Читать книгу Socrates & the fox - Clem Sunter - Страница 8

In every one of us there are two ruling and directing principles, whose guidance we follow wherever they may lead; the one being an innate desire of pleasure; the other, an acquired judgment which aspires after excellence.

SOCRATES, as quoted in Plato’s Phaedrus

Little did the fox know when he responded to Socrates’ question about the meaning of life that his wish to have several times great-grandchildren would be so spectacularly granted. For not only are there rural foxes in forests like his (but sadly even more encroached upon by man), his species are roaming around the streets of London, having adapted to living in an urban environment as well.

But the fox would have been even more amazed if he had been fast-forwarded to our den and met a pair of foxy, game-playing strategists who, in a small way, are the spiritual descendents of Socrates. We think that he would have totally approved of the methodology that we have designed to assist companies to have an effective strategic conversation about their future. It has a lot in common with the once-in-a-lifetime conversation he had with Socrates in the sunny grove. He might have viewed it as a coincidence. But then he might have reflected that he did leave something behind in the chance encounter – something passed down through the generations.

The Evolution of the Model

From our side, we could have said to the fox that our methodology is unique and independently crafted. It has come about through rigorous application, re-evaluation and fine-tuning in the course of facilitating countless sessions in plenty of boardrooms. We’ve paid our dues. The claim is partially true, and we would like to thank all the CEOs and their teams who have voluntarily subjected themselves to our version of the Socratic method. However, we would have had to acknowledge to our furry friend that the seeds of our first book, The Mind of a Fox – Scenario Planning in Action, published in June 2001, lay in the foxy dialogue that took place 2 400 years previously. The matrix we introduced in the book was based on two key questions about the future which asked what is certain and uncertain about it, and what you control and don’t control in it. These two questions, as you will remember, were posed in the conversation in the woods. Nevertheless, we do go further by suggesting that you will not get a proper idea of what you do control unless you start by delineating what you don’t control. In other words, we really do believe in applying the type of hypothesis elimination, much loved by Socrates, to the formulation of strategy.

We have found that these two questions open up a whole new way of strategic thinking. Most people operate in a constrained frame of mind, boxed in by certainty and control. This is quite understandable, because it creates a level of constancy and sureness within which most people feel comfortable. When push becomes shove, we don’t like change. Extrapolate that into the business environment and it will explain why many companies’ strategic vision involves doing the same thing but better; or, to put it bluntly, staying in the same rut. It may explain why every company we work with finish off their strategic conversation enthusing about the depth and clarity of the insight they have gained. It’s almost as if Socrates himself had had a hand in guiding the discourse away from the rut to higher ground. As the father of Western philosophy, he was a champion of venturing beyond the constraints of conventional wisdom. Perhaps he would have made an ideal nonexecutive director in today’s boardroom.

We have been fortunate to work with a diverse portfolio of companies throughout the world, operating in fields such as banking, pharmaceuticals, mining, financial services and asset management, legal services, the media, retail, manufacturing and agriculture – from giant multinationals to family-run businesses. We’ve done stimulating sessions as well with municipalities, schools, universities, churches and ngos. One of us has even conducted an ‘informal conversation’ at the Central Party School in Beijing. In each case, we noted any observations made by participants on how we could improve our methodology and adapted it accordingly. The result was a model for strategic conversation that was the subject of our second book: Games Foxes Play – Planning for Extraordinary Times, published in April 2005. Again a vein of Socratic dialogue ran through the book in that a methodology of questioning and self-examination was presented to help companies arrive at a more lucid understanding of their strategic choices. This was all done in the context of business being a game.

That vein of self-interrogation is now at the heart of this book. The strategic conversation model has again been evolved into a series of specific questions and sub-questions in order to effect a higher level, and more robust form, of strategic thinking, with due allowance for the complexity of the system that any organisation finds itself in. The secret lies in the nature of the dialogue that is encouraged, and how this is done. Socratic dialogue allows for in-depth understanding of issues through a combination of rigorous enquiry and developing consensus. Preferably performed in small groups, it enhances individual self-confidence while at the same time encouraging the common search for truth in a question-and-answer pattern. The dialogue allows participants to reflect and think independently and critically; but at the same time it engages them as a group to search for collective answers, not as an end in itself, but as a means of deepening the investigation of long-held paradigms and their validity. By combining the philosophy of Socratic dialogue and the model of strategic conversation we designed in our last book, we have arrived at a core list of ten questions that, we believe, provide true strategic wisdom if answered sincerely and fearlessly.

Bear in mind that it was the common quest for this penetrating type of wisdom that brought Socrates and the fox together in the first place; after all, what other animal embodies the perpetually enquiring mind of Socrates better than a fox? It is a noble creature that projects a demeanour and knowledge beyond its ranking in the kingdom of life. More importantly, for our purposes, the fox is the most apt metaphor to embody the character needed by companies to outwit their competitors and remain world class in today’s rapidly changing business environment. In nature, the fox is quick-witted, adaptable and resourceful and has an astute awareness of its environment and the forces and relationships at play within it. Expressed in more philosophical terms, a fox thinks of life as a system comprised of many parts and interdependencies; and that it is only through the knowledge of the system as a whole that decisions can be optimised about the future. In terms of strategy, a fox will stick to a strategic path, but will regularly check the environment ahead to see if there are any changes that would require the strategy to be amended.

The fox knows that just as there are those elements of its environment that present themselves as food, so it is presented as food to others. If it interacts correctly with these elements it should survive. If it interacts successfully with these elements it will thrive. Because a fox is omnivorous and continually applies its inquiring instinct, it doesn’t follow a rigidly predetermined course in the search for food. Neither is it limited to a particular type of food. The result is an animal that carries with it centuries of inbred experience about its environment, and which can thrive under virtually any circumstances. It has learnt a great deal about the nature of enquiring, the processing of the information that is gathered and the effective and speedy implementation of ideas. Imagine what insight such an animal could offer if it could talk, and especially with one of human history’s most experienced and influential thinkers.

Games and Strategy

Hence the relevance of our ‘record’ of the dialogue between Socrates and the fox. The dialogue’s value should resonate further with modern business by the inclusion of the metaphor of a game in our second book (and which we repeat here). Games and business have a lot in common. Both are subject to rules. Both involve competing teams where the winner is usually the team with the greater skill and more effective strategy and tactics. Both contain inherent risks and uncertainties; and both have definite outcomes – you win, you lose, you draw: you make money, you go bust, you barely survive. Moreover, the outcome can turn on factors that are beyond the control of any individual player, factors that are often seemingly minor at the time they first manifest themselves. Think of the clouds on the horizon that eventually wash out a game of cricket.

However, there are also some very important differences between the game of business and games, say, of cards and sport. In the latter case the rules are agreed upon and never change during the course of play. Any changes to the rules are made in advance and with input from, and full acknowledgement of, the various stakeholders. In business, as in life, the rules rarely stay the same, and when they do change they can do so spectacularly, without notice and even to the point where the game becomes unplayable. The only rules that never change are the moral rules of the game (but even then, there are some people who will either disagree or openly bend or break these rules!). The game of business is far more complicated than any sporting game, and therefore demands a greater degree of imagination. Those who stick rigidly to an established strategy without incorporating the potential for changing rules will soon find themselves playing a different game to everyone else. Any seasoned business campaigner, operating within such a continually changing landscape, knows that strategy is more of an intuitive feel than a rational science. But both are required.

Thus business is not a game to be directed by planners who believe that the future is simply a projection of the past. Although we can study the past and learn from it, we can’t plan for the future around the past. Neither can we accept that the future can be encapsulated into a single forecast on which you can bet the whole shop. No matter how expert the opinion you’ve obtained is, it can be utterly wrong. The future is always changing, evolving, and creating different, new challenges. Any opinion on it is automatically subjective. As Socrates so aptly remarked to the fox: “What you are does not determine what you will be.” It makes sense then that before any decisions can be made around how to play the game, a strategic conversation should start with a robust examination of the game itself, and the swathe of possibilities accompanying it.

It is particularly apt that our concept of a strategic conversation should be inspired by the insight and wisdom of Socrates, because the word ‘strategy’ is Ancient Greek in origin, specifically derived from his home city of Athens. The term strategos referred to a commander in chief (or chief magistrate) who was a leading figure of authority in the Athenian democracy. A military strategos was expected to possess the ability to project and direct the larger military movements and operations of a campaign. In fact it is a term still used today in the modern Hellenic army to denote the highest officer rank. At some stage the term strategos was expanded to include the decisions made by such a person – and not just the person himself. For centuries, therefore, strategos or its English equivalent ‘strategy’ has been a term employed in the planning and conducting of warfare, specifically the movement of forces on the ground, the allocation of resources in support of those forces and the deception of the enemy.

Given the notoriously competitive and aggressive campaigns of leading corporate players, it was only a matter of time before the word ‘strategy’ became embraced by the world of business. Indeed, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War – that famous Chinese military treatise that inspired centuries of great commanders including Napoleon, Mao Zedong and Douglas MacArthur, and even those behind Operation Desert Storm – is a popular addition to many boardroom libraries! For example, compare the quote of the famous Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz: “A good strategy is the successful preparation of a tactical victory” with Jack Welch’s quote, “Strategy is the evolution of a central idea according to continuously changing circumstances.” The CEO has become the general.

In its shift from the battlefield to the boardroom, ‘strategy’ has often been confused with ‘tactics’ and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, albeit erroneously. Perhaps it makes sense then that at this stage we spend a little time clarifying the difference between the two terms, especially with reference to their implementation in business. If we were asked to summarise the difference in one sentence, we’d say: ‘strategy’ is the direction of the business and ‘tactics’ are how to get there. To expand a little bit further we could borrow from an old nineteenth-century saying: “Strategy differs materially from tactics; the latter belonging only to the mechanical movement of bodies, set in motion by the former.” What this means is that a handful of strategic decisions determine all future operational decisions. We therefore don’t believe that the 24-point strategic plan recommended by some consultants is useful. Unless the overarching strategy is to go off in 24 different directions, the result can only be to sow confusion (which the consultants then have to resolve in their next contract!).

It is our belief that, through a proper strategic conversation, what should emerge are one or two simple and clear decisions around direction, and a prioritised list of actions, or tactics, on how to get there. It is important, especially in view of typical time constraints and resource limitations, that such a list of tactics should not be so exhaustive as to paralyse their overall implementation. Ask any manager about the dangers of analysis paralysis or any politician about the crisis of implementation. Hence the need to prioritise the tactics to extract maximum leverage. The latter forms an essential objective of any complete strategic conversation.

And who should develop a company’s strategy? Someone from outside the company? Why bring in external consultants to dictate a company’s strategic policy, knowing full well that once they have dished out their opinion and their words of wisdom, they will leave the company to its own devices? It makes sense that the best people to paint scenarios for a company and then shape that company’s strategic direction should be those who are expected to implement that strategy. However, internal strategy sessions often follow a set format which runs the risk of perpetuating traditional stereotypes and conventional solutions. These sessions, therefore, have to be restructured in a way that jogs executives into a more robust analysis of the company and the changing environment in which it operates. By its very nature, Socratic dialogue does this. It transforms the spirit of the conversation from the normal, dreary type of superficial analysis that companies go through nowadays to a full-blooded, back-to-basics debate. It thereby creates a richer picture of the game, breaks all sorts of moulds along the way and produces nuggets of strategic wisdom from deep inside the most reticent minds around the table (which would otherwise never be discovered).

But how do you set such a dialogue in motion, and how do you keep it on track? The answer lies in the nature and structure of the questions. Presented correctly and in the right order, the questions change the conversation within a team, which then changes their minds, which then changes their behaviour and ultimately influences their actions. This is the causal sequence upon which our methodology is based. Interestingly, the nature of this questioning encourages further questioning within the team, in that some of the questions have no complete answers, but instead they demand that the team critically evaluates preconceived perceptions of the company and the business, or game, it is in. These invariably unearth contradictions between what the company is doing and what it should be doing. Bit by bit these contradictions are stripped away until a more accurate representation of the truth is achieved. This is the very foundation of the Socratic method of dialogue.

The Seven Principles

To change strategy you therefore need a highly inclusive conversation amongst people who can implement that change, where the process is based on ordinary but sound common sense. Nobody should lose the thread or be compelled to put their hand up and say: “Why ask that question now?” It all has to flow smoothly and logically. We base the sequence on seven straightforward principles pertaining to strategy:

1 Strategy is direction. Tactics are how to get there.

2 Strategy formulated without first consulting the context will probably end up being bad strategy.

3 Strategy is as much about ruling in potential paths that fit your scope as ruling out others that don’t.

4 Good strategy can be turned into bad strategy by a future change in the context. Scenarios are a way of exploring alternative futures, which might necessitate a change in strategy.

5 Bad tactics can destroy good strategy, but no tactic can rescue bad strategy.

6 Good strategy has a greater chance of being converted into good results if tactics are accompanied by a set of measurable outcomes to which people can aspire.

7 Above all, strategy is about understanding what you do and don’t control, and what is certain and uncertain about the future – and knowing when to change direction to avert unintended, and possibly tragic, consequences.

Principle 1 has already been explained. You have to aim the gun before you fire. Principle 2 is based on a quote by Lee Kwan Yew – the prime minister of Singapore between 1959 and 1990 – that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and his insistence that he preferred to learn from history than through trial and error. Context is very important. In one session we facilitated, a comment was made that most countries learn only from their own mistakes and not from the mistakes made by other countries. So true when we look at history repeating itself around the world. Hence, in the questions we put, we want companies to learn not only from their own experience but from the experience of others as well. A pinch of trial and error can then be added as an extra ingredient!

Principle 3 is based on the fact that we all have specific competencies and limited resources and therefore our playing field has to be clearly defined as to what activities lie inside (and are core) and what lie outside (and are non-core). Principle 4 says that we are all human and even the best-perceived strategy at the time can fail and therefore should be constantly road-tested by reviewing the environment and where it can go.

Principle 5 is so often broken because companies will simply not back new strategies with the level of resources required to make them succeed. The initiative is seen as ‘nice to have’ as opposed to being a crucial link in the company’s evolution. On the flip side of no tactic rescuing bad strategy, think of going on holiday with the destination as strategy and getting there as a tactic. If the destination is bad, getting there quickly will only make the experience worse. Principle 6 explains why we all have budgets, goals, targets, objectives, key performance indicators and scorecards in business, because nothing gets done without measurement of progress.

Principle 7 is last but by no means least. It is a fact that people in power prefer to feel that they are in complete control, but our principle demands acknowledgement that they’re not. They feel that they have exceptional foresight, but our principle asserts that the future is inherently uncertain and unpredictable. Worse still, many CEOs and politicians will simply not change their minds because they see it as a loss of face. Even when it is obvious that they should reconsider, they don’t. Call it emotional unintelligence or myopia due to their personal make-up. Unpleasant facts will not be countenanced. This is in marked contrast to the philosophy put forward by the fox to Socrates when he said, “You have to accept change, and change with it.”

Stubbornness, moreover, can lead to unintended consequences, where the law of tragic choices kicks in. This law says that you should take the least tragic choice to limit the amount of pain involved and perhaps open up other opportunities. What you can’t do is nothing because no decent option immediately presents itself. Think of the choices Socrates had – tragic to say the least. But as the fox so rightly said: “Each path will contain its own string of events and consequences.” Victory can be snatched from the jaws of defeat. If you live on the edge, you will always make mistakes. Learn to retrieve the situation instead of dwelling on failure.

The Ten Questions

These seven principles on strategy underpin our conversation model. We have now developed the model into a series of ten strategic questions through which we steer the participants. As can be seen in the table after the questions, ‘defining the game’ is really the strategic part of the discussion and ‘playing the game’ the tactics and outcomes you wish to achieve.

Defining the Game

1 Context: How has the game in your industry changed, where is it heading and how have you fared as a player?

2 Scope: What is your playing field today, and how do you want to expand (or contract) it in light of the developing context and the resources at your disposal?

3 Players: Who are the players that can most advance or retard your strategy, and how should you handle them in future?

4 Rules: What are the rules of the game that are likely to govern your strategy under all scenarios?

5 Uncertainties: What are the key uncertainties that could have a significant impact on the game and divert your course either positively or negatively?

6 Scenarios: On your gameboard, what are the possible scenarios and where would you position yourself in relation to them now?

Playing the Game

7 SWOT: What are your strengths and weaknesses as a player; and what are the opportunities and threats offered by the game?

8 Options: Within your span of control, what options do you have to improve your current performance and longer-term prospects in the game?

9 Decisions: Which options do you want to turn into decisions right now, and what is the initial action associated with each decision?

10 Outcomes: What is your meaning of winning the game in five years’ time, expressed as a set of measurable outcomes?

The sequence of the questions can be explained in the following framework:

Question	Frame of Reference
1	Context
2	Strategy
3, 4, 5, 6	Testing the robustness of the strategy
7, 8, 9	Tactics, decisions, actions
10	Measurable outcomes

Straightforward though the questions may seem, they have multiple layers to them because they explore both the game as well as the player’s relationship to the game. There are sub-questions as well. As Socrates said to the fox: “We are all elements of a system in a continual state of interaction and mutual influence, as our minds are with our bodies.” To reflect this philosophy, the course of the strategic conversation continually weaves between internal questions about the organisation and external questions about the environment, the relationship between the two often evolving as the conversation progresses. Moreover, please don’t treat the frame of reference as a list to which strict adherence has to be given. At any stage, an issue may be raised that demands that you revisit an earlier stage of the conversation. Or a bright idea comes up before its time. Brilliance is spontaneous, not ordered! So look at our ten questions as segments of a circle which can be rotated clockwise or anticlockwise as circumstances require.

Those familiar with business strategy will realise that the roots of our model and our thinking lie in scenario planning. What we have done through our ten questions is to integrate scenario planning into the mainstream process of strategic planning and decision-making. It allows top executive teams of companies to test the resilience of their strategies and tactics against alternative scenarios and, should the need arise, come up with other options faster and more effectively than their competitors.

And how successful is the model? Pierre Wack was the recognised master of scenario planning during the 1970s and 1980s. He used to say that the acid test for any successful scenario exercise was not that it captured an unusual future before it happened; rather it was whether the scenario penetrated the mindset of the relevant decision-makers and persuaded them to act ahead of time. We call this the ‘Wack test’. The scenario itself did not have to be entirely accurate in its details, as long as, in retrospect, it modified for the better the course of action taken.

Many scenario exercises are brilliant intellectually, but fail the Wack test because they do not connect to the people who make the decisions. There are, however, three aspects to our conversation model which give the scenarios a good chance of passing the Wack test:

 We assist the decision-makers in writing the scenarios themselves instead of having external specialists presenting scenarios to them. The decision-makers are an intrinsic part of the scenario process;

 We have integrated options, decisions and measurable outcomes into the same conversation that handles the formulation of the scenarios. Thus the practical implications of the scenarios cannot be ignored; and

 The scenarios sometimes feature the main decision-makers in the story. This makes them feel more committed to take appropriate action to ensure greater probability of the virtuous scenario materialising, and the worst-case scenario being avoided.

Of course our conversation can still fail the Wack test. If it does, it is often through the sheer inertia – or the resistance to change – of the team. This invariably brings about a crisis in implementation and a reversion back to old and defective ways that are out of sync with the new game. Equally, inertia can also be experienced when no effort is made to cascade the strategy through the ranks, and make effective use of all the players in a team. CEOs love to talk about motivating their players but often don’t provide a clear direction. They rule by the mushroom method – keep the staff in the dark and occasionally pour manure over them. Never mind passing the Wack test, these CEOs need a whack!

Such inertia is one of the aspects that we address when we facilitate strategic sessions using our conversation model. We deal with this challenge towards the end of the dialogue by breaking actions down into easily manageable deliverables, and making very pointed notes of who is going to do what by when. It is then up to the team to monitor progress.

The Mechanics

Looking more generally at how we implement the model, we predominantly work with a company’s top executive team but at times with middle management. Sometimes we take on individual divisions or business units. We have also worked with organisations that have multiple stakeholders from diverse backgrounds – where common ground needs to be achieved before any plan of action can be put in place. A shared perception of the game helps enormously in these circumstances.

The choice of venue for any session is important. We do not advise using a company’s office premises, as it is far too easy to suffer temporary loss of participants during the conversation. There are few things more frustrating than people nipping in and out to return calls or deal with day-to-day business. On the other side of the coin, resorts that offer an exciting array of activities, especially golf, can prove just as much of a distraction. We insist in these instances on work, then play, so the conversation is not overly disrupted.

The venue also requires careful thought because conversation often continues outside the room out of official working hours. We recommend a venue that matches the culture of the company. We once held a session in a wine cellar that was arranged (not by us, we must add) for a company renowned for their maverick, expressive persona. We all found it quaint, but incredibly restrictive and claustrophobic. One of the most exotic venues was the main cabin of a paddle boat. As it forged down the river, you could not help feeling that it epitomised the calm and resolute manner in which the company was being guided into the future.

Strategic conversations with multinationals carry with them extra challenges, not least around logistics and different languages and cultures. A little more patience and sensitivity is all that is sometimes necessary. We once facilitated, using video-conferencing, a session on sustainable development with a leading multinational company that was spread over a number of countries. Although, with the digital delay, the session was a little more challenging, it was softened by the knowledge that we had produced fewer carbon emissions by not flying delegates to a single destination!

When planning a strategic session with a company, we suggest a venue that allows the executive team, or participants, to sit at a round table or in a horseshoe configuration so they can see each other. Socrates did this with his pupils. Conversation is as much about gestures and facial expressions as it is about what people actually say. A behavioural psychologist once said that if you see someone looking upwards to the left, he or she is about to tell you a huge lie! Sitting in a circle also means that nobody has superior status at the table because of position. It’s important to create an environment that encourages the conversation to be as participative as possible, since the best strategists in a team are often the last people who want to speak up. Foresight is very different from charisma.

We also insist on zero paper except, if necessary, a flip chart upon which we record the conversation. Preferably, though, we like to capture the proceedings on a screen linked to a computer where we can move back and forth on points made. We want people to bring their minds, their experiences and, most of all, their imagination, to the meeting. Long documents on strategy tend to contain figures that are based on consensus forecasts and therefore kill the imagination, the very faculty that allows people to think outside of the box. Such documents also seek alignment before the conversation has taken place, when the whole point of the conversation is to obtain a diversity of views and then gain alignment. Above all, long papers on strategy normally confuse strategy with tactics.

In terms of the number of participants, this depends on what the session is trying to achieve. If the session is designed to develop a new strategy and identify a company’s strategic advantage over its competitors, confidentiality is paramount. So it makes sense that the group is limited to the executive team and/or the most senior management. We have even facilitated a conversation with one person – this amounted to executive coaching. If a session is designed to promote buy-in across various levels within a company and to ensure inclusiveness of the conversation, then a larger group would make sense. However, too large a group runs the risk of becoming like a conference plenary session and destroying the intensity of the conversation. Our experience has shown that the optimal number is between 5 and 20 persons, with a maximum of 25; anything larger than that and the spontaneity of the conversation could be lost.

Should, however, for reasons of inclusiveness, the number of persons exceed 25, they can be divided into smaller groups, with the conversation being held within those groups. But a caution must be given. We do believe that our conversation model is holistic and cannot be broken down into parts, with each group, say, doing a different set of questions (such as one group working only through questions 1-6 and another questions 7-10). Hence, in such a case, we prefer each group to work through the entire conversation model and then report back to the rest of the groups, after which a synthesis can be done of the data. This allows the thinking to be subjected to the rigours of the ten questions while at the same time providing a diversity of perspectives and insights. Furthermore, it can also give an indication of whether the thinking and understanding of the business or game has some commonality across the diverse groups, or whether each group perceives the game differently. Breaking into smaller groups can work when discussing options, as long as everybody has participated in the section on strategy and scenarios, and contributed towards the swot analysis.

The next question we are often asked is: how long does a typical strategic conversation take? Well, how long is a typical piece of string? Some conversations are highly interactive and explore wide areas around the business or game, whereas others are intense, to the point and characterised by a high degree of agreement. The number of participants can also influence the duration of a strategic conversation, as can the logistics required for group work. Realistically though, a good strategic conversation should take not less than a day and, being sensitive to the time constraints of a typical world-class company, should take no longer than two days.

A post-workshop write-up is invaluable to the process as it provides an ongoing working document through which the conversation can continue. It also provides a frame of reference to look back on when participating in future conversations. The write-up can be done by the facilitator once all the data has been collected and assimilated; or someone within the group can process the data during the conversation and then disseminate it amongst the participants immediately afterwards, either by e-mail or internal post. However, during all workshops, data must be captured and displayed visually to the participants as a constant record of the conversation.

Two other practical questions we are often asked about the model are:

 How often should you conduct these strategic conversations?

 How far down the organisation should you go with these conversations?

The answer to both questions is that there is no set formula, and it is very much up to each person or company as to how to use our model. Some people like to have a one-off conversation on strategy and then only review it if and when the external environment changes to the point that it has to be reviewed. Obviously, any tactical decisions taken at the meeting, along with their associated actions are regularly monitored. Certainly the scenario gameboard is reviewed at appropriate intervals to keep the team aware of its competitive position and possible changes to the environment. Other teams like to have a strategic conversation once a year before the next round of operational planning and budgeting begins. This is fine as long as it doesn’t become a bureaucratic chore.

On the second question, some companies like to restrict the conversation to their top executive team, while others like to cascade it down through the different business units and service departments. Obviously, the lower one goes, the more restricted the scope of the game becomes. Nevertheless, it is still useful to consider the range of activities inside any production unit/service centre and whether these should be changed to accommodate the needs of other in-house departments, which are its clients. Equally, relationships with ‘supplier’ departments can be examined as well.

One company we worked with first held a strategic conversation amongst its executive team. Then each member of the team facilitated the conversation further with his or her region or department. We were not involved in the second step except as bystanders. Such a process developed the conversation into an important internal communication tool and allowed the conversation to become a feedback mechanism to the executive. The whole company was thereby strategically empowered since all employees and management shared a common understanding of the game and the direction in which the organisation intended to go.

A word or two on the attributes of a good facilitator:

 It should always be borne in mind that the correct strategic combination to take a company forward is invariably within the minds and experience of the participants. It is simply the role of the facilitator to help the participants identify it. Therefore a good facilitator coaxes brilliance out of participants, rather than comes up with brilliant ideas himself or herself. Hence, the role of the facilitator is different from the role of a consultant.

 The facilitator should not be overly knowledgeable about the nature of the company’s business. It sounds surprising, but there is a good reason for this. In helping the facilitator to familiarise himself or herself with the nature of the company’s business, the participants are often forced to return to basics and examine the game from a fresh perspective – unlike anything they have done for years. Having said that, a facilitator should not go into a session completely ignorant of the game under debate, since valuable time will be wasted.

Those with a knowledge of philosophy will find a resonance in the above two attributes with the founding principles of Socratic dialogue. In the dialogue between Socrates and the fox, each of them played a role as a facilitator in the conversation, just as they did that of participant and listener. The result was a conversation that flowed freely, where preconceived ideas were tested and where the participants felt sufficiently liberated to review their strategy.

The remaining chapters will take you through the ten strategic questions in more detail. A flexible set of sub-questions will be developed and examples provided to illustrate the relevance of these questions. The final chapter is the conclusion of our strategic conversation with you and a tribute to Pierre Wack.

But before you take the next step, we think it’s necessary that you understand the impact it might have: our experience has shown that once people have been introduced to this methodology, the quality of their enquiry and the level of thinking about their future are permanently elevated to a new level. This will have an overall beneficial effect on your company’s level of strategic skills, thereby reducing (or removing) the reliance on the opinions of external consultants and the regular transfusions of wisdom they try to inject into your corporate bloodstream. With our questions, we extract the innate wisdom residing in the minds of the executives around the table. We all learn at the same time – like Socrates did in his dialogues with his students, mutually exploring issues and mutually resolving them in the give-and-take of debate.

Furthermore, we give the executive team the ‘quality of sight’. In today’s age, where perception is often regarded as reality and spin merchants abound to provide convincing and sometimes contagious perceptions, seeing through the veil – or the ‘mask of appearances’ as Socrates described it – is vital to success. Whether you are looking at yourself or the world around you, the hype has to be filtered out to make good decisions about the future. You need X-ray vision!

Some comments made as a result of our sessions are:

It was a turning-point because we used the positive scenario derived from the conversation to establish a new set of values and practices throughout the organisation – all the way down to grassroots level.

CEO, BANKING GROUP

Normally I start a meeting by asking what the takeaways are likely to be. I note that, instead of answers, the takeaway will be some questions on strategy to keep me awake at night. I guess that’s what Socrates had in mind.

CEO, NATIONAL BAKERY CHAIN

As a small business, we are too busy doing business to take time out to think about the future. Nor can we afford to have a full-time strategic planner. So the conversation was an ideal way to take stock of our game briefly and passionately. Did you notice there wasn’t a single interruption from a mobile phone? That has to be a first!

CEO, ATM SERVICE PROVIDER

We are all fierce individualists in our family. For the first time, we’ve had a conversation about the business which has brought us together as a team. No doubt in a few weeks time we’ll be going our separate ways again, but at least we’ll have the minutes of this meeting as proof of a fleeting moment of unity.

CHAIRMAN, FAMILY FOOTWEAR BUSINESS

I’m looking at my watch. You said five hours for the conversation and we’ve done it. Unbelievable!

CEO, MINING CONTRACTOR

I like the game analogy because it will give us a better way to process information in the future. If there’s a new player, a new rule of the game or the emergence of a new market scenario, we will be able to adjust faster than our competitors. That’s the name of the game.

DIRECTOR, ASSET-MANAGEMENT COMPANY

What is nice about your model is that it doesn’t get in the way of discussing the business. It’s invisible because it’s so logical. I much prefer it to those methods with cheesy names where you spend half the time figuring out your next step.

CHAIRMAN, TIMBER COMPANY

I came in feeling paper withdrawal symptoms, but you’ve cured me of the habit. In future, I shall consign all thick strategy documents to File 13. I hope it doesn’t get me into hot water!

EXECUTIVE, MUNICIPAL WATER BOARD