MB #10 - The New Need for Pre-emptive Strategic Planning

How “Threat Zones” create urgency in long-term thinking

9-minute Audio preview. Full Audio version below.

You are a protagonist for long-term thinking in organizations. However, you find yourself unable to persuade others to change the way planning is done, so that long-term strategic planning becomes the norm. The evidence? No written long-term strategic plans can be found.

Here’s a new way to think and talk about the future of companies which involves a mindset shift to a different approach: pre-emptive strategy via “Threat Zones”.

Insufficient Proactive Strategic Thinking

Chances are that most companies you have joined or work with claim to be paragons of proactivity. They each have plans for the future which prove that their leaders act with foresight. Mental box checked.

However, is being proactive still enough? Fact: even organizations who fail miserably can claim this mantle, in spite of their results. Apparently, being proactive has become an institutional form of “motherhood and apple-pie”. Consequently, C-Suiters would be insulted if, based on their leadership style, they were accused of missing this element.

But maybe being proactive is no longer enough.

Consider the notion that this standard of foresight produces only routine, run-of-the-mill strategic plans. They include lots of good things which the organization needs. And they were fine when the world was stable.

However, today’s world is filled with new, unwelcome disruptions occurring one after another. Proactive strategic plans shouldn’t be abandoned, but they aren’t designed to handle the threats modern companies face. They simply don’t create the urgency required to remain a top priority.

Hence the reason they can be repeatedly delayed, without consequence. Like exercise. Or eating more vegetables.

This mini-book calls for a new kind of strategic planning that is specifically formulated to tackle the risks modern companies confront. Within proactive strategic planning, there has always been a subset: those which are pre-emptive.

Prior clients have usually created a blend of the two. But in this mini-book, I’ll argue that the following shift should be taking place in your companies’ strategic plans.

If this resonates at all, keep reading to investigate what this means for your strategic planning.

The Biden Decision Not to Run for President

I don’t mean to be political or partisan in this mini-book, as we near the height of an election season. But incumbent Joe Biden has just announced that he’s exiting the 2024 race for the presidency of the United States.

Regardless of your political persuasion, you may agree that it’s a disruptive event. Now, politicians, the media and citizens on all sides of the ideological spectrum must scramble to re-calibrate their plans.

It’s a great example of a pre-emptive strategy. Why?

In response to a threat (i.e. a potential loss at the polls), a new plan was devised. The protagonists hope it will be game-changing.

While his decision is no sudden surprise, it’s clear that individuals and organizations were caught unprepared. Their lack of preparation does not mean they weren’t being proactive.

But their routine proactive plans fell short.

In this case, mere proactivity may not be good enough. But in what sense? And why?

Would a pre-emptive strategic plan have made a difference in all these organizations? Could a threat have been turned into an opportunity?

It’s dangerous to draw too many parallels between political and organizational life. Case in point: the timeframes are quite different between winning an election vs. gaining market dominance.

But companies in all spheres of life must cope with novel threats. And most would agree that disruptions are increasing in number and intensity.

For example, in recent weeks, the sudden emergence of a Category 5 hurricane (Beryl) blew past the forecasts of weather professionals. It left tens dead and left billions of dollars in damage. Consequently, organizations in several countries are still scrambling to cope, merely a month later.

Other examples: AI is widely accepted as a combined threat and opportunity at the same time. This is common for any recent technology which is being introduced at scale.

Also, the rise in violence which accompanies armed conflict, illegal drugs and human trafficking also threaten business activity. Alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, these are all rude interruptions which many CEOs think are harbingers of a new normal.

It’s easy to believe one can’t do much, except react to a wild, VUCA world.

But Biden’s decision to retire reminds us that leaders have the power to be pre-emptive. Seen from this angle, there are companies which are doing the same. What can your organization learn from them?

How did they go about switching long-term, game-changing strategic planning from their “nice-to-have” (proactive) to “must-have” (pre-emptive) columns?

Let’s start by defining a single, universal incipient threat you should use in discussions with leaders in every organization.

Why Pre-emptive Strategic Planning Is Unavoidable

If you look up the word “pre-emptive” in the dictionary, you may see reference to the following definition. “Actions which are intended to thwart an external threat ahead of its possible impact.” This usage may have its roots in the military world. As I mentioned before, pre-emptive strategic plans are a subset of all strategic planning.

However, the analogy to war breaks down quickly. Our use of the term as strategic planners should be quite different. How so? We apply the idea to “internal” threats first.

To help us understand, consider the Three Horizons Framework crafted by Curry, Hodgson, and Sharpe.