Is this a or the strategy?

Strategy points to the future, and often strategy talk envisages growth and development. Could we actually say that these two are the elementary elements which establish THE strategy. First, THE strategy, and therefore any strategy talk is prone to revolve around a view toward the future. It could be said that strategy is about future. Secondly in this typical strategy talk the second element is positive growth and development. Typically THE strategy talk advocates the idea that the target or object of strategy work - which can be sometimes part of the world, sometimes our organization or department or perhaps some unit in our organization - is described to become much better than what it is now, thanks to THE strategy.

 

Do these elements encapsulate the essential essence of any strategy? Is this actually THE strategy, the very thing which is repeated in numerous situations in numerous presentations and talks with some minor adjustments and context related words and terms?

 

Let us see. Would it make sense if some strategy talk would not revolve about future but about the past. Sounds a bit odd. Would it make sense if some executives would present a strategy where things go downhill? Again sounds worryingly odd. However, before we completely ignore these odd sounding strategy talk options, we must dare to look what is happening in the real world. Are countries, regions, organizations and all different entities and units constantly climbing towards ever increasing success? Unfortunately not, it almost seems that journey downhill is almost as common event as ascent to the next level of success.

Hence could it also make sense to talk about past and also about problems, possible reasons of not succeeding, when we would talk about strategy. Should we in a way change a tone of whole strategy discussion. In this changed tone we would talk more about real people, real organizations and real challenges on the market place, and perhaps a bit less about plans, goals and aspirations. Here I am first to emphasize that striving towards improvement, and therefore things like Inspiring goals and challenging aspirations are of course elementary part of strategy and sensible strategy work.

So let us first take a setting where strategy discussion would not ignore past, but would actually very carefully analyze what we have achieved and what we may not have reached, why we have done what we have done. It is very likely that a lot what has been real and possible for us so far will continue to be true to us in the future. Many of those things which define us as people and as actors in organizational context, will continue to define us 1st of January, when new strategy season starts. And again I am first to emphasize that change is possible and actually everything is changing all the time. Also genuine decision making and choosing new paths to proceed are elementary parts of sensible strategy work. Yet the arrow of time in strategy talk should not point solely to the future, understanding past which still defines us and  the way we can perform our combined organizational effort is also very, very important.

How about the second element of THE strategy, typically a very heavy emphasize of growth and development and a tendency to gloss over problems and challenges. Certainly sometimes diminishing sales and other downturn features are included into strategy talk, often these are such issues which people already start to see in a similar way. However perhaps we should really try to uncover problems and challenges as early as possible and even raise up issues which are not nice and which are not yet generally recognized and which are also still heavily debatable. That would offer an opportunity to start to create profound new understanding about the changing real world and thus create a basis to start to do corrective measures as soon as possible, well before "the shit hits the fan" as the profound saying evocatively expresses the phenomenon.

 

Hence a neat and clear arrow pointing up and the future is not THE strategy. Strategy is tough work in real world and strategical decisions must be constructed on real world events and complexities. Strategy does not hide, strategy uncovers and reveals. Hiding would mean a movement from a real world into the world of plans and aspirations. Real strategy keeps the complex reality in the front and as clearly visible as possible. In that world strategy is a powerful tool that may eventually mean that the desired movement up and forward becomes really possible, and climbing to the next stratum of success happens in real world not solely in hopeful plans.

WHY CHOOSE SILENCE

Why do you choose silence? When do you choose silence?  What might make you to change the way how to choose between silence and voice in different organizational settings?

The general view today seems to be that it would be most valuable for the very success of the organization if as many as possible would provide their genuine own views, ideas and observations for the general discussion. Let us take this as a starting point and let us ask why so many in so many situations still seem to choose silence?  I dare to propose that my question is not a senseless provocation - this is because so many discussions with so many people in so many occasions have convinced me that quite often people actually have chosen silence and surely people will choose silence in many situations in the future. Perhaps what we may have here is an intriguing oxymoron. You learn to know about silence when people tell about it (of course this happens in different situation than where the silence takes place). But surely you know this phenomenon and you must have also observed it in many occasions and you must have heard about it. Could the silence be the hot but quiet topic on the arena of management, control and leadership?

 

 

 

As such it would be a most interesting topic for in depth inquiry to examine how and why silence is selected in different organizations, in different business cultures, in different meetings, in different places and with different people.

Why people choose silence?  Let me start by outlining a list of obvious reasons. This is by no means an exhaustive list, it is mainly food for thought kind of list which could give each of us an idea how common phenomenon silence must actually be in any organizational reality. The list also shows immediately that people may certainly feel that they have many good reasons which may result in silence in different settings. So, why silence, what people may think when they choose silence:

1.       No reason to talk, nobody would really listen anyway

2.       Talk is idle, it has been tried, it will not change anything

3.       My ideas are not that important

4.       There might be negative consequences if I opened my mouth

5.       Talking (proposing new ideas) is work, and I have done my share

6.       I am not in a such position who speaks is situation like this

7.       We have two ears and one mouth, listening is gold and speaking something else

8.       …

Certainly the list could go on and on, and everybody could easily list numerous reasons why people may choose not to express their opinions in different settings. What is important here is to realize that silence is certainly an unavoidable part of organizational life. Different people in different settings choose silence. Also it is important to realize that mostly people choose silence because they think that it is wise thing to do. Probably silence is selected for personal reasons but also for organizational reasons. People may think that raising up certain topics might cause havoc in their organizations and therefore silence will actually benefit the organization.

 

In fact, it may not be so obvious that silence should be replaced with voice everywhere and always. These issues are truly very delicate and complex. I think that generally speaking people and organizations are doing today what they are capable of and what they consider possible. Hence in real world it is often impossible to make a quick and heroic move which would change black into white, or ineffectiveness into effectiveness, or silence into voice - and create only positive consequences.

The level of silence in any organization, and in any meeting, and actually anywhere where people encounter has been chosen by those wise people who are actors in that particular situation. At the same time most organizations would undoubtedly benefit a lot, if not enormously, if people would more openly share their observations and ideas. This is the setting where leadership in real world has to operate. How to decrease the level of silence in organizations so that consequences are desired for people and for the organization?