Ian Burbidge

I’ve previously talked about challenges to the existing paradigm of organisational structure, management and operation. I want to explore this further with the idea that strategy can offer comfort in times of turmoil. It’s the less obvious role of strategy in offering the illusion of control when things feel out of control.  

It feels too simplistic to suggest that the proliferation of organisations currently refreshing their strategic plans is a response to our emergence from Covid19. It’s of course a useful time to take stock, but then isn’t any? Covid will have transformed the world of work, as with so much else, in ways that are barely visible across all aspects of society: cultural norms, tastes, demands, working patterns, beliefs, politics…. How are we tracking, anticipating, preparing, responding?

How might we build the ability to adapt to such radical shifts in a strategy process that is grounded in the here and now, focused on the medium-term, and anticipatory of an unknowable future? In the here-and-now we see soaring costs for individuals and businesses to accommodate as interest rates rise and some products become scarce. In the near future we can’t know the impacts of AI on society or of Covid on the mental health of our young people’s development. Across all timescales we see the earth literally burning. Phoenix, Arizona recently had its first day below 110C in nearly two weeks while the UK Prime Minister recently flew on a private Jet to announce he will grant licenses for more CO2 to be dug out of the ground and released into the atmosphere. Short-termism, especially in our politics, is endangering the very survival of our species simply to attract some votes that might help the short-term fortunes of a political party. It’s illiteracy of the gravest kind. This won’t end well.

As societies, we have a choice. Do little, and the world will continue to evolve and develop, only with no certainty that homo sapiens will be on board. Stand up and fight for our future, and we face the prospect of just that – a potentially violent dénouement, the kind of which has taken place routinely and regularly over the course of human history. 

Within this context does not the idea of a strategic plan seem ever-so slightly irrelevant? I’m being provocative, of course. A strategy only goes far and can only achieve so much, particularly in the face of the unknown. We know the advantages of a good strategy in helping us anticipate trends, focus our resources, help us achieve impact in our chosen space, and help us say no to things that threaten to veer us away from our core purpose. 

But then I got to wondering about the hidden reasons for undertaking a strategic review. What if, in the face of seemingly unprecedented levels of uncertainty, the process of preparing a new strategy was also an attempt at grasping at familiar, comforting organisational props? What do we do in our own lives when all else fails, when we don’t know what to do, when all around us is in flux? We seek the stability of the familiar in some aspect of our lives: a relationship breakdown? Double down on the familiarity of work, the safety of the gym or the comfort of a glass of wine, perhaps. And in an organisational context what is a more familiar crutch than a good, honest, well articulated strategy? It doesn’t matter whether it accurately anticipates the future or indeed drives the work of the present so long as it offers the promise of stability and certainty, however illusionary that might be for leaders and staff alike. 

Flowing from this is the distinction between strategy as a destination or as a process. Strategy as a destination sees a document and plan prepared, agreed and published. Strategy as a process articulates the ambitions for change and the direction of travel but the approach is constantly evolving and updating based on new information, ideas and intel from the world in which we operate. It is perhaps more focused on establishing implementation and review mechanisms that match the cadence of its operating environment as it is on promulgating clearly articulated ambitions. 

It’s strategy-as-destination which offers the illusion of control. Yet a critical challenge with strategy-as-process is landing it in organisations and for staff and stakeholders whose (often unknowing) default is reductionist, linear thinking and cause and effect logic. The ‘control the variables, be smart, achieve results’ approach doesn’t work so well in complex times of ambiguity and uncertainty. 

It seems to me that that the world we are entering in to is not one our careers to date have prepared us for. What worked in the first part of this century is unlikely to serve us well for the next. Perhaps these times are asking something new of us as leaders, not only new responses and ways of making sense of the world, but also new ways of working. 

Perhaps hierarchy will be replaced with networks, career paths in organisations replaced with chopping and changing direction, the idea of working for someone – especially big corporate beasts – replaced with the idea of working for yourself, bringing your own talents and value to the needs of the world and society in ways that are more flexible and adaptive. 

Can we imagine a future with no organisations? With no managers? Or organisations with no hierarchies? Sure, part of the human experience is grounded in groups, finding ways to come together to achieve common goals. But perhaps the way we traditionally do it in the West isn’t the way we will always do it. Perhaps new ideas, approaches and structures are emerging. Perhaps we will find ourselves returning to the vast bank of human knowledge and experience developed over millennia and still evident in many indigenous communities. We are likely to be forced into the need for new. Will we seek to double down on what worked before or will be adapt and thrive?