Strategic Planning As Action Learning Commerce Essay Example
Strategic Planning As Action Learning Commerce Essay Example

Strategic Planning As Action Learning Commerce Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 13 (3305 words)
  • Published: July 20, 2017
  • Type: Case Study
View Entire Sample
Text preview

This article explores the concept of a "planning as acquisition" attack to strategic planning, utilizing action acquisition principles. It focuses on the experience of a mid-sized Canadian company that has adopted this attack and aims to answer the question of how a learning-based planning attack can be integrated into an organization's processes on a daily basis. The article emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and agile-adaptability in today's turbulent business markets, while also acknowledging the need for a traditional strategic concern program to guide aligned action. It presents a practical solution to this dilemma by showcasing the experience of the aforementioned company, which successfully implemented "planning as learning" based on action learning principles.More than ten years ago, Michael Porter expressed that strategic planning in most companies has not contributed to strategic thought. However, he stated that abandoning planning is not the sol

...

ution. The need for strategic planning has never been greater. Instead, strategic planning needs to be reconsidered and reformulated. While some companies have started this process, few have transformed strategic planning into the essential management discipline it should be. Porter's warning has been ignored, and organizations are still stuck in linear thinking and academic planning methods.

In today's complex, disruptive, and unpredictable market, agility and timeliness are crucial for success. Despite this, organizations have disregarded Porter's advice and are still immersed in traditional thinking and academic planning techniques. Considering the increasing importance of knowledge for commercial success, the challenges facing strategic planning have become even more serious.

Currently, three main schools of thought exist regarding strategic planning. The Porter school asserts that understanding market drivers and aligning with the market is key to success. On th

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

other end of the spectrum, the Hamel and Prahalad school believes that organizations must understand their own strengths and build upon these internal capabilities to achieve success.The Mintzberg school emphasizes that success relies on understanding the underlying causes of market dynamics and being adaptable. Regardless of the approach chosen, it is crucial for implementation to be "synergistic" (Ackoff, 1977). Synergistic planning focuses on facilitating learning and actively addressing everyday organizational realities, such as culture, politics, and attitudes. De Geus highlights the importance of changing mindsets rather than just making plans (De Geus, 1988). The significance of facilitating learning and actively addressing dynamic situations has been reinforced in recent years by concepts like "The Learning Organization" (Senge, 1990) and "The Knowledge Creating Company" (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), as well as De Geus' idea of planning as learning (De Geus, 1988). De Geus finds substantial support for his assertion that "the ability to learn faster than your competitors is the only sustainable advantage." While the concept of learning as planning is not new (Ackoff, 1977; De Geus, 1988), explicitly incorporating learning-related contexts into strategy planning is still not standard practice (Mintzberg, 1994).The text discusses the topic of organizations learning to adapt and change before a crisis occurs. It cites documents co-authored by Smith & Saint-Onge (1996) and Drew & Smith (1995) as examples of this. Leavy (1998) also provides a detailed review of the benefits and issues associated with a learning-based planning approach. The text then introduces a practical example of the implementation of "planning as learning" and "planning as action learning". This example is a corporate challenge in strategic planning for Company X, a mid-sized Canadian

company responsible for the Canadian operations of an international organization with headquarters in the USA. The President of Company X requested a fresh approach to the organization's strategic thinking and planning, aiming to enhance the team's ability to think strategically within certain boundaries imposed by the organization's US-based headquarters.It was crucial for these executives to have the ability to pass on this capability to the directors they supervised and to others throughout the organization. Company X was not unfamiliar with strategic planning; when they requested our assistance in implementing a new effective method for strategic planning, the President specifically prohibited the use of traditional approaches that had been tried and found inadequate. In our initial meetings with the President and some staff members at their office location, we were aware of the potential challenges that the organization's culture might pose for learning. We informally utilized Schein's Cultural Analysis (Schein, 1993) to identify any positive or negative factors. Only positive factors were evident. For example, we observed that the office space was designed not only for optimal business organization but also to facilitate collaborative cross-functional exchange of knowledge. The visible symbols and overall ambiance of the office all indicated pride in the company, and there was a relaxed, informal atmosphere among management and staff. Large whiteboards were placed in hallways at various locations, displaying on a daily basis the company's progress in different functional areas and their business objectives.Using cultural indexes, we both agreed that this organization had a great opportunity to successfully adopt a "planning as learning" approach. As a result of our initial meetings with the President, we proposed and they accepted an off-site

two-day workshop. The purpose of this workshop was to familiarize executive committee members with the concept of action learning, a model for "action learning as planning," a simple intuitive executive committee meeting procedure, relevant tools, a method for familiarizing their direct studies with the approach, and a process for cascading the approach down through the organization. The following sections discuss these six workshop elements and the participants' experiences in using them.

Principle Elements of The "Learning as Planning" Workshop

1. Action Learning

The workshop began with an exploration of strategic planning and its objectives. Participants were then encouraged to share their own planning experiences. They quickly started discussing how individuals and teams are faced with assumptions and risks in business contexts that are becoming increasingly complex, ambiguous, and competitive.The executives understood that in order to effectively address these issues, especially in a strategic context, they needed to collaborate and challenge their assumptions by gaining insights and asking new questions. They recognized the importance of thinking through and analyzing experiences at personal and contextual levels for effective learning, planning, and performance. It was agreed that the traditional strategic planning methods they were familiar with did not meet these needs. To create a conducive environment for this inquiry, we suggested that the executive committee adopt an action learning approach. The executive committee was informed that action learning is a proven methodology for individual, collective, and organizational development. It involves learning through experience, where the project environment serves as the classroom and the task as the vehicle.We suggest that action learning should be seen as a doctrine, with plans typically founded on the following principles:
- Participants address real problems in

real time, without a single 'correct' answer.
- Participants gather in small, stable learning communities called "Sets."
- Each Set holds intermittent meetings over a fixed program cycle.
- The problems addressed are relevant to the participants' own workplace realities.
- The learning process within the Set is supportive and collaborative.
- The process involves reflection, questioning, speculation, and defense.
- Participants take action between Set meetings to solve their problem.

By presenting action learning as a doctrine rather than a method, we can adopt a less formal and structured approach than what is traditionally described in the literature (Pedler, 1991). We were able to demonstrate to the executive committee how they could easily align their regular meeting processes with an action learning foundation. We also helped the executives understand the "elicitive" nature of action learning, which aims to extract, capture, and build upon what exists rather than operating in an abstract, detached, analytical, and rational world of what should be.By engaging in thoughtful discussions and seeking input from perceptive colleagues, such as those in the executive commission, in situations where solutions are not always obvious, and by entrusting the implementation of plans to participant-planners, the executives can make sense of their experiences by reflecting on them and identifying common themes. They can then base their future actions on the lessons learned. In essence, within the executive commission meetings, action learning serves as a "safe practice field" where participants can shape and reshape their mental models and strategies through continuous learning and planning cycles.

2. A Model For "Action Learning As Planning"

In this section, we focus solely on the process of framing. In Section 4,

we will discuss the tools that executive commission members found helpful in guiding their strategic decisions. Our model for "action learning as planning" (ALPF), which was introduced during the two-day workshop, draws from a structured approach to action learning known as Performance Learning (Smith, 1997). Performance Learning provides a comprehensive framework for strategic planning by emphasizing the clear definition of measurable high-level goals and linking them to lower-level outcomes and activities.The ALPF, which satisfied Company X's critical demand for a cascading procedure of planning, alliance, and acquisition, was demonstrated through the treatment in the two-day workshop. The executive participants were indirectly and informally exposed to the ALPF while exploring other tools and procedures. However, for clarity in this article, the ALPF is described in detail. Based on systems theory, our ALPF follows a cascading mode where each system places demands on the systems it contains. This is illustrated in Figure 1: the client system demands service norms from the organizational system, which demands specific behaviors from the functional and team subsystems to meet these norms, and the subsystems require detailed behaviors from their individuals. Figure 2 shows how a chain of interconnected outcomes is defined in response to the demands placed on each subsystem.The text suggests that by achieving low degree results, higher degree results can be accomplished. Outcomes can be defined for both "soft" and "difficult" subjects, such as teamwork. At Company X, the ALPF method was to be implemented by the executive commission, reporting managers, functional teams, and individuals in a cascading manner. This approach aims to improve the organization's performance without inhibiting creativity and freedom. By requiring experiential learning groups to develop

outcomes-driven models for their local activities, alignment and continuous improvement can be achieved. The recommended meeting procedure for the executive commission is also based on Performance Learning.The text emphasizes that the design of the PL (professional learning) program prioritizes simplicity and intuitiveness without compromising on learning or personal development. It explicitly explores attitudes, emotions, mentalities, etc., of both executives and their studies, leading to developmental benefits. This exploration aligns with Revans' belief that PL promotes self-enlightenment rather than simple behavioral improvement. Similar to the ALPF (Action Learning Project Facilitation), the executive participants indirectly and informally learn the meeting process by doing. While the fundamentals of the process are explained to the executive committee, other tools and procedures are also explored to ensure that the process remains practical and applicable. However, for clarity in this article, the process is described in detail. The PL process is based on the outcomes-driven performance model illustrated in Figure 3. This model has been extensively used by one of the authors (Smith) since the mid-80s in various organizations such as Exxon, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and IKEA.According to this model, performance is dependent on three elements: Focus, Will, and Capability. These elements work together in a dynamic system. The level of performance achieved by the system depends on how these elements interact. Focus refers to having a clear understanding and definition of the proposed performance. It involves asking questions like What? How? Who? Where? When? and Why? Will represents the determination and attitude to carry out the defined performance. It is connected to attitudes, emotions, beliefs, and mindsets. Capability refers to having the resources and ability to turn the

defined performance into reality. It includes areas such as skills, infrastructure, budgets, tools, and physical assets. A change in any of these elements can affect the state of the other elements. The most favorable conditions for optimal performance occur when Focus, Will, and Capability work together in a balanced and harmonious manner. Figure 3 illustrates that the current performance potential is represented by the overlapping of the circles, with complete congruity of all three circles representing optimum performance.Imbalance and lack of harmony can lead to misguided and wasted efforts, as well as decreased performance. The areas depicted in the Figure, where only two model elements intersect, are typical of real-life situations. The key to optimizing performance is continuously adjusting the level of convergence of the elements based on learning initiatives. In Company X's context of "planning as learning," the executives initially identified the desired strategic outcomes and then analyzed whether the necessary "ideal" Focus, Will, and Capability existed within the organization or if they needed to be developed. When actual performance deviated from optimal and desired results were not fully achieved, the executives would learn by comparing actual outcomes to expected ones and relating them to the states of Focus, Will, and Capability. They would also dynamically adjust the three performance elements in an effort to improve performance. If it became necessary to articulate new results to address changing conditions or for a new strategic cycle, planning and adjustment would be facilitated using the same performance system. As shown in Figure 4, the performance model remains consistent across all levels of the organization; however, the significance of Focus, Will, and Capability may change to reflect

the evolving context.The text provides examples of how the concepts of Focus, Will, and Capability are applied in different situations within Company X. For the executive commission, Focus pertains to strategic programs for entering a new market, Will relates to the organization's cultural strength in supporting the new venture, and Capability is linked to the company's asset position in that market. In a functional team working on a related but more localized issue, Focus involves dividing a sales district, Will is associated with the feelings of the sales organization members about the proposed segmentation, and Capability addresses the skill requirements and infrastructure needed for the newly segmented sales force to function effectively. The performance system receives feedback by comparing measured performance to the defined ALPF phase results, and the executive commission adjusts and balances based on this feedback through learning and collaboration, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 then illustrates the logical step of implementing collaborative learning initiatives that are highly relevant to the performance component being explored.To illustrate, the text explains that Focus, Will, and Capability can be adjusted using different methods as described by various authors. Company X has not yet taken this step, but in the meantime, the executive commission and reporting teams have become proficient in simple and well-established tools. The tools, discussed in the following section, were introduced to the executive commission to facilitate their strategic dialogue. One of the tools is the PEST (Political, Social, Economic, Technical) Analysis, which helps develop a cross-functional systemic understanding of the overall direction of the business and its various functional areas. This tool also highlights the implications for Company X. This approach

aligns with Michael Porter's industry and competitive analysis commonly used in corporate strategy but employs a collaborative learning process to ensure an interactive planning approach is taken.The analysis revealed several issues that were explored, including authorities subsidies, the impact of Canada's right of first publication act, university support, emerging economic theoretical accounts, Canada-US transportation pricing, and the impact of "warehousing" shops. Many strategic quandaries emerged as different functional areas expressed their own interests, and no clear solutions were found for these cross-functional issues. However, the executives were surprised at how capable they were at identifying important contextual tendencies when using the PEST format for action learning. The next tool applied was a SWOT Analysis, which considered the contextual information from the PEST Analysis in strategic terms and in relation to the existing strategic framework articulated by the US headquarters. Sharing perspectives across functions was helpful for both learning and reaching consensus on organizational focus. The effort was recognized as invaluable for future Canadian contributions to the US headquarters' plans. Consensus was reached through the SWOT Analysis on what should be prioritized in a Master Analysis grid, which prioritized urgency and precedence against strategic issues.The participants used the cells in the matrix to concentrate on strategic issues of high importance and specify measurable results. This procedure resembled the construction of a Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). The workshop also included personal development activities. In terms of strategic planning, the agenda covered the mentioned topics. After the workshop, the executive commission held several meetings to clearly define the strategic outcomes for Company X in the following year. Each executive led functional meetings with their own reports,

following the same meeting process to align with the executive commission's strategic goals. Reflecting on learning is crucial. Hammer and Stanton emphasize that reflection should be deeply ingrained in a company's daily operations and institutionalized as a business process (Hammer & Stanton, 1997). The above process aimed to achieve this and ensure learning at all organizational levels.

Executive Interviews: Evaluating the Outcome

It has been approximately two years since the executive commission workshop took place. Recently, interviews were conducted to gather long-term feedback on the workshop and the "planning as learning" approach. Over this time period, Company X has adopted and customized the process, implementing certain aspects while neglecting others. Standardized planning terms and language have been established to ensure a common understanding among all planning participants. Flow diagrams have been created to clarify the process and scheduling of executive commission meetings, including the involvement of functional managers and a feedback loop between the executive commission and functional teams. The overall agenda is now timed in a way that allows for timely input from the Canadian branch during the planning cycle of the US headquarters. The President considered it crucial for the executive commission to diligently adhere to the new process and not become discouraged or deviate from it. After the workshop, some executives experienced confusion due to the vast scale involved, especially when they still had day-to-day issues to address. It took approximately six months for the executive commission to fully integrate and feel comfortable with the new approach. Executives found cascading planning down to the reports relatively straightforward, especially when the reports formed an action learning group and were facilitated by the appropriate executive.The

success of this project relied heavily on executives taking personal responsibility for implementing the cascading process. When executives had concerns about the process, the rollout encountered difficulties. In these cases, it was crucial for the executives to persevere and work through any problems that arose, ultimately fully participating in the process. The President's envisioned benefits from a strategic planning effort have been realized, resulting in excitement and satisfaction among executives and their reporting managers. Planning used to be a burden for executives and managers, with no connection between strategy and daily activities or between executives and managers. Now, sessions are seen as learning opportunities and there is a sense of control and increased clarity. Prioritization has been particularly helpful in improving functional efficiency, even leading to the formation of cross-functional teams focused on specific tasks. Executives universally view this approach as highly beneficial and the results as excellent.The entire cascading strategic planning process is running smoothly, and Company X's ability to contribute meaningfully to headquarters strategic programs has significantly improved.

Decisions

We believe that the fundamentals and case studies presented here provide an answer to the question, "How can a learning-based planning approach be integrated into an organization's business processes, so that learning and planning naturally go hand in hand on a daily basis?" We hope that this article will inspire other organizations to adopt a "planning as learning" approach to their strategic planning and consider action learning as a practical tool to facilitate their efforts.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New