Strategy Lives in Unmeasured Action

When executing on strategy, there are two realms of action: measured and unmeasured. A management axiom "what gets measured gets done" may be true, but is too limiting. When what is unmeasured gets done, you have a strategic organization.

In my previous posts "Carrying Strategy from the C-Suite to The Receptionist's Desk" and "Measure Mindset, Not Past Performance in Strategic Execution," I state that without strategic mindset, doers will only do what is measured in an execution plan. They won't think "out of the box" to intuitively take aligned actions that are not part of -- and may even be superior to -- a plan. Maximum strategic execution requires extending strategy mindshare.

Measured actions are simply leadership's best guess at which actions will achieve results towards the strategic vision. But by focusing on measured actions only, a much larger realm of possibility for aligned action is excluded, which prevents organizations from reaching full strategic capacity.

To open up access to the whole range of potential aligned actions, what we need is a sphere, not a single line. In other words, since there may be a vast array potential means to the same ends, if we prescribe only a specific set of means, we are unnecessarily preventing exploration of a potentially better path.

Instead, create a container of context that keeps actions aligned with the outcome, regardless of whether those actions are measured.

Imagine a swarm of bees headed to the hive. While it may look disorganized, if the swarm were to follow a single-file line and the leader encountered an obstacle, like a tree, the entire line would get backed up like a multi-car traffic accident. The fact they are not taking a single path to the destination is, in fact, more efficient. Rather than put our focus on the path, we should put our focus on the destination and on ensuring the whole swarm is clear we're heading to the hive.

Thus, strategic execution is not about directing people to follow a single path toward a destination, but ensuring they know the destination.

A container of context is created through repeated strategic conversation. Strategic conversation is not talking about vision, goals, objectives and action plans. Strategic conversation that creates context is describing in vivid detail what the end point looks like. Describing the features of the beautiful house on the hill, not the blueprints and designs.

In my previous post, I explained that a couple buying a custom home is not excited by the blueprints. What excites them is picturing themselves by the swimming pool or enjoying coffee in the sun room -- a mental picture of the end point.

Creating strategic context requires ongoing conversation with those involved in building the vision where we create a shared mental picture of the end point. It is a mental picture of the experience of achieving it, not simply memorizing a written vision statement.

When the entire organization acts within the sphere of strategic context, ideally, all actions become aligned to the vision, whether they are measured or unmeasured. Thus, strategy lives in unmeasured action. If alignment exists independently of plans and designs, the organization maximizes its odds of fulfilling the vision.

Carrying Strategy from the C-Suite to the Reception Desk

The challenge organizational leadership faces is carrying strategy from the board room to the receptionist's desk. That is, extending strategy mindshare throughout the organization, not just among those at the top of organizational chart.

In my last post I promised to provide more detail on the "how-to" of developing a broader context on organizational strategy among the "doers," as well as measuring strategic mindset.

Let's review the traditional strategic planning methodology paradigm:

1. A strategy document transcribed from flip-chart plastered walls is reviewed by top leadership.
2. Top leadership sets goals and objectives for middle management that it believes are aligned with the strategy.
3. Middle management establishes performance metrics for the line-level that align with the objectives.
4. Top leadership and management regularly monitor and evaluate performance against the metrics, then adjust as necessary.

Traditional management models will say this is the "ideal," that effective strategic execution requires cascading measures starting broadly from top management down to the granular performance measures of line-level staff. Line-level performance measures tie upward in progressively broader ways to the "big picture" vision.

Sounds great. But, as I've outlined in previous posts, it's a flawed concept. It applies a management approach to a leadership function. Leadership involves influencing people, whose actions are driven by values, attitudes, and organizational culture -- mindset. The cascading measures approach is a process-focused approach measuring actions taken, not the values, emotional connection and shared understanding that drive the actions.

Without strategic mindset, doers will only do what is measured in an execution plan. They won't think "out of the box" to intuitively take aligned actions that are not part of -- and may even be superior to -- the plan.

Ultimately, taking strategically aligned action should be natural and innate without any prerequisite objectives and performance metrics needed. Strategic execution should be like driving home from work. You know where you live. You don't need a map. You just know how to get there, no matter what direction you're coming from. This is "intuitive alignment."

Cascading measures are for operational alignment, not strategic leadership. While such metrics do align actions in the organization around strategic objectives, they don't encourage a strategic mindset. They measure outcomes, not the mindset driving the outcomes. So while actions may be taken in alignment with the performance measures, without strategic mindset, the actions taken outside of such measures may have no alignment with the strategy whatsoever.

Strategic mindset is a large bowl containing a wide array of aligned actions, both measured and unmeasured. Without it, the organization will only become effective at implementing the narrow range of measured actions, leadership's best guesses at the correct means to achieve the ends. As is now widely accepted, often the best ideas come from the line-level closest to the customer. Thus, keeping the "owner" mentality in the C-Suite deprives an organization of its full strategic capacity.

To most effectively execute strategy, drop the cascading measures approach entirely. That approach is fine for addressing processes, where the goal is to achieve incremental improvement, higher productivity and better operational efficiency. But let's not confuse process improvement with strategic execution. The most efficient operations won't overcome obsolete strategy.

So what is the strategic leadership tool that replaces cascading measures? Conversation. Strategic conversation, specifically. Strategic conversation is the most powerful tool to ensure strategic execution, not plans and metrics. It is through conversation that values are clarified and cultural norms are developed.

But first, a caveat. Don't confuse strategic conversation with "communicating the strategic objectives, goals and vision." That's the "fix" applied to the failure of the cascading measures approach used in strategic planning methodology. It is yet another false diagnosis for why a "strategic plan failed" (not attributing it to the true cause that strategic planning is a flawed concept in the first place). The diagnosis being that the plan wasn't effectively communicated.

Referring to the previous example of knowing how to get home without a map, think about how we reached a state of intuitive alignment. Over time, we developed a mental map through daily repetition, occasionally trying different routes, and learning the broader context of the area in which we live by exploring the neighborhood. And the key reason we take the time to learn and explore is because the place we are going is our home, it's where we live, a place to which we have an emotional connection.

The same process creates intuitive alignment in strategic execution: creating a mental map through repitition, trying various routes, developing a broader context by exploring the neighborhood, and having an emotional connection to the endpoint. And the last item on the list is the most critical and the reason why a process-focused approach is inadequate. No one feels an emotional connection to organizational vision statements, plans, performance metrics and checklists. Not even leadership.

Wait a minute. . . leadership has no emotional connection to a vision statement? No. It's not the statement itself, but the story, the mental image, the triumphant manifestation of the outcome that the statement attempts to describe, which inspires.

"All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon; and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond. Even let him catch sight of the moon, and still he cannot see its beauty." - Zen Quote

Vision statements are a finger pointing to a future state of being (the moon).

A couple designing a custom home isn't excited by the blueprints, but their mental picture of what the finished home will look like, seeing themselves in it, sitting by the fireplace, swimming in the pool.

That is the essence of strategic conversation. We co-create a shared mental image of the endpoint and together we get excited about what we're building. This requires each person to become an active participant in the conversation. The shared vision comes from describing together what it's going to be like living in our new home, having a barbeque on the patio. And in an organization, the conversation needs to involve the whole family.

Taking the metaphor a little farther, the conversation continues throughout the various phases of construction. Though all are committed to the general vision, various changes to the design may occur as unidentified problems come to light after building begins. So, though the final structure won't look exactly like the original plans, because we discussed solutions together with a common understanding of what we wanted to achieve, we'll create a better end result.

Measure Mindset, Not Past Performance, In Strategic Execution

To build a strategic organization, not just strategic management, measure alignment rather than achievement.

Measuring strategy execution traditionally means reviewing achievements according to the plan (i.e., checking off progress against the to-do list). This approach focuses on "lagging indicators" -- things that have already occurred -- which may be an effective approach for operational management, but ineffective for strategic leadership.

Another reason I discourage the checklist approach to strategic execution (i.e., leadership developing detailed goals/objectives/task lists) is that it limits implementation to those goals/objectives/tasks prescribed by management.

By focusing only on leadership's "best guess" regarding desired actions toward the organization's strategic focus, those who implement strategy are discouraged from formulating actions based on their own real-time "boots on the ground" assessment. In other words, they will do what the detailed action plan says, even if their own (often superior) assessment says it would be better to take a different path toward the same strategic outcome.

With this in mind, as leaders, we should create broad limits within which to take strategic action, but leave the specifics up to those with specialized knowledge of the area of strategic focus. This does beg the question: okay, so how do we measure progress against strategy?

Since we're leaders, not managers, when wearing our strategy hats, I suggest looking at leading indicators of strategic execution -- that is, the behaviors that lead to strategic execution. That means, rather than using achievement metrics (i.e., goals and objectives achieved), use alignment metrics. Alignment metrics measure mindset: vision clarity, attitudes and cultural support.

Creating Alignment Metrics

Let's revisit the graphic I used in a previous post, but I've altered it by adding the words in big letters on each side. In that post, I stated that strategic leadership means staying on left side, NEVER venturing onto the right side. Why? Note the words in big letters I've placed over the graphic. Organizational transformation only occurs on the left side. Focusing on the right side only makes us better at doing what we've always done.
So, where does one begin in developing alignment metrics? Start by having strategic conversations throughout the organization, not just in the C-Suite or Board of Directors meeting. Don't ask staff what the organization's vision or strategic focus is. If they can answer correctly, it may only prove they've memorized the vision statement.

Instead, ask questions where the answer given demonstrates a depth of understanding of the vision that results in an intuitively aligned response. In other words, presented with a common "what if" scenario in the organization, does a staff person naturally know how to respond in a way that is aligned organization's strategic focus? Ultimately, if they can recite the vision chapter and verse but don't act accordingly, what difference does it make?

The typical solution to this strategic challenge is to create output metrics. For example, if your area of strategic focus is customer service, you may have a metric that all calls be answered within 20 seconds or less. And these types of metrics are helpful. But they only tell you how you're doing in those specific, measured areas and they only provide a backward glance.

What about situations relating to customer service that are unanticipated? If we focus only on the areas where we have metrics in place, then those being measured won't venture "outside the box" of measurement.

In order to ensure that aligned action is taken even when unanticipated issues arise, those responsible for strategy implementation have to have a broader context, which encompasses an array of actions they can take that fulfill the "spirit" of the strategic focus, rather than the "letter" of a checklist of items upon which they are measured.

In the next post, I'll provide more detail on the "how-to" of developing context, as well as alignment metrics.

Strategic Planning is Old School

As I've explained in this series, strategic planning is an old school approach that is not strategic and focuses leadership in the wrong place. Let's look at the fundamentals of the "new school" of strategic leadership.
We'll begin by replacing the "Strategic Planning Pyramid" with a "Strategic Leadership Pyramid," both illustrated below for comparative purposes.
As stated in previous posts, what we've been calling "strategic planning" is really operational, not strategic; it is, in fact, project planning methodology. And this methodology is fine when it is applied to project management. In fact, it's the best approach to take when hard deadlines exist and detailed action plans are critical. For example, it is ideal for planning conferences/trade shows, product launches, construction projects, marketing plans, publications, etc. Anything that has logical steps, firm deadlines and lots of details.
But it's the wrong tool for strategic leadership. Values aren't steps in a plan. Vision is not a project and it doesn't have a deadline. A strategy is a choice, a focus, not a destination, and it requires an agility that a written plan can't provide. Organizational culture doesn't operate using goals, objectives and action plans. Attitudes and mindset can't be effectively influenced by a plan.
But the opposite is true. Execution of vision, strategies, goals, etc., is influenced by organizational culture, attitudes and mindset -- particularly if they are unsupportive.
What are vision/values/culture driven by? People. Not process. Therefore, the most effective approach to ensure vision execution is one that is people-focused, not process-focused. That means focusing on mindset (people), not goals/objectives and action plans (process).




In a previous post entitled "Leadership Needs to Focus in the Right Place to Build a Strategic Organization" I stated that with traditional strategic planning approaches, an inordinate amount of time is spent on management/operations activities where leadership should spend NO TIME AT ALL, and strategic planning methodology quickly shifts the focus from leadership to management.
You'll note that none of the activities in the Strategic Leadership Pyramid include goals, objectives, action plans, key performance metrics, etc. If those who execute on vision (including top leadership) want to use goals, objectives and action plans as part of their operational methodology for executing on vision, great. Goals, objectives and action plans are good tools for personal time management, as well as focusing team activities when accomplishing complex projects.
But as I've also previously written ("I Still Say Strategic Planning is a Flawed Concept"), planning and goal-setting methodologies are just one among many tactical approaches to taking actions aligned with organizational vision, and not always the best approach.
Explaining the Layers
Aspirational Culture is at the top, not Vision. Why? As I explained in "Alignment Comes Before Vision," the "way we do things around here" supersedes desired outcomes. By necessity, leadership focus must begin here. "Aspirational Culture" means the desired way we work together as an organization. Before we begin crafting vision statements, we need to be sure we have clarity on the organization's "personality," the unwritten rules of behavior. We should know in advance of crafting a vision whether the organizational culture will support it. If not, we need to work on building our aspirational culture first.
A note of caution here. It's tempting to judge organizational culture traits as "good" or "bad." For example, if you are a creative, daring and innovative person, you may view an organization with a culture that is conservative and risk averse as "behind the times" or "unwilling to step out of its comfort zone." However, such an organization might be highly effective and successful if its vision plays to its culture. For example, even though it may not be innovative, perhaps it creates traditional, timeless quality products with unparalleled craftsmanship, which gives it a competitive edge in the market.
What makes organizational culture problematic is when it lacks alignment on identity, values, ethics or trust. To illustrate a lack of alignment on identity, I'll go back to the previous example. If leadership and fraction of the staff is daring and innovative but the vast majority of the organization is conservative and risk averse, the ability to find alignment around a vision focused on innovation will be highly compromised.
Vision and values are among the few items from the Strategic Planning Pyramid that remain on the Strategic Leadership Pyramid. They belong there because they are aspirational and inspirational, not operational or tactical.
Strategic focus areas are another area of crossover. Obviously, strategies are strategic. Enough said. But, for further thoughts on strategy, see "Strategy, Plain and Simple" and "Haiku Strategy."
Co-creating and telling the story means, let's describe vision and strategic focus in a compelling story format that is memorable and actionable. And the story needs to have specific relevance. That means, it's not just leadership's story. As the office receptionist, I know my part of the story, and it's personal, not general. And I can articulate it and play the role, too. I'll get into further detail on how to do this in future posts, but I touch on the concept in "Developing Intuitive Alignment."
Last -- and this is where strategy gets operationalized in case you're wondering how strategic focus becomes manageable and measurable without the goals, objectives, action plans and the like -- is Ongoing Strategic Conversations. Instead of going back into an operational, project management-type approach, this approach requires ongoing strategic conversations with the operationalizers. The conversations focus on inputs, not outputs. They involve asking questions that surface incorporation of the vision and strategies into the various roles in the organization. I'll go into detail on this in future posts, as well.
In short, this approach provides a blueprint for keeping leadership focused in the right place -- on leadership (people), not management (process).

Alignment Comes Before Vision

Typical management methodology has leaders develop a vision and then work within the organization to build alignment around it. The order is backwards; before creating vision, create alignment.

As I said in my last post, I'm offering a viewpoint counter to prevailing wisdom about strategic leadership. Not only am I advocating abandoning strategic planning methodology entirely, but many of the foundational management principles upon which it is based. This includes the ubiquitous "strategy pyramid," which has at the top "vision/mission" working down to goals, objectives and action plans.

Vision is not at the top of my strategic leadership pyramid, and goals, objectives and action plans aren't on it at all (read my previous posts if you want to know why).

So, if you don't have vision at the top, then what the heck are followers "aligning" around, you might ask? Aspirational culture. Organizational culture dominates behavior. What's more important than where we're going is how we intend to work together to get there. To create a strategic organization, we need to reverse the order: first create alignment, then create vision.

Knowing this, our first order of business ought not to be choosing our destination port, but making sure the crewmembers have shared values about how we're going to work together on the ship. We don't want to discover we have the ingredients for a mutiny in place after we've already set sail.

In Good to Great, Jim Collins explains that the companies that made the transition from good to great focused first on who (alignment), then what (vision). Getting the right people on the bus first was more important than having the right business strategy. As he put it, in a great organization, people want to be on the bus because of who else is on it. Or, to say it another way: it's about the journey, not the destination.

One thing (among many) that differentiates strategic alignment methodology from strategic planning methodology is keeping in the forefront “who, then what.” This means before even coming up with strategy, first examining whether we have alignment in relation to how we work together.

In my post Beyond The Plan: A New Approach to Strategic Leadership I offered a well-known quote often attributed to Peter Drucker: "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." And proferred that, like individuals, organizations have personalities, which we commonly refer to as "organizational culture."
How often do strategic planning efforts fail due to lack of execution, organizational culture, etc.? Afterwords, leaders wring their hands trying to figure out how they could have better communicated the vision, overcome the cultural hurdles and employee attitudes about the strategy. They engage in futile "change management" exercises, etc.

The problem is they’re trying to “reverse engineer” the personality and unwritten rules of the organization, taking apart what they have, trying to rebuild it to fit the vision. That’s hard work -- quite often futile -- and I’m not a fan of working harder, but working smarter.

The reason we want to take time to clarify organizational culture -- the rules of engagement --first, then align vision to organizational culture is 1) it's a lot less work and 2) people will intuitively act in alignment with the vision if it aligns with the culture. In other words, they will act in alignment with organizational vision and strategy automatically if they're aligned with "the way we do things."

If "the way we do things" is destructive or dysfunctional, before attempting vision, leaders need to work on building the aspirational culture.

Leadership Needs to Focus in the Right Place to Build a Strategic Organization

The graphic below clarifies why traditional strategic planning methodology misses the mark in terms of leadership focus, and shows where leadership focus should be. This isn't rocket science, but for some reason it's a concept that not only many, but most, organizational leaders seem to be missing (including me until recently).

Typical strategic planning session focus areas are highlighted below. Note that the majority of the highlights fall in the right-hand column, labeled “Management/Operations,” not the left-hand column labeled “Leadership.”

The un-highlighted areas are generally left out of the process or, if discussed, only in relation to creating and implementing the plan.

Most strategic planning processes/retreats start with things like a SWOT analysis, environmental scans, etc. , to help determine the strategic choices. This is followed by creating or re-examining the vision/mission, then developing some areas of strategic focus, creating goals/objectives, and may even go so far as developing action plans.
The areas of focus for strategic leadership are found solely in the left-hand column. (Note that planning is in the right-hand column.)

It should now be clear why strategic planning methodology fails to build a strategic organization. True strategic leadership activities are either skipped or given short-shrift at best, and an inordinate amount of time is spent on management/operations activities where leadership should spend NO TIME AT ALL. Strategic planning methodology quickly shifts the focus from leadership to management.

When a leadership retreat is held, instead of shifting the focus to management/operations activities, the entire focus should remain on the leadership side, NEVER venturing into the right-hand column. Ever.

The right-hand activities are for mid-management and staff, and in nonprofit organizations, this would include committee chairs and volunteers. When building a strategic organization, the left-hand side is where leadership, the C-Suite/owners/Board of Directors, should be focused like a laser.

And executive leadership should not only stay focused on the left side, but build capacity within the rest of the organization to shift its focus to the left-hand side. That's an important piece often left out. Leaders by nature have a visionary, strategic-focused mindset and attitude, but often fail to build capacity in the rest of the organization for a strategic leadership focus.

The un-highlighted activities in the left column are the ones that build organizational capacity for strategic leadership at all levels. Ultimately, we want what we do as an organization (behavior - mission/tactics) to be aligned with who we are (mindset - vision/values/strategic focus).

Leaders need to focus on reminding us of who we are as an organization; aligned actions will follow automatically if all stakeholders have an ingrained, intuitive understanding of this.

How many times do we as leaders complain of getting bogged down in operations, losing sight of the "big picture?" We say to ourselves, wouldn't it be great if we could work on the organization, rather than in it? It stands to reason, if we're getting sucked into operations, then what about the people in our organization whose only focus is operations? If we don't take the time to build strategic leadership capacity in them, they'll never get out of an operational focus, which they must do in order to take thoughtful actions aligned with the vision.

Since we now know where our focus needs to be to provide strategic leadership, we'll take a look at how to keep it there in upcoming posts. In my next post, I'll be offering a thought that goes counter to prevailing wisdom about creating vision.

The Best Leaders Don't Exist

"The best leaders of all, the people know not they exist. They turn to each other and say, we did it ourselves."
-- Zen Proverb

Invisible leadership is perhaps the most powerful form. It is difficult to practice, however, because we all have an innate desire for personal recognition. It is a well-known management axiom that people support what they help to create. Thus, if leadership is the art of enlisting the aid and support of others to achieve a common goal, then helping others get credit is a critical leadership skill.

I've never been good at tooting my own horn. As a consequence, at various times in life I've fumed when someone else stole the credit for my idea. I think that's a reasonable reaction at the beginning of your career when you need your good work to be noticed by those in a position to promote you. But when you're the one leading, instead of fuming when this happens, you should be celebrating. Job well done. That's invisible leadership.

Effective delegation is another means to invisible leadership. When others take the ball and run with it, the credit for the score is all theirs. Few take note of the coach that called the play or the quarterback that handed off the ball; they just notice the running back that made it to the end zone. If we always gave credit to the play callers, the other members of the team wouldn't be as motivated to score.

Creating an open-minded environment conducive to creativity and innovation from all levels of the organization is another great way to enable people to say "we did it ourselves." Quality management principles posit that the best ideas for continuous improvement come from the line-level worker, not management.

Finally, don't toot your own horn unless there is a specific benefit to the team, not you. Celebrate everyone's contributions except yours. Few people respect leaders that are constantly calling attention to themselves and their accomplishments; in fact, they have the most respect for those that are highly accomplished and yet humble about it.

Leaders Make Themselves Dispensible

"Whatever you set your mind to do, you always should make the road before you wide open, so that all people may traverse it. This is the concern of a great man.

If the way is narrow and perilous, so that others cannot go on it, then you yourself will not have any place to set foot either."

-- Zen Lessons, Translated by Thomas Cleary

One of my personal goals as a leader is to make myself as dispensible as possible. This goes against the grain of my natural and human desire to be important, needed and, of course. . . indispensible. It is a leadership paradox: in order to be a truly indispensible leader, you need to make yourself dispensible.

Leadership requires getting things done through others, not doing everything yourself. Doing it yourself is not leadership -- no one is following, no one is learning and no one is growing from the experience of doing whatever it is you're doing.

A challenge I face -- and I know I'm not alone among the ranks of business owners --is that I often serve as a bottleneck in my organization. For example, a contract sits in my inbox needing my signature but I keep putting it off due to other, more urgent items needing attention. Meanwhile, I have a staff member who is stuck. She cannot take the next steps she needs to take to get a task done because the contract in my inbox must be signed before she can move forward.

If I were simply to train her on what to look for in contracts, then when satisfied with her competence in reviewing them, empower her to submit contracts to me for immediate signature without review (or better yet, sign them herself), I could put an end to the bottleneck. Of course, that would make me dispensible. But that's a good thing.

The quote above speaks to a key element of achieving dispensibility: make the road before you wide open so others may traverse it. To me, that means give them the tools, training and resources to do what you do. Then resist the urge to do it yourself. Let them do it.

In this context, leadership is a constant exercise in letting go. What am I doing now that someone else can do? How do I let go of this and let someone else run with it? In other words, how can I find one more way to be dispensible?

Leaders Aren't Special: Don't Be Intimidated

I find at times I am reluctant to call myself a leader. The reason is so many of the books and speakers on leadership talk of it in context to extraordinary leaders in history, such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and others. Or, they focus on elite athletes, winning coaches or CEOs of the world's largest corporations.

Furthermore, the described qualities of a great leader are ideals that most of us are unable to sustain in whole or in part: visionary, passionate, servant, charismatic, influencer, principled, etc. Of course, most of us have known -- and some of you may be -- individuals that deeply embody these qualities. But I think over-romanticizing these qualities of leadership may make us overlook the fact that many great leaders do not have all of these qualities, and in fact may have very few of them.

I think it's also safe to say some of the world's worst leaders had the same qualities we tend to ascribe to great leaders, as well. Hitler, for example, was visionary, passionate, charismatic, influential and principled -- though few today would agree with his vision or principles.

I believe a great leader can be not particularly visionary, even-keeled, introverted and unassuming. You probably know some strong, effective organizational leaders that match this description. They're not dynamic, charismatic or especially passionate in temperament, yet maybe they have integrity or intelligence that others respect and admire.

So, in my view, it's not really personality traits or qualities that define a leader. A leader is really just someone who can enroll others in accomplishing an objective. Leaders in the most basic sense are those who can influence the behavior of others such that willingly they choose to follow them.

Keeping that in mind, one of the key qualities of leadership is the ability to ask. Many people who end up volunteering for a cause, for example, say the only reason they choose to do so was because someone asked them. One of the most basic leadership behaviors, then, is simply asking someone to do something -- that is, making a request.

Now, that may seem obvious, but how often have you found yourself suffering in silence, taking on the entire burden of a project? Because of my perfectionist tendencies and the pride I take in completing a project on my own, one of the hardest things for me to do is ask for help. Yet, I realize, if I want to be a leader, I have to let go of that mindset.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to ask for help, but for whatever reason, it's not the first thought that comes to mind when taking something on. Interestingly, I find that most times I ask others to join me in a project, they actually want to be a part of it. The reality is, most of us have an innate desire to be of service. So when someone asks for our help, we are flattered and want to contribute.

Leadership doesn't need to be intimidating. It can be as simple as making a request.

For-Profit Leaders can Learn Something from Non-Profit Leaders

Most of my posts are relevant for all types of organizational leadership, but this time I'm going to focus on a leadership skill more prevelant in the non-profit sector, which is leadership through influence. I contend that for-profit sector leaders could benefit greatly from honing this skill, which is often overlooked in the corporate world, which tends to focus more on motivation through power and position than influence.

One of the hallmarks of most businesses -- despite the lip-service given to having "flatter," matrix style organizational charts -- is heirarchy. You have the CEO at the top of the pyramid with progressively wider layers until you reach the wide base of line-level workers. What distinguishes non-profit from for-profit management is that there are, in fact, two heirarchies -- parallel pyramids, if you will.

One heirarchy is the staff, which matches the for-profit corporate structure just mentioned, and the other is a volunteer heirarchy. At the top of the volunteer pyramid is the elected board of directors, with progressively wider layers of committees, working groups and task forces with the wide bottom layer being the dues-paying members or contributors that support the organization but don't hold a volunteer role.

A unique aspect of non-profit leadership is that the customers (members), not the employees, "own" the organization - although they reap no direct financial benefit from ownership. Furthermore, the volunteer heirarchy is the ultimate authority and has the ability to hire and fire staff and even change the mission of the organization. Thus, staff are employed solely at the will of the volunteers.

The challenge of this structure is that it is staff that best understands the business of the organization, as they run it every day. And it is the staff that is held most accountable for the success of the organization. Yet, staff must follow the dictates of individuals whose leadership positions are part-time (i.e., they have a day job), usually unpaid and temporary -- generally no more than a 1- to 2-year term in a specific role.

And the volunteer leadership is elected, not hired, so there is no means for maintaining true accountability. If a volunteer "checks out," or is acting in a way that is truly harmful to the organization, in many cases, there is little if any recourse available. In some cases, the only course of action available is for the board to request that the individual voluntarily resign. Sometimes they will. Usually, they won't.

While the non-profit sector is perceived by some as a "lesser" profession than the for-profit corporate sector (the thought being the best and the brightest can only be attracted by high salaries and stock options), to be truly effective, I contend non-profit organizations require a much higher standard of staff leadership and management than for-profit entities.

Why?

Precisely because of the non-profit CEO's inability to use a paycheck or the ability to hire and fire as a form of motivation within the volunteer hierarchy. To enlist others in the peformance of a common task, non-profit CEOs cannot simply dictate organizational policy because their position is subordinate to the volunteer board of directors. A more nuanced form of leadership is required, where influence, rather then power and position, brings results.

Non-profit CEOs are the ultimate influencer leaders. President Ronald Reagan was famous for saying, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish as long as you don't care who gets the credit." Effective non-profit CEOs have that quote tatooed on their foreheads. They must be forever the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. (I've had to bite my tongue more than once when a volunteer leader has taken credit for my idea, saying something like "This is one of the key objectives of my administration.")

This style of leadership requires consensus-building, being able to "sell" your ideas by providing the benefit of your knowledge and experience, building confidence among the volunteers that you have the best interest of the organization at heart and can "see the big picture." This is a form of leadership that is more difficult than handing down policy from the corner office knowing the footsoldiers have to implement it or find another job.

The command and control form of leadership may get results, but what it may not get is commitment and confidence. Leadership through influence, which comes from trust and relationship building gets results, but it also gets commitment and confidence.

Everyone is a Volunteer

As employers or organizational leaders, we sometimes view the contributions others make to the organization as "owed" to us. They get a paycheck, after all. Or, if they are volunteers, they "signed up for this" and owe us a commitment.

As leaders we need to recognize that everyone, even if they get a paycheck, is a volunteer.

Even though we as leaders may live under the delusion that others do our bidding because they are compelled to do so because of our position or title and their desire for self-preservation, the reality is they choose how they will do it, when they will do it, how well they will do it, and even if they will do it. If this weren't the case, then performance appraisal, discipline, etc., would be unnecessary.

Whether one uses the carrot or the stick, it is important to remember that we can only influence behavior, we cannot compel or control it. One need only consider the prisoner of war who, despite hellish torture and deprivation, is still able to choose not to be compelled -- even if doing so means annihilation. While all of us may have had "the job from hell" at some point in our careers, no one, I think, has faced the conditions of a prisoner of war in the corporate environment.

We might take the perspective, then, that those under our leadership provide their time and talent as a gift freely given. Whether we recognize it or not, people do have other options and could make different choices. If they do the job assigned, it is because they choose to provide service to us and our organization.

With this in mind, we can view leadership differently. What do we need to consider if everyone is a volunteer?

Personal Priorities: Our priorities are measured by where we put our time. If I say my family is my priority but spend all my time at work, I'm kidding myself. Clearly, whether I am willing to acknowledge it, work is my priority. Thus, an employee who truly values family more than work may choose not to do a task assigned because it interferes with family time. Being clear, then, on our volunteers' priorities can assist us in recognizing how to create an environment where the task can be done without having to compete with a higher priority. Attempting to change another person's inner priorities will only lead to frustration.

Desire to Make a Difference: One aspect of voluntarism is a desire to make a difference. Is my contribution meaningful? Does it have an impact? Sometimes, the tasks that must be performed seem meaningless and of little influence. The reality is, every action, no matter how small, is meaningful. Processes are interdependent. A simple invoice sent with the correct information, sent to the right address in a prompt manner can have enormous impact on a customer's perception of your business and their desire to continue working with you. While a salesperson may get the glory for bringing in the customer, the accounts receivable clerk may have just as much impact on your profitability. Thus, communicating the importance of even the small actions and appreciating the contribution made in the context of its impact on the success of the organization is very important.

Passion for the Cause: We willingly gift our time and talent with no expectation of return when we are passionate about a cause. What makes people passionate about a cause? It is the perceived positive impact being made in the world. Does your organization have a cause others can be passionate about? Does your product or service truly contribute to a better world? Or, maybe more indirectly, does your production of that product or service enable the organization to contribute to a better world? If so, then that should be communicated and reinforced by organizational leadership.

Other reasons people have for volunteering include:

• Achievement: to enjoy a sense of accomplishment.
• Recognition and Feedback: to be held in high esteem by your fellows and get a "pat on the back."
• Personal Growth: to stretch and learn.
• Giving Something Back: to return the blessings you have received. In the job setting, this could be someone who has had an exquisite career but now wants to teach, mentor or counsel.
• Friendship, Support and a Feeling of Belonging: how often have you stayed in a job longer than you might have simply because you loved the people you worked with? How often have you heard that "people don't leave jobs, they leave people?"

Employees seek and stay in jobs for many of the same reasons they volunteer. Finding out what stirs their passion to volunteer can also help you determine what stirs their passion for work in general.

Omit Needless Words: Good Advice for Writers and Leaders

I was a journalism major. Our Bible on how to write was Strunk & White's Elements of Style. It's most memorable admonition: "Omit needless words."

The book goes on to say:

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

Strunk and White were preaching "Thoughtful Reduction" decades before John Maeda coined the phrase in The Laws of Simplicity.

Applied to communication, both written and spoken, "Omit needless words" is not only good advice for writers but leaders. Our job is to make the complex simple, to articulate a clear vision that staff at any level can understand and implement.

As stated in my post "Haiku Strategy" Google's informal mission statement is: "Don't be evil." It's actual mission statement is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Both say a lot in a few words about one of the largest and most complex companies on the planet.

The paradox of making communication simpler is that it is really hard work. But that shouldn't stop you. Spend less time crafting the content of the message and more time making it elegantly simple.

Set Goals With Intention but Not Attachment

A colleague and friend of mine, Jeff DeCagna, contended in a strategy training program I attended that "strategic planning is dead." He stated that we should keep a strategic focus, constantly ask strategic questions, have ongoing strategy sessions, but not lock ourselves into a specific, long-term strategic plan. Why? Because the environment changes constantly and therefore the strategy-making process must be nimble and continuous. A detailed, written document is not conducive to "changing on the fly."

There's a common acronym used in goal-setting: SMART, which stands for "Specific," "Measurable," "Attainable," "Realistic" and "Time-Bound" or "Time-Limited." It is believed that all good goals should have these attributes. The guidelines are good, as they build in some accountability.

I'd like to take the concept a little further. I suggest adding two additional attributes: "Intention" and "Non-attachment." While the SMART attributes allow for accountability, they don't necessarily foster flexibility and the ability to "change on the fly."

In addition to listing out the specifics, the metrics and time-frames for accomplishing a goal, I also like to ask what is my intention? In other words, to what end am I setting this goal? Is it really to accomplish the specifics I laid out? Or can it take shape in a slightly -- or even significantly -- different way and still achieve my intention, the direction I'm heading?

This flows naturally into the second attribute: non-attachment. Much as a static strategic plan isn't conducive to being nimble, static goals may not allow for adjustments in a changing environment. A goal as written may not keep us headed toward our intention if the wind shifts -- as so often is the case with new technology and a constantly changing socio-political and economic climate. Therefore, we might not want to become too attached to our goals. We should remain committed to our intention, but not so much to being SMART.

Asking the Right Questions is the Key to Effective Strategy

“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
—ALBERT EINSTEIN

Effective strategy-making begins with questions. Effective tactical plans also begin with questions, but the types of questions used in strategy are different from those used for operations.

Operational questions start with "who," "what," "when," "where," and "how." Who is going to do what by when? Where will it take place? How will we do it?

Strategic questions often begin with "which" and "why" because strategic decision-making is about making choices (which), then justifying (why) you made those choices. Which market? Which product? Which service? Why this market? Why this product? Or Why this service?

In other words, the purpose of strategic questions is to create a framework for leadership to make choices -- strategic choices. Any strategic question you ask should have many possible answers and, ideally, bring forth new information.

A mistake many businesses and non-profit organizations make is to try to be all things to all people. They think more stuff means more value. Not true. With limited resources, the only reasonable strategy is to keep your offerings limited in scope and aimed at your defined constituencies – you can be some things to some people.

Strategic questions are a tool intended to lead you to make strategic choices that put you on the most direct path to your desired future (vision). With this in mind, focus your strategy making efforts first on asking the right questions. The right answers will follow.

Strategic Adaptation

Having a vision is critical. Not straying from the "big picture" - the ultimate desired outcome - is essential to long-term success. But sticking too closely to the letter and detail of a plan can actually take you farther away from achieving your desired outcome.

An oft-cited quote from success expert Brian Tracy states: "When an airplane leaves Chicago for Los Angeles, it is off course 99% of the time. This is normal and to be expected. A pilot makes continual course courrections, a little to the north, a little to the south. The pilot continually adjusts the altitude and throttle. And sure enough, several hours later, the plane touches down at exactly the time predicted."

That is the idea behind strategic adaptation. For leaders, like pilots, most of the flight time the plane is off course. Like a pilot, we must make adjustments to the speed and direction of the plane in order to keep it on course. Yet the beginning and end points are precise, even though the flight path is not.

For an analogy here on the ground, if we are driving and hear of a traffic jam ahead on the road, we will seek a different route that will take us around the jam, but will ultimately take us to our final destination.

So it is with leadership. Strategic adaptation in business means when new information comes along like the a change in weather patterns or news of a traffic jam, we may have to change course. But our final destination (vision) remains unchanged.

Kodak is a good example of a company that applied strategic adaptation. If Kodak had decided to remain committed selling only film cameras as digital cameras came on the scene, rather than strategically adapting with its own digital products and support services, the company might not be around now. The company's vision -- ultimate outcome -- remains the same, but its path changed based on new information.

In my view, strategic focus is far more important than strategic planning. In fact, many strategy thought leaders believe strategic planning is (and has been) dead. Does that mean you shouldn't have a plan? Of course not. But as leaders, we need to keep our eye on the long view. As Steven Covey says, we need to "begin with the end in mind."

With this in mind, we set our flight path for the final destination but consistently correct course as weather patterns and ground conditions change.

Haiku Strategy

"Principle I: By setting limitations, we must choose the essential. So in everything you do, learn to set limitations."
-- Leo Babauta from "The Power of Less"

In "Strategy, Plain and Simple," I summarized the difference between a strategic plan that was shelved versus one that became integrated into the operations of an organization in one word: simplicity.

In his book "The Power of Less" quoted above Leo Babauta uses the example of the Japanese Haiku poem. Haiku poems are nature-related, just 17 syllables, written in 3 lines, always 5, 7, 5 unrhymed. One of my favorites:

A firefly flitted by:
"Look"! I almost said
but I was alone
- Taigi

The Haiku poet must carefully choose only the ESSENTIAL words. From the very structure of the poem, one is forced get to the heart of things with absolute clarity.

If you want strategy to be successful, I suggest "Haiku Strategy." Simplicity doesn't just mean limit yourself to 3 to 4 areas of strategic focus solely because people are unable to effectively focus on more than that, although that is a fact. Haiku Strategy means because people can only effectively focus on 3 to 4 areas at most, you are forced, as with the Haiku poem, to carefully choose only the ESSENTIAL areas.

Now, I would also contend, if you could keep all strategic statements, such as visions, missions, goals and strategies to 17 syllables, that would be ideal too.

Google's informal mission statement is: "Don't be evil." Four syllables. It's actual mission statement is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Not quite 17 syllables (25 actually) but a heck of a lot closer than most organizations get. Pretty simple for one of biggest, most complex companies on the planet.

The Apple advertising slogan is "Think Different." Can you think of a company to which this simple statement more aptly applies? Can you see how employees of Apple achieve exactly that? While it may just be a slogan, if you worked for Apple, and this statement became the lens through which you made decisions, it's no surprise innovations like the iPod and iPhone become a deliverable.

In "The Laws of Simplicity" John Maeda lists 10 laws, the first of which is "Reduce" where he introduces the concept of "Thoughtful Reduction." He says, "The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction. When in doubt, just remove. But be careful of what you remove."

The last statement is the critical one, of course. Keep it simple but not too simple. Don't eliminate the essential, too, in your zeal for simplicity.

The work of determining what is essential, or at the very least, most meaningful and applying "Thoughtful Reduction" is, in fact, the most difficult work. While the outcome is simple, the process of getting there is not. Think again of the Haiku poem. Try writing one. It's hard. But think about how elegant, simple and clear it is when done well.

By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE

Strategy Plain and Simple

Strategic planning is simultaneously considered mission critical to our organizations and the bane of our existence. We hole up our organizational leadership in a room for a day or more and cover the walls with flip chart pages.

At the end of the retreat, we feel energized, forward-thinking, ambitious. Brainstorming and banter coalesces into a brilliant 10-point plan for world domination. Then, life happens. We get back into operations and don't look at the strategic plan again until the next time we all head out for a planning retreat.

I've had this experience, but I've also seen a strategy session turn into a living, breathing systemic organizational focus that drove intention and created results. What made the difference? Simplicity.

Often strategic planning sessions look at EVERYTHING the organization does and goals are set in every area (after all, there's room for improvement in all areas, right?). The plan is a multiple page spreadsheet with goal 1, objective 1.1 and so on through goal 6, objective 6.25. The plan looks like a massive task list and none of the goals are given strategic priority. Such a deliverable is why plans get shelved.

The critical missing piece is focused priority given to those areas that are most MEANINGFUL. While there may well be six important things an organization does, all six are not equally important and equally effectively executed. (Imagine disaster struck and you could only choose 1 or 2 or 3 things the organization could keep doing. Which ones would you pick?)

The reality is people and organizations are only able to effectively focus on 3-4 or (preferably) fewer strategic priorities. If you apply the 80/20 Rule or Pareto Principle to your organization, you'll inevitably find a very short list of clients, markets and/or activities drive a disproportionate share of your organization's profitability. That's where you need to focus your time.

I don't believe in detailed tactical plans (goal 1, objective 1.1, etc.) in conjunction with strategic plans; I only believe in strategic focus documents, strategic thinking sessions and strategy reviews.

Strategic focus documents are simple, short statements listing the 1-3 strategic focus areas you identified as being the most meaningful in advancing your competitive advantage.

Strategic thinking sessions are continuous discussions about actions to take within the strategic focus areas, adjustments to the navigation or whole new courses to set based on new information or changes in the environment.

Strategic reviews are periodic checkups on what has been accomplished so far in advancing the strategic focus areas.

Instead of attempting to have staff implement a "task list" tactical plan developed by the leadership, embed strategy in organization-wide thinking and decision making.

People inherently know what to do (i.e., develop their own task lists) if they know what the parameters are for decision making based on the organization's strategic focus. Make the strategic focus areas the key agenda items of regular, not special, meetings. This makes strategy systemic, integrated in operations, not independent of them.

At its simplest, strategic planning is an exercise in answering some basic strategic questions that determine your differentiators:

1) Which?
2) Who?
3) How?

Which market, which product, which service? Who are we targeting? How will we set ourselves apart? How do we compete?

Simply use the answers to those questions to create the parameters, the "lenses" through which everyone in the organization sees it. If they make daily decisions that lead to specific actions based on these strategic parameters, then the "task list" takes care of itself.

By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE