A couple of weeks back, I attended our division's three-day strategic planning meeting at a resort in Northern Minnesota. The weather was for the most part rotten--storms even knocked out the power for a better part of a day--and we were afforded little opportunity to enjoy the Northwoods environment or the fine facilities at our disposal (with the notable exception of the bar in the main lodge).

The lack of new business buzzwords was also a little disappointing. I was hoping to come away with a couple of beauts to throw JB's way, but other than a few old favorites--"fifty-thousand foot level" and "low-hanging fruit"--there just wasn't much in the way of corporate jargon that we've all come to know and loathe.

However, I did observe the striking similarities between what our group was trying to accomplish and the political process. In some ways, I suppose this is to be expected. Developing a strategic plan is essentially about setting priorities for how you are going to utilize limited resources (time, people, money) in the next year. Debating how to make best use of limited resources is at the heart of much of the politics as well.

This is the fifth or sixth year that I've participated in such planning meetings, but it's the first that I've made the connection to politics. Here are a few of the similarities that I noticed:

- The need to use your capital wisely: You can't get everything you want on the strat plan. If you try, you're going to end up failing and you very well may alienate potential allies. Therefore, early on in the process you need to identify a few key "must haves" and focus on them. If you get bogged down in discussions on every single issue, you're going to waste time and energy and try other people's patience. Knowing when to jump in and when to hold back is critical.

You also need to identify anything that you absolutely do not want included and again concentrate your efforts on shooting it down. You don't have to agree with everything, but it's not critical to your area it's often best to just let it go.

- The need to build coalitions: Our meeting included folks from the US, Latin America, Europe, Russia, and Asia. They work in groups such as engineering (design and manufacturing), operations, finance, procurement, planning, marketing, sales, quality, IT, and customer support. On any given issue, no single group has enough pull to carry it forward without getting buy in from others. Once you've identified your key issues, you have to figure out how to get people from these other groups on board and frame your arguments accordingly.

- While everyone has a voice, they're not all equal: At times, all the president of our division had to do to tip the scales was weigh in on an issue. What he actually said was immaterial, the fact that he had spoken was enough. Meanwhile, those of us lower on totem pole (is that still a culturally acceptable term?) had to present a compelling argument to move opinion. However, the president's power had its limits. If a large enough majority was either in favor or against something, the president's views could be (and were) overridden in a matter akin to a veto override.

- What you say isn't always as important as how you say it: The engineers I work with are some of the smartest people I know. But in this setting, their technical and analytical skill sets (their core strengths) were not particularly useful. Their arguments were usually grounded in logic and based on cold, hard facts. Often too cold and too hard. What they lacked was an ability to articulate a meaning that the broader audience could appreciate. The "vision thing" as the elder Bush once called it. This left the door open to more emotionally based appeals (relatively speaking of course).

The sales and marketing folks (who in fairness all have engineering backgrounds as well) were far more comfortable operating in such an environment and used their "soft skills" to successfully push their agenda. It's not as if they got everything they wanted either, but in this arena (as in politics) having a message and being able to stay on it is critical.

One way that our sessions most definitely did not mirror the political process (especially the way it works in bodies like the US Senate) was the lack of deference shown. With a few possible exceptions, if you said something inaccurate or made an unsupportable argument, you were going to get called on it. It wasn't personal of course. It was just business.

Labels: Business

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link