Why Strategy and Foresight Are Not the Same Thing

I wrote about this subject in a previous blog post that can be found HERE.

This post is based on a session I attended with Jeff De Cagna, a leader in the field of Foresight in the association community.

Strategy vs Foresight:

Strategy plan vs strategy learning!  Both are about intentional learning.

Strategy process (36 months) should be done by the under 40 members, more than just your board, think your YPG groups.

Foresight practice (84-months) should be done by the over 40 members - what could the world look like in 2027?  Prepare for plausible futures for the benefit of our successors.

That is the responsibility of your board.  And by the way, you need to have some “under 40” folks on your board too!

He went on to talk about the attention challenge of our boards!

  • Concentration - getting decision-makers to stay focused on the difficult questions.
  • Curiosity - get decision-makers to devote their attention on a transforming world.

What’s the major difference of the two?

He talked about the 70-20-10 rule of time spent by boards on the future, work of the board, what’s going on now is based on current practices.  Jeff argues your board should be spending 90 to 95 percent of its time on the future.

Your chamber needs to be able to pivot from a legacy organization vs being able to transition.

He goes on to talk about the “Duty of Foresight,” as an addition to the Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty and Duty of Obedience responsibilities of boards that I’ve blogged about before HERE.

ACCE’s Horizon Initiative: Chambers 2025, in my mind, is a product of Foresight, but the deal is you have to continue to look at it and update as you look to the future in at least 10-year increments.

He ended with a few statements on how we must question orthodox beliefs, build new capacity, and design next practices (this is not about best practices).  Best practices are based on the past!

For more information on the study of Foresight by ASAE go HERE.