Strategic Planning & Agility - Symbiosis or Schizophrenia?

I always find the idea of making plans fascinating and cruel! On the one hand, we make plans to overcome uncertainties, to create clarity, to build structures and thus to create something like well-being. On the other hand, most plans, shortly after they have been drawn up, end up in the trash, or at least the energy spent on them is not worth the effort, since the moment they are drawn up and approved, they are usually hopelessly outdated and outdated.

******** Die deutschsprachige Version dieses Blogpostes finden Sie hier. *********

Who nevertheless tries to orientate himself by the plans, who IS / SHALL make comparisons, who makes himself the slave of the continuation of the past into the future, in order to secure the future bonuses, is in a cruel trap.

Though I understand that even in times of increasingly difficult developments to assess - in some cases increasingly - corporate leaders are relying on this old instrument. Because what else gives us the security so important for our resilience?

The unused potential

My original plan for this article was to explain the pointlessness of the strategic planning rounds currently starting in many companies. Especially in organizations on the way to more agile cooperation structures, it seems absurd at first to oppose complexity and dynamics with plans.

But in my reflections and discussions, I became aware of our all too human limits again and thus also of the aforementioned search for security and stability, the two pillars for agile work. 

And yet, the strategic planning processes, as they are often still carried out today, lack an essential component to regain real relevance. The established planning patterns revolve around sales, costs, budgets, risks, efficiency, resources, product developments, means of production, objectives, market analyses, the evaluation of trends, etc. It's mostly about looking very closely at the details. The focus is on the implementation of control measures instead of opening up space in which the company can react to its own and external (environmental) effects on the company.

Rarely are actual strategic measures, the reflection of long-term goals or even retrospectives of projects, processes and values included. And so far I have never experienced that in the context of strategic medium and long-term planning the topic of agility and the preparation of the organization for agile work structures was an explicit topic. But especially in the effort to capture the whole picture, there is a lot of unused potentials. 

Deep Dive into the Potentials and Problems

Anyone who wants to adjust to a future that is increasingly difficult to predict in terms of its development cannot avoid making more intensive use of the social and cognitive abilities of employees (which is my definition of "agility") and thus becoming more responsive and multiplying. More and more customers and markets expect more and more speed, service and individuality. One, and in my opinion the best way to do this is to anchor agility deeply in the company. Deep means not only on the operational level but also with regard to strategic business model and organizational management model developments. "The "planned" goal should be to adjust the organization as early and as well as possible to ever more frequent and dynamic situations.

However, it is difficult to tackle these preparatory measures and to think ahead until it is clear what issues are at stake in the organization (already and with a special view on the topic of "agility"), where the potentials, obstacles, and real problems lie, where communication goes wrong, where there is no room to assume responsibility, where the purpose is not clear, where relationships are bad, where management systems are too narrow, where culture delimits rather than connects. Few company reflections that are carried out within the framework of strategic planning include this specific view. 

Findings from Agile Design Checks

A few months ago I conducted a global study on agile management together with AGILITYinsights, which, thanks to a great response, allows solid and valid statements on the adaptation of agile leadership in companies. If one takes the results of the very planning and control-loving companies from this survey and considers them by means of the "Agile Diamond" in the context of a trivalent agility (operational, strategic and organizational), clear patterns appear.

? 2018 AGILITYinsights & ZUKUNFTheute

Companies achieve only mediocre results in all agile strategic areas. The element "culture", so fundamental for building agility, is perceived as clearly below average. Accordingly, there is hardly any innovation taking place here.  

The picture is equally impressive when you look at the dialogue competence in the companies. Open, sincere dialogues are a prerequisite for advancing to a new level of good, active and agile cooperation. Where there are few or no dialogues, where monologues prevail, agility cannot develop. In the model of the Agile Design Checks used in the survey, references to this appear in the Leadership Scorecard and allow references to the structure of this increasingly important management task.

? 2018 AGILITYinsights

Agility requires good dialogues on a wide variety of topics.

Strategic reflection on how the company works

In another aspect, I see the need to link strategic and agile thinking more intensively with each other and to make use of valid statements, as they also arise, for example, in the context of agile design checks.

One goal of strategic planning is to create space in which (strategic) further development is possible, whether with regard to new products, new sources of sales, increased competence or an increasing contribution to the social or ecological environment. The possibilities here are as diverse as the objectives of the companies. For a long time, the topic of the "management model" was (unconsciously) excluded, due to a lack of sensible alternatives and thus increasingly also a lack of awareness of the existence of other paths. The management model refers to the principles and logic according to which a company is managed and functions. The aim is to clarify how decisions are made, how the existing business is continued and new business is built up at the same time, how goals fit in with results and how performance is created. Due to the lack of this element, many companies have taken the opportunity to give innovation the necessary, important new space or to adapt to changes in markets and the environment. For example, anyone who wants to give a "Minimum Viable Product" the opportunity to discover the light of the market in the methodology of lean start-ups cannot and must not peer at a fast return on investment or pursue a 100% top quality approach after the project has started.

Many companies are working on new business models in this context, often with methods such as the business model Canvas. However, the success of such measures depends at least as much on the management model, which is rarely deliberately reflected. But even here there is a silver lining. The Management Model Canvas, presented to the public in the Speaker Contest of the Nordic Business Forum, elegantly makes the invisible visible and tangible for the everyday eye. Here, too, I can and recommend that you simply try this approach as part of your own considerations. (More information on www.managementmodeldesign.net)

Is there a future for planning

In the end, the future of established strategic planning, which is also (still) important for many, depends on how open it is to the needs of the future and to what extent development and its potential are taken up. Here it is decided whether the procedure complements each other symbiotically or paralyzes the company due to the schizophrenia involved.

Agility is not yet the end of the planning cycles, but on the contrary, holds the chance to give new weight and meaning to strategic planning processes by incorporating agile influences and preparing the organization for the topic of agility in all three components. Without these areas, however, I still regard them as a waste of time and, at best, as meaningless employment measures. 

In the end, in the management of your company, you decide yourself where you want to go, also and especially strategically. 

If you would like to use the free demo of the Agile Design Checks to get the first guess, please register here. If you want to receive "your" Agile Diamond please write us under remarks - we will contact you to guide you through the result.   

30 August 2018 - ZUKUNFTheute - erfolgreicher.zusammen.wirken

Guido Bosbach is the founder and CEO of ZUKUNFTheute, consultant & mentor for top management. He's a leading expert in designing and implementing successful collaboration patterns and contemporary management design.

He has recently been listed amongst the 3 TOP HR-Influencer in Germany by "personalmagazin" and was named one of the 25 LinkedIn Top Voices 2017 D-A-CH in Dec 2017.

Follow him on Twitter