ICYMI: There are NO Stategies for the Future
There are only Strategies for TODAY. Right now. Not tomorrow, or next week. RIGHT NOW! If you will do it tomorrow, or next week, why NOT Right Now. This is the nature of the Context of Transition.
Published July 31, 2022.
The Nature of “Strategy”
Richard Merrick is a person that I greatly respect. We have been together in person once. Known each other from afar for much longer. We think in very similar ways.
He writes a weekly newsletter called Reflections. Today, he reflected upon The Nature of “Strategy”. Here is some of what he said.
“Strategy” is one of those words that got lost in the last few decades and found itself in very unfamiliar surroundings. Its roots lie in the realm of military command – stratos “multitude, army, expedition, encamped army.” As leadership training sought to treat business as war, it found itself carried along as baggage. It gets added to job titles and projects as a sign of status and mystery and finds itself used and abused by those who don’t understand it.
One person who did was John Boyd, one of the greatest, if least recognised practitioners of the last several hundred years. His expertise was grounded in a deep study across many disciplines, gave us the OODA loop, transformed the whole understanding of ‘Mission Command,” and left all he worked with and spoke to a simple instruction.
“If you’re going to regard my stuff as some kind of gospel or dogma, stop. Take it out and burn it. Now. Instead, gather interesting thoughts from a variety of sources and disciplines, then BE YOUR OWN GURU”
Lt.Col. John Boyd USAF.
Boyd described two sorts of strategies. “Grand Strategy” was the overarching aim, simply defined, with no detail, and compellingly clear. “Operational Strategy” was the detailed planning done at the front line by those taking action. The job of the people between the two was to understand the intent, ensure those in the front line understood it, and resource them to do the job. That simple.
Somewhere along the line, we’ve ended up with people, far away from the front line, with little understanding of the reality there, setting detailed strategies to be followed precisely via monitored processes and policed via governance. Whether in politics or business, it’s an increasing disaster because the “front line” is no longer listening, and those issuing the edicts have lost all credibility.
And for some unknown reason, all of us who battle on the frontlines every day, sit in our foxholes waiting for the strategies that will lead to a new world of peace and prosperity. However, the disconnection from reality that these elite, global strategists display will have the same effect as the leadership of European nations a century ago that brought about the First World War.
I have visited a number of that war’s battlefields and museums. This video taken with my phone at the Verdun Memorial and Museum captures for me what that war must have been like.
Caution: The video depicts the horror and trauma of war. There are war deaths in this video. If you may be traumatized by seeing them, please do not watch the video.
The world that follows our time of transition will feel like the world after the First World War. If you have ever watched, Stanley Kubreck’s First World War film, Paths of Glory, you understand how the administration of that war is to the one Richard Merrick describes. A leadership that is intellectually detached, physically removed, and emotionally disconnected from the reality at the front will not only make bad decisions but late ones. As a result, the casualties will mount.
I spend my days at the front with the people who are traumatized and suffering because we live in a time where war, famine, economic collapse, and viral pandemics are now the battleground of our lives. We are on the frontlines of these wars. We are the ones who know the casualties of these wars.
When you are in battle, you only have right now. There is no tomorrow. No promise of peace. There is only, “How do I keep my wits and take care of my buddy next to me?”
And based upon the conversations that I am having, people are traumatized as if they were in Verdun.
The Power of Conversation
Later in his Reflection, Richard Merrick writes,
Back to Boyd. He identified five key factors critical to sound strategy, and all relate to the teams that decide them. The first was “Oneness” – a sense of being settled in ourselves and at one with those we work with. The second is an exquisite awareness of what is going on around us. He used the German “Fingerspitzengefuehle” – literally, “fingertip feeling” – a sensitivity to the tiniest changes. The third was agility, the ability to change direction in a heartbeat. Fourth was working relationships – understanding in depth what we expect of those around us and our obligations to them. The foundation of trust. Last was a clear focus of what was being aimed for, so that everybody knew what to do even when things become confused.
At the heart of all these facets is conversation – open, challenging, supportive, curious dialogue that notices everything and leaves no stone unturned or any anomaly ignored for the sake of convenience or speed.
Great conversation is incredibly inefficient but wonderfully effective, and we’ve largely forgotten how to do it.
Conversation has become strangled by agendas, goals, and other things that make wandering off course to examine the interesting an organisational sin.
In a previous post, I mentioned a woman who was in a challenging situation at work. We talked about forming a network of relationships so others in her role in the organization who suffer similarly can share their experiences. Creating this group for conversation provides them a vehicle for accomplishing what Boyd describes as “Oneness”, a sensitivity to the tiniest changes, agility in responding to situations, a greater sense of working as a team, and trust.
In conversation, we want to begin with an assumption of respect between each other. Trust is the result of that respect expressed in real terms. In conversation, together you can strategize how you are going to respond to the next attack.
Early in my career, I had a supervisor who verbally attacked me every Monday morning at 9 during our supervisory meeting. He was a bully. He believed he was smarter than I was. During one of these meetings, he said, “You know what your problem is? … You don’t respect me!” I said, “I don’t because you never earned it.”
This is the nature of strategy. It requires conversation, respect, and trust for the strategy to be credible. On paper, the plan looks great, but when you look at who must implement it, it becomes a different issue.
I thrive on conversation. Richard Merrick concluded with this short video by Kunal Shah talking about the importance of conversation and friendship. I will too.
I know you're quoting someone else, but these words go to the heart of collapsing trust in the 'leadership' shown by institutions and political figures.
'we’ve ended up with people, far away from the front line, with little understanding of the reality there, setting detailed strategies to be followed precisely via monitored processes and policed via governance.'
And the context and transition of nature. Thanks Ed. X