Which chess strategy makes organisations thrive?

An academic at my uni, 30 years ago, was a former chess champion. He said there were two clusters of chess strategy.

1. I know how to beat you. I will apply that strategy.
2. I will maintain a stronger position than you. That will lead to winning in the end.

Discriminating between these when applying your strategic thinking insights to your strategic decisions makes you stronger.

One client I worked with earlier this year has one imperative in each category. Firstly, because they are dependent on their inputs – they exist to transform one thing into another – the quality of those inputs is the largest factor in their success. They’ve responded to that insight by devoting resources and focus to improving their pipeline by shifting from passive recipient to upstream influencer

Second, because they can't know exactly what will flow through, and so they can’t precisely determine how to respond. Their response to this insight is to build their capability in systems, stakeholders and responsiveness. As the inputs flow, they’ll be “fitter” and better able to enact whatever’s necessary.

In contrast, I’ve just completed a piece of strategy work for an NFP coming out of a turbulent year. Many of the strategic insights and growth options are shelved for later analysis?– because “fix the basics” and “build foundations for the future” are the greatest needs right now. In a year’s time, the executive will have progressed this work with the focus and agency that the Board’s strategic decision-making is granting them. And then the Board can revisit the strategic thinking and take new decisions that will drive the growth that their community needs and their purpose compels. This is an extreme example of category 2 – get into the strongest position possible.

there's comfort here for when the path to success isn’t clear. Strengthening the foundational capability – and possibly some low-cost experimentation – gets you ready to respond when you do work out how to “win” – whatever winning looks like.

Another takeaway here is that strategic thinking is an ongoing process. And your strategic processes (and your friendly neighbourhood strategy consultant ??) should be building this capability, not delivering a one-off output.

GlobalGiving’s application of category 1

I’m at the Philanthropy Australia conference. (Reflections to come!) Being in these conversations reminds me of my favourite strategic response to insights in this sector.

As an international connector between those giving and those meeting needs, GlobalGiving's strategic insight led to them separating these activities through time.

Fundraising for disaster relief is strongest when the disaster occupies the news. People will give in the weeks after an earthquake. But community recovery needs investment when the camera crews leave. This is the insight.

Most big NGOs focus on immediate relief – partly because it matches the fundraising cycle. But GlobalGiving decoupled fundraising and grant-giving.

They fundraise when the disaster fills the media. And they give small instant-response grants to community organisations on the ground. But they hold most of the money back during the response phase. Then they release funds to organisations supporting long-term rebuild and resilience (when I ran a sustainability NFP, they supported our projects for “building back green” after bushfires).

This is chess strategy 1 taken to fruition. They built with relentless focus on one insight: donations dry up when communities need them most. And it’s resulted in a uniquely helpful niche in supporting community recovery.

Caution – the impact of choosing poorly

I worked in one major organisation who exclusively focused on approach 2. They were so absorbed in building organisational strength – bulletproof processes, everyone included in everything – that they stopped making an impact. So eventually the social license melted away and the paymaster got bored. The organisation became a shadow of its success a decade earlier.

The incoming Board Chair had instructions to light a fire under the sluggishness. As change ensued, with restructures and newly-directive decision-making, many people blame the Chair for the disruption. But really, this was a shot of adrenaline to end a long decline and begin the push to recover.

The learning is that while under the old leadership, two (maybe even three) strategy cycles needed a strength-building approach, the organisation ultimately needed a big idea to push. There's no point training if you never pick up the javelin.

Fin

It’s my birthday today and I am at the Philanthropy Australia conference. The root is “love of humans” so please like and share to show your love on my birthday!

See you in a bi week, a year older and a fortnight (hopefully) wiser.?

Paul