There's a lot about which we can be pleased: more focussed learning strategies; advances in Peace and Sustainability; community projects; many strengthened systems; and undoubtedly it's important to have a clear sense of direction. But I have always held strategy at a slight distance, and with slight skepticism.
My skepticism arises from the fundamentally paradoxical nature of strategy. Strategy needs to be long-term and to sit above the daily operations, but it also needs to be responsive and flexible to the daily realities. It's the tension between trying to predict where we want to be 5 years from now when we cannot even be sure what will be happening next year (or next week, in some cases under Covid!). Necessary, but difficult.
 |
| Focusing attention is a critical part of both teaching and leadership in any sector |
Surprisingly, we've maintained our focus even over the pandemic disruptions - which is a huge credit to individuals and teams under significant pressure. But what crises show us is that remarkable things can be achieved, that we might never have thought possible, and that never appeared on the strategy. Who would have thought learning from home could be so successful for so many, while also so challenging in obvious ways? We've been forced to consider opportunities we might never have initially considered and will now have on the radar even as the pandemic ends. This is not remotely intended to be an endorsement of crises - but it does show that the danger with strategy that is the necessary narrowing of perspective to focus on specific predetermined paths. In the rapidly changing environment today, we also have to be prepared to deviate from the plan and adapt as necessary (remember the one-liner from Punch: A long range weather forecast should be obtained before leaving, as weather conditions are extremely unpredictable). Interestingly, researchers Cândido and Santos note that the success rate of strategy execution is incredibly low - with fail percentages found in scientific studies averaging about 50%, and with some going as low as 7%. But perhaps these 'failures' were really organisations realising that it is madness to follow strategy if the context changes too much, and therefore choosing to abandon suddenly-irrelevant goals.
Organisational theorist Henry Mintzberg once described strategy being akin to the necessary blinkers on race horses - something necessary to stop us from getting distracted. That's a powerful analogy because it shows the danger as well as the power of strategy - what if being distracted is essential? Kodak should have been distracted by digital cameras; Blockbuster should have been distracted by streaming films over the internet. Sticking too rigidly to our strategies can be dangerous.
So I'm not yet sure what detailed plans will appear in our next strategy; but I'm very clear that we'll spend a good deal of time looking around before we write it, and also that while it can guide us, we won't let it blind us to new opportunities as we seek to make education a force to unite people, nations and culture for Peace and a Sustainable future.
- Bennis, W. and Nanus, B, (1965) Leaders. New York: Harper and Row.
- Cândido, C. and Santos, S. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?. Journal of Management & Organization. Vol 21 pp237-262.
- Venkataraman, B (2019) The Optimist's Telescope. Penguin Books
- Weiss, E. (1988).In Fairness to Future Generations. Digital Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment