Can I Fix My Strategic Plan?

Occasionally, I'll get a call from a team which has been doing strategic planning for a while on their own and are disappointed with the results. In most cases, they are just not getting value out of the time spent on the process. This is a shame, because good strategic planning usually yields excellent results for companies that approach the process with discipline.

There are a few questions I always ask, because they lead to some of the most common reasons why people have trouble with planning.

1. What strategic planning process did you use?
2. How many objectives did you set?
3. How are you tracking implementation?
4. Who did the planning?
5. Did you use an outside strategic planning facilitator?
6. How much time did you spend on the process?
7. How many market segments are you using?
8. Are you segregating your assumptions from facts?
9. How are you measuring the success of your plan?

In my next few posts, I'll discuss each of these questions, and the answers that are often warning signs that the planning process needs a major fix.

When should I do my strategic planning?

I get asked this question a lot in my seminars. There are three basic ways to time your strategic planning around your annual cycles. First, you can schedule your planning process so that it precedes the budget cycle. This is useful if you feel it's important to get the money for strategic projects into your budget. This means you will have to complete and review your action plans before starting your budgeting, but it has the advantage of giving you some pretty detailed information about the expected cost of new strategic projects.

The second way to schedule your strategic planning process is to do it just after your year end. The main advantage of this is to give you the most complete, accurate and up-to-date data on your company's strategic performance. If your financial data gives you key insights about what strategies are working well for you (and it should), this approach might give you the best information for your strategic planning. One possible disadvantage is that it might not allow for inclusion of the action plan expenditures into your budgets, requiring a second look at your budget at the end of the strategic planning process.

The third scheduling approach is to time your strategic planning for a low point in management activity for the year. The main advantage of this is that you won't overload your executive team with the additional burden of planning meetings and homework. For construction, this might be the Fall or Winter, while for schools this is most likely the summer.

All of these approaches have pros and cons, and - of course - there are hybrid approaches that combine these approaches to scheduling strategic planning. I'd suggest you try one and see how it works for your team, understanding that it's always possible to change the timing of your strategic planning in the future. And, of course, a short discussion with an experienced, qualified strategic planning consultant can really help you find the timing that is right for your organization.

Strategic Planning - Should you go for the home run?

Every once in a while, when I'm doing strategic planning with a client, we hit a home run. It doesn't happen with every client, and it doesn't happen every year, but it does happen. A frequently asked question is "Should we try to get a home run?"

I have two very opposing views on this. The first is that swinging at home runs can be very distracting and, when you actually get a hit - it can be downright disastrous. One of my earliest home run stories tripled the size of the company in less than a year and brought their strategic planning to a halt. Within three years, the company - partly because they had stopped planning - had serious growing pains, including cash flow issues. The great "opportunity" they had found nearly killed the company! This is not as uncommon as you would think - there is a very real danger of growing your company to death. Also, let's not ignore the fact that, as in baseball, you are likely to have a lower batting average if you are always hitting for the fences.

On the other hand, while most of my success stories are about dependable, steady growth, there are quite a few that were explosive...and that can be the just thing to get a company out of a rut. Certainly, I'm proud of the home runs that worked out well, because they were built on sound strategic thinking and created sustainable competitive advantages.

So my basic answer is this: put most of your effort into your strategic competency, and the strong, steady growth that comes from that. Consider having a project with home run potential on a side burner, especially if it relates to your competency, but don't bet the farm on it. And...if it starts to take off, be very careful of how it will affect the viability of your company in the long term. Strategic planning is an excellent tool for assessing these kinds of situations, and if you are looking for explosive growth - or in the middle of it - you will be well rewarded if you take the time to do a good job of strategic planning.

If you are looking at consultants...

Remember, one of the most important concepts in strategy is focus.
Any strategic planning consultant who says "I do strategic planning and..." is not focused. They are just fooling around when it comes to strategic planning.
You wouldn't go to a brain surgeon who says "I do brain surgery and plastic surgery." So why work with someone who does something else, like marketing, operations or teambuilding consulting? Your company deserves the best, not an amateur.
Here are some useful questions for when you are choosing a consultant:

1. How many strategic plans did you work on last year? In the past 10 years?
2. What results do your clients get? Can I talk to them?
3. What else do you do besides strategic planning? Will you try to sell that to me?
4. How are you different from other people who do strategic planning?
5. Why do you think there is a fit between you and my company?
6. Do you work with my competitors? How do I know you won't share my data with them?

On that last question - you want to avoid consultants who work with your competitors. The worst strategy is the one that looks just like your competitors - and using the same consultant is a sure-fire way to get that.

Strategic Planning - better implementation

I'm thinking of doing one of my future Hot Seat programs on the Four Pillars of Strategy Implementation. I think it would be an awesome program.

People who use any strategic planning model tell me that implementation is really the hard part for them. Yes, I make my living helping people come up with great strategies, but I recognize that I get to go home at the end of the meeting and the managers I work with have to actually put a lot of attention and time into turning those strategies into reality. I suspect that the time I spend on implementation - about 20-30% of the whole process - is one of the reasons my clients get such great results. Some clients tell me it feels a little weird the first time through, but after the first year, almost all of them are completely sold on my unusual approach.

One of the keys - and this is a valuable point for anyone concerned with strategy implementation - is that we pay a LOT of attention to the money involved in most of our projects, and very little attention is devoted to the time involved. This has always seemed backwards to me, because (in the hundreds of projects I've worked on) 95% of the projects that fail in execution do so because people at the top of the organization didn't spend enough time on the project.

So my idea for the Implementation Program is to lay out each company's objectives, action plans, and resource issues, and discuss those in depth, probing for areas where little changes can yield big results in effectiveness. I'm guessing there will be some really great stuff we can do in a program like that on three areas: (1) writing better objectives, (2) writing better action plans and (3) structuring the resource allocation process to yield more realistic commitments. This is just an idea, so I'd love to hear what you think about this!

I think any company who is doing strategic planning could leave the room with a much better implementation plan - maybe even people who are already working with me! If you are interested in this program, drop me a line. I haven't decided where to hold it yet - it might be anywhere in the world.

On that note, I still have a couple of days available when I'm in Europe in late June- early August - my plan is to spend most of that time in Switzerland, but I'd love a chance to do a Simplified Strategic Planning workshop for anyone who hasn't had a chance to see me for a while. Since my only European gig was in Norway last year, that's probably most of my readers in Europe. Drop me a line if you think some great strategic stimulus would be valuable to your company.

Strategic Planning - the four pillars of implementation

At last week's Michigan State University Simplified Strategic Planning seminar, we had a great discussion about the four pillars of strategy implementation. These four things are the best practices held in common by all of the companies I've worked with who achieved 100% of their strategic objectives. They are:

1. Good objective setting
2. Well-written action plans
3. Good allocation of both time and financial resources
4. Routine monthly monitoring of action plan progress

Are you doing all of these things well? If implementation is an issue for you - as it is for most companies - you might want to think about how you can improve your effectiveness in these four areas.

Strategic Planning Implementation - The Dangers of Planning to Plan

One of the things I worry about in strategic planning is the tendency some people have to want to write action plans that result in plans. If something is big and complicated enough, it might require a plan to plan, but sometimes this is just a smokescreen for a bigger issue. Is the team avoiding making a decision for some reason? Is planning to plan a way to avoid conflict? Or is planning easier than the actual work involved in reaching the real objective? Make sure you address these questions squarely whenever you are confronted with an action plan step that starts with "Plan...".

Cash Flow - Is it Strategic?

Cash flow is both very strategic and very un-strategic. What I mean by this is, cash flow is the thing that kills most companies that go out of business. I've seen otherwise profitable companies driven to insolvency by poor cash flow management. So staying on top of your cash flow is definitely a strategic priority. But cash flow is also very, very tactical. It has very little to do with the reasons why most companies succeed, and often, cash flow goes down when a company makes good strategic moves. Watching cash flow has rarely led to good strategy - and in fact, companies that are too obsessed with cash flow may be driving away otherwise very profitable customers. So, watch your cash flow, yes - because it affects your survivability. But if the ship isn't sinking, remember to stay focused on moving forward.

Strategic Planning - avoid the wannabe strategic plan

One of the fascinating things I think about these days is all the nonsense that passes for "strategic planning". Strategic planning is a VERY specific process, which involves setting the course of an organization. A good strategic plan always answers the following 3 questions:

1. What do we do?
2. For whom do we do it?
3. How do we beat the competition (or absent competition, how do we excel)?

A good strategic plan also incorporates a systematic analysis of the environment, current situation, organizational capabilities, and assumptions about the future as a foundation upon which to build the answers to those questions. Finally, a good strategic plan, being a tool for creating better results, is simple and includes short-term implementation activities that make a critical difference in pursuing your organization's long-term vision.

Anything less than this is just a piece of a strategic plan that someone is calling a strategic plan so they can charge you more money for it. At best, these planning fragments will be useful but leave you exposed to many of the common pitfalls of poor strategic planning. At worst, they will waste your organization's time and money and leave people disillusioned about the entire strategic planning process.

Fortunately, the Simplified Strategic Planning process will help you avoid these pitfalls. Unlike ANY other model, it has been fine tuned through application over 25 years in hundreds of companies of all sizes.

Strategic Planning - making it more personal, part II

Another exercise that helps make participation in the strategy more personal involves identifying key relationships.

Using a diagram similar to the 3-7 element flowchart mentioned in my last entry, you can ask the team which relationships/communication points are most critical to effectiveness in each area. For example, in some companies, the key to effectiveness in customer relationships is the relationship between sales and operations management. Since these areas involve very different mental disciplines, it's not unusual to find the two departments don't communicate well with each other, and there may be some excellent opportunities there to improve effectiveness.

One way to dig in to this diagram is to ask each team member how value is created or destroyed for the customer in their department. Once you have identified, say, the top three ways value is created in each department or area, you can draw lines that connect those value drivers to the departments involved. In many cases, this mapping process can identify areas where you can greatly increase your value to the customer by putting a little effort into improving how the involved departments communicate and work together.

After completing this diagram, it's useful to ask the individual team members how they might improve their role in the identified relationships. You may also want to ask individuals to pick something they do that works well in this area that the other managers might benefit from trying.

I almost always use these tools when discussing strategic issues (page 5.2) in the simplified strategic planning process, which is in the second meeting of the cycle.

Strategic Planning Reborn - Making the strategic plan more personal

While personalizing the strategic plan is one of the most effective ways to bring energy and commitment to it implementation, it's also one of the most difficult ways to do this. This is because, unlike many of the variables of the strategic planning process, the complexities of the personalities involved pose analytic difficulties that are both broad - covering a wide range of possibilities - and deep - making them far more difficult to unravel than, say, a question of market responses to certain product changes. Even so, there are some ways of working with the personal nature of involvement with your strategic plan that can yield excellent results

One way of driving home the personal nature of commitment to your team's plan is to bypass personality issues and address the question in a fairly neutral way. An exercise I often use to do this involves asking the team members to identify exactly how they envision themselves contributing to forward motion along the lines of the strategy, and how they see themselves (and their activities) creating obstacles to that same forward motion. As you might guess, it's much easier to get team members to discuss their positive roles in a group setting. One way around this is to reduce the initial interactions around this to a one on one conversation. It's also a great exercise to have team members pair up and discuss the positive contributions, then have each member report on the positive elements of his/her partner.

To reassure the team, I like to tell them that this exercise is not about who is the best, or who has the least weaknesses. Instead, I point out that the greatest opportunity in this exercise lies in our ability to find the best adaptations to existing weaknesses - and that the more obstacles we can identify, the more obstacles we can get out of our way.

So...here is one process, in outline form:

1. Ask the team members to pair up and spend 5 minutes describing to their partner the ways they can drive the strategy forward.
2. Ask the team members to spend 3 minutes identifying specific ways they either (have created obstacles to this in the past) or (could create obstacles in the future).
3. Lay out what you consider to be the KEY elements of the strategy in a diagram (say, on a flipchart). Ideally, it's optimal to have just 3-7 key elements, such as "customer relationships", "quality processes" or "asset acquisition". For a FULL description of the modeling discipline I use, see Jay Forrester's Industrial Dynamics.
4. Ask people to point out where their partners can contribute the most on your diagram, and illustrate it.
5. Ask people to point out where they might/do obstruct the strategy in the same way - but be VERY encouraging about it. The key here is not to fix the person, but to get the pieces of activity that don't FIT the person moved to someone else. A useful set question here is "How could we accomplish this effectively? Are you the right person for this task? Can we use your skills better elsewhere? Is there a process, person, or piece of equipment that would take some of the difficulty of this activity off of your shoulders?"
6. One of the best ways to really tie this up is to ask the team where they feel they personally can create the biggest improvement in the effectiveness of the company. It is important NOT to permit discussion of what other can do, but rather to keep focus on how you can change yourself, or what you do, to increase effectiveness. At times, I've encouraged this by suggesting we will devote resources to the one or two best ideas, but even simple verbal encouragement will generate good results.

The point of this exercise is to really connect team members with the key elements of your strategy. As you progress with your strategy, this exercise can serve both as a reminder of this connection, for the team members, and a diagnostic for some types of implementation issues, for the CEO.

I've tried this exercise several times with different clients now, and I've been impressed with the results, even with clients who have been through several cycles of the strategic planning process already. There are some critical issues that tend to surface with this approach, and team members feel really good about what we achieve when we put this exercise into the strategic planning process.

In my next entry, I'm going to cover another exercise I use to make the strategic plan more personal.

Strategic Planning reborn - Drilling down, part II

I've gotten a lot of questions about drilling down, so I'm going to outline some of my favorite techniques for doing it.

As stated before, "drilling down" is a term I use for picking apart parts of the strategy framework. I'm assuming you are using simplified strategic planning as your basic strategic planning model. If not, be sure that your planning process has the following information outlined WELL before you attempt this technique. (I say this because most strategic planning processes are written by people who don't do that much actual planning, so the important chunks may be missing):

1. A good outline of your own capabilities. If you've done a standard "SWOT" analysis, you are probably fine, but avoid focusing on the weaknesses and be wary of BS.
2. A good outline of the capabilities of your 3-5 key competitors. NOT 20 competitors...just 3-5 that really bug you.
3. A good analysis of customer behavior in your markets, in particular, needs, preferences and specialty/commodity tendencies.
4. A good understanding of your operations, current technology, and supplier markets.

If you have all of these, "drilling down" simply involves picking ONE element - such as your supplier markets - and closely examining how they affect the strategic dynamics inherent in the information provided above. For example, in one retailing client, when we first looked at supplier markets, we assumed they wouldn't have much impact on our strategy, because everyone was in the same boat vis the different suppliers. Drilling down led us to ask whether a differentiated supplier market position was possible. We looked at 4 key supplier markets:

1. Capital/real estate
2. Labor/key skills
3. Merchandise/raw materials
4. Advertising

What immediately became clear in our discussion was a firm belief that our larger competitors would quickly copy any strategic move we made in most of these markets - and beat us squarely. In key skills, however, we identified that the size of our competitors would make them reluctant to radically change their human resource practices, so we opted to examine possibilities relating to those. The "drill down" involved a very detailed, almost tactical look at opportunities and operational changes required to change our ability to attract and retain people with key skills. We specifically rated each idea for 2 characteristics:

(1) How easily would/could our competitors copy this change?
(2) How well does this change fit our strengths?

Ultimately, this helped us choose a combination of initiatives (including training and recruiting) which yielded a significant advantage in this area. In the following year, the company increased market share by 10% in a large and mature market while maintaining premium prices.

Strategic Planning - "Drilling Down" part 1

Someone asked an excellent question about drilling deeper into the strategy, so I'm going to discuss that tactic, first.

When I talk about drilling deeper, I'm definitely talking about a strategic planning process that involves the top management team, and not external stakeholders or media. When you take planning outside the organization, you are generally looking to communicate why your strategy is a good one rather than how you came up with it. An example of what I mean by "drilling down" could be seen in an airline examining the customer satisfaction impact of all the contact points a passenger may have with them. This might involve some detailed analysis of the operation, combined with insights from market research on things that affect customer satisfaction. While it would look tactical to an outside observer, this kind of "drilling down" can identify places where operational, financial, IT or HR practices (to name a few) can be changed to be better aligned with the overall corporate strategy.

This kind of work is unlikely to be productive with the media, because it is time-consuming and hard for them to package. They will, however, appreciate any surprising bit you might come up with. For example, when Sears acquired K-mart, they saw the real estate involved as the key piece of the value of that deal. This was interesting, because it was a merger of two huge retail brands, not just a real estate transaction. The news media were fascinated by this, without really knowing why that made sense for Sears.

Outside stakeholders may have more appreciation for the actual "drill down" process. The best way to handle this with them (if you have the resources) is to walk them through the key questions. They won't have the data or experience of the management team, but - if you are well-prepared - you can throw those in as trump cards to move the conversation and its conclusions along.

One important point here is that the process of strategic planning is entirely different from the process of communicating the strategic plan. Both are important, but it's possible to do either poorly if you mix them together without considering how you will affect the quality of the strategy or the perception of the resulting plan.

Quick note...

Many readers already know I do training and consulting on strategic planning. What they might not know is that - to simplify my travel schedule - I sometimes offer incentives to have meetings in specific cities around the country.

I currently have client dates in a number of cities where I wouldn't mind adding a day or two for a workshop, or even a full three-meeting cycle. Here are the cities I am currently looking to add dates in:

Burlington, VT
Detroit
Geneva, Switzerland
London, England
Orlando (always!)
St. Louis
San Diego
Vancouver, BC

If you would like me to coach your team through the process...or simply train them in our highly popular program...please contact me about meeting in one of these cities!

Strategic Planning - Reinvigorating your strategic planning process

After a few years, clients almost always ask, "How can we put life back into our strategic planning? We've achieved great success, but we'd like to have the same level of excitement we had in the first few years."

This question often comes up for reasons that are inherent in the process itself. First, strategic planning - as an ongoing process - tends to yield easy benefits in the first couple of years, as your team focuses attention on the low-hanging fruit. After a couple of cycles of this, the fruit that is left may seem to be a little harder to reach...and often, it is. Secondly, if your process is well-run, each cycle of planning will seem more like a part of your management routine and less like a special event. This is true of any process that you repeat routinely, but with strategic planning, the first couple of years seem strange and wonderful because good strategic planning is so far outside the norm for most managers. Finally, as your team gains experience with the process of identifying strategic objectives and effectively implementing them, they also learn how much work is involved...and there may be a natural reluctance to commit to the big, exciting projects that bring so much energy to the first few years of strategic planning.

In the next few posts, I'm going to take a look at some exercises I have used to give the ongoing planning process a little more "zing". In general, these exercises fall into 3 categories:

1. Making the strategic plan more personal - many plans lose their "zing" because they seem to be about someone else...so identifying how individuals affect - and are affected by - the strategy can help reverse this.

2. Giving the vision more substance - sometimes, the vision encompassed in your strategy is too abstract for the team to "get into it". In these cases, some work on what the reality of that vision will look like can be just the thing.

3. Drilling deeper into specific parts of the strategy - in many cases, there are things just below the surface that can dramatically transform your company. A little digging in some specific areas can turn up gold!

Getting started with strategic planning

What do I do to get started?

This is one of the most difficult parts of the whole strategic planning process. Getting started with strategic planning can appear to be a daunting task, even if you are using a simple template like Simplified Strategic Planning. Here are a few tips to help you get started:

1. Set a date - sounds simple, but if you have a process with a schedule, committing to that schedule will help a lot.
2. Don't wait until you are ready - sadly, a lot of companies get stuck with this. There is no time when you are more ready to do strategic planning - so just start NOW.
3. Don't wait for data - you might do a better job of strategic planning with more/better data, but, again, there is no substitute for just doing the plan.
4. Don't overcommit - do NOT use a process that takes more time than you can commit to strategic planning. A good model, like Simplified Strategic Planning, should cover everything from gathering data through implementation with just a few days invested.
5. If in doubt, take a class - a seminar on strategic planning is a great way to get started - especially if you can bring your whole team.
6. When all else fails - or even if it doesn't, you will get a LOT from using a real strategy professional. The very best do NOTHING BUT strategic planning, and have done the strategic planning process hundreds of times. A professional will get you going - and coach you to do a better job the first time than you would even with years of experience.

strategic planning, strategy, management, business, getting+started+with+strategic+planning, strategic+planning+process

Succession Planning and Strategic Planning - it pays to plan ahead

In business, there are many things that can be done more effectively if you plan to do them well in advance. This is one of the reasons why strategic planning (when done well) is such an effective management tool. Succession planning is certainly one of those activities, and here's why - if you spend some time observing successor candidates and involve them in your strategic planning, you get two huge benefits. First, you get a better understanding of how the successor fits with the overall strategy and culture of the organization. Secondly, the successor gets a good look at how strategic thinking works while the outgoing executive is still in place.

Here are a few tips from successful transitions that I have seen in the past 20 years:

1. Start early! It's never too soon to think about transition.
2. Don't dwell on the weaknesses of candidates...almost always, other people can handle the things they can't, but DO look for candidates with big strengths in key areas.
3. Involve internal candidates in your strategic planning as soon as you can.
4. Use vacations and other absences to give candidates time "in your shoes"
5. Mentor the candidate positively - I've seen really good successor candidates abruptly leave companies because they were negatively mentored.
6. Help the candidates get a good sense of their own strengths and weaknesses as managers
7. Start working on professional development for the successor as soon as you can
8. If you see a big red flag come up on any candidate be willing to try another candidate

strategic+planning strategic+planning+process management business, succession+planning

Clues from Strategic Planning: Identifying a successor to the CEO

The strategic planning process is a great place to learn about the members of the management team. After a couple of sessions with a team, I can generally tell who is likely to do a good job on implementation, who understands your strategy, and who is going to have the best information about certain strategic issues. All of these are important traits in a CEO, but anyone who says "A CEO must have trait A, trait B and trait C" probably doesn't understand how much the existing management team can affect the leadership needs of different companies.

Here's a thought process you may find useful: every management team needs good implementers, good strategic thinkers (planners), and good idea people (creatives). While every manager has some of each of these skill sets, the best at each of the three will likely have less of the other two. This is because the mindset of, say, a good implementer, is about doing, while the mindset of a good planner is about thinking ahead. Neither is necessarily better than the other (although some are better for certain functions in your organization). Strategically, these three management approaches need to be present, in strength, in your top management team.

When thinking about who will succeed your current CEO, you want to watch your team for evidence of one of these three strength areas:

Implementers will be very effective working on action plans, and will generally have all their homework done, well and on-time. Action plans written by Implementer types will have lots of steps, most of which are specific, concrete actions.

Planners will likewise be very prepared for your meetings, but are likely to analyze more. An action plan written by a Planner type will have many more preparation and analysis steps.

Creatives will bring a lot of clever ideas to the table - but many of them will be impractical. Creative types tend to turn in homework that is incomplete but peppered with brilliant insights, and their action plans often contain just a few really critical steps.

I won't tell you that one of these makes a better CEO than others - because different companies, at different life stages, can benefit greatly from each of these. What I will tell you is that it will pay to be aware of these three styles and strengths in your own management team, especially when you are doing your strategic planning. An effective CEO always brings one or more of these skill sets to the company, and being aware of how that mixes with the rest of the management team can help you in your selection process.

strategic+planning strategic+planning+process management business, succession+planning

Do You Need Succession Planning?

Do you need to do succession planning? Of course, the knee-jerk answer to this question is "yes", but let's take a closer look.

Companies that do no succession planning usually survive the transition period from one CEO to the next. There is no clear data on the correlation between profitability and succession planning, but research on market leaders versus laggards in various industries do note some correlation between market leadership and certain succession planning practices. Those practices are:

1. Management development programs
2. Early identification of successors
3. Mentoring of identified successors

All of these take time, and they can cost money, as well, so it's a good idea to understand why you are doing succession planning before you start. Also, you want to match the investment you make in the process with the outcomes you expect. It's quite possible for a smaller firm to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the succession planning process with little measurable output on the bottom line.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do succession planning, but I am saying that you need to choose an approach that will match your organization's resources, and the value that you will get from a successful transition. If you are already doing strategic planning, there are some specific steps you should consider adding. Over the years, I've noticed companies doing well with succession when they have undertaken projects to do the following:

1. Inventory strengths and weaknesses of the management team
2. Assure the management team has easy access to a wide range of development opportunities (eg seminars, conferences, coaching, etc.)
3. Involve possible internal successors in the strategic planning team and the action plan teams
4. Discuss possible successors with a knowledgeable outsider who is familiar with your organization
5. Arrange opportunities for non-task oriented interaction between possible successors and those who might mentor them

It's clear from available research that some succession planning activities pay off handsomely, so you may want to examine this activitiy as a possible strategic initiative for your organization. Here are a few items that suggest a high value for succession planning that may come up in your strategic planning:

1. There are predictable reasons to expect an ownership transition, such as impending retirement of the founder/CEO, or health issues
2. Succession questions are making your team reluctant to commit to a clear strategic vision
3. There is an identified weakness in the next level of management or the pool of likely successors


strategic+planning strategic+planning+process management business, succession+planning

Some thoughts on Succession Planning and Strategic Planning

I'm not an expert on succession planning - at least, not in the same way I am an expert on strategic planning. Yet there are quite a few important links between the two disciplines. In particular, when succession planning involves the top management in any organization, it can have far-reaching strategic impact.

In my experience, one of the most important intersections of the two disciplines occurs when strategic planning is an ongoing part of the organization's overall strategic management. Strategic planning will very likely help you towards a successful transition in five distinct ways:

1. Strategic planning situation analysis will likely identify succession as a key issue early
2. Strategic planning will help the departing CEO to evaluate the strategic thinking of his or her top management team
3. Strategic planning can expose the new CEO to the strategic thining of the departing CEO
4. Strategic planning is an excellent joint activity for the new and departing CEOs during the transition period
5. Strategic planning helps to stabilize the organization during what might be an otherwise disruptive period

While you probably don't need benefit number one, if you are already concerned about succession planning in your organization, the other four benefits are all excellent reasons why a routine, disciplined strategic planning process should precede any planned succession and continue through the transition period.

strategic+planning strategic+planning+process management business, succession+planning