Image Description: An illustration of a black road with yellow dashed lines that curves upward and transforms into the nib of a fountain pen. The pen appears to write or carve through a cloudy, deep blue sky. By Allison Saeng via Unsplash+.
In today’s fast-paced and often chaotic world, organizations need a way to stay grounded and nimble while remaining visionary. Networks and organizations are, on the one hand, handling fast flying objects and, on the other, trying to be strategic and proactive.
If we only respond to challenges with fear to what’s coming at us, like increased community needs, staff burnout, or tightening budgets, we risk becoming overwhelmed with organizational fatigue and getting stuck in the muck.
However, we know many of you are also looking toward the horizon, seeking trends and partners, and asking what is most critical to ensure your impact in the community/sector is lasting and meaningful. We call this: building strategic direction for uncertain times.
Why We’re Choosing Strategic Direction Over Traditional Planning
At IISC, we approach strategic direction setting with a keen awareness of the uncertainties and emerging opportunities that organizations face.
Conventional strategic planning often assumes a stable environment. It involves a deep analysis of current reality (SWOT analysis), and typically emphasizes clear objectives, fixed timelines, and detailed implementation strategies based on what is known today.
Building alignment and accountability is of utmost importance, but in uncertain times, this kind of rigidity may lead to plans that are quickly outdated or otherwise fall short.
Strategic direction setting, by contrast, helps you stay attuned to a changing landscape, making sense of what’s happening, and co-creating a flexible path forward. The goal isn’t to create a rigid plan; it’s about identifying a clear direction that can evolve and pivot, leaving room for emergence, learning, and innovation while still providing clarity, focus, and purpose.
How Do We Do It?
Engagement that builds buy-in and trust – We build buy-in and trust by engaging hearts and minds across our organization, including members, constituents, partners, board members, and especially those closest to the challenges and injustices we aim to address, because making a meaningful impact takes all of us.
Strategic collaboration – We design and facilitate collaborative processes that bring these voices into the conversation, helping you shape strategies and strategic priorities rooted in shared values and lived experiences.
Values-alignment at every step – At each stage, we work with you to ground in your values and mission, acknowledging but not being guided by fear or urgency.
Flexibility and creativity for complex times – We co-create a space for emergence, experimentation, and iteration to move forward in today’s reality.
Why This Matters Now
From movements to nonprofits to foundations, we feel and hear the impact of attacks and uncertainty on and within organizations. There is growing fear, stress, burnout, and internal conflict, as well as a hunger for clear and strategic direction, knowing that we can’t solve everything or be sure about the long haul. The cumulative impact of COVID, work, and health changes, and authoritarian practices, including against foundations and nonprofits, means that you need support, space for grieving, and thoughtful planning processes.
In this blog series, we will explore five practices to guide organizations toward clarity and momentum.
We consider this a love offering to our sector: how can we help you to get clearer, to shake loose what needs changing, and to be more healthy and successful in your work?
The Five Practices We’ll Explore in This Series
1. Clarify Your North Star
Ask: What is the core purpose that must remain constant, even as the world shifts? How can you stay emergent and responsive to crises while still focusing on building long-term power and transformation?
2. Plan for Multiple Futures
Ask: What are the factors we know or can imagine, and what is beyond? How can we hold the future lightly as we plan and move with purpose?
3. Design for Flexibility, Iteration, and Collaboration
Ask: Is our strategy flexible enough to adapt, and do we have strong processes in place to support ongoing experimentation and collaboration?
4. Center Equity and Building Power for Your Organization and Community
Ask: What are we building? Who are we accountable to? Are we building in ways that foster a more equitable future?
5. Strengthen Internal Capacity for Resilience and Well-Being
Ask: What do we need to sustain our people, funding, and infrastructure in the long run?
If your organization is seeking a more grounded, adaptive approach to strategy, especially in these times, we’re here to walk alongside you. Whether or not we work together, we invite you into this journey. We’ll be sharing more on each element in upcoming blog posts, so stay connected.
“How do we cultivate the muscle of radical imagination needed to dream together beyond fear?” – Adrienne Maree Brown
Ready to Move from Chaos to Clarity?
If your team or organization is navigating complexity, burnout, or uncertainty and still dreaming of impact, justice, and transformation, we’d love to connect!
Reach out to explore how we can support your team through Strategic Direction Setting. We’ll help you align around what matters most, build courageous collaboration, and chart a course grounded in shared power, visionary leadership, and real-time responsiveness.
The human heart is the first home of democracy. It is where we embrace our questions. Can we be equitable? Can we be generous? Can we listen with our whole beings, not just our minds, and offer our attention rather than our opinions? And do we have enough resolve in our hearts to act courageously, relentlessly, without giving up – ever – trusting our fellow citizens to join with us in our determined pursuit of a living democracy? ~Terry Tempest Williams
In Turkey, voters just granted the Prime Minister additional powers. In the US, many people have long been fond of simple solutions. Today that plays out with support of a bombast who is inconsistent and offers solutions that exacerbate underlying problems.
When we work with clients, it also seems like there is a pull to simplicity, especially around issues of diversity and equity.
We field many calls from organizations and networks eager to address issues of racism. In its caricature state, which is all too common, the request is for a two-hour workshop for staff. The hope is that with a few hours of filling smart brains with a new understanding—of the history of racism, or of implicit bias, or levels of oppression—that then things will be okay.
This is false. A two-hour workshop can open some new understanding or potentially be used to make a case for change, but in no way does not even put you on the road to okay.
How is it that smart people believe that a little more in the way of “smarts” will undo a complex historical reality routed in policy, cultural narrative and economics?
Some of it seems to be a wish for easy and for ease. Many white people want the magic bullet or the easy solution to our own racism and that of our country and our organizations. We are not used to acknowledging that it took a lot of work to dig the hole that we are in and that it will take even more work to get out. Hoping that two hours or one day can give a diverse group the knowledge, tools, and understanding to create systemic change is simply a wish for simple.
In addition, there are systems that support the quest for this to be simple. For example, funders may offer relatively small dollars for organizational change efforts or not prioritize learning about systems of oppression at all. The push is almost always for fast outcomes and it seems risky to slow down and support the harder efforts that will ultimately be successful. Many leaders of our organizations, foundations, and government institutions have ourselves benefitted from the structures of racism and are content (wittingly or unwittingly) not to rock the boat.
For people working on systemic change, our job is to communicate that change is both hard and worthy. To want change requires more than a workshop; it is a commitment to put in the time, the dollars, and the effort. We know that effective equity efforts require work on multiple levels.
It may not be easy but it is fun and powerful to see the changes along the way. Change can beget more change. Change includes:
New and deep relationships that expand what is possible and build new ways of being
More equitable hiring and purchasing policies, investing in long term economic change
Policies in an organization that are constructed to undo the bias that is both implicit and explicit in our minds and our organizations.
I will write more in the coming weeks about examples of change as a motivation for those moments when we think oppression, racism, and inequity are solvable in a two-hour workshop. IISC is interested in working with groups that choose to avoid the simple and invest with their hearts and time the work that can lead to meaningful change.
I just finished reading Mila Baker’s Peer-to-Peer Leadership: Why the Network is the Leader, which adds to the growing case for more widespread network thinking, foregrounding of human relationships, and shifting traditional conceptions (and myths) of leadership in business and beyond. Much of what Baker writes about has been expressed in the writings of others, including Clay Shirky, Carol Sanford, Nilofer Merchant, Kevin Kelly, and Harold Jarche, and I appreciate how she couches much of her writing in the evolving leadership and organizational development literature and thinking. Read More
Bureaucrats get a bad rap. Which is not always fair. They do serve an important purpose. If you’ve been to Singapore, you find they can be so efficient it is almost exciting. However, I do think it is important to take a critical look at organizational form. We have to pay attention to the way we structure ourselves when we aim to do things together. Read More
“Let’s all keep an open mind” How many times have you heard that one? How often has it worked? Keeping an open mind is not as easy as following a ground rule once it has been stated, specially not in a culture where we are rewarded for being right – for knowing. Read More
We were in a learning session the other day and I was amused when I heard Marianne Hughes, our Executive Director at the Interaction Institute for Social Change, refer to “back when it was still ok to talk about planning…”I appreciated her currency in the field, as well as the decades of experience she is able to bring to the table.Marianne was talking about how important it was to apply a “pre-planning phase” to any organizational change process.What I specially appreciated was her call for an equivalent moment in group process as we are coming to understand it today, what she called a “readiness” phase.
What is important here is that as paradigms shift we are not just playing around with language but we are actually learning to look at the world with an entirely different lens.I forget who it was that said “strategic planning is obsolete, what we need is strategic thinking.”This to me is a lot like what Marianne was saying, understanding the state of a group that is clamoring for change is not exactly pre-planning, it is actually testing for readiness.When I hear “pre-planning” I get right into linear thinking, and it feels like linear thinking is actually a limitation for groups that want to deal with complexity.
“Readiness” on the other hand seems to be testing for something else.In my experience, testing for readiness must include the skillful probing into a group’s interest or capacity to engage an “adaptive challenge.”And here I’m using the language of Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky who skillfully make the distinction between technical problems and those challenges that demand a shift at the level of values, beliefs and assumptions.It seems to me that a “pre-planning phase” can serve to solve a technical problem, but an adaptive challenge demands organizational readiness.
One of my key learning edge questions is found somewhere around here.I have a core interest in helping people and groups of people shift out of what I call the “dominant-and-dying paradigm” into what I see as the “emergent paradigm.”I am passionate about this specifically because the dominant paradigm has calcified while this emergent paradigm seems to have potentially liberating attributes.Certainly there is much more to explore here, but I’m currently highlighting a key question – how do we test for readiness?
How do we know a group is ready to make a shift at the level of values, beliefs and assumptions?
And if a group is not ready, is there any way we can help?
We were in a learning session the other day and I was amused when I heard Marianne Hughes, our Executive Director at the Interaction Institute for Social Change, refer to “back when it was still ok to talk about planning…”I appreciated her currency in the field, as well as the decades of experience she is able to bring to the table.Marianne was talking about how important it was to apply a “pre-planning phase” to any organizational change process.What I specially appreciated was her call for an equivalent moment in group process as we are coming to understand it today, what she called a “readiness” phase.
What is important here is that as paradigms shift we are not just playing around with language but we are actually learning to look at the world with an entirely different lens.I forget who it was that said “strategic planning is obsolete, what we need is strategic thinking.”This to me is a lot like what Marianne was saying, understanding the state of a group that is clamoring for change is not exactly pre-planning, it is actually testing for readiness.When I hear “pre-planning” I get right into linear thinking, and it feels like linear thinking is actually a limitation for groups that want to deal with complexity.
“Readiness” on the other hand seems to be testing for something else.In my experience, testing for readiness must include the skillful probing into a group’s interest or capacity to engage an “adaptive challenge.”And here I’m using the language of Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky who skillfully make the distinction between technical problems and those challenges that demand a shift at the level of values, beliefs and assumptions.It seems to me that a “pre-planning phase” can serve to solve a technical problem, but an adaptive challenge demands organizational readiness.
One of my key learning edge questions is found somewhere around here.I have a core interest in helping people and groups of people shift out of what I call the “dominant-and-dying paradigm” into what I see as the “emergent paradigm.”I am passionate about this specifically because the dominant paradigm has calcified while this emergent paradigm seems to have potentially liberating attributes.Certainly there is much more to explore here, but I’m currently highlighting a key question – how do we test for readiness?
How do we know a group is ready to make a shift at the level of values, beliefs and assumptions?
And if a group is not ready, is there any way we can help?
Make Meetings MatterJoin us on February 5 for a practical and energizing webinar that teaches simple facilitation practices to turn meetings into inclusive, focused conversations that lead to real progress!
