A Very Important Conversation

One of the blogs that I read regularly is published by a group that purports to be at the forefront of leadership when it comes to non-profit governance. In the most recent post, the writer, who takes pride in strategy work in particular, tells the following, in talking about a recent meeting she attended on non-profit leadership:

"We broke into working sessions to create actionable goals and strategies in these important areas: Advancing Diversity and Inclusion; Developing Cross-Sector Talent Pipelines; Equipping Leaders to Face Tough Challenges; Scaling Social Innovations; Catalyzing Public and Private Investments in Leadership."

Wow. How did this group get to those areas, in advance of the meeting? B-R-O-A-D in scope. Some fluff (sound bold and important...but what does it all mean?). Strategies...plural? I'll back up..."actionable goals and strategies" (plural)? Oh my. This sounds like a classically-bad strategic planning process. Way too much going on here, some of it potentially strategic, and plenty (I'll wager) that should be part of some group's normal work flow.

All this in one meeting?

With the aforementioned titles, this work sounds terribly important (and it is, actually). However, it also sounds as if this "meeting" had some serious flaws. Could one truly expect a group of folks to show up on one afternoon, split into groups, and do serious strategic planning--to the point of creating plural goals and strategies? Really?

What's decidely more awkward, from my perspective, is that the writer goes on to identify this meeting as "the start of a very important conversation."

Wait a moment...I thought you said that you created actionable goals and strategies. All 200 of you who were invited (and, of course, I'm sure you knew each other so well by that time). You did that, yet it was supposed to be "the start of a very important conversation"?

Is this episode meant to be upheld as a model for strategy work?