Planning often receives less attention from leadership than other managerial functions as leaders get bogged down in the daily routine and grind. This is not to say that they should ignore the everyday items, but an over-emphasis on daily organizational chores leads to micro-management.
Planning often receives less attention from leadership than other managerial functions as leaders get bogged down in the daily routine and grind. This is not to say that they should ignore the everyday items, but an over-emphasis on daily organizational chores leads to micro-management.
The preoccupation with getting things done according to the routine takes away precious leadership time that must be utilized to engage in planning. The ability of planning to enable one to zoom in on the future is rather underestimated. This is not to suggest that planning is completely ignored but often overlooked.
The broader horizon of goals to be achieved and the necessary timelines for each milestone need to be enshrined. Planning should not be confused with strategy. The overarching wisdom of coordinating various plans to reach goals is strategy and it precedes planning.
Strategy is a broader view of goals and plans and the steps that need to be taken to meet objectives. The consensus between management gurus and practitioners is that strategy is a blueprint of what you want to be and where you want to be while planning is the forethought of what is to be done.
Stated differently for clarity, strategy is the art of making an integrated set of choices between alternatives, which positions the organization to achieve success, while planning is the basic act of laying out the projects needed to arrive at the goal post. A plan is a map and strategy is the path. Planning is future-oriented and strategy is action-oriented.
All organizations need to have a perspective on the future to turn their aims, objectives and goals into reality. To achieve the pre-set goals, entities make assumptions based on track records and current trends. They decide on what, how, by whom, and when to do what has to be done.
Planning has to be the first and most critical function of a manager/leader. The planning process encompasses decision-making about the present and future and must be continually dynamic. It should also provide direction with clarity and must ensure for elimination of duplication of processes and responsibilities.
If the process of planning is devoid of malleability depending on the changing realities of the marketplace, it can induce rigidity, stubbornness and obduracy in management practices, leading to loss of creativity and innovation. Leadership and planning go hand-in-hand. Great leaders achieve miraculous results only because they devote themselves to meticulous planning.
Napoleon Bonaparte was a brilliant military strategist who took a keen interest in methodical planning for the numerous campaigns he led. A leader usually has a mine of information stored within and it is their ability to excavate the desired information from the mines of memory that enables the conversion of ideas into actions. For all his adventures, Napoleon actually had the ability to think through all the necessary details on how to achieve a target.
He described himself as a filing cabinet with the ability to store and retrieve large amounts of data with the least effort and to convert this information into small actionable items. He was also an extremely organized administrator who knew fully well how to orchestrate the various branches of government into a unified force of success. As a leader, he demonstrated the mental strength to remain deeply focused without loss of any attention when drawing up plans for various battles.
In South Korea, Park Chung Hee, the country’s president during the 1960s and 1970s decided to reorient the economic base towards exports. He planned and planned well. This included the creation of the chaebols (conglomerates) and a sound network of communications and transport to bring all the economic factors together and direct them towards generating exportable surpluses. He also personally oversaw his plans to ensure strict implementation and adherence.
Consequently, the targets were achieved. The leader’s involvement in the meticulous drawing up and execution of plans was the recipe for success. In more recent history, we have before us the examples of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and later Dr Mahathir of Malaysia, who gave their respective countries amazing plans for economic development.
Possessed of a legally trained mind and an entrepreneurial spirit tempered adequately with the character of a corporate executive, Lee Kuan Yew dispossessed his opponents with ease. He was ruthless towards those who chose to dissent. Dr Mahathir was similar. But both did so because they had and delivered doable plans.
Sitting in the middle of the pathway between the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries and all of Oceania including Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, Lee planned and set up oil refineries even though there was not a drop of oil in Singapore. He saw and planned for the opportunity to get unrefined oil from the Middle East to the tiny city-state and then to export refined oil to Oceanic countries.
The seaport that was planned and developed was the first container ship terminal that put on offer 24 berthing facilities. A state-of-the-art container yard station was also built, whose success made Singapore the second busiest port after Rotterdam, Netherlands.
In our immediate neighbourhood, India, the UAE and Bangladesh are classic examples of the resounding success of the economic plans their respective leaderships made. The leaders of these countries could break the vision down to short-term plans which, in the long run, proved to be most rewarding.
Regrettably, all of our five-year plans ran aground due to political instability and lack of coherent leadership. Our leadership failed to produce the dreams that were necessary to catch the imagination of a young, fractured state. Politicians ought to have sound knowledge of the economy and its typical characteristics. Independence becomes a myth if not backed by sound economic independence and self-reliance.
Similarly, corporations too are expected to emphasize planning for business. The element of competition is predominant in all businesses. Those who wish to remain ahead of the curve of growth need to draw up actionable plans. The planning methodology must not be too complex and the plans developed must not represent a cobweb of misplaced priorities and expectations.
All plans and strategies must also be modifiable as and when required. Planning should result in identifying alternatives that can facilitate the attainment of goals and it must put forward the best options before a conclusive choice is made. Planning is considered two-thirds of any venture or campaign.
Leaders must believe in their vision first before selling it to their followers and the belief is dependent upon the practical feasibility of goals and objectives that must make for the foundation of sound planning.
The writer is a senior banker and a freelance columnist.
