Process for Big Hairy Audicious Goals

[Johnson_Cheryl]

Does anyone have experiences with helping groups (board of directors) establish BHAG (big, hairy, audacious goals?)

I am working with a board as part of the strategic planning process to set goals, both long and short term. The CEO wants to use an outside source to facilitate the goal setting. He has done the front end work with the board (mission, vision, values, SWOT etc.)

He is partial to the book, Built to Last and I thought I might pull from the BHAG concepts in that book to help the board set some goals? Any thoughts, suggestions on processes, your own experiences would be appreciated?

[HildyGottlieb]

Does anyone have experiences with helping groups (board of directors) establish BHAG (big, hairy, audacious goals?)

I am working with a board as part of the strategic planning process to set goals, both long and short term. The CEO wants to use an outside source to facilitate the goal setting. He has done the front end work with the board (mission, vision, values, SWOT etc.)

He is partial to the book, Built to Last and I thought I might pull from the BHAG concepts in that book to help the board set some goals? Any thoughts, suggestions on processes, your own experiences would be appreciated?



What you are talking about is a vision-based planning process, that
begins with the group's vision for what is possible, and then steps back
to create that future. Sorry to not have time for details - heading out
for the week. But you can find more about this in two places:

1) I have blogged a lot about this, including examples of the process -
most recently in a 3-part series on Why Problem-Solving Doesn't Solve
Problems. That is here:
http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/13/why-problem-solving-doesn%E2%80%99t-solve-problems/ ('http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/13/why-problem-solving-doesn%E2%80%99t-solve-problems/')

2) "The Pollyanna Principles" provides details of this planning process,
including 3 case studies. You will find the book (including the first
33 pages online) here: http://pollyannaprinciples.org/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/')

What you will find is that this is the most inspiring, engaging,
encouraging, energizing work a planner can do. You will have a blast
and bring the group considerably further than they could have gotten
without those BHAGs. Best of luck and have fun!

Hildy

Hildy Gottlieb
*The Community-Driven Institute**
*Making Visionary Community Change Practical*
*_http://www.CommunityDriven.org ('http://www.CommunityDriven.org') <http://www.help4nonprofits.com/> ('http://www.help4nonprofits.com/>')
_/*BLOG:*/ http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/ ('http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/')
/*Pollyanna Principles: */http://pollyannaprinciples.org/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/')
520-321-4433
or 1-888-787-4433
/*Twitter:*/ @HildyGottlieb

[worksmarts]

Right on, Hildy! You only get more of what you focus on. Fighting problems gets more problems and inspires a continuous reactive cycle. I suggest and have used Appreciative Inquiry with Boards to accelerate BHAGs. AI gives them confidence in reaching beyond expected boundaries and real understanding of where to start building based on current capabilities.

[Ned_Ruete]

I would be careful about getting excited (you or your client) by one book and looking around for a place to apply it. There is no such thing as one size fits all. Do BHAGs really apply to you client, or does he just love the book?

Less than 1/3 of my work is with Churches, and less than 1/10th of the books in my library comes from that work, but three apply here, even though you're not working in that sector. First is _Natural Church Development_ by Christian Schwarz. One of the precepts of the book is that adoption rarely works. A leading cause of flavor-of-the-month management failures is the attempt to take something that worked someplace else and do a 1:1 adoption in a new organization. It doesn't work. It's like taking plants from English soil and expecting them to grow in India. You have to understand the principles of what worked in the first place, analyze and diagnose the new organization, then do adapatation by indivudialization to find an approach that applies the principles to the new place. That's like taking seeds from England and planting them in Indian soil.

The analysis and diagnosis *before* BHAGs might be SWOTs. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses (internal) and opportunities and constraints (external). This will shed some light on how to do BHAGs in YOUR CLIENT'S organization. If they have mostly strengths and a lot of opportunities, they want BHAGs that will help them be selective in picking the opportunities to go after that are most likely to help them meet their goals. If they have strengths but fewer opportunities, they want BHAGs that make them be aggressive in going after the opportunities before someone else gets them. If strengths are in short supply, they need internal BHAGs that drive them to aggressively go after strengths before taking on external BHAGs they don't have the capability to meet.

This kind of analysis and diagnosis takes time, however, and executives, especially boards of directors, don't like to take time. They always feel like they are playing catchup. This brings us to the second book. In _Sabbath_, Wayne Muller talks about any number of well-meaning efforts to improve things (mostly in the public and NGO sectors, but the principle applies to for-profits) that wind up making things worse because no one took the time to stop, listen, and think. Maybe the organization is always playing catchup - maybe they think they need BHAGs - because they're always going with the quick answer instead of taking time to find the right one - the one that's right for them, not someone else.

The third book addresses this question directly. It is _Discerning Your Congregation's Future_ by Oswald and Friedrich. The title says it all. Take time, take a process, to find out what goals - BHAG or otherwise - are the ones to take your organization where it needs to be, where it is supposed to be. Take time to discern, rather than just quickly deciding.

There is one more book. The bible for work in the Church sector is, well, the Bible. From John 10:12, "The hired hand... sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away." Wolves are Big, Hairy, and Audacious. Be carefull of springing BHAGs on people who did not play a part in creating them. They may mistake them for BHAWs and run away. If the people are not a part of creating the vision, they will feel like hired hands, not shepherds, and run away. See Senge in _The Fifth Discipline_ on "Shared Vision" for more on this topic.

What do others think?

Ned Ruete
East Lyme, CT USA

[Dale Hunter]

Goals are best set from the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats).

A very close look at the SWOT analysis results will lead to the identification of 3 to 6 key factors which must be addressed if the organisation is to achieve success or avoid failure.

The goals are then fashioned (short statements of direction containing only one idea).

Strategies are then developed to support each goal. Priorities are set among these strategies.

Key objectives are developed for each goal (SMART) then action plans and budgets are set for each objective.

Less is more. Most common mistake is to take on too much.

I can provide a full process if helpful.

Regards from Dale
Dr. Dale Hunter
Zenergy
119 Mt Eden Rd, Mt Eden, Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 638 7326 Mob: 021 639 870
Skype: dale-hunter
Email: zenergy@xtra.co.nz Web: www.zenergyglobal.com (http://www.iaf-forum.org/www.zenergyglobal.com)
Whole people co-operating in a sustainable world

[HildyGottlieb]

Ned_Ruete wrote:

The analysis and diagnosis *before* BHAGs might be SWOTs. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses (internal) and opportunities and constraints (external). This will shed some light on how to do BHAGs in YOUR CLIENT'S organization. If they have mostly strengths and a lot of opportunities, they want BHAGs that will help them be selective in picking the opportunities to go after that are most likely to help them meet their goals. If they have strengths but fewer opportunities, they want BHAGs that make them be aggressive in going after the opportunities before someone else gets them. If strengths are in short supply, they need internal BHAGs that drive them to aggressively go after strengths before taking on external BHAGs they don't have the capability to meet.

This kind of analysis and diagnosis takes time, however, and executives, especially boards of directors, don't like to take time. They always feel like they are playing catchup. This brings us to the second book. In _Sabbath_, Wayne Muller talks about any number of well-meaning efforts to improve things (mostly in the public and NGO sectors, but the principle applies to for-profits) that wind up making things worse because no one took the time to stop, listen, and think. Maybe the organization is always playing catchup - maybe they think they need BHAGs - because they're always going with the quick answer instead of taking time to find the right one - the one that's right for them, not someone else.


Ned:
While I agree with you regarding the one-approach-fits-all approach, I
would urge you to read the 3-part posts at my blog, titled "Why
Problem-Solving Doesn't Solve Problems.
http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/13/why-problem-solving-doesn%E2%80%99t-solve-problems/ ('http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/13/why-problem-solving-doesn%E2%80%99t-solve-problems/')

The posts come from our 11 years of work to answer this question: "What
is preventing this sector from creating more significant change in the
world? And what WILL create such change?"

What we found in trying pretty much every approach out there is that the
answer lies not in a single approach, but in starting with different
assumptions and expectations. The strength-based approaches of AI and
the Asset Based Community Development work are certainly part of the
answer, as are many other approaches.

But in that 11 years, what we have found - and what we are teaching this
week in an intensive immersion class for facilitators on
Community-Driven Consulting - is that the only route to creating
significant community / global improvement is if we change our
"thinking" before we consider which tool / technique to use in "doing."

Lastly, regarding the great degree of situational analysis you suggest,
I would urge you to watch this video: http://is.gd/pkYo ('http://is.gd/pkYo') What we
observed consistently early in our exploration into this work is that
the HIGHER the degree of pre-goal-setting situational analysis, the
LESSER degree of community improvement the resulting plan will provide.

Again, for more information on all of this, including 3 case studies in
vision-based planning and the entire philosophy behind the thinking, I
urge reading The Pollyanna Principles: Reinventing 'Nonprofit'
Organizations to Create the Future of Our World. And I urge you not to
believe me as the author, but to read the review penned by Steve Nill,
CEO of Charity Channel, which you will find here:
http://pollyannaprinciples.org/info/reviews/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/info/reviews/')

I'm sorry I have no time to elaborate, but I hope the video, the blog
posts, and the first 33 pages of the book (which can be found here
http://pollyannaprinciples.org/info/read-part-1/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/info/read-part-1/')
) will help provide at least some understanding. It is only by
starting any thought process with the vision of what we intend to
achieve that we can move beyond "zero" (see the blog posts for what I
mean by that.)

Off to go work with 10 amazing consultants who are about to go change
their world!!!

Hildy

Hildy Gottlieb
*The Community-Driven Institute**
*Making Visionary Community Change Practical*
*_http://www.CommunityDriven.org ('http://www.CommunityDriven.org') <http://www.help4nonprofits.com/> ('http://www.help4nonprofits.com/>')
_/*BLOG:*/ http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/ ('http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/')
/*Pollyanna Principles: */http://pollyannaprinciples.org/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/')
520-321-4433
or 1-888-787-4433
/*Twitter:*/ @HildyGottlieb

[Johnson_Cheryl]

Hildy,
Your process seems to contain similar elements of Future Search and the Appreciative Inquiry Approach. Using the imagination to envision the future you want as opposed to the future that can be created based on the liimited resources available to you at this time. Tapping into the limitless possibilities found in the super-conscious. Have you documented the outcomes from organizations using your approach? Success stories? Has this approach produced the outcomes they were seeking?

[Johnson_Cheryl]

Ned,

I would be careful about getting excited (you or your client) by one book and looking around for a place to apply it. There is no such thing as one size fits all. Do BHAGs really apply to you client, or does he just love the book?

I think he just loves the book. You know how managers read a book and get excited about the concepts.

Cheryl Johnson

[HildyGottlieb]

Cheryl wrote:
Hildy,
Your process seems to contain similar elements of Future Search and the Appreciative Inquiry Approach. Using the imagination to envision the future you want as opposed to the future that can be created based on the liimited resources available to you at this time. Tapping into the limitless possibilities found in the super-conscious. Have you documented the outcomes from organizations using your approach? Success stories? Has this approach produced the outcomes they were seeking?++++++++


Cheryl:
In answer to your direct question, yes, success stories have been
documented and continue to be.

Secondly, however, you mention "my process." I want to be clear that we
have not been pushing a particular process or tool or technique or
method. And that we have indeed encouraged the use of Future Search or
AI or any other process if it creates dramatic community improvement.
That is because the work we have been doing is not about "what we do"
but the thinking that precedes and undergirds "what we do." I repeatedly
state throughout my book and throughout our classes that doing Pollyanna
Principled work is not suggesting, "I have a new tool and it is the way."

Instead, what we have developed is a framework and philosophy for
thinking about the work we all do, into which other models and methods
may or may not fit - all aimed at the singular goal of creating
visionary improvement in the quality of life in communities around the
world.

As practitioners have been putting these thinking frameworks into
practice, we have found that parts of the existing tools fit into the
story in different ways. Or they suddenly make clearer sense. Or they
are seen to be less effective than initially thought. Those responses
are not the result of creating a better tool. Those responses arise
precisely because it is not about the tool - it is first about how we
think and be, which leads to different decisions about the tools we
might use and how we might use them.

Again, all of this comes from our frustration that even with all the
existing tools out there, including the ones you mention and so many
more - all of which seem to be so logical for doing what they are
supposed to do - we still were not seeing significant change in
communities. What we realized was that it was not the tools that were
at fault, but the thought processes into which the tools were fitting -
a thought process that was aiming those tools at creating
less-than-optimal community improvement.

(I hate to use the trite, "When we have a hammer, everything looks like
a nail," but it's what we have found repeatedly when it comes to tools -
we default to the tool, rather than defaulting to intentionally,
explicitly, and with keen awareness thinking things through in a way
that aims every bit of our work towards creating significant community
change.)

The successes we have seen have, for the most part, been incremental,
simply because we have not been doing this work long enough to document
larger changes. But those incremental changes, in and of themselves,
have been significantly more than those groups had imagined
accomplishing, and far more quickly than they dreamed possible. The
closing story in the full video (parts of which I have linked already)
is just one of those successes. That complete video is here:
http://blip.tv/file/1871539 ('http://blip.tv/file/1871539')

Lastly, we just completed our first week-long immersion course in
Pollyanna Principled Consulting. I have blogged some about that, and
will be doing more as I rest and reflect on the power of what happened
during this transformational week. The posts so far are here:
http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/27/why-some-consultants-are-always-ahead-of-the-pack/ ('http://hildygottlieb.com/2009/04/27/why-some-consultants-are-always-ahead-of-the-pack/')


I hope this is helpful.

Hildy

Hildy Gottlieb
*Author - **The Pollyanna Principles: Reinventing "Nonprofit
Organizations"
to Create the Future of Our World
*_http://www.CommunityDriven.org ('http://www.CommunityDriven.org') <http://www.help4nonprofits.com/> ('http://www.help4nonprofits.com/>')
_/*BLOG:*/ http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/ ('http://www.HildyGottlieb.com/')
/*Book:*/ http://pollyannaprinciples.org/ ('http://pollyannaprinciples.org/')
520-321-4433
or 1-888-787-4433
/*Twitter:*/ @HildyGottlieb

[Christopher_Haydock]

Hello Tony, Ned, Hildy, Cheryl, and others:

Any suggestion as to process, for example, as here
a process for setting goals is well accompanied by
cautions that one process does not fit all and even,
as here, cautions about the limits of professionalization
of the entire field of facilitation.

Peter Adler of the Keystone Center just published
an excellent article on the limits of professionalization:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/adlerTheEnd.cfm ('http://www.mediate.com/articles/adlerTheEnd.cfm')
It's titled "The End of Mediation: An Unhurried Ramble
On Why The Field Will Fail And Mediators Will Thrive
Over The Next Two Decades!" Yes, it's about mediation
but you could substitute facilitation for mediation,
and in fact at quite a few points Peter uses these terms
interchangeably.

I particularly liked section V titled "Getting Beyond Oz",
which gives ten great ideas for moving the field of mediation
(think facilitation) forward. Peter exhorts us to focus
on the meme-like essentials of our field and concludes:

"I believe bigger, bolder opportunities lie ahead.
Keep doing the good work you do.
Keep the wind at your back and don’t forget to embrace
the road and all the larger possibilities that wait around the bend.
We all know the journey itself is everything."

Happy Facilitating,
Chris.


Christopher Haydock, Ph.D.
Applied New Science LLC
+1-612-235-6352
ChrisHaydockSkype
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrishaydock ('http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrishaydock')
http://www.appliednewscience.com ('http://www.appliednewscience.com')

[John_Miller]

all Y'all,

Two things about this thread of conversation.
1) First, a "point of order" (to borrow from Robert's Rules). This thread
started out as a question about setting BHAGs, not the virtue or vice of
certification or the efficacy of this channel of communication. Please, for
my sake as an occasional reader, we need to remember to start a new subject
line when changing the topic.
2) I guess the next point I'd like to make is off-topic now, so I better
post it separately. (That's supposed to be a joke.)

...john miller (Whitby, Ontario, Canada)

[Mary_Jackson]

This discussion came at a good time. I have been struggling to get
a team focused on where they need to take their project, and they
keep crashing down with the statement "that's not our biggest problem
right now."

One of my coworkers has been using the phrase "polishing the rock"
-- no matter how much you polish it, it's still the same rock.

I'm finding it particularly challenging to get a distributed group
focused on visioning. I have participants scattered from Alberta,
Canada in the west to Singapore in the east.

-------------------------
Msg sent via Internet America Webmail - www.internetamerica.com