Baldwin's experience mirrors my own -- in the strategy session we talk about all the new things the organization is going to take on, but we gloss over talking about what we should or could stop doing.
Baldwin quotes Michael Porter to emphasize that strategy is also about knowing what not to do. To that end, he reviews Porter's 5 tests of a good strategy.
- Distinctive value proposition
- Tailored value chain
- Trade offs from different rivals
- Fit across value chain
- Continuity over time.
Item 3 is the focus in this article. A trade off is a balancing of factors all of which are not attainable at the same time. (Merriam Webster). Baldwin points to inertia: if a version of our strategic plan has been around for years, then some things we do may not bring the same benefits they once did.
Baldwin suggests a pointed question from a Savvy Director: "If we weren't doing it now, would we start?" Great follow up questions include:
- Is it still relevant?
- Is it still right?
- Does it still need to be done?
- Are we the right ones to do it?
- Can someone else do it better?
- Who benefits from us doing it?
- Who would be harmed if we stopped?
- How can we do less and have a greater impact?
In Alberta, many professions are going through this now as a result of legislative changes that make joint college/associations split into two organizations. It is meaningful work for a board.
If you aren't being legislated to do this, why not ask the question anyway?
/lmwe
"When recruiting directors, look for people who have good judgment and thoughtfulness, and take their roles seriously. Everything needs to be said, but not everything needs to be said by everybody. Contribute when it’s meaningful to get to a decision point. The board discussion should add value to management, not interfere."
– Honourable John Manley, CAE
