By Steven Worth
Every year some of the
association community’s most innovative strategies and plans in which untold
hours of volunteer and staff time have been invested lie unused and likely even
unread on some shelf collecting dust. Then, as time goes by and memories grow
vague and leadership changes, someone else calls for a planning session--and
wise old veterans shake their heads at the futility of going through this
process yet again. Sound familiar? It should, as this is a process that happens
to virtually every organization at one time or another. This phenomenon even
has a name: “SPOTS”—Strategic Plan On Top Shelf!
There are seven common causes for SPOTS.
The plan is devoted to fixing current problems rather than
addressing the future of the organization
There is nothing more frustrating than when a strategic planning
session “gets into the weeds”—focusing on specific fixes to operational issues.
Such situations are uncomfortable for everyone. The volunteer leaders wonder
(sometimes out-loud) why their time is being taken to fix problems that the
staff should be able to fix themselves, while the staff chaffs at this unwanted
meddling and wish (though rarely out-loud) they could exchange these nitpickers
for the visionary leaders they need! The best way to avoid this scenario is to
be sure at the outset that both volunteer and professional leadership
understand the distinct but inter-dependent roles they fill in governance and
operations. When everyone knows their role and has a feel for the critical
differences between strategy and tactics, then the stage is set for proper and
productive strategic planning.
The initiative lacks the support and commitment of the leadership
and/or the constituents
The French “Sun-King” Louis XIV was famously quoted as saying “the
state…is me!” Not to say that boards of directors consider themselves absolute
monarchs, but perhaps there is a touch of sentiment in many association boards
that they do embody the association. Legally of course boards of directors do
shoulder absolute responsibility for the association, but boards of directors
also are or should be representative of broader constituencies. In this
context, association leaders should take time to survey where these
constituencies are headed and to make sure the association has a good sense of
their needs and how these can best be served. Plans are non-starters that are
not perceived to be relevant to the membership at large. The best approach to
ensure relevancy is to survey membership before the planning begins, then to
report back to them how the plan takes their concerns into account.
No one is responsible for implementation or evaluation
It is easier by far to come up with great ideas than it is to work
out the “how, when and who” of how they will actually be accomplished. No
planning is complete—no matter how self-evidently brilliant the ideas--until
this has been done!
The operational plan is unrealistic or without focus or direction
If you agree “there is no such thing as an idea that cannot be
written,” then you can understand that there is no such thing as an operational
plan that is not grounded in tactics that are well-reasoned, directed and
supported by sound financial and logistical planning.
It does not inspire leadership or constituency to move the
organization forward
All plans—particularly ones that seek to launch new
initiatives—require effort if they are going to succeed; and this in turn
requires some sort of enthusiasm on the part of those who need to make them
work. If this underlying enthusiasm is lacking, then either the plan or the
implementers need to change!
There has been no “reconciliation” of these new initiatives with
currently budgeted programs
Great plans almost always require hard choices because they will
inevitably need to draw from resources that are currently being used for other
programs. This means that the job is not done once the initial planning has
been completed—because all of these new ideas need to be reconciled with
current utilization of resources. Choices always need to be made. If this part
of the process is not observed then the status quo will invariably continue.
The organizational structure inhibits change or otherwise does not
supply the supporting framework these new ideas need to be implemented
Too often planning groups fail to consider their association’s
current structure and whether it is suitable for carrying out the plans they
have just devised. This is in fact a critical issue. Organizations have certain
“rubber-like” characteristics. They can be bent into different shapes, but then
after time return to their original shape—and ways of doing things. If new
plans containing new approaches have any chance of success serious
consideration needs to be given to the structure of the organization that is
intended to carry out these plans. It rarely works to put new wine into old
wine skins.