"We can't decide so we cheat and bundle 12 objectives under 3 priorities"
"We can't decide so we cheat and bundle 12 objectives under 3 priorities"
Why it is hard to limit your strategy to three priorities and what you can do about it.
Everyone,
I hope you’re enjoying your summer (or winter if down-under). Today’s newsletter is all about priorities and why it can be so hard to limit your team or organization to just three (not five, not seven, not fourteen). Three is arbitrary but the real skill is learning to say no.
Now accepting one new thinking partner
If you’re interested in working together on your organization’s strategy, send me an email. I work with 3 - 5 organizations (I call them Thinking Partners) at a time and a spot opened up recently.
The first step to explore a working relationship is a 30-minute video call where we get to know each other. If it seems like a mutual good fit, we proceed to step two.
The second step is a 60 - 90 minute video call with you and your team where we will dive deeper into one of your top issues. This longer session is similar to the work we would do together so we can both get a feel on what a working relationship would actually look like. If your team is complete after the second session, we will end here. If you’re interested in exploring further, we move on to step three.
The third step is to go over a bespoke proposal for an engagement. Every proposal is tailored to each organization and the issues that came up in the previous steps.
The goal is to find issues that are important to your team, issues that can be solved through better strategic thinking and issues that are exciting for both of us.
A couple of updates before we get started
I am back from a much needed break. The Vancouver weather aligned itself to provide non-stop sunny and warm weather and I am thankful for it!
My favorite activity from my break was a beginner sailing course. I love the actual sailing but I was confused as to why this field cannot use basic words like “left” or “right” (port and starboard are the correct words). I’m sure there is a reason but I don’t know it yet.
I listened to Dark Matter by Blake Crouch over my break, a fictional mystery on the multiverse. The book does a great job at weaving in science (sometimes hypothetical) to explain this nutty idea. There’s also a TV series on Apple TV+ but I would recommend the book first.
I started working on the third episode for Stratagems and I’m excited to get into the recording booth. I’m covering the story of Polaroid and the intriguing Edward Land.
The title of this post is a literal quote from a recent strategy session. I’m planning to bring you similar posts over the next few weeks.
When I help organizations formulate strategy, I do my best to limit them to three strategic priorities. As soon as my mouth finishes forming the word “priorities,” I hear the expected pushback.
“How could we just limit ourselves to three?”
“It’s impossible to only choose three!”
“We have so many things to do, three is unrealistic.”
Other organizations don’t push back but instead find ways to circumvent the limit. I had one organization tell me that in the past, they have “cheated” by sneaking 12 priorities into three things.
I get it, most teams are ambitious. The problem is that many of these teams are often under-resourced and causing themselves unnecessary stress.
Luckily, there is a 5-minute solution. All you have to do is watch the following video.
If that was enough for you, then enjoy the rest of your day!
For the rest of us, I understand if “stop it” is too simplistic of an answer.
Let's explore the three most common situations that can lead teams to have too many priorities. See if you recognize yourself in any of them.
1) Succumbing to the weight of the present
We drastically overestimate what we can do in the short-term and underestimate what we can do in the long-term. A 2-year strategy plan may feel short but two years is more time that we could fathom.
Teams may feel pressured to fix things, especially if there is acute pain. A team suffering from poor communication, decrease in sales volume and talent attrition wants to solve everything, tomorrow if possible. The reality is that by tackling all three challenges at once, you’re less likely to solve any of them.
The solution here is to implement simple rules to limit your workload such as:
3 strategic priorities (over two years)
3 projects (over one month)
3 tasks (over one day)
The numbers are arbitrary here but they should be reasonable. Imagine starting your work day knowing that you only have three tasks that you must get done. Or that you’re working on two projects for the next four weeks.
The pairing down means you can focus on fewer things. Instead of making haphazard progress on lots of things, you can make significant progress on a couple of things. The catch is that you have to tame your ambition over the short-term.
The second way to relax in the present is through the use of phases.
Imagine that you decide to improve your health. You want to lose 20 lbs, wake up without an alarm clock and improve your flexibility. You give yourself one year to get all the goals all done. How would you tackle them?
The most common approach would be all at once but that will fail because it is too much work.
What if instead you broke out the year into three 4-month phases, one for each goal? You could get your workout routine and eating in order before moving on to sleep and finally to flexibility. At the end of the year, you could have accomplished all three goals.
Using phases in strategic planning can have the same impact. An organization could break out a three year plan into three one-year phases. Imagine telling your team that you will now spend the next year working deeply on one strategic priority (while taking care of the day-to-day).
2) Constant addition and no subtraction
Your organization is like this glass of water.
The glass will overfill if you try to add too many tasks at any given time. You could make the glass bigger by hiring more people or perhaps finding those elusive AI productivity improvements but your glass will always have limits.
Organizations are constantly adding things.
New projects
New priorities
New goals
New technologies
New products/services
New markets
I’m exhausted already. Where is the subtraction?
In a recent strategy session, we talked about what activities their team should abandon. They outlined process improvements that will have an impact but I was disappointed that they didn’t think bigger. They didn’t think of what services or customer segments to abandon, despite their team constantly talking about being understaffed.
Subtraction doesn’t always come easily. Once something is added, there’s a stickiness that gets stronger over time like concrete. It can feel hard to shut down a service, product or unit but I think the psychological effects of stopping something are tougher.
Your organization needs routines for subtraction such as:
Remove one recurring meeting every month
If we add a new product, we need to remove an existing one
If we add a new technology, we need to remove an existing one
If we add a team member, we automate portions of their job
If we add a new project, we remove or complete an existing one
Anyone can add more water to the glass. Organizations are full of ideas and even younger workers aren’t afraid to share them anymore. It is much harder to be the person who advocates for removing water from the glass.
3) The curse of too many ideas
Many organizations strive to be more inclusive by allowing anyone to suggest ideas. The intention is positive but you can end up with too many ideas.
Imagine that I suggest that we should have a week-long staff retreat. It took me three minutes to think of the idea but it may take someone weeks of effort to turn this idea into reality.
Even if the idea never gets off the ground, the idea will now consume your mental energy as you think about it. You don’t want to ignore my idea so you will carry the mental cost.
I’m not suggesting that you prevent people from suggesting ideas. Instead, you need ways to vet them. Here are some ways to do that.
First, you can allow your staff to vote on all the ideas. The voting can be anonymously to prevent people from feeling bad about saying no to something their colleague suggested. Voting will filter ideas that don’t have majority support.
Second, use your strategic priorities to filter ideas. If you decide to focus on one strategic priority over one year, you could ask your staff to suggest relevant ideas. Any other ideas can be put on hold until you get to that specific priority.
Third, you can dedicate time to exploring new ideas. It could be the last Friday of every month or one week out of the year. During this block of time, your staff can do the necessary leg work to figure out if it's viable.
Fourth, you can manage expectations for how ideas are handled. Anyone can suggest ideas but that doesn’t mean they will occur. It depends on strategic priorities, resources and other factors. Don’t allow individuals to tell you how your organization should run.
At the end of day, all of this comes down to being able to say no. Leaders need to cultivate their ability to focus on the most important items, even if it's only one. Doing everything is a sign that a leader hasn’t said no enough.
If all of these ideas fail, then gather your team in your boardroom and play them the video at the top of this article. Perhaps Bob Newhart can break through to them!
Ruben