Why Simple Is Better
For the past few years, we’ve been sharing with clients and prospects that one of the things we feel we do well is the deconstruction of complexity in strategic planning. The reason for this is all too often even the most seasoned professionals can find it challenging to prioritize opportunities, what it will take to get where they want to go, and barriers to be overcome in getting there. But what is the real aim of “deconstructing complexity”? For us, that is really a process. The outcome of this process is simple: simplicity.
Good strategists understand that one of the key challenges in the world of strategic planning is not articulating strategy, but what measures need to be taken for the organization to manifest a particular strategy behaviorally. This is the real trick. But all too often, and all of us have seen this, we get handed a “strategic plan” in the form of a binder that could easily double as a boat anchor. And the question I always have in these situations is “Who actually has read this thing?”
Don’t get me wrong. Certainly, sound strategy sees the light of the world through diligent examination and assessment. However, the really talented strategists I’ve known distill such data down to what is fundamentally most important.
The reason to embrace strategic simplicity can be found in psychology studies going back to decades. In 1956, George Miller, a psychology professor at Princeton, published a paper titled “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Limits on Human Capacity for Processing Information”. In this study, Miller submits that the average number of objects a human can retain in working memory is 7, plus/minus 2. This perspective is also the reason that phone numbers contain seven numbers. So the point of all this is: give people too many things to keep track of, or too many strategies to pursue, and they have a greater likelihood of coming up short in achieving them.
In our discussions with clients/prospects, we idealize the number of core strategies at a target of three. The reasoning is simple: if we can deduce that the successful execution of three focused strategies will drive result achievement at the 80th percentile, would we not consider that aggregate success? Most people think so. And usually, once you get beyond three main strategies, numbers four and higher generally are not those that really seem like priorities.
What keeps organizations from embracing this philosophy? Some think strategic plans have to have a high “thud factor” to be intellectually sound. Others will offer, “Things can’t always be simple”. Not to mention the perceived political issues. I can’t buy any of these responses because in many instances we have overcome these concerns in our client work. Mostly because of having good clients.
In the end, allow me to quote Einstein:
“You see, God always takes the simplest path.”
Both are right.