Recently, I have completely reversed my methodology with clients – a move I’m sure most people would disagree with.
When I first started out, and for many years after, my process went something like this:
- Research
- Wide-ranging interviews with the team
- Sessions with the founder
- Strategy
The rationale behind this was twofold. First, I thought that I could get lots of good quality information from the team which would come in handy when I met with the founder. (Who knows, perhaps they would even reveal “the answer”). And second, it made the process “inclusive”. Everyone would feel heard and involved – and this, so we’re told, would lead to team buy-in.
Now look there was nothing really wrong with this process, it worked fine.
But it was also kinda a lie.
The truth is that in all those sessions I almost never got crucial information from wider members of the team.
And what’s perhaps even more controversial is this: they didn’t really care.
They weren’t excited, or flattered, or energised to be involved in these discussions. If anything they saw them as a bit of an annoyance.
I came to see that my process was really just theatre.
A pantomime of collaboration with little rationale beyond a vague sense that it was the “nice” thing to do.
So now I do things rather differently:
- Research
- Founder retreat
- Strategy
- Team stress testing
Or, to put it more bluntly: it’s only the founder who is involved in the strategy creation, and nobody else’s opinion counts.
(Clearly there are specific situations where the work needs to be broader or specialist input is required but I’m just speaking generally here)
For many people I expect this sounds outrageous – especially since the belief that “strategy must be a company-wide endeavour” has become accepted dogma in most circles.
But the change is actually built on good strategic sense.
Here’s why.
Reason 1 – It produces better work
It should really go without saying, but contrarian opinion can’t be reached by consensus.
You’ve heard the phrase “nobody ever built a statue of a committee”? Well that same thing applies here. If the grit in the pearl of effective strategy is a risky point of view, then this can only come from a single human individual. It can’t be drawn from a canvassing of the collective.
Now of course in theory it’s possible that someone other than the founder / CEO will have this point of view. And the larger the business, the more likely that is.
But for most businesses that’s simply not going to be the case, because only the visionary leader is going to be dedicating enough deep thinking to the problem to come up with something.
The employees? They have a life. This just isn’t that big a deal to them.
They clock-in, clock-out, and rightly so.
Reason 2 – People like being told what to do
I’m sorry to tell you this, but when you ask employee’s opinions on the future direction of the business, they don’t tend to feel empowered.
Instead they lose trust.
You make them feel like they’re working for a nervous, rudderless organisation that lacks strong leadership they can get behind.
Just think about it: why do people want to work for companies like Red Bull? Or Google? Or SpaceX?
Is it because they want to go somewhere where they can change the direction of the brand? Of course not. It’s because they want to be part of a strong, pre-set vision. It’s because they want to belong to something with certainty, boldness, and clarity.
When a leader lays down a strong authoritative strategy “top down”, people don’t think “who the hell are you?”.
Instead they think “thank you”.
Thank you for taking the responsibility on your shoulders to make my job both easier, and more exciting. Thank you for giving me firm boundaries within which I can express myself, rather than just dodging the question like most leaders.
__
Ultimately a lot of this depends on the type of company you want to run.
If you want to run a consensus-driven, inclusive, democratic business then that is totally fine. Many companies are like that, and they tick on perfectly happily.
But they do not tend to be the A-players in their industries.
Those are the dictatorships, not democracies. Where strategy, expectations, and performance are rigidly upheld, and you either measure-up, or ship-out.
Neither of these is the “right or wrong” way to run a business. It’s all just a question of personal values. Even strategy, as I’ve said many times, is optional – as evidenced by the thousands of un-strategic businesses that are doing just fine.
Just don’t kid yourself that great strategy is a team sport.
