strategic leadership literacy
Why strategy depends on shared knowledge, language and understanding
Stephen Scott, ETHICLEAD Founder and Principal
A School Cannot Execute a Shared Strategy Through Fragmented Strategic Understanding
THE ISSUE IN BRIEF
In Executive Briefing 1, I suggested that Strategic Drag rarely emerges because of one poor decision, one ineffective leader or one significant organisational failure. Rather, it develops gradually as hundreds of well-intentioned decisions begin moving in subtly different directions until the organisation loses the strategic coherence necessary to achieve its long-term aspirations. This naturally raises an important question. If schools are led by intelligent, experienced and committed leaders, why do those decisions become fragmented in the first place?
Whilst there are undoubtedly many contributing factors, one observation has continually presented itself throughout my work with Boards, Executive Teams and leadership groups. Schools often assume that because leaders participate in the same strategic conversations and use the same strategic language, they also develop the same understanding of what has been discussed. My experience suggests this assumption deserves much closer examination because, whilst common language certainly assists communication, it does not necessarily create common understanding. Indeed, it is often only after leaders leave the strategic planning session and begin making independent decisions that differences in interpretation become apparent.
THE ILLUSION OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING
One of the interesting characteristics of strategic discussions is that they often conclude with a genuine sense of agreement. Leaders have contributed thoughtfully to the conversation, difficult questions have been explored, priorities have been debated and consensus appears to have been reached. There is every reason to believe that the school now possesses a shared understanding of its future direction. Yet as those same leaders return to their respective responsibilities, subtle differences in interpretation begin to emerge. One executive interprets the discussion as a mandate to pursue growth, another believes the priority is organisational consolidation, whilst a third concludes that investment should now focus on capability development before any significant expansion occurs. None of these leaders are intentionally resisting the agreed strategy. Quite the opposite. Each believes they are acting consistently with the discussion that has just taken place.
This observation has led me to question whether many schools inadvertently confuse agreement with understanding. Agreement is often achieved because people accept the direction being proposed. Understanding, however, requires something considerably deeper. It requires leaders to interpret the strategic context in broadly the same way, appreciate why particular priorities have been chosen rather than others, understand the assumptions upon which those decisions have been made and recognise how future decisions should continue reinforcing that strategic intent. It is entirely possible for leaders to agree with a strategic direction whilst simultaneously holding different mental models about what that direction actually requires of them.
STRATEGY IS INTERPRETED BEFORE IT IS IMPLEMENTED
This distinction becomes particularly significant because strategic leadership is exercised far less through formal strategy meetings than it is through the countless decisions made every day across the school. Whilst Boards establish direction and Executive Teams determine strategic priorities, the implementation of strategy ultimately depends upon hundreds, and often thousands, of independent judgements made by leaders operating throughout the school. Decisions regarding staffing, investment, partnerships, curriculum, innovation, risk, stakeholder engagement and resource allocation all contribute, in varying degrees, to whether the school progressively advances its strategic intent or gradually fragments it.
Delegation is therefore not the challenge. Schools must distribute leadership if they are to remain responsive, innovative and effective. The challenge lies in ensuring that those exercising delegated authority are interpreting strategy with sufficient consistency that their independent decisions continue reinforcing the same organisational direction. Without this shared understanding, delegation can unintentionally become one of the greatest contributors to Strategic Drag. Individual decisions may appear entirely reasonable when viewed in isolation, yet collectively they begin competing with one another because they are based upon different interpretations of what the organisation is actually trying to achieve.
FROM STRATEGIC LANGUAGE TO STRATEGIC LITERACY
Perhaps this explains why some schools demonstrate remarkable strategic coherence despite operating in highly complex environments, whilst others struggle to maintain alignment even though their leaders possess considerable capability and commitment. The distinguishing characteristic does not appear to be intelligence, experience or motivation. Rather, it appears to be the extent to which leaders have developed a common strategic literacy.
The concept of literacy is useful because it extends well beyond the recognition of terminology. Literacy enables people to interpret meaning, understand relationships, evaluate information critically and apply knowledge appropriately within a particular context. Financial literacy enables leaders to interpret financial information rather than simply recognise accounting terminology. Digital literacy enables people to engage thoughtfully with technology rather than merely operate software. Strategic Leadership Literacy performs a similar function. It enables leaders to understand the reasoning that underpins strategic decisions, appreciate the relationships between organisational purpose, strategic priorities and operational activity, and exercise judgement in ways that consistently reinforce the organisation's long-term direction.
Importantly, Strategic Leadership Literacy should never be confused with strategic expertise. Expertise develops through experience, disciplined practice and the continual refinement of judgement. Literacy provides the foundation upon which that expertise can develop. Schools do not require every leader to become an accomplished strategist. They do, however, require every leader entrusted with organisational influence to possess sufficient strategic literacy to understand how their decisions contribute to, or detract from, the school’s strategic aspirations. Without that common foundation, schools inevitably ask leaders to exercise judgement within a strategic context they only partially understand.
WHY STRATEGIC LITERACY MATTERS
The implications of Strategic Leadership Literacy extend far beyond improving the quality of strategic conversations. Schools with high levels of strategic literacy create an environment in which leadership can be distributed with considerably greater confidence because leaders are no longer relying solely upon direction from above to determine appropriate action. Instead, they possess a common frame of reference that enables them to make independent decisions whilst remaining aligned with the school’s broader strategic intent.
Conversations become more productive because participants are exploring different perspectives rather than debating different interpretations of fundamental strategic concepts. Strategic disagreement becomes healthier because it is grounded in a common understanding of what the school is seeking to achieve rather than conflicting assumptions about what strategy actually means.
Perhaps most importantly, Strategic Leadership Literacy begins reducing the fragmentation that ultimately creates Strategic Drag. When leaders interpret strategy consistently, independent decision-making becomes a source of organisational strength rather than inconsistency. Whilst leaders will continue bringing different experiences, expertise and perspectives to their responsibilities, the cumulative effect of their decisions is far more likely to reinforce a common organisational direction than compete with it.
QUESTIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS AND EXECUTIVE TEAMS
Rather than asking whether your leaders understand the school’s strategy, consider reflecting on the following questions:
-
If members of our Executive Team independently described our strategic priorities, how consistent would their explanations be?
-
Do our middle leaders understand why strategic priorities have been chosen, or simply what those priorities are?
-
How often do strategic misunderstandings only become apparent during implementation?
-
Are disagreements within our leadership team primarily about strategic choices, or about differing interpretations of strategic language?
-
What evidence suggests that our leaders share a common strategic understanding rather than simply a common strategic vocabulary?
-
If every leader were required to make an important strategic decision tomorrow without consulting the Executive Team, how confident would we be that those decisions would reinforce the same organisational direction?
THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES
Leaders may use the same strategic language whilst attaching very different meanings to it. They may agree on an aspiration whilst holding different assumptions about how it should be achieved. They may support a strategic priority whilst interpreting their own responsibilities differently, or recognise the importance of strategy without possessing a sufficiently common framework for analysing information, making decisions, implementing initiatives or evaluating school progress.
This is not necessarily a failure of intelligence, experience or commitment. It may be a failure of Strategic Leadership Literacy.
Before a school can develop Strategic Leadership Capability, its leaders must first possess sufficient knowledge, language and understanding to engage in strategic leadership consistently. Without that common foundation, strategic conversations may appear aligned whilst quietly concealing the very differences in interpretation that later become Strategic Drag.
That is the focus of the next Executive Briefing:
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP CAPABILITY
Why understanding strategy is not enough.