When strategic plans are “frustratingly vague”

Getty Museum Example

As the new year starts, many companies are beginning to prepare for their annual strategic planning efforts. Too often, though, the results of these efforts fall within the “too vague to execute” realm or the “too specific to be flexible” when the inevitable challenges and opportunities emerge during the plan’s execution.

An example of the detrimental effects of “too vague to execute” strategic plans is illustrated in a Los Angeles Times story on the resignation of popular Getty museum director Michael Brand, and his dispute with his boss, J. Paul Getty Trust President James Wood.

Tension between Brand and Wood began during Wood’s attempt to answer those lingering questions during a strategic planning process completed in May 2008.

Several sources called it an “empty process,” “a waste of time” and “frustratingly vague.”

Rather than bring in an outside mediator, as is often done, Wood led the process himself, effectively taking questions about his role off the table, one participant said. The result was a concise strategic plan that sets priorities in the broadest possible terms.

“If we knew what Jim’s vision was, life would be easier,” said one senior Getty official. “He keeps his cards very close to his chest.”

Employees are not mind readers. When priorities are stated in “the broadest possible terms” (as was the case at the Getty), conflict and confusion is inevitable and execution is impossible.

So, why do companies produce vague or broadly stated plans and strategic priorities?

• Covering bets to avoid being wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong, especially about strategic direction. If a stated strategy fails, management is often on the hot seat to provide a good explanation. It’s easier to say a strategy is to “grow revenue” without saying how. Unfortunately, there are unlimited interpretations of a vague strategy and it will inevitably lead to failure or sub-par results because of disparate and uneven execution.
• Fear of competition. Sometimes management is so paranoid that they feel even discussing strategic direction details with employees will result in a leak, giving their competition a sizable advantage to exploit. The reality is, in most cases, even if companies hand-delivered copies of their strategic plans to their competition, their competition would probably not alter their own course too much and certainly not fast enough to do serious damage. Serious damage, however, will occur if employees do not have enough knowledge of strategy to execute.
• Disagreement over direction. Management by consensus never works. To placate differing viewpoints on a management team, strategy is often stated in the broadest possible terms. The problem with this approach (besides confusing the employee base that has to execute the vague strategy) is that it defers conflict resolution at the top. And when there is a strong difference of opinion at the top in terms of strategic direction, it is the same as having no strategic direction. There must a distinct and unified voice on strategy.
• No strategy. Sometimes vague strategy is what it is — no strategy. Management may be incapable of developing strategy or they don’t have the time or resources to devote to strategic planning or there is some other reason for not having a strategy. Whatever the cause, the result will be the same — organizational conflict and sub-par business performance.

- A.B.