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.

As a proponent of long-term thinking in your company, you’ve likely encountered resistance. You may feel isolated, struggling to articulate the value of strategic foresight to colleagues focused on immediate concerns. This guide aims to provide you with a framework to effectively communicate the importance of long-term strategic planning (LTSP) and engage others in this crucial mindset.

The Challenge of Long-Term Thinking

You’ve probably experienced this scenario: In a meeting, you highlight a future your colleagues can’t see. The potential long-term consequences seem obvious to you. Unfortunately, your team, preoccupied with urgent problems, lacks the energy to consider your strategic viewpoint. They opt for the quick satisfaction of immediate resolutions.

Afterwards, you realize that fundamental issues remain unaddressed. It feels like you’re only discussing surface-level solutions without questioning the underlying approach.

If this resonates with you, you’re not alone. Many forward-thinking professionals struggle to convey the importance of LTSP. But there’s a way to bridge this gap and bring others into long-term thinking: the Three Horizons Framework by Curry, Hodgson and Sharpe.

Horizon 1: Understanding the Decay of Current Offerings

Every organization provides value through its products or services. However, it’s crucial to recognize that these offerings have a limited lifespan. Each day brings you closer to the point where your current solutions become obsolete.

Consider the photography industry. Until the 2000s, companies like Kodak and Fuji thrived selling film. Today, the average consumer has no interest in this product.

This decay in demand is a universal truth in business, illustrated by the following curve:

The key question is: How long will your current strategic fit last?

As an LTSP advocate, you’ve likely considered this. Now, you have a visual representation to share with your colleagues, helping them grasp this concept more easily.

Horizon 3: Recognizing Future Opportunities

While managing current operations is crucial, it’s equally important to look for signs of future trends. These “faint signals” can be found in emerging technologies, evolving customer needs, new regulations, environmental changes, and various other areas.

By paying attention to these signals, your team can craft narratives about potential futures. This foresight defines the third horizon:

Many companies overlook these disruptors by failing to plan far enough ahead. As an LTSP proponent, you can encourage your team to do more than passively observe these changes. Instead, position your organization to influence and shape these future scenarios.

Horizon 2: Bridging Present and Future

To transition from current offerings to future opportunities, your organization needs a bridge – this is Horizon 2:

These are initiatives that may not represent your ultimate vision but serve as stepping stones towards it. Developing these transition strategies is best done in strategic planning retreats, where all departments can contribute their insights.

Integrating the Three Horizons

When effectively implemented, the Three Horizons Framework allows your organization to manage current operations, develop transition strategies, and prepare for future scenarios simultaneously:

This integrated approach demonstrates how long-term imperatives can and should inform immediate actions.

Conclusion: Empowering Long-Term Strategic Planning

By using the Three Horizons Framework, you now have a powerful tool to illustrate the importance of long-term thinking to your colleagues. This approach allows you to:

1. Visually represent the lifecycle of current offerings

2. Highlight the importance of future-focused initiatives

3. Demonstrate how to bridge present operations with future opportunities

4. Show how all these elements work together in a cohesive strategy

Remember, you’re not alone in advocating for LTSP. Many successful organizations embrace this approach, recognizing that preparation for the future is key to long-term success.

Use this framework to spark meaningful discussions about your company’s future. By doing so, you’re not just planning for tomorrow – you’re shaping it.

Thinking Big and Going Long

As a corporate or national leader, you’re deeply concerned about the future of your enterprise or country. But you may notice something is missing—a sense of shared hope and engagement. You ask yourself, “Why?”

The last time many Jamaicans felt truly hopeful about the future was around 1962, just before independence. I wasn’t born then, but elders recall the power of that moment: a future brimming with promise.

Before independence, leaders like Marcus Garvey, Sam Sharpe, and Norman Manley courageously articulated a vision for Jamaica. They took these stands, despite knowing they wouldn’t see the outcomes in their lifetime, or even in the coming decades. We revere them because they made unselfish sacrifices for the greater good, even when the odds were against them.

Today, we long for leaders with similar clarity and conviction—those not swayed by greed, political gain, or self-interest. Instead, we’ve grown accustomed to pointing fingers; for many, leadership has become synonymous with corruption. Ironically, however, even flawed leaders can still “think big and go long.” They can look to our National Heroes as models. So, where can they start?

Understanding What Really Motivates People

Humans are creatures of imagination, and our motivation is deeply influenced by our vision of the future. This imagined future shapes our experience both now and in the long run.

Take, for example, the motivation of new employees. Initially, they’re excited. Over time, however, as they encounter challenges and setbacks, their enthusiasm fades. In environments that are merely transactional—where work is treated as nothing more than an exchange for money—this disillusionment runs deep.

Today’s younger employees, especially Gen Z, are making it clear: “That’s not enough.” They demand engagement that’s driven by purpose. To meet these expectations, leaders must do two things: think big and go long.

Thinking Big and Going Long

Most leaders don’t genuinely think big or long. They may talk about game-changing goals, but they only want results within the fiscal year, their CEO term, or before the next IPO or election. In the past, this approach might have worked.

But today, employees, customers, and citizens are quick to recognize shallow promises. In a world flooded with “Buy Now!” messages, people have learned to ignore hollow pitches and easy promises. Leaders who try to “sell” people on short-term impossibilities come across as self-serving, and the result is widespread contempt.

The essential truth? “Thinking big” requires “going long” at the same time. For example, Richard Williams developed a 25-year tennis plan for his daughters, Venus and Serena, long before they were born. GraceKennedy did something similar with its 2020 Vision.

Contrast this with the cautionary tales on the CompanyMan YouTube channel, where the creator explores the decline of companies like K-Mart and Nokia. Each story illustrates the dangers of short-term thinking—loss of market share, plummeting shareholder value, and mass layoffs.

These same mistakes happen on a national scale as well. Right now, around 30-40 national plans worldwide—like Vision 2030 Jamaica and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals—are nearing their deadlines, and many are off track.

However, modern employees want more than just their leaders’ long-term thinking and big goals.

Freeing People from Past Disappointments

You may notice that even when there’s good news, some employees stay stuck in cynicism. Previous disappointments have hardened their outlook, making it difficult for them to feel optimistic.

One way to address this is through radical truth-telling. For example, I visited South Africa during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in the 1990s. The broadcasted testimonies were harrowing, recounting torture and murder. I could only watch in short bursts.

But the principle was powerful. Truth-telling can be liberating. In our case, the forward of Vision 2030 Jamaica, written 15 years ago, put it bluntly:

> “Partly due to our neglect of long-term issues, our nation has suffered from a number of inadequacies… Previous planning efforts floundered… Jamaicans have expressed a clear wish to break out of this vicious cycle of low performance and build a quality society.”

When organizations or nations engage in these difficult, honest conversations, they show that a troubled past doesn’t have to define the future. It allows employees and citizens alike to hope—and ultimately frees them to think big and go long once again.

Your organization has crafted a vision for the future, winning the approval of a wide array of stakeholders. But how do you keep that momentum alive beyond the initial excitement and actually deliver results?

Jamaica is known for its creativity, especially when it comes to innovation. We excel at producing world-class prototypes and ideas.

However, that reputation also highlights a significant gap: a lack of emphasis on follow-through and upkeep. There’s an old saying: hire a Jamaican for innovation, a Trinidadian to launch it with flair, and a Bajan to handle the day-to-day operations.

Consider Vale Royal as an example. Recently, a viral internet post depicted the state of this historic 1694 property, once the official residence of past Prime Ministers. Despite the Jamaican coat of arms adorning it, the image revealed a dilapidated building.

The reaction was swift and unanimous: shock and disappointment. This was hardly a proud moment for the nation. Clearly, some part of the government process had failed, leaving an eyesore in its wake. The only consolation? The neglected building is set back from the road, slightly out of public view.

What lessons can this teach us about managing grand aspirations like Vision 2030 Jamaica, and how can you apply these insights to ensure your organization’s vision doesn’t face the same fate?

Visions Are Hard to Maintain

Unlike physical objects, a vision is built from fragments of imagination. While it’s often captured in written form, what truly matters is the resonance it finds within people.

A compelling vision takes root in the hearts and minds of those who see themselves in it. It inspires them, evoking strong emotions and a shared sense of purpose toward a future they want to make real.

Yet, creating a tangible product is far easier than inspiring others to envision a brighter future. Those who do this effectively—figures like Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela—are rightfully revered.

Sustaining a vision over time is even harder than maintaining a physical structure. Today, both Vale Royal and Vision 2030 Jamaica are in need of revitalization. Though their restoration processes would be different, neither is beyond hope.

Now, think of your own organization. Are stakeholders genuinely motivated by your vision? Has its impact faded? Can you rekindle the energy it once generated?

Ordinary Efforts Won’t Achieve Extraordinary Visions

Perhaps a common oversight by those managing both Vale Royal and Vision 2030 Jamaica was the assumption that regular, routine efforts could somehow produce remarkable, transformative outcomes.

This isn’t just a government issue; the same challenge exists in any organization. Some employees are skilled at keeping day-to-day operations steady. As author Robert Pirsig (in *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*) puts it, they preserve “static quality.” They are essential—but they are not visionaries.

For breakthrough change, you need people who drive “dynamic quality,” those who push for improvement and innovation.

Pirsig argues that both roles are essential, but they must be balanced. A possible misstep with Vision 2030 Jamaica was the reliance on government staff focused on “static quality” to also execute and govern a forward-looking vision.

As a result, while Jamaica started Vision 2030 with momentum, the progress has slowed. To avoid this pitfall, your organization must institutionalize the management and execution of its vision, creating a structure that ensures enduring commitment.

This approach, though it may seem new, draws on a proven success story.

Introducing a Vision-Oriented Oversight Committee

Jamaica’s significant reduction in its debt-to-GDP ratio has been celebrated worldwide. This accomplishment was thanks to a bipartisan, long-term effort that drew upon disciplined oversight from the private sector, trade unions, and civil society.

What if your organization established a similar framework—a “Vision-Oriented Oversight Committee” (VPOC)? This committee would serve as a vision-focused equivalent to Jamaica’s Economic Programme Oversight Committee (EPOC), actively balancing both static and dynamic qualities to ensure sustained progress. In some cases, a board could serve this function.

This idea could be the key to Vision 2030 Jamaica’s success. Without a VPOC, the likelihood of achieving Jamaica’s aspiration to become “the place of choice” may continue to diminish over the next six years, potentially jeopardizing one of our most ambitious goals since independence.

As a Jamaican employed in an organisation, you are worried about the future of our nation. It appears as if our country is stumbling along, barely keeping its head above water.

At the same time, you are aware of the power of a corporate vision. Why hasn’t someone done one for our 2.8 million people on the island, and the other 2+ million in the Diaspora?

The good news is that something is already in place in the form of Vision 2030. But why isn’t it changing your everyday experience?

The truth is that we need help. The two main things Jamaicans care most about – economy and crime – seem not to have progressed for decades. Instead, we want the hyper-growth of Trinidad-2004 and Guyana-2023. Or maybe even the steady high performance of the Bahamas.

Or perhaps more importantly, we envy the low crime rates of Barbados or Cayman (formerly a Jamaican protectorate.) At some point, we led all these countries in these areas.

Today, we are working hard not to slip into the same zone as Haiti.

If our leading companies can accomplish so much long-term success, why can’t our country, we wonder? While a direct comparison is unfair, maybe there are a few things we can learn from best practices accepted in your organisation.

A Joined Up, Far-Away Future

A “joined-up” future is one that lots of stakeholders contribute to creating. In a company, it means engaging the board, executives, staff, customers, suppliers, regulators, local communities and more.

Shouldn’t our country do the same?

Based on my experience and queries of colleagues outside government…we don’t know that we already have a joined-up faraway future…at least on paper. In fact, the process used to create Vision 2030 Jamaica from 2003-9 is a world-class model. As such, I have shared it at in-person and online strategy conferences as a case study.

Perhaps you recognise the summary statement: “the place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business.” In times gone, it was the tagline of speeches given by the Governor General, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and many others.

But I looked over the recent Budget Debate notes. I struggled to find much of a mention. A Google search didn’t help. Here are a few ways business people at all levels could intervene now to prevent what former leaders of our country seem to be telling us…this is too important to allow it to be eaten up in regular chakka-chakka.

Why the urgency?

With six or so years remaining until we cross the finish line in 2030, we can’t afford to waste a single moment in mid-race. Remember when Miller-Uibo glanced up at the screen and lost her lead in the 400m final of the 2017 World Championships? We are likely to stumble into defeat also as a nation, unless we pay attention to the following.

A Divisive Election – You and I watch the bitter combat underway in the USA. It appears that cooperation towards common goals is impossible. Within a year, our own political parties will try to win the next election by emphasising their differences. This is natural. But it’s the opposite of the intent of Vision 2030 Jamaica. Just imagine if the board of your company were divided into opposing camps. Let’s intervene so that their attention remains on what is most important.

Continuous Inspiration – Your ability to recite our National Pledge and Anthem were picked up as a child. We could elevate Vision 2030 Jamaica to that level of importance, starting with the Forward by Dr. Wesley Hughes, which states in part:

“Today, our children, from the tiny boy in Aboukir, St. Ann, to the teenage girl in Cave, Westmoreland, have access to technologies that were once considered science fiction. They seek opportunities to realise their full potential. This Plan (vision) is to ensure that, as a society, we do not fail them. “

Updated Business-like Measures – How can we know the progress we have made from 2009-2023? Are the measurable results listed in the document beyond reach? Do we deserve an A-? or a D+?

How about fresh, intuitive measures of success which tell us whether or not Jamaica is becoming “the place of choice”? Let’s measure the length of lines outside the US and Canadian Embassies for those seeking permanent residency and how they are growing or shrinking.

Wheeling and Coming Again – Companies have no problem resetting fresh objectives when the old ones no longer do the job. In business, a strategy that is not working is replaced as soon as it’s found to be lacking.

We can do the same for Vision 2030 Jamaica to keep it relevant. This is the beauty of long-term strategic planning.

An honest read of the original document reveals that certain assumptions about the government’s capacity to lead the effort were unquestioned. Today, after over a decade of effort, we have learned much. For example, it’s hard to argue that the planning done in 2009 was enough.

In summary, while we once led the world in long-term national planning, we aren’t doing the same in the more difficult world of national strategizing and execution. But there’s time.

As the clock ticks down to 2030, things are likely to become more awkward for all of us. As you may imagine, the human tendency is to avoid the issue entirely, hoping it goes away.

That may yet happen. But if we don’t confront the gaps in our initial attempt to create a joined-up, faraway vision, we’ll block our citizens from ever believing in a national vision again.

In fact, it would be better if it were declared null and void, than ignored. At least that would have some integrity and enable us to move on to a better national vision, lessons earned.

Better National Strategic Planning

And that is perhaps the biggest lesson for all concerned. We Jamaicans say that we are great starters, but poor finishers. In other words, we know how to kick things off. But when the going gets tough, we aren’t strong at bringing them to fruition.

Said differently, we don’t know how to keep promises just because we made them.

The point here is that Vision 2030, with some five to six years remaining, puts us in an awkward spot. But that’s a lie. We have put ourselves in an awkward spot.

At some point, we were strong in envisioning great things. Like a company who creates BHAGs, our executive team gave its sacred honour to accomplish a great thing, like the framers of the Declaration of Independence.

However, we haven’t put in place mechanisms sufficient to rescue our current situation. At this rate, we won’t be closer to being a “place of choice” than we were in 2009.

In a company, it’s easier to find individuals or a team of leaders who may hold themselves accountable for a game-changing result. Often, the metrics are clear.

Unfortunately, no such clarity exists around Vision 2030. And given our impending election fever, it may not come from politicians. Instead, it’s time for business to step up and bring sound strategic planning to the accomplishment of the most important outcomes of our national lifetimes.

Let’s inspire each other to intervene so we can have what we already know we want. It won’t happen any other way.

As a member of the C-Suite, you may readily support Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs)—those ambitious, industry-shaping aspirations that separate leading companies from the rest. These high-stakes goals have the power to disrupt entire industries, often turning bold vision into remarkable results.

Yet, you’ve likely also encountered the sobering insights from *How Big Things Get Done* by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner. Their research highlights a harsh reality: major projects across the globe frequently fall short. In fact, fewer than one percent of large projects succeed in meeting their goals on time, within budget, and with all intended features. High-profile failures, like the Sydney Opera House, the Montreal Olympics, and the Panama Canal, showcase how challenging it is to turn big dreams into successful outcomes.

So, when a company or organization makes a commitment to a game-changing goal, the odds are, unfortunately, stacked against it. Take the film *Heaven’s Gate* as an example—it ran years over schedule, went massively over budget, and ultimately led to the collapse of United Artists film studio.

But do these statistics mean your company should avoid aiming for breakthrough results? Should the high failure rates discourage organizations from striving for greatness? Here are some reasons why it’s still worthwhile to pursue game-changing goals, rather than settle for incremental improvements.

**#1. There’s No Backstage**

Some executives believe their company can hold on to the status quo indefinitely. While they might talk a good game about innovation, they are content to stick with familiar practices, almost as if disruptions don’t apply to them. But this is like a writer who clings to their typewriter, ignoring new tools like ChatGPT while assuming the market for their work will remain unchanged.

By choosing inaction, these executives inadvertently embrace a “strategy of inertia.” But this strategy often catches up with them—eventually, almost every industry faces a disruption.

Granted, there are a few rare cases of companies that temporarily escape changing technology, shifting customer needs, new competitors, and unstable supply chains. Even in the public sector, where longevity is assumed, departments that can’t keep up are being defunded under a policy of “contestability.” This shows that no organization, public or private, is immune to change.

—

**#2. Problem-Solving Alone Isn’t Enough**

Without a place to hide from change, executives often struggle to shift their thinking after joining the C-Suite. Why? Up until their promotion, they were celebrated for quick wins and problem-solving skills.

Once they reach the top, however, they need to pivot from short-term results to a long-term vision. It’s no longer about fixing issues on the spot; it’s about building a compelling future. This shift requires leaders to let go of their comfort zone and address their blind spots.

For new C-Suite leaders, this shift can feel like a frustrating waste of time. Imagine a strategic planning retreat to set a BHAG: it involves activities like clarifying goals, weighing risks, and challenging assumptions. To leaders accustomed to fast results, these slower, more thoughtful steps may seem pointless.

Some may even prefer the “move fast and break things” mindset that once fueled early Facebook’s explosive growth. But Facebook eventually abandoned this slogan, learning through costly failures that some damage can’t be easily undone.

**#3. Stop Delaying the Inevitable**

It’s a common issue—many companies defer tackling long-term challenges that could take a decade or more to solve. Instead, executive teams focus on easier problems that provide quicker results.

Look around your organization. Are there longstanding issues that have been consistently set aside? Often, it’s because previous leaders failed to establish the BHAGs and long-term plans necessary to address them.

This might sound like bad news, but it doesn’t have to be.

According to innovators like Chunka Mui and Alan Kay, these neglected issues represent opportunities for game-changing innovation. The difference between success and stagnation often lies in a company’s ability to introduce transformative solutions and lead new market categories.

Mui and Kay outline a process that any company can use to shape the future by proactively inventing it. This might sound ambitious, but consider what it could look like if every organization in Jamaica—businesses, government agencies, NGOs, schools, churches, and clubs—invested in the most effective forward-planning practices available.

Back in 2009, the launch of Vision 2030 was a step in the right direction. But now, Jamaicans need to take another step forward: embedding a culture of vision-setting and breakthrough goal creation in every company’s annual planning.

In summary, while aiming for game-changing goals may feel risky, the alternative—sticking to the familiar and hoping for stability—is equally uncertain. For organizations that wish to lead, rather than react, these ambitions remain essential.