Socrates & the fox. Clem Sunter
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 conversation has taken place, when the whole point of the conversation is to obtain a diversity of views and then gain alignment. Above all, long papers on strategy normally confuse strategy with tactics.
In terms of the number of participants, this depends on what the session is trying to achieve. If the session is designed to develop a new strategy and identify a company’s strategic advantage over its competitors, confidentiality is paramount. So it makes sense that the group is limited to the executive team and/or the most senior management. We have even facilitated a conversation with one person – this amounted to executive coaching. If a session is designed to promote buy-in across various levels within a company and to ensure inclusiveness of the conversation, then a larger group would make sense. However, too large a group runs the risk of becoming like a conference plenary session and destroying the intensity of the conversation. Our experience has shown that the optimal number is between 5 and 20 persons, with a maximum of 25; anything larger than that and the spontaneity of the conversation could be lost.
Should, however, for reasons of inclusiveness, the number of persons exceed 25, they can be divided into smaller groups, with the conversation being held within those groups. But a caution must be given. We do believe that our conversation model is holistic and cannot be broken down into parts, with each group, say, doing a different set of questions (such as one group working only through questions 1-6 and another questions 7-10). Hence, in such a case, we prefer each group to work through the entire conversation model and then report back to the rest of the groups, after which a synthesis can be done of the data. This allows the thinking to be subjected to the rigours of the ten questions while at the same time providing a diversity of perspectives and insights. Furthermore, it can also give an indication of whether the thinking and understanding of the business or game has some commonality across the diverse groups, or whether each group perceives the game differently. Breaking into smaller groups can work when discussing options, as long as everybody has participated in the section on strategy and scenarios, and contributed towards the swot analysis.
The next question we are often asked is: how long does a typical strategic conversation take? Well, how long is a typical piece of string? Some conversations are highly interactive and explore wide areas around the business or game, whereas others are intense, to the point and characterised by a high degree of agreement. The number of participants can also influence the duration of a strategic conversation, as can the logistics required for group work. Realistically though, a good strategic conversation should take not less than a day and, being sensitive to the time constraints of a typical world-class company, should take no longer than two days.
A post-workshop write-up is invaluable to the process as it provides an ongoing working document through which the conversation can continue. It also provides a frame of reference to look back on when participating in future conversations. The write-up can be done by the facilitator once all the data has been collected and assimilated; or someone within the group can process the data during the conversation and then disseminate it amongst the participants immediately afterwards, either by e-mail or internal post. However, during all workshops, data must be captured and displayed visually to the participants as a constant record of the conversation.
Two other practical questions we are often asked about the model are:
How