What was the question?

Question from a subscriber: How does the strategizing process for a network or alliance differ from that of a simple non-profit organization? (Wonderful question, thank you!)

The short answer:

1. It involves more steps.

2. You need to use methodologies that emphasize sense-making.

Why is this important?

Because it often causes the most problems in collaborations. Many managers I work with face the same issue: endless discussions that lead nowhere. The primary reason is that they jump to planning without first formulating their strategy because it is a low-hanging fruit and gives a sense of control. Another common reason is ignoring the differences between inter- and intra-organizational strategizing.

Why is strategizing in networks different? 

Because networks differ from autonomous organizations (NGOs or firms) in three important ways:

• Members cannot depend on a single authority to make decisions or resolve disagreements.

• They must balance organizational needs with network needs (e.g., spending time on organizational tasks vs. partnership tasks).

• They need to address personal and organizational differences simultaneously (e.g., private and public companies working together).

To compensate, you need to approach strategizing in a much more structured way from the start; and hiring a consultant can save you a lot of time and frustration. If you can't afford a consultant, here are some tips that might help.

What should we do instead? 

1. Consider several big "whats": Partners have different goals, and you shouldn't always try to squeeze them into one joint partnership goal unless your goal is "for all good and against everything bad."

2. Define smaller aims for each organization: Even with a single overarching goal (single “what”), there will be many different "whys." Make it easier for partners to align your strategy with their organizational goals by formulating separate aims and KPIs for different network members, ensuring all partners are aware of them.

3. Involve directors early on: Figure out the "what" and "why" with both members and their directors/organizational managers to plan and execute your strategy. This can be challenging because directors are often too busy to get deeply involved (but will still have strong opinions on the process). The more structured the process, the easier it would be for them to participate.

4. Use appropriate methodology: You need a strategy as early as possible,  before you can start any meaningful planning. But partners have different organizational priorities, different ways of working, and often even use different terminology (or literally speak different languages). For that reason, not all "traditional" methodologies work for inter-organizational strategizing. Instead, you need methodologies that focus on creating a shared understanding of the problem and even a shared vocabulary. Scenario planning is a good one (let me know if you want another issue on scenario planning in partnerships).

5. Don’t discuss everything with everyone: Discussing everything with everyone does not make your partnership transparent, democratic, and horizontal. Instead, it likely wastes partners' time until they are exhausted and roll their eyes at the word "strategy." Instead, consider using representative groups to work at different stages, and involve all members only for input, feedback, and approval at key milestones. 

Example: chances are you are starting with these two stages: exploration (scanning the environment for future-relevant issues) and learning (reflecting on past strategies that worked). One group of representatives would work on exploration, and another one - on learning. The details will depend on the methodology you are using, so feel free to book an informal call with me here for more specific recommendations.

Is it worth it?

Yes, it is, especially if you use an Open Strategy approach and actively involve people outside top management. Research shows that collaboration with other organizations helps to:

1. Avoid decision blunders by ensuring a diversity of viewpoints (Doz & Kosonen, 2008; Nutt, 2004).

2. Increase commitment to the agreed-upon strategic actions (de Gooyert et al., 2016).

3. Strengthen relationships with external stakeholders, minimizing costly conflicts and reducing pressure to change strategy (Hillman & Keim, 2001).