Sam Smith, 2009 - Have pity on me. Say a prayer. Drop a penny in the pond on my behalf. In a few days I have to go to a non-profit's strategic planning meeting. It's a great organization that does wonderful things, but - like so many non-profits - it periodically seeks to cleanse and refresh itself by turning what it does into indecipherable abstractions. I'll survive and maybe there'll be some good food, but, as a general rule, I don't do strategic visions.
Still it's happening all over America. "Strategic
plan" and its semantic variations have appeared on Google seven million
times just in the past month.
Strategic planning, in its non-military sense, got its start
at the Harvard Business School in the 1920s. Not long after we had the Great
Depression. The concept had a revival in the 1980s and contributed to the
philosophy and practices that have left us with the Penultimate Great
Depression.
Coincidence, perhaps, but bear in mind that in the 1950s -
when the economy was booming - we were turning out only 5,000 MBAs a year. The
number of people in business who had any idea of about strategic planning was
minute. By 2005, we were churning out 142,000 MBAs a year and we had huge trade
and budget deficits, a disappearing auto industry, one of our most costly and
disastrous wars, a growing gap between rich and poor, and a constantly
projected inability to care for our ill or elderly.
Worse, everyone in the country had been infected by
corporate verbiage and values. And, often unconsciously, much of America had
bought into the rightwing and absurdly simplistic Reaganesque view of life and
the very voices that should have been among the loudest in opposition -
non-profits - signed up as well.
Non-profits found that it helped to adopt the language of
business. It made them seem responsible rather than just over-idealistic
do-gooders. It also reflected one of the most misguided assumptions of the
educated elite: if one can understand, identify, manipulate and be loyal to
abstract principles, the specifics will obediently follow.
Editors and reporters, among others, know better. Reporters
run into this sort of language constantly at news conferences and elsewhere.
They have a professional term for it: bullshit.
And editors know that a reporter may come up with a great
idea for a story and even have a strategy for carrying it out, but if the
journalist doesn't know how find the right sources, or ask the right questions
and write it all down, the strategy won't work.
Over the past three decades corporations have done an
incredibly effective job of turning Americans into just so many more corporate
employees desperate for a strategic vision that will foster formulations of
actions and processes to be taken to attain the vision in accordance with
agreed upon procedures in order to achieve a hierarchy of goals. It has - with
bombast, bullying and baloney - convinced an extraordinary number of Americans
that its childishly verbose and coldly abstract culture is transferable to
every human activity from running a church to driving a tractor across a field.
Unfortunately, life doesn't work like that. You need to look
no farther than the military to see this. During the post-WWII period when the
US military devoted more effort to strategic planning than at any time in its
history, it has also had the sorriest record. Over and over, the problem has
been an attractive general principle overwhelmed or sabotaged by reality and
facts.
Now bounce back 150 years to a war in which general strategy
was more than balanced by specific generals. At one point a White House aide
complained of General Grant's drinking and Lincoln invoked his best management
practices - which was to tell the aide to find out what Grant was drinking and
give it to all his other generals. Put that in your vision statement.
And the key battle at Little Round Top was won by a general
named Joshua Chamberlain who had studied theology, taught every subject except
science and math and was fluent in nine languages. He had, however, never study
military strategy.
In any specific situation, a general strategy can quickly
lose value without supporting virtues like wisdom, sufficient staff, adequate
budget, imagination, energy and good fortune.
But of course, if all else fails, you can always fall back
on your mission statement.
Like most people, I never read mission statements except
under duress or when I have nothing better to do, like standing in the lobby of
a pretentious restaurant waiting to be seated.
Gordon
Luk said it well: "Douglas Adams wrote frequently about the
human penchant for continuously stating the very, very obvious. Mission
statements take that principle to the extreme, to the point where we even
believe that we're going to persuade people about something or other by making
an official public statement about what we are going to do that would be insane
to negate."
Occasionally a mission statement rises to the occasion. The
alternative newspaper Eat the State had one that read: "Missions were
created by the Catholic Church to subjugate Native Americans in California. We
oppose them." And a small computer consultancy business in West London
posted a sign: 'We are not ruled by a mission statement, we are smarter than .’
But when you start to count the number of organizations - from religious to
non-profit to social to political - that feel they can't get along without some
gobbledygook on the inside cover of whatever they're publishing, you know the
corporate cultural invasion is complete.
Which doesn't mean you shouldn't have plans, think about
where you're going, discuss alternatives and figure out what you do best. But
the better model should be the pragmatism, inventiveness and realism of small
business culture which still provides most of America's new jobs - as many as
75 percent in some experts' view. Most small business people don't have time to
sit around a table coming up with empty adjectives to describe their efforts.
And they tend to call the people who buy their stuff customers rather than
stakeholders, which makes sense, given that the pre-corporate definition of a stakeholder
was someone who held the bet during a gambling match and handed it over to the
winner. Not a particularly exciting or profitable role in life.
Here's how David
Weinberger put in back in 1999:
"Mission statements are vapid because they think of
business as a march to a goal or a war of conquest. Businesses are far more
complex than that. . . Further, missions are things you accomplish and are done
with. Businesses, on the other hand, generally aim for long-term existence. The
board doesn't get together and say, ‘Well, we've accomplished our mission of
being the world's leading supplier of high quality wombats to blind gombricks,
so I guess we can just shut it all down now. Good job, lads!’
"Businesses often are more like farming than like
making war. How can we get maximum sustainable yield from this ground? And what
happens when the ground changes radically? Are we going to keep trying to grow
potatoes in the layer of ash, or are we going to see this as a splendid
opportunity to succeed with ash-loving radishes?
"So, yes, write up something about your commitment to
treating your customers well, building great products, and contributing to the
lives of your employees and your community. Heck, even admit that you're in it
for the money. But one thing is certain: if your mission statement achieves the
usual goal of fitting on the back of a business card, then it's just about
guaranteed to be empty of anything worth saying."
Which is why I don't look forward to my afternoon of
strategic planning. We will declare, no doubt, some fine principles, but life
is controlled not by the glories of the grand but by the uncertainties,
blessings and perversities of the specific. It is in organizing the latter in
some rational, useful, imaginative and, yes, enjoyable fashion that life
becomes better. As Benjamin Franklin noted, happiness is not the result of
great strokes of good fortune, but of the "little felicities" of
every day.
Meanwhile, if you are still curious about my personal vision
statement, please consult my optometrist.
1 comment:
I discovered Undernews and Sam Smith in recent months and wonder how I survived without him all this time. Any chance of getting Sam to run for office, like president? Probably not; he's far to insightful and intelligent and would bring a touch of humanity to the office. Well, at least we have him putting out the truth.
Post a Comment