Long before there was Rocky, Seabiscuit, The Karate Kid, or Cool Runnings, there was David and Goliath, the original underdog story; but it wasn’t just bravery or perseverance that led to David’s victory. It was a stunning example of good strategy. It was surprising – no one expected that a boy with a shepherd’s sling could be effective in battle, but they probably should have. As David astutely pointed out, if he could kill a lion or a bear, why not a giant? It was insightful – David knew he couldn’t stand toe-to-toe trading blows with a well-trained soldier twice his size, and he didn’t intend to. Instead, he would take advantage of his strengths – agility and range, to neutralize his enemy’s and turn him into an easy target. It was also coherent – David understood that the heavy armor others were begging him to wear would only weigh him down and detract from his strategy, five smooth stones launched with deadly accuracy at Goliath’s unprotected forehead. In the end, he only needed one.
Surprising, insightful, coherent; these are hallmarks of good strategy according to strategy guru Richard Rumelt, author of Good Strategy/Bad Strategy. Unfortunately, these are not words that can be used to describe the strategic planning exercises of a vast number of organizations afflicted by what Rumelt simply calls “bad strategy.” To illustrate his point, consider a thought experiment. Suppose instead of a nervous King Saul, David was reporting to a modern-day board of directors that possessed the admirable quality of being “highly engaged.” We might guess they would have wanted to hear a whole lot more about David’s plans before signing off on them, perhaps requesting the use of a form template and a comprehensive set of SMART goals1, KPIs, and implementation deadlines. They would then spend weeks agonizing over syntax and verbiage while external consultants challenged them to make their Big Hairy Audacious Goals (or BHAGs)2 even bigger, hairier, and more audacious. With their “strategy work” ballooning in form while somehow shrinking in substance, artfully drafted into a document sufficiently thick to dissuade anyone from actually reading it, the brilliant simplicity of David’s plan may well have been lost. And with so much of his time occupied with committee meetings and status reports, trying desperately to secure the support of people who knew nothing of shepherding or soldiering, David could be forgiven for losing some of the zeal that he started with. And that giant might still be standing there, alive and well and undoubtedly annoyed with the whole process.
This isn’t to say that there’s something wrong with engaged boards or SMART goals. It’s usually better if your governance is engaged and your goals are SMART (and at least a little bit hairy). Rumelt’s point is that you can’t call such exercises “strategic” unless they contain some insights into the nature of the challenges you’re facing, how exactly you plan to overcome them, and what hard choices you will need to make along the way for your plans to succeed. David left the armor behind for his strategy to work. Paul left a legalistic adherence to Jewish laws and customs to pursue his mission among the Gentiles. Jesus told his followers to pack lightly and be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves”, (Matt. 10) making focused, mission-driven choices as they set out to fulfill the Great Commission. As you consider the context and mission of your organization, what should be shrewdly included in your packing list, and what should be strategically left behind to give you the best chance of success?
Reflection Questions
How strategic are your organization’s current plans? Do they contain surprising insights about your context or do they read like a “honey-do list” of high-sounding aspirations and goals?
How clearly defined is the pathway toward your proximate objectives and longer-term goals?
What are the policy implications of a highly focused strategy in your context? How do these compare with your current policies and initiatives?
