A skilled, impartial moderator can help navigate disagreements, ensuring the group reaches consensus without losing focus or momentum.

Objection #2: “This Will Take Too Long”

Don’t assume you can resolve these challenges in a quick meeting. Instead, dedicate a full day to an offsite session with your top 20 leaders. Away from daily distractions, work together to identify the few key initiatives that will “bust” the bottlenecks and achieve your goals.

While this approach requires time upfront, it’s an investment. Begin by showing how many hours would be wasted trying to execute the original wishlist. By narrowing the focus, you’ll save time overall and boost the odds of success.

---

Why It Works

An overly broad strategic plan is often overwhelming. Your colleagues may avoid engaging with it for the same reasons you do—it feels unrealistic and demotivating. By narrowing the scope, you create a plan that feels achievable and inspires action.

Think of it as a Minimum Viable Strategy. A focused plan speeds up implementation, concentrates energy, and delivers visible results. Success, in turn, builds momentum, paving the way for even greater achievements.

When it comes to strategy, less is often more. Toss the wishlist, narrow the focus, and watch your organization thrive.

Jamaica’s economic future is once again in the spotlight. With elections on the horizon, the Prime Minister has unveiled the ASPIRE program. However, given the backdrop of past disappointments and widespread skepticism, one pressing question arises: How can leaders inspire others to embrace a new direction when another, prior “new direction” is still fresh in people’s memories?

From a political standpoint, the announcement has generated predictable headlines. Unsurprisingly, it hasn’t captured much interest beyond the loyal party base. Despite accurately reflecting the aspirations of most Jamaicans, the ASPIRE program has yet to ignite widespread optimism. Few believe this initiative will significantly alter the economic landscape. But is this response solely due to poor timing?

No one is satisfied with Jamaica’s sluggish economic performance. As such, it’s difficult to argue against the intent behind the ASPIRE program. A revitalized economy is urgently needed. However, the lack of enthusiasm for the program points to deeper issues. What lessons can organizational leaders glean from the Prime Minister’s challenge?

The Burden of Previous Failures

Every organization needs a clear vision to move forward. Leaders often feel an urgency to launch their initiatives as quickly as possible. Yet, in their haste, they sometimes overlook a critical step: addressing the legacy of previous efforts.

When introducing ASPIRE, the Prime Minister bypassed the unresolved struggles of Vision 2030 Jamaica and the unfulfilled promises of the 5-in-4 project. (They were launched in 2009 and 2016 respectively.) This omission is not unique to him; leaders often face difficulties transitioning from one ambitious vision to the next. However, these challenges are amplified when prior efforts have left a trail of unfulfilled expectations.

Jamaicans have seen multiple attempts to rally the nation around shared economic growth objectives. Yet, many remain skeptical, with some pursuing opportunities abroad in search of a better life. The problem lies in the failure to properly address and learn from past shortcomings. When launching a new vision, ignoring previous failures is a mistake that erodes trust and engagement.

Closing the Loop

As someone who enjoyed Carnival in my younger years, I learned valuable advice from Trinidadian friends: “Don’t try to replicate last year’s experience.” Each new event should be approached on its own terms. This wisdom is profoundly relevant to leadership. Humans are at their best when inspired by fresh opportunities rather than weighed down by past successes or failures.

So, how can leaders effectively inspire their teams while navigating the shadows of prior disappointments?

1. Acknowledge Successes and Failures: Recognize that each previous effort is a mix of achievements and setbacks. Be transparent about both.
2. Celebrate Contributions: Publicly thank participants and highlight stories of dedication and accomplishment. Empathize with those who experienced disappointment.
3. Extract Lessons Learned: Share the insights gained from past efforts. Demonstrate the value of those experiences, even if the original goals weren’t fully met.
4. Position the New Vision in Context: Frame the new initiative as a natural progression informed by prior feedback. Skilled communicators can emphasize that the new vision is not a rejection of the old but an evolution built on collective experience.

These practices are rooted in effective change management. They not only foster engagement but also encourage the discretionary commitment of time, energy, and attention—resources that leaders depend on to achieve their goals.

Consider historical examples, such as the independence movement in India. Mahatma Ghandi and his followers’ quest for justice called for immense sacrifices, ultimately costing hundreds of lives. While today’s challenges may not carry such dire consequences, visionary leadership still asks for sacrifices. In a climate of past disappointments, skepticism is natural, and leaders must tread carefully.

A New Strategy for Sustained Leadership

In the modern world, people expect more than inspiring rhetoric. They demand a practical strategy that addresses obstacles, such as talent shortages or previous missteps. Followers scrutinize new visions against past outcomes, grappling with two key questions:

• Logical Concerns: What makes this initiative different? Why should it succeed where others failed?
• Emotional Concerns: Do my leaders understand my disappointment? Do they take responsibility for past failures and empathize with my reluctance to trust again?

Launching a new vision without addressing these concerns risks deepening cynicism. Leaders who skip over the logical and emotional barriers of the past will find it increasingly difficult to inspire genuine commitment. Instead, leaders must intervene with honesty, empathy, and a clear plan.

For example, Nelson Mandela’s leadership in post-apartheid South Africa provides a powerful blueprint. Emerging from prison, Mandela confronted the nation’s painful history with sober honesty. His vision of reconciliation didn’t gloss over atrocities but sought to unite both victims and perpetrators under a shared future. His authenticity and empathy helped forge a new path for the country.

Some leaders may argue that achieving results requires force and urgency. However, true inspiration cannot be compelled. To galvanize others toward a bold new future, leaders must address the past openly, demonstrate empathy, and rebuild trust. Only then can they rally people to make the sacrifices needed for transformative change.

Some companies that survived the pandemic now tout extreme agility as their superpower. But is this a sustainable approach? According to Jeff Bezos of Amazon, the answer may lie in focusing on what hasn’t changed, even amid turmoil.

The Agility Debate

Critics of long-term strategic thinking argue that it stifles flexibility. They believe leaders must prioritize adaptability, mastering the art of the pivot to stay afloat.

Adherents to this philosophy often chase short-term gains, juggling endless opportunities and quick fixes. Unfortunately, this leaves little room for deep reflection or meaningful answers to big questions. The result? A constant state of urgency that might, ironically, hinder growth.

Is this short-sighted?

Emergencies do demand immediate action, but the adrenaline rush of reactive leadership can become addictive. Could this obsession with rapid responses undermine long-term success?

Here’s Bezos’s take:

“I very frequently get the question: ‘What’s going to change in the next 10 years?’ And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one. I almost never get the question: ‘What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?’ And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two.”

In other words, lasting success comes from building a strategy around stability rather than unpredictability.

Anchoring to Customer Needs

Tony Ulwick offers a framework to understand stability through unmet needs, which drive people to take purposeful action—what he calls “Jobs to Be Done” (JTBD).

For example, before hamburgers became the most popular fast food, other regional choices like hot dogs, tacos, fish and chips and noodles dominated as go-to quick meals. Today, there’s a broad menu of options, but the underlying job remains the same: satisfying immediate hunger with a fast, affordable solution.

This stability extends to other industries. A trendy restaurant might offer an innovative menu, but it still relies on timeless needs—good food, quick service, and affordability.

Yet, when disruptions arise, some leaders lose sight of these enduring truths. Consider a cafe owner, struggling with sales, who decides to sell branded apparel alongside lunch. Such zigzag responses might miss the mark entirely.

Instead, here’s a better way forward:

1. Acknowledge unmet needs and JTBDs remain constant.
2. Identify how disruptions are creating new obstacles for customers.
3. Diagnose opportunities to remove those obstacles.
4. Act swiftly before competitors do.

Take, for instance, many countries’ ongoing ATM crisis. As banks close branches to cut costs, customers face immense frustration over fewer functional ATMs. Despite this glaring issue, few financial institution have stepped in with viable solutions.

As the holiday season amplifies the problem, even the central banks have expressed concern. A bank that truly understood its customers’ JTBDs—secure and convenient access to cash—could innovate and dominate.

Why hasn’t this happened?

The Missing Emotional Connection

Some public-sector professionals demonstrate genuine passion for serving citizens. Their enthusiasm helps them deeply understand and empathize with people’s needs. They aren’t just doing a job—they’re solving problems they care about.

In contrast, private-sector leaders often lack this emotional connection. Their focus tends to be transactional, driven by profits. Customers’ needs become tools for financial gain, not ends in themselves.

This mindset falls short.

If leaders could develop a deeper empathy for customers’ challenges, they’d unlock a surprising source of competitive advantage. This applies across sectors, including non-profits and government organizations, where relevance remains crucial for funding and support.

Disruptions, rather than being excuses for frantic pivots, can become opportunities to reconnect with core customer needs. By anchoring your organization to JTBDs, you can stand out meaningfully.

Winning the Long Game

When leaders embrace stability over chaos, they discover depth rather than desperation. Customers notice, and their loyalty follows.

As Bezos reminds us, long-term success doesn’t come from guessing what will change but from staying true to what won’t. Build on this foundation, and you’ll always have a winning strategy.

---

Intrigued? Take a moment to visit my long-form content, in text, audio and video. Click here: https://longtermstrategy.info

Studies consistently show that most strategic plans fall short.

The reasons are varied, but a common mistake stands out: teams often assume they understand “strategic” planning, only to end up misguided, compromising their organizations’ success. Often, what they call a “strategic plan” lacks real strategic thought.

How Missteps Occur

If you’ve ever reviewed a company’s strategic plan, you’ve likely seen a list of ambitious goals. They may be grouped in catchy ways, but as you read through, doubts surface. Why?

You sense the organization may lack the resources or focus to achieve all these objectives simultaneously. The longer the list, the more you suspect it may be abandoned when daily issues arise, with lofty goals slipping out of view.

Redefining “Strategic”

One way to prevent this common pitfall is to rethink how we use the term “strategic.” Today, the label “strategic” is often used casually to signal importance, so much so that it’s lost its impact, and audiences tune it out. This isn’t just a communication issue. When teams invest time in a strategic retreat, they expect the final plan to be truly strategic, yet often that’s not the case.

Typical brainstorming sessions encourage a mix of ideas and positive intentions without much structure. The result is often an extensive report of hopeful outcomes, which can look similar to other plans within the industry—ultimately, another reason for failure.

Enter the Strategy Triad

Peter Compo’s book *The Emergent Strategy* introduces a helpful redefinition of “strategic” by proposing a triad approach:

1. Aspiration: A meaningful, challenging goal that requires effort and won’t happen automatically.

2. Bottleneck: The main obstacle preventing the organization from achieving its aspiration(s).

3. Guiding Principle: A decision-making rule to help navigate actions that address the bottleneck.

Consider a store aiming to increase profits. If the biggest bottleneck is low brand recognition, the guiding principle could be to improve brand awareness through multiple channels—online, in-store, and through partnerships.

Applying the Strategy Triad

At a recent strategic planning retreat, a leadership team was challenged to apply the triad. Initially, it was difficult; identifying bottlenecks from new perspectives required collaboration and creativity, especially without cross-functional data, which led them to rely on firsthand experiences. Yet, they successfully defined bottlenecks and guiding principles that empowered employees to align their daily choices with the strategic plan. This alignment is what leaders want but is often rare.

Why Alignment is Rare

Leadership teams often avoid the challenging, healthy conflict required to build a robust strategy triad. They may take the easier path, creating lists of goals rather than diving into critical strategic planning. Alternatively, when discussions become too heated, leaders may intervene prematurely, cutting off debate and limiting essential buy-in.

To achieve meaningful alignment, it’s important to work through differing viewpoints until agreement is reached. Though challenging, this process builds the intellectual and emotional commitment needed for successful execution. By persevering through difficult conversations, leaders can significantly improve their strategic plans’ success and longevity.

---

Francis Wade | Not everything is strategic | Business | Jamaica Gleaner