In this podcast episode Francis Wade presents his Jamaica Gleaner article “Time to Ditch the Pillars in Your Strategic Planning.” He walks listeners through the conventional strategic‑planning process that ends with grouping projects into three‑to‑five “pillars.” Wade argues that this pillar model is flawed for three main reasons: (1) pillars are essentially semi‑random to‑do lists that lack a coherent hypothesis; (2) they hide the causal inter‑relationships among projects, obscuring the chain of actions needed for outcomes; and (3) they encourage short‑term thinking, failing to provide a long‑term narrative for multi‑year or multi‑decade initiatives. He proposes an alternative “triad hypothesis” framework—aspiration, bottleneck, and strategy—drawing on Peter Kompo’s ideas, and recommends using strategy maps (Coop, Kaplan & Norton) to preserve causal links and communicate the plan. Wade concludes by directing listeners to his March 19 2023 GINA article and his consulting blog for deeper guidance and invites companies with strategic challenges to reach out.
Chapters
Hello and welcome back to Chronicles from a Caribbean Cubicle Podcast. This is Francis Wade, and here's an article I wrote for the Jamaica Gleaner. It's entitled "Time to Ditch the Pillars in Your Strategic Planning." You finally have time to look back at outputs from prior strategic planning retreats. A quick glance reveals an approach the approach they used, which includes pillars. If so, be aware, there are some drawbacks to this technique that could lead to a weak plan. But you must make a decision about what to use going forward. You need to craft an approach, but why should you be wary? To understand why, let's look back to the process typically followed. It usually begins with a review of the company's vision and mission statements. Then a SWOT and PESTLE analysis of the environment are also done. Next, the team brainstorms projects which are necessary for the organization to achieve the vision. Finally, these projects are grouped into 3 to 5 pillars based on common themes. The final product is often diagrammed as a building with the vision and mission statements in the roof supported by the pillars. However, it simplicitly belies the fact that there are some good reasons to use a different approach. Number 1: Pillars are merely semi-random lists. A view of the content of each pillar shows that the link between its items is tenuous. They are simply a list of activities which are nice to do, grouped together using some common attribute. Why is this a problem? As Peter Kompo says in his groundbreaking new book, The Emergence of the Process Strategy, Anything that resembles a to-do list is not a strategic plan. Instead, he reasons, at the heart of an overall framework should be a triad: an aspiration, a bottleneck, and a strategy. What is the role of each element? The aspiration defines the overall goal or outcome desired. The bottleneck represents the primary obstacle which stands in the way of achieving your accomplishment. The strategy defines the way in which the bottleneck will be beaten or loosened so that the aspiration is easy to achieve. Together, these three elements form a hypothesis. It represents the most important changes the organization needs to make, plus it evolves as further information and experiences are gathered. Unfortunately, the pillars approach masks this important nuance. Instead, it assumes that all you need to do is mobilize staff to execute disconnected projects. If this were so, executing strategic planning would be easy. Instead, in the real world, planning teams need to adjust their hypotheses on the fly as technology advances, government regulations change, competitors take action, and customer tastes change. Together, these shifts for— changes in the hypothesis, a fact of life the Pillars approach ignores. Number 2: Pillars hide relationships. Pillars also oversimplify reality. A mere list of activities hides the fact that projects are always interconnected with each other, but more importantly, they only produce outcomes after the correct chain of causal relationships is followed. For example, if you are a retailer, you may believe that an Easter sale will bring in added revenue. However, to achieve the final result, a number of other actions need to take place. You must become effective at reaching your audience with the promotion. Also, the sale should be launched on the right day of the month to hit paydays. Finally, the season has to be ideal for shopping. As some people restrain their retail therapy during Lent. The point is that the strategy relies on a number of variables which need to work together but are imperfectly understood. As such, success is far from assured. The pillar approach obscures this reality and oversimplifies the challenge. The truth is that strategy is an art in which your actions, causes are separated from the results, the effects, in time and space. Sometimes the gap can be decades long or thousands of miles apart. Fortunately, there are better tools to use like strategy maps invented by Drs. Coop, Kaplan, and Norton. These diagrams preserve the connection between key activities. Furthermore, they are easy to understand and explain to other employees. Number 3, pillars emphasize Short-term thinking. None of the pillar approach strategic plans I have seen take into account long-term strategies and results. Instead, they tend to be so simple that they only work for plans which are 5 years or less in duration. As such, the lists of projects in each pillar don't tell a long-term narrative or story which builds a timeline. Without it, complex undertakings lasting several decades aren't possible. Think of the planning it takes to build a cathedral over a span of more than 200 years, for example. Consequently, the list of projects found in Apilla only works for short-term tactical assignments in which the consequence doesn't matter. This is a major drawback. The technique can't be used to produce an inspiring monumental accomplishment. To craft an alternate approach, read my GINA article from March 19, 2023 as an example. Thanks for listening. Do you have an unsolved problem in your Caribbean company related to strategy, productivity, engagement, or business process improvement? Just visit a searchable listing of all my prior articles and you may be able to help yourself to A fresh line of thinking. Go to blog.fwconsulting.com or see the show notes.
