Many of you will know that I am on a mission to avoid oblivious facilitation (or coaching, or leading or…). I have not found a word that means precisely the opposite of “oblivious” — I’d always rather be for something than against it — but for now, I’m anti-obliviousness.
I therefore can’t ignore that I am writing this post during an incredibly uncertain and destabilizing time in global affairs, and it seems oblivious of me not to acknowledge it. So, for this final installment of “Strategy Sightings” (for now), with some reluctance, I’m diving right in.
Humans crave meaning. We impose storylines. If we can’t find a pattern, our brains create one. One of the ways I’ve been trying to make sense of what’s happening, particularly in the US, it to look for the strategy that’s being pursued (nerdy, I know), to calm my nervous system and to seek some common ground. So, here’s my strategist’s take on a few elements of President Trump’s approach — and what I’m uncovering about why it makes me so uncomfortable:
- He prefers one-on-one dealmaking to collaborative decision making. (Hence his early departure from the G7 meetings in Kananaskis last week). You may find yourself in a similar context. I rarely do. I found Heidi Gardner’s book Smart Collaboration interesting in this regard, as she’s writing it to convince people collaborating is a good idea. In my circles, I more often have to remind people of the opposite: that collaboration is not an end in itself.
- He launches an idea publicly, watches the reaction, then sometimes course corrects based on feedback received. (Hence the TACO nickname…). Where I live in Ontario, Canada we have a provincial leader who tends to do the same. It’s a technique that can create considerable chaos. It also stands in contrast to a policy approach that relies on public engagement and research-backed evidence to shape positions first, before they are released. That was the approach that used to characterize government where I live and was common practice when I did my own public engagement and policy analysis training — so it’s taking me a hot minute to catch up with this flip.
- He frames interactions in win/lose binary terms. Strategy helps us make choices, and if every choice is seen as a zero-sum game, we plot a different path and engage differently than if we are willing to find a both/and third way that generates benefits for all sides.
- He prefers to listen to advice that strengthens his position rather than challenges it (Don’t we all?!). Strategic choices reveal what kind of knowledge is valued. In my work, I’m steeped in evidence-informed decision making, thought leadership and community service. I value diversity in perspectives, the data is clear that it can lead to stronger decision making on teams.
- It can look from the outside like there is no strategy. It leaves me wondering if that’s true, or if I’m missing something. (There was a fascinating article in the NY Times this weekend on the administration’s make-it-up approach to the dismantling of USAID which did not make me feel better). In either case, it’s destabilizing. And maybe that’s the point. In volatile times, clear strategy can be a source of reassurance. A lack of it feeds the uncertainty — a result which feels unkind, not just unwise, when people’s nerves are frayed.
Strategy is at work, everywhere you look, whether it’s deliberate or not (and whether you agree with it or not!).
What do these observations bring up for you in terms of your own strategy approach, organizationally or personally? I’d love to talk to you about it. I’m keen to help people align what’s important to them with what they actually do — and that’s really what strategy is all about.