Reset means Change, and Change is hard
Don’t just Survive - Thrive! While a popular phrase, and one that we hear increasingly after market turbulence, it misses the critical point. Just surviving will not get you to Thrive. If you are not prepared to go through a Reset - and if you are not prepared to manage the changes that come along with it - you will likely not get to Thrive. The power is in the Reset. Resets are hard because Resets involve change. Creating a robust new strategy is fundamentally about change. Change is hard for individuals and harder still for organizations. But if you can prepare to lead through the SRT loop and embrace the change it demands - and then lead this through the organization - you can journey to Thrive.
Change is a fundamental aspect of human existence, yet it is often met with resistance and difficulty. Our natural wiring is set up to resist it! The human brain favors routine and predictability, as this creates a sense of security and comfort. We don't want to step outside of our comfort zone, but leading a growth strategy is fundamentally about getting comfortable with being comfortable!
We also get emotionally attached to the status quo, even more so when we were part of creating that status! Many times as I am working with a team on the Reset, the team members most involved in developing the existing strategy are the most resistant to stress testing it, challenging its underlying assumptions, and being heads up to possible new information.
So what does that mean for getting success from your Reset? This is something I explored in many of the podcast links below. It's also a topic that will be the feature of the next blog post on the SRT website, but here's a sneak peak of three aspects to change so your team can better embrace change!
Change your view of uncertainty: Our natural instinct is to view uncertainty as negative, a set of possible risks to be overcome rather than an opportunity set of growth possibilities. The definition of uncertainty is a series of future events that may or may not occur; whether these are good or bad depends on what we’re trying to achieve, and how we’re set up. Our job as leaders: figure out what we’re trying to achieve, and then get set up!
Punchline: Framing uncertainty as negative causes us to view possible new information as risks to be addressed rather than learnings that can bring new opportunities. Uncertainty is the future, and it is neutral. Its impact comes down to our clarity of what we’re trying to achieve and our willingness to adapt to achieve more and more.
Change the first step of the strategy development process: A typical strategy offsite starts with an ice breaker. Then there is a brainstorm where everybody’s ideas about what the company should be working on are logged. Ideas are thrown around, markers are used to capture top insights, different colored stickers are used to ‘vote’ on favorites priorities, and a list is created within a few hours. It’s quick and everyone gets a voice, but it is not the most effective way to define MWBs. Strategy and its top priorities are not something to gamify. Instead, your first discussion should be: What is the situation, and how will this change? Starting with beliefs forms a foundation for strategy: as a team you are aligning on critical beliefs and assumptions that will guide your later choices. You are acknowledging where you do not agree, and therefore need to test, and you are starting with a testable base rather than framed and biased views of what’s most important.
Punchline: If you start the strategy process with ‘what should we do,’, not only will the list likely be wrong, you won’t want to change it as you will be too anchored to the priority you placed on the list.
Change the first question of the strategy review: Having attended numerous Board meetings and strategy reviews, I find these sessions tend to begin with the same question. Someone pauses slightly first, and then ask quite firmly: Are we on track to plan? While a perfectly reasonable question, it is not the right question to ask to start a strategy review. It assumes that the plan got everything right, that there is only one track, and that no new information has become available. These assumptions are usually wrong. Reviews that start in this way become backward looking and focus on numbers when they should be forward looking and focus on actions. The critical issue to resolve is: What are we going to do now? So, the first question to be asked should be: Has the situation changed?’ If the situation has changed, being on track to plan is not necessarily a good thing. So the next question should be: ‘Given the new situation, what should we do now?’
Punchline: The first question in a strategy review should be if the situation has changed, as that guides what, why, and how you may need to change going forward.
