of winning the game in five years’ time, expressed as a set of measurable outcomes?
The sequence of the questions can be explained in the following framework:
| Question | Frame of Reference |
| 1 | Context |
| 2 | Strategy |
| 3, 4, 5, 6 | Testing the robustness of the strategy |
| 7, 8, 9 | Tactics, decisions, actions |
| 10 | Measurable outcomes |
Straightforward though the questions may seem, they have multiple layers to them because they explore both the game as well as the player’s relationship to the game. There are sub-questions as well. As Socrates said to the fox: “We are all elements of a system in a continual state of interaction and mutual influence, as our minds are with our bodies.” To reflect this philosophy, the course of the strategic conversation continually weaves between internal questions about the organisation and external questions about the environment, the relationship between the two often evolving as the conversation progresses. Moreover, please don’t treat the frame of reference as a list to which strict adherence has to be given. At any stage, an issue may be raised that demands that you revisit an earlier stage of the conversation. Or a bright idea comes up before its time. Brilliance is spontaneous, not ordered! So look at our ten questions as segments of a circle which can be rotated clockwise or anticlockwise as circumstances require.
Those familiar with business strategy will realise that the roots of our model and our thinking lie in scenario planning. What we have done through our ten questions is to integrate scenario planning into the mainstream process of strategic planning and decision-making. It allows top executive teams of companies to test the resilience of their strategies and tactics against alternative scenarios and, should the need arise, come up with other options faster and more effectively than their competitors.
And how successful is the model? Pierre Wack was the recognised master of scenario planning during the 1970s and 1980s. He used to say that the acid test for any successful scenario exercise was not that it captured an unusual future before it happened; rather it was whether the scenario penetrated the mindset of the relevant decision-makers and persuaded them to act ahead of time. We call this the ‘Wack test’. The scenario itself did not have to be entirely accurate in its details, as long as, in retrospect, it modified for the better the course of action taken.
Many scenario exercises are brilliant intellectually, but fail the Wack test because they do not connect to the people who make the decisions. There are, however, three aspects to our conversation model which give the scenarios a good chance of passing the Wack test:
We assist the decision-makers in writing the scenarios themselves instead of having external specialists presenting scenarios to them. The decision-makers are an intrinsic part of the scenario process;
We have integrated options, decisions and measurable outcomes into the same conversation that handles the formulation of the scenarios. Thus the practical implications of the scenarios cannot be ignored; and
The scenarios sometimes feature the main decision-makers in the story. This makes them feel more committed to take appropriate action to ensure greater probability of the virtuous scenario materialising, and the worst-case scenario being avoided.
Of course our conversation can still fail the Wack test. If it does, it is often through the sheer inertia – or the resistance to change – of the team. This invariably brings about a crisis in implementation and a reversion back to old and defective ways that are out of sync with the new game. Equally, inertia can also be experienced when no effort is made to cascade the strategy through the ranks, and make effective use of all the players in a team. CEOs love to talk about motivating their players but often don’t provide a clear direction. They rule by the mushroom method – keep the staff in the dark and occasionally pour manure over them. Never mind passing the Wack test, these CEOs need a whack!
Such inertia is one of the aspects that we address when we facilitate strategic sessions using our conversation model. We deal with this challenge towards the end of the dialogue by breaking actions down into easily manageable deliverables, and making very pointed notes of who is going to do what by when. It is then up to the team to monitor progress.
The Mechanics
Looking more generally at how we implement the model, we predominantly work with a company’s top executive team but at times with middle management. Sometimes we take on individual divisions or business units. We have also worked with organisations that have multiple stakeholders from diverse backgrounds – where common ground needs to be achieved before any plan of action can be put in place. A shared perception of the game helps enormously in these circumstances.
The choice of venue for any session is important. We do not advise using a company’s office premises, as it is far too easy to suffer temporary loss of participants during the conversation. There are few things more frustrating than people nipping in and out to return calls or deal with day-to-day business. On the other side of the coin, resorts that offer an exciting array of activities, especially golf, can prove just as much of a distraction. We insist in these instances on work, then play, so the conversation is not overly disrupted.
The venue also requires careful thought because conversation often continues outside the room out of official working hours. We recommend a venue that matches the culture of the company. We once held a session in a wine cellar that was arranged (not by us, we must add) for a company renowned for their maverick, expressive persona. We all found it quaint, but incredibly restrictive and claustrophobic. One of the most exotic venues was the main cabin of a paddle boat. As it forged down the river, you could not help feeling that it epitomised the calm and resolute manner in which the company was being guided into the future.
Strategic conversations with multinationals carry with them extra challenges, not least around logistics and different languages and cultures. A little more patience and sensitivity is all that is sometimes necessary. We once facilitated, using video-conferencing, a session on sustainable development with a leading multinational company that was spread over a number of countries. Although, with the digital delay, the session was a little more challenging, it was softened by the knowledge that we had produced fewer carbon emissions by not flying delegates to a single destination!
When planning a strategic session with a company, we suggest a venue that allows the executive team, or participants, to sit at a round table or in a horseshoe configuration so they can see each other. Socrates did this with his pupils. Conversation is as much about gestures and facial expressions as it is about what people actually say. A behavioural psychologist once said that if you see someone looking upwards to the left, he or she is about to tell you a huge lie! Sitting in a circle also means that nobody has superior status at the table because of position. It’s important to create an environment that encourages the conversation to be as participative as possible, since the best strategists in a team are often the last people who want to speak up. Foresight is very different from charisma.
We also insist on zero paper except, if necessary, a flip chart upon which we record the conversation. Preferably, though, we like to capture the proceedings on a screen linked to a computer where we can move back and forth on points made. We want people to bring their minds, their experiences and, most of all, their imagination, to the meeting. Long documents on strategy tend to contain figures that are based on consensus forecasts and therefore kill the imagination, the very faculty that allows people to think outside of the box. Such documents also seek alignment before the
