The thought of setting a strategy for an organisation can be a daunting task, especially given the multitude of experts, literature, and theory out there – all with conflicting advice on the right way to go about this.
Recently, I was working with a board to help facilitate the process to review and set the strategy for the organisation. They had already been through this process a number of times in the past, and were able to produce a document which outlined their current strategy in detail. Great, I thought, this board, despite being a small one, understands what a strategy is, we’re off to a good start. As the meeting kicked off, I realised that I may have been wrong in my assumption, as one of the first comments made was “Why don’t we move away from our current strategy framework of Vision, Mission and Values, it’s old fashioned. Let’s try something different like the What, Why and How.”
Fundamentally I was not concerned about the different use of terminology, especially when it helps people to understand. What concerned me was that they did not realise that, despite the different jargon, they were embarking on the same process and it was just a different way of communicating the older, more traditional, Vision, Mission and Purpose.
And who can blame them. When googling a template for a strategy (Google being the expert a lot of SME operators turn to first) you get landed with a “short” 28 page document to work through.
It’s also easy to see how if a board member does not have a clear understanding of what each part of the strategy process is, it would be easy to end up with a strategy that is lack lustre and fails in its ability to communicate its message.
So, what is a strategy really? Let me take you through the process and demonstrate how Vision, Mission and Values, and the Why, What and How are actually one and the same.
First, it’s important to understand that Vision and Mission are different and that they are not interchangeable. I have met a lot of people who confuse these two words.
A Vision is a statement that describes where an organisation is going – it’s a destination. Its purpose is to communicate and inspire people towards the possibility of a different future. It’s the Why. By its nature, a Vision statement is inspirational.
The Mission statement defines the path and gives the Vision traction. It’s the roadmap and sets direction for the goals to get to that destination. It’s the What. It communicates what we need to do to get to the destination.
Included in the mission is also the How. The how, in my mind, speaks to Values. Values are how an organisation goes about doing what it does and drives culture through behaviour.
Once set, these three key elements become the gatekeeper for any decisions made or actions undertaken by the organisation. If an action or decision being considered is not in keeping with the organisation’s values and does not aid in moving the organisation towards its destination then it should not be undertaken.
Implemented correctly, the Vision, the Mission and the Values or the Why, the What and the How, become entrenched in the culture of an organisation. They communicate a shared purpose and direction. Employees and stakeholders are focused, have purpose, and understand how they play a part in the organisation’s journey to fulfill its Vision and get to its destination.
If a board has not clearly understood the importance of each aspect of the process, regardless of what terminology is used, it will end up communicating a confused and uninspiring future with no clear path. A board will most likely find themselves with issues within the organisation because employees and stakeholders are likely to be disconnected, unmotivated or focused on the wrong things as they individually decide the direction for themselves.
I recently worked with an organisation that was facing some of these problems. It had been twelve months since they had reset their strategy, which the board believed had been clearly communicated to the wider team. Given this, they were adamant that the issues they were facing were not linked back to this. To test this, I surveyed their team to determine if they knew where the organisation was headed. It turned out, less than half of them did. This came as a shock to the board, but now armed with this new information, they were able to go back and review the process.
To wrap up, the point I want for readers to take away from this article is that it’s not the terminology that you use that matters, new trends and terms will come and go. It is your understanding of each element of the strategy process and the communication of it that matters. This requires deep thinking on the board’s part.