Strategic Planning Sessions

Over the past 30 years, I have been involved in strategic planning sessions on both sides of “the table,” as an independent facilitator and as an executive. Effective strategic planning involves three distinct phases: before the meeting, during the meeting, and after the meeting. I would like to offer some advice for all three phases


Before the Meeting

I disagree with most of the strategic planning literature that emphasizes the importance of the independent consultant having facilitation skills during the meeting. Facilitation skills during the meeting are important, of course, but they are easily learned (read chapter 3 of my book “Strategic Organizational Change”).

In my opinion, the facilitator (typically an independent consultant, like me) earns most of his or her fee before the meeting begins. Simply putting bright people in a room does not necessarily lead to valuable strategic planning session. Hard work is required before the meeting.

The facilitator must work with the leadership team to establish objectives and a timeframe before the meeting begins. It is not possible, or desirable, to discuss “everything” during the meeting; it is critical to determine the important issues to be discussed. Also, there should be general consensus as to the timeframe being discussed: one year, three years, five years, or ten years.

Identifying the right people to invite to the strategic planning session is an essential task. Keep in mind, decisions are best made by small groups. Getting input from large numbers of people (through interviews or questionnaires) should be done before the meeting. The strategic planning meeting should not become a “town hall meeting.”

It is typically advantageous to plan for more than one meeting. The break between meetings allows the leadership team members to take results back to their departments, divisions, or stakeholders. This time to reflect and gather additional data is quite valuable.

During the Meeting

The facilitator must monitor the quality, as well as the quantity, of participation; each meeting will have unspoken political and emotional issues. The facilitator must be willing to serve as devil’s advocate, or as the voice for minority or unpopular alternatives.

I typically coach the “owner” of the meeting (e.g., CEO or senior executive) on initial behavior during the meeting. It’s important for the senior leader to downplay his or her authority during the beginning of any discussion. I often use a round-robin technique in which everybody expresses his/her opinion before the senior leader gets an opportunity to speak.

Throughout the discussions, the facilitator should remind the group about the agreed-upon objectives and timeframe. It is critical for the facilitator to question assumptions throughout the discussions, no matter how widely held they are.


After the Meeting

The difficult task of implementation begins after the meeting. The facilitator should be retained to help keep the agreed-upon initiatives on track. A few scheduled phone calls (conference and/or individual) may be all the facilitator needs to do to add value to implementation process.

Assuming that there was leadership team commitment on roles, responsibilities, metrics, and reporting during the meeting, implementation of the plan has a high possibility of success. If significant change interventions must be implemented, it will be necessary to hire a change process consultant (possibly someone other than the strategic planning facilitator).


To read more about strategic planning and organizational change purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the list price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Sustaining Change

The subtopic in the change management literature that is the most poorly developed and confusing is sustaining change. Definitions of sustainability vary widely across the literature, and there is disagreement as to whether sustaining change is good or bad for an organization.

There is relatively little research concerning sustaining change in organizations. David Buchanan and his colleagues (2005) offer reasons for the lack of research. First, “researching change is more interesting than studying stability and, for most managers, the next initiative promises more career value than continuing with established routines,” and second, “sustainability requires longitudinal study and resources to which many researchers do not have access.” (p.190)

Buchanan et al. point out something important about the nature of sustaining organizational change. While planning and the initial implementation of change can occur relatively quickly, sustaining change involves a long period of time. Maintaining a sense of urgency, or even a significant level of interest, is difficult over a long period.

Definitions of sustainability vary based upon the type of change initiative the authors have in mind. Miller (1982) speaks in terms of evolutionary, revolutionary, or quantum changes. Stace and Dunphy (1994) contrast incremental adjustments with company-wide transformations. Pettigrew’s (1985) work focuses on the issues particular to large-scale, risky reorganizations. Clearly, the scale and complexity of the change determines how sustainability is defined.

Another related issue when discussing sustainability of various change initiatives is the concept of an “improvement trajectory.” Sustaining a change at a particular level is not the goal of many organizational changes. To apply Lewin’s (1951) concept of “refreezing” to a new quality improvement initiative could be a serious mistake. In a quality improvement change effort what must be sustained (or “frozen”) is the philosophy of quality improvement, not a particular level of quality. “What is to be sustained?” is a critical question when an improvement trajectory is more important than a particular level of performance.

Is sustaining change good or bad for an organization? Many authors assume that it is good, but many do not. As Buchanan et al. (2005) state, “Sustainability has been widely regarded…not as a condition to be achieved, but as a problem to be solved” (p.190). Sustaining change is a problem when it blocks the need for new or additional change. There are times when a change initiative should be allowed to decay.

To read more about sustaining organizational change purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the Amazon.com price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Change & New Learning

Every organizational change requires new learning. New learning can come through a variety of means: traditional training, computer-aided training, self-directed learning, and one-on-one coaching.

Most people think of new learning in the form of a traditional, instructor-led workshop. This traditional instructor-led training design is appropriate when there are large numbers of trainees, a need for declarative knowledge, and a small amount of training time. Obviously, we have other choices of methods for acquiring new knowledge. The key to successfully implementing and sustaining organizational change is to choose the appropriate method for acquiring the necessary new knowledge.

In every organizational change there is a need to acquire some (often a lot) of declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge involves facts and figures—the basic building blocks of higher levels of knowledge.

If large numbers of stakeholders need to acquire declarative knowledge, an instructor-led workshop is typically appropriate. Simply getting all the stakeholders in a room and providing the instructor with all the resources necessary to facilitate the learning of the required declarative knowledge is a wise investment of time and money.

When instructor-led workshops are impractical or inappropriate, it may benefit the organization to create and support other methods of learning: computer-aided training, self-directed learning, or one-on-one coaching.

Computer-aided training (CAT) has become very sophisticated. CAT can provide not only declarative knowledge but skills training in a self-paced format. This approach can facilitate the learning for a wide variety of stakeholders with different levels of knowledge and different learning speeds.

Self-directed learning (SDL) is not necessarily the same thing as CAT. SDL may not involve any computer technology at all. SDL involves providing stakeholders with books, manuals, workbooks, audios, and/or videos. Like Cat, SDL provides a self-paced format. But, before using SDL, I recommend the use of the Guglielmino Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (Guglielmino, 1978, 1997). Obviously, not all organizational stakeholders are “ready” for SDL (Beitler, 2005, Chapter 4).

One-on-one coaching is often appropriate after the trainee has acquired the basic declarative knowledge. Coaching can be provided on the job by a supervisor, peer, or vendor. This form of on-the-job training (OJT) has the advantage of high “transferability.” Transferability is always a training concern. A lot of classroom-type training does not “transfer” well back to the real-world job. The transfer concern is eliminated in OJT.

To read more about this and related organizational change and learning issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Guidelines for Implementing Change

Let’s take a look at five specific guidelines that all organizational change efforts should consider during the implementing and sustaining phases of change:

∙ putting a respected person in charge of the change
∙ creating transition management teams
∙ providing training for new knowledge and skills
∙ bringing in outside help
∙ acknowledging and rewarding people

Putting a respected person in charge of the change is critical. Every significant organizational change needs a champion. Organizational change invariably involves learning curves and unexpected obstacles. A respected advocate or champion must be available to others during times of frustration and setbacks.

Creating a transition management team is suggested in the work of William Bridges. Bridges’ (1991) concept can be applied to virtually all types of changes. The interests of internal stakeholders (organizational members in various departments and locations) and the interests of external stakeholders (suppliers, distributors, and customers) should be represented on the transition management team. These teams provide emotional as well as technical support. It is important to know to whom to turn during times of frustration.

Providing training for new knowledge and skills cannot be overemphasized (“Strategic Organizational Learning,” Chapter 3). A feeling of incompetence is a major reason for resistance to change. It is important to have adequate resources to help everyone achieve a feeling of competence with the new skill set as quickly as possible.

Bringing in outside help is essential to keep the process “on track.” Independent consultants who specialize in human process consulting (“Strategic Organizational Change,” Chapter 3) have helped many clients through the change process. These consultants are not emotionally involved, so they are in a position to offer objective guidance.

The acknowledging and rewarding of people for new behaviors are critical leadership functions during the implementing and sustaining phases. Using new skills involves risk—the risk of failure. Acknowledging and rewarding those who use the new skills encourages others to do the same.

To read more about this and related organizational change issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.