And how one Jamaican leader used scientific thinking to crack a problem everyone else had given up on

Ask most CEOs about their strategic plan and you’ll hear about vision statements, multi-year roadmaps, and quarterly KPIs. What you won’t hear is the one thing that actually matters: What do we believe has to be true for this to work?

That missing question—the absence of a testable hypothesis—is why most strategic plans gather dust while organizations spin their wheels solving the same problems year after year.

Dianne McIntosh and Jamaica’s Citizens Security Secretariat (CSS) discovered this the hard way. Their story reveals how treating strategy like a scientific experiment—not a sacred document—can unlock progress that seemed impossible.

The Problem with Most Strategic Plans

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: calling something a “strategic plan” doesn’t make it strategic.

Most planning exercises produce elaborate action lists. Deploy new technology. Improve customer service. Expand into new markets. These aren’t strategies-they’re activities. And activities without an underlying theory about why they’ll work are just expensive guesses dressed up in PowerPoint.

Real strategy requires what Dr. Peter Compo describes as a central rule: a single guiding choice that directly addresses the system’s bottleneck—the critical constraint standing between you and your aspiration. A true strategy is not a laundry list of initiatives but a clear, testable bet about how overcoming that bottleneck will unlock progress. The central rule can then be tested, adapted, or abandoned as evidence accumulates.

Why don’t more leaders think this way? Because genuine strategic thinking is genuinely hard. It demands:

• Making peace with incomplete information
• Committing to multi-year time horizons
• Accepting you might be wrong
• Following evidence even when it contradicts your initial beliefs

Most executives understandably retreat to the comfort of detailed plans and busy work. At least that feels like progress.

When Reality Breaks Your Beautiful Plan

When Jamaica formed the CSS to tackle violent crime, they followed the standard playbook: multi-sectoral coordination, justice reform, community programs. Their flagship initiative? Train 99,000 parents of at-risk youth through the Parenting Commission.

It was comprehensive. It was ambitious. It was wrong.

The program failed spectacularly, before collapsing under the weight of insufficient capacity and entrenched behavioral patterns. The target was fantasy, not strategy.

This is where most organizations double down on the original plan or blame “execution failures.” The CSS did something different: they admitted their hypothesis was flawed and went looking for a better one.

The Question That Changed Everything

Tony Anderson, then Commissioner of Police, posed a challenge that redirected their entire approach: “When are you going to do something about the few schools producing most of our criminals?”

That question sent McIntosh’s team into Jamaica’s education data for the first time. What they found confirmed Anderson’s instinct—but revealed something far more important.

The data exposed the bottleneck: children leaving primary school reading at Grade Two level, many traumatized, seeking achievement and belonging in criminal gangs instead of classrooms.

This wasn’t about parenting programs. The constraint was literacy and unaddressed trauma in the education system itself.

Suddenly, the CSS had a testable hypothesis: If we close learning gaps and treat trauma in vulnerable schools, we can predictably reduce the pipeline of youth into criminality.

That’s a hypothesis you can build experiments around. That’s a hypothesis that points to specific interventions. That’s a hypothesis that, if wrong, tells you exactly where your assumptions broke down.

The Scientific Approach to Strategy

The CSS’ turnaround demonstrates a replicable four-step process:

First: Treat Your Plan as a Temporary Hypothesis

Stop calling it “the strategy” and start calling it “our current best guess.” The CSS abandoned their parenting program quickly because they viewed it as a testable assumption, not a political commitment. This requires intellectual humility—and organizational culture that rewards learning over face-saving.

Second: Let Data Reveal the True Constraint

The CSS didn’t commission a new consulting study. They analyzed existing school inspection reports and educational outcomes data. The constraint revealed itself: students trapped in learning failure, falling further behind each year.

Theory of Constraints teaches that every system has one primary bottleneck limiting performance. Your job isn’t solving every problem—it’s identifying which constraint actually matters, then exploiting it relentlessly.

Third: Build a Cause-Effect Model You Can Measure

The CSS formalized their new hypothesis as the Inter-Ministerial School Support Strategy (IMSSS). Success became concrete: move a child from Grade One to Grade Four reading level in ten weeks.

This shift is critical. Unlike short-term police operations that yield immediate metrics, social development requires years to show results. But intermediate indicators—reading level improvements, trauma treatment completion—let you track whether your hypothesis is working long before final outcomes appear.

You’re not waiting five years to discover you were wrong. You’re testing assumptions continuously.

Fourth: Institutionalize the Learning Process

Borrowing from Tony Blair’s UK government, the CSS established itself as a delivery coordination center—managing the “science of delivery” across multiple ministries.

Why does this matter? Because one-off experiments don’t create lasting capability. You need institutional mechanisms that turn hypothesis testing into organizational DNA.

Does Your Plan Have a Hypothesis?

Most strategic documents hide their assumptions rather than stating them explicitly. You can fix this today with a simple diagnostic.

Take your current strategic plan and ask an AI to analyze it using these prompts:

1. What’s our stated long-term objective?
2. What are our top five proposed actions?
3. What cause-and-effect chain connects these actions to that objective? (State it explicitly: “We believe X leads to Y because of Z”)
4. What’s the implicit hypothesis? (“The constraint preventing our success is…”)
5. Are these actions surgical interventions testing our hypothesis—or just business-as-usual activities we hope will help?
6. Can you state our central strategic hypothesis in one clear, testable sentence?

If the AI can’t find a clear hypothesis, neither can your team. You’re operating on hope, not strategy.

The Ultimate Test

After running this analysis, ask yourself one question McIntosh would recognize:

“If we executed this plan perfectly and still failed to achieve our goals, would we know exactly which assumption was wrong?”

If you can’t answer “yes”—if you can’t pinpoint the specific cause-effect belief that would be disproven—then you don’t have a strategic hypothesis. You have a prayer disguised as a plan.

But if you can articulate what would have to be true, what evidence would prove you wrong, and what you’d learn from failure—then you’re thinking scientifically.

The CSS didn’t contribute to reducing Jamaica’s violent crime by 40% through willpower or resources. They did it by treating strategy as science: form a hypothesis, design experiments, follow the evidence, adjust ruthlessly.

Your constraints are different. Your bottleneck isn’t literacy or trauma. But your challenge is identical: stop planning and start hypothesizing.

The evidence is waiting to tell you what’s actually true. The only question is whether you’re ready to listen.

---

This article is based on my recent Jamaica Gleaner column.

Imagine you lead a government ministry, department, or agency. As you approach the season for submitting annual reports and corporate plans, you realize something is missing. The very reason you entered public service is being lost in paperwork.

This challenge isn’t unique to any single country—it’s a global phenomenon affecting government leaders worldwide, whether they’re working within established national development frameworks or considering creating one.

A Case Study in National Vision: Jamaica’s Experience

To understand this dynamic, consider Jamaica’s Vision 2030—one of the world’s most comprehensive national development plans. For over 16 years, more than one hundred government organizations have submitted detailed annual plans to parent ministries, creating a rigorous process that private sector executives often admire. It represents a remarkable achievement in sustained strategic execution.

Dr. Wesley Hughes, the plan’s architect, originally envisioned something transformational. In his forward to the Vision 2030 document, he wrote: “Today, our children have access to technologies that were once considered science fiction. They seek opportunities to realize their full potential. This Plan is to ensure that, as a society, we do not fail them.”

Hughes continued: “We have a duty to ourselves, to the sacrifices of past generations and to the hopes of future generations, to preserve the best of our country and to transform the worst. The outcome in 2030 is dependent on the decisions we make today.”

However, as insiders know, even the most well-intentioned national frameworks can become sources of bureaucratic dread rather than inspiration. How does this happen, and what can leaders worldwide learn from this experience?

The National Vision Compliance Trap

The primary problem—whether in Jamaica or any country with strategic planning processes—is that organizations typically complete their internal plans before “aligning” them with the national vision. Compliance checking becomes the final step rather than the foundational starting point.

This approach is fundamentally backwards, like deciding to travel somewhere before determining why the journey matters.

Consequently, civil servants feel constrained rather than inspired by their national development framework. For countries without established national plans, this offers a crucial lesson: the implementation process matters as much as the vision itself.

Universal Principles for Government Leaders

Whether you’re operating within an existing national framework or considering developing one, the solution involves reclaiming strategic voice through fundamental questions:

“What does our country need from this organization to accomplish our national vision?”

“What game-changing outcomes aren’t explicitly captured in current planning but have become critical?”

“What goals should influence the next (or first) iteration of national planning?”

Reconnect with Original Purpose

Study Dr. Hughes’ approach as a model. He didn’t create Vision 2030 as bureaucratic compliance exercise—he crafted it as a covenant with future generations. Government leaders worldwide can apply this principle by:

• Returning staff to the original purpose behind strategic frameworks
• Connecting teams with the deeper reasons they joined public service
• Making inspirational founding documents part of organizational culture
• Recognizing that most public servants want to accomplish more than mere survival

From Following to Leading: The Jamaica Model and Beyond

Jamaica’s experience offers both cautionary tale and opportunity. The country now stands at a unique inflection point—with remaining years in the Vision 2030 timeline that could become its finest contribution to national development.

This mirrors a broader truth: research shows humans overestimate short-term potential while underestimating long-term possibilities. Strategic initiatives often build momentum gradually, achieving exponential impact toward their timeline’s end.

For countries without national development plans, Jamaica’s experience suggests several critical design principles:

• Start with inspirational purpose, not compliance requirements, and convert these into frequent practices.
• Build implementation processes that energize rather than drain participants.
• Create feedback loops that celebrate progress toward transformational goals.
• Design planning cycles that connect daily work to generational impact.

The Global Leadership Choice

Whether you’re working within Jamaica’s Vision 2030, another country’s national framework, or considering developing strategic planning processes, the fundamental choice remains the same.

The question isn’t whether you have authority to lead transformational change—you do. The question is whether you have courage to use it.

Right now, government leaders across the globe face this choice. Will you spend your tenure perfecting compliance reports? Or will you use strategic planning as foundation for breakthrough leadership?

Dr. Hughes designed Vision 2030 to prevent society from failing its children. His vision applies universally: every government leader has opportunity to ensure their work serves future generations rather than mere bureaucratic efficiency.

Lessons for Countries Without National Plans

Jamaica’s experience offers valuable insights for nations considering comprehensive strategic planning:

1. Start with inspirational architecture like Hughes created—connect planning to generational responsibility.
2. Design implementation processes that inspire rather than constrain participants.
3. Build momentum systems that recognize long-term strategic initiatives often achieve greatest impact at timeline’s end.
4. Create cultural integration that makes strategic thinking part of daily organizational life.

History won’t remember executives who filed the most thorough paperwork. It will remember those who transformed their area of responsibility when game-changing leadership mattered most.

The choice, and the legacy, are yours—whether you’re building on Jamaica’s model or creating your own path toward national transformation.

As a leader, you recognize the importance of inspiring your team with a compelling vision. Yet, you may find that your company’s vision statement, despite its lofty aspirations, fails to inspire meaningful change. How can you craft and communicate a future that genuinely motivates your team to take action?

The Challenge of an Inherited Vision Statement

Imagine you’re a newly promoted CEO. Among the many responsibilities you’ve inherited is a vision statement. While it might look passable on paper, it has yet to inspire you, let alone your team, to embrace new behaviors or think differently.

It’s not that you lack vision yourself—after all, your success is built on envisioning possibilities and pursuing them. But translating that personal energy into an organizational vision that resonates with others is a different challenge altogether. Should you simply rewrite the vision statement, or is there a better way to achieve meaningful impact?

Here’s a fresh approach to this age-old leadership dilemma.

Understanding How Vision Truly Works

A powerful vision fundamentally transforms how we experience the present. Think about the difference between a Friday afternoon in the office and a Sunday afternoon. The former often feels better—not because of the immediate circumstances but because of our anticipation of the weekend. This sense of future anticipation changes how we perceive the present moment.

That’s the kind of shift you want to inspire in your stakeholders. You want them to feel energized by the future you’re describing, just as you are. The hallmark of success is when individuals take initiative, make sacrifices, and go beyond their job descriptions—not because they’re told to, but because they’re inspired to.

But here’s the hard truth: a traditional vision statement alone cannot deliver this kind of transformative impact.

Rethinking Vision: Introducing the Three Levels

Most organizations begin with what can be termed a “Level 1 Vision”: a concise, polished statement, often a few sentences or paragraphs, that attempts to summarize the future. However, these statements are frequently vague, generic, and uninspiring. They might sound nice but leave people either indifferent or skeptical. Some may even feel the statement describes what the organization has already achieved, rendering it irrelevant.

A better approach is to think of the Level 1 Vision as just the “headline” of a more detailed vision framework. Here’s how to expand it.

Building a Level 2 Vision

To create a meaningful vision at this level, gather your leadership team for an offsite retreat and focus on a specific long-term horizon—typically 15 to 30 years in the future. Work together to describe a vivid picture of what success looks like at that time. This Level 2 Vision goes beyond a brief statement; it provides several pages of detail, potentially including visuals, videos, or other media to bring the future to life.

The key here is collaboration. By involving your leadership team, you not only create a shared sense of ownership but also tap into a wider pool of creativity and ambition. A well-crafted Level 2 Vision should reflect the aspirations of your entire C-suite, energizing everyone involved.

However, many organizations stop at this stage. While the Level 2 Vision is more compelling than a simple statement, it often becomes an overwhelming list of aspirations. Without prioritization (and reduction), it risks becoming unrealistic, leading to cynicism rather than inspiration. Some employees may even dismiss it as “the CEO’s wish list.”

To avoid this pitfall, you must take the next step.

Evolving to a Level 3 Vision

The “Level 3 Vision” transforms lofty aspirations into a credible, actionable plan. This involves narrowing down the vision to a focused set of achievable targets supported by a strategic roadmap.

This process requires tough conversations. Your leadership team will need to negotiate priorities, confront trade-offs, and align on a clear path forward. Engaging a skilled facilitator can help ensure these discussions are productive and lead to consensus.

The outcome is a vision that stands apart from your competitors. A Level 3 Vision includes:

– Specific, measurable results: Clearly defined goals with tangible metrics.

– Milestones: Key achievements along the journey to the ultimate vision.

– A strategic pathway: A roadmap showing how to get from the present to the desired future.

– Team alignment: Full buy-in from your leadership team, ensuring commitment to execution.

With this, your vision evolves from an abstract dream into a realistic plan that inspires action.

Communicating Across the Three Levels

Once your Level 3 Vision is established, it’s crucial to communicate it effectively. Each level of vision—Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3—has a role to play depending on your audience and context.

For example, a Level 1 Vision offers a concise, memorable summary. Think of Vision 2030 Jamaica’s tagline: “…the place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business.” It’s short, evocative, and easy to recall.

A Level 2 Vision, on the other hand, provides more depth. Vision 2030 Jamaica expands on its tagline with four National Goals and 15 Outcomes, offering stakeholders a richer understanding of the country’s aspirations.

Finally, a Level 3 Vision delivers the detailed roadmap necessary to ensure credibility and guide execution.

By mastering these three levels, you can tailor your communication to inspire stakeholders while maintaining clarity and focus. Avoid the mistake of using the wrong level for the audience or situation, which can lead to confusion or disengagement.

Conclusion

Transforming vision statements into actionable, inspiring frameworks requires more than polished language. By embracing a three-level approach, you can align your team, inspire stakeholders, and chart a credible path to the future. Choose the right level of vision for the right moment, and you’ll not only communicate your aspirations—you’ll make them a reality.

Imagine you’ve joined a board, only to discover it’s deeply mediocre. This is your third meeting, and it’s becoming clear that the issues you sensed in the first two weren’t incidental—they’re ongoing. How do you address this underperformance?

Luckily, you aren’t the only one who’s noticed. Some members recognize that long-standing issues have held the board back for years, and while they’ve tried initiating change, nothing has stuck. These are complex, systemic challenges that won’t be resolved by casual discussions, pep talks, or a thoughtful email. Swift, strategic action is needed. But how?

I recently encountered insights from consultant A. Cecile Watson that shed light on why boards need their own strategic approach. Her perspective inspires these key reasons for why your board must implement a self-care plan.

Why Boards Should Prioritize Self-Examination

Boards are often envisioned as serving the organization’s needs. If all members align with this vision, things should function smoothly. Small differences can be ironed out, much like in the “Form-Storm-Norm-Perform” teamwork model, which illustrates the stages groups move through to achieve high performance.

However, boards today face a high-pressure environment, dealing with complex VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) issues from the outset. While they might receive briefings, individual and group development often gets overlooked in the rush to deliver.

This traditional expectation—that boards serve swiftly, even if under-informed—faces scrutiny in Watson’s latest article. She argues that boards must practice self-reflection and strategy if they’re to excel. Smart people on a board don’t guarantee a high group IQ or EQ; in fact, group performance can suffer if proactive measures aren’t in place.

What does your board need? A new level of self-care. Watson suggests that boards operate as a kind of strategic unit, managing their performance preemptively. Failing to do so only perpetuates mediocrity.

The Case for Board Self-Strategy

Typically, boards focus on “strategic planning” for their organization’s future. Watson’s approach takes this one step further: boards must also strategize for themselves. As a unit, they need the space to address their own evolution.

This doesn’t mean ignoring corporate planning. In fact, I’ve previously recommended that board members actively engage in their organization’s strategic retreats, where they contribute to shaping long-term goals.

Yet, once these retreats end, some boards must adapt as well. For instance, one board I worked with chose to refresh its membership, reducing both the average age and tenure of its members to bring new perspectives aligned with the strategic plan.

In another case, a board had grown complacent. Members showed up sporadically, often unprepared. This lack of accountability permeated the organization, undermining its standards and culture.

Unfortunately, board evaluations alone rarely spark transformation. Instead, Watson advocates for a written Board Strategy, a guiding document that steers the board’s actions.

Creating a Strategy for the Board

Watson advises boards to define a vision for themselves and set measurable milestones to ensure the plan stays on course. While this may sound overwhelming for already busy board members, it’s ultimately about cultivating the right mindset, not rigidly following a checklist.

Adopting these principles can help your board become resilient, better equipped to navigate future challenges, and able to avoid the slow slide into mediocrity that affects many corporate teams.

---

Enjoying this short post? Consider joining the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy and Podcast, full of long-form content on game-changing strategic planning.

This post was based on an article published in the Jamaica Gleaner.

If you’re part of a large public-sector organization or a multi-divisional private company, you probably operate within a framework of a “master plan.” This overarching strategy is meant to guide your organization towards its long-term objectives. Yet, despite the hard work, key milestones and targets may still be missed. How can you ensure that your organization achieves significant, measurable results?

In the case of Jamaica’s Vision 2030, the top priorities are clear: establishing Jamaica as a preferred place to live, driving economic growth, and reducing crime. These priorities are fundamental components of Jamaica’s strategic vision. But despite progress in some areas, many still feel that these indicators have not improved significantly at the ground level.

There’s still time to make headway, but achieving these goals before 2031 begins requires overcoming fundamental obstacles. These objectives are ambitious because they necessitate collaboration across various Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), each of which was structured during a time when objectives were simpler and more siloed. Bridging these organizational gaps is challenging, but a new approach to master planning offers a pathway forward.

Master Planning in a New Context

The concept of “master planning” dates back to urban development projects of the 1950s, where the goal was to unite stakeholders from diverse fields to create a shared, long-term vision. This vision might span 10, 20, or even 50 years. Once the overarching vision was clear, cross-functional teams could then develop actionable plans—short, mid, and long-term projects that would turn vision into reality.

In recent years, however, master planning has evolved, often influenced by external consultants. These outsiders offer a streamlined approach, claiming that their expertise and global experience can produce superior plans. In practice, consultants often interview key stakeholders, gather perspectives, and compile these into a comprehensive document. While the final report may appear impressive, it often amounts to little more than a wishlist, lacking the practical decisions and prioritization needed to move from strategy to execution.

This brings us to a crucial insight: effective master planning cannot be outsourced. Instead, it must come from within, led by the organization’s own top leadership. Consultants can provide guidance and support, but the real work—deciding which projects to pursue, setting timelines, and allocating budgets—must be done by those who are most committed to the organization’s success.

Master Planning on Steroids: A Bold New Approach

Dwight D. Eisenhower famously said, “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” The real power of master planning lies not in the document itself, but in the process of bringing leaders together to make tough decisions. This is the core of what we might call “Master Planning on Steroids.”

This approach is not about generating a long list of aspirational goals. Instead, it requires assembling the organization’s top leaders, putting them in a room with the data, and challenging them to make hard choices together. Rather than outsourcing difficult decisions to consultants, the organization’s key stakeholders must confront these choices head-on, weighing priorities and making the necessary trade-offs.

The reality is that this kind of intense, collaborative planning can be emotionally and mentally taxing. However, it’s essential. Consultants might create polished reports with recommendations for “more capacity” or “enhanced resources,” but these generalized solutions often sidestep the most crucial decisions. In contrast, Master Planning on Steroids forces leaders to reach consensus on specific projects, resources, and timelines.

An important advantage of this approach is its immediate applicability. Because the leaders are already aligned on priorities and resources, implementation can begin as soon as the plan is finalized. This prevents the usual delays associated with lengthy approval processes and keeps momentum alive.

Implementing a Master Plan with Staying Power

In the public sector, maintaining momentum on strategic initiatives can be particularly challenging. Political changes, reorganization within ministries, or disruptions like pandemics can derail even the most well-laid plans. Therefore, Master Planning on Steroids is as much about change management as it is about strategy.

For example, a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in Jamaica would require collaboration across several ministries, including National Security, Education, and Social Security. By using a backcasting approach—starting with the desired future outcomes and working backward to the present—leaders can outline clear, actionable projects with defined timelines, budgets, and resource allocations. This approach also includes identifying existing initiatives that may need to be discontinued to make room for higher-priority projects.

Achieving buy-in from all stakeholders is critical. When leaders are involved in the decision-making process, they are more likely to be committed to the plan’s success. Difficult, face-to-face discussions among peers foster a sense of ownership that cannot be created through an outsourced report. This ownership is crucial for ensuring that leaders do not just implement the plan, but champion it.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

Another key outcome of Master Planning on Steroids is the establishment of a culture of accountability. When leaders are deeply involved in setting priorities and making trade-offs, they are more likely to feel personally responsible for the plan’s success. This sense of responsibility drives them to monitor progress closely and make adjustments as needed, ensuring that the plan remains relevant and effective even as circumstances change.

In the end, a Master Plan on Steroids may not be bigger in terms of aspirations. Its strength lies in its grounded, actionable nature, which is far more likely to yield tangible results. Leaders who engage in this process are not just following a blueprint—they are creating a path forward that they are fully committed to pursuing.

A Roadmap to Remarkable Results

For any large organization, especially in the public sector, achieving breakthrough results requires more than a list of goals. It demands a disciplined, hands-on approach that prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and adaptability. Master Planning on Steroids provides this framework, turning strategy into action and vision into reality.

Imagine: You are a newly minted executive in a strategic planning project and notice that a single, strong person is hijacking the process. They are intelligent, but should you be relieved, or dismayed, as they take over?

Backstory: Ever since your promotion to the C-Suite, you have eagerly anticipated your inaugural corporate planning retreat. Why? This should be the place where the most realistic, impactful discussions occur.

However, near the beginning of the workshop, everyone seems to be holding back. Then, all of a sudden, the CEO, Chair or even a hired consultant announces: “I have already figured this out.”

Unfortunately, the rest of the meeting slips into a power struggle as the hijacker attempts to persuade participants that no further deliberations are necessary. Why? He’s already given the right answer. Should you resist?

Consider that even if his reasoning is brilliant, you are now caught in a fake retreat. Here’s why.

1. Key Inputs Are Being Ignored

Contemplate these classic matchups:

• Kodak vs. FujiFilm
• Blackberry or Nokia vs. iPhone
• Cable and Wireless Mobile vs. Digicel

In each competition, opposing companies prepared rival strategic plans. Today, many years later, we know that the plans on the left were failures.

From years of experience I can attest: it takes a supreme team effort to produce a plan on the right. In other words, these pre-emptive, long-term, game-changing efforts are not dreamt up by single actors.

Instead, given our complex world, they require the combined insights of subject matter experts from all parts of your company. In a strategy discussion, they bring data only they can understand.

The “strong” person who thinks today’s problems are simple is wrong. Therefore, for the sake of the organisation’s future, you must be prepared to make this point whenever your retreat slips into a one-man show. But that’s only a single way it can happen.

Another is via stonewalling. A CEO begs her team to engage in fruitful discussion, only to be met with dead silence. Her colleagues are being cautious, lazy or selfish. She’s forced to jump in to fill the gap.

Don’t let this unhappy outcome occur, either. Prepare your entire team, including the leader, for an interactive offsite beforehand.

2. The Most Consequential Discussions are Avoided

After a few months’ study, a new chairman has decided he has already mastered the top issues. During a retreat, he presents his agenda of topics to be discussed, selling his point of view convincingly.

However, the conversation takes a left turn. New data emerges, and the discussion heads in a direction he never anticipated. To respond, he tries to get things “back on track” but the energy has shifted. In his official role as chair, he gavels the discussion to order, using Robert’s Rules.

A revolt breaks out. Participants are convinced there is no greater priority than the current issue being discussed. Some become incensed, ready to walk out. They argue, “If this topic isn’t of strategic importance, then nothing is.”

Unfortunately, the chair is stuck following a bad process. He doesn’t understand that he’s undermining the freedom participants need to explore hard-to-appreciate problems. Without it, he’s turned a strategic planning opportunity into the wrong kind of struggle.

But what’s the right kind? If the team can focus on the hardest challenges, it could achieve the breakthrough their situation requires. However, he’d have to abandon his preset picture of success and go along with the flow.

3. Lack of Ownership

Ultimately, a strategic plan which fails in the above two ways will fall apart in implementation. Why? The plan won’t have the true buy-in of those who attended.

It’s a paradox. When you allow an open, messy discussion, you authorise those involved to own the outcome.

Furthermore, they’ll commit to more than you imagined, simply because you have allowed a group dynamic to build. Now they are ready for disruptive, breakthrough solutions even if it involves a personal sacrifice. They are a team.

The best approach requires your use of neutral facilitators, sourced from either inside or outside. They’ll balance the inevitable tussles a workshop is intended to stir up. It’s easier for them to do so because they don’t have a pre-set agenda.

What kind of result should they be trying to produce? Full, engaged accountability and a plan which has a high likelihood of being game-changing.

But don’t follow this advice for a “placeholder” retreat intended to preserve status quo thinking. While it will ruffle feathers, you can expect the above formula to generate superlative results.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.