Governance Excellence Series · Article 92

Strategic Planning: Approving at the End Isn't Governing It

The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. A plan that lists everything worthy hasn't chosen anything

Strategic & External Environment · 1 June 2027

Strategic planning is common to treat as a staff exercise, with the board brought in near the end to react to, and formally approve, a finished plan someone else has already built. This looks like governance happening. Research on board effectiveness suggests it usually is not, and the difference matters considerably more than the approval meeting itself suggests.

Why Approval At The End Is Not The Same As Governance Throughout

Research into what actually drives perceptions of board effectiveness found a specific, direct link: boards are seen as effective specifically where members have had meaningful input into the strategic plan itself, and where that plan carries clear indicators against which progress is measured. A board that receives a completed strategic plan for sign-off, without having shaped its direction beforehand, has performed the administrative motion of governance without the substance research actually credits with real effectiveness.

The Sharpest, Most Useful Definition Of Strategy Itself

Michael Porter, among the most influential strategy thinkers, offered a definition worth every board holding onto directly: the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. A strategic plan that lists every worthy activity an association could pursue, without choosing among them, is not a strategy. It is an aspiration document, and the distinction matters considerably in practice. Strategy requires the board to sit with real trade-offs, which programs, which member segments, which growth opportunities the organisation will prioritise, and just as importantly, which ones it will deliberately not pursue given finite resources. A strategic plan that tries to do everything the board finds worthy has not actually made a strategic choice. It has simply postponed the difficult decision to a later date, when resources run out before the list of priorities does.

Why Implementation Genuinely Changes The Board'S Own Risk Position

A new strategic direction frequently requires the board to revisit its own risk tolerance, connecting directly to the risk appetite discipline discussed earlier in this series. A strategy involving expansion, a new revenue model, or a significant program shift is not simply an operational plan for management to execute within the existing risk settings. It is a decision that may require the board to deliberately adjust what level of risk the organisation is now willing to accept in pursuit of the new direction, and this adjustment deserves the same explicit board attention as the strategic choice itself.

A strategic plan the board only approves at the end of the process protects the organisation from very little. A strategic plan the board has helped shape, with real choices made and real indicators attached, is what the evidence actually identifies as the mark of a board governing strategy rather than simply witnessing it.

This is one of the practical governance topics built into our Association CEO course — alongside the papers, tools and frameworks that turn the principle into your board's actual practice. Explore the course →

— Annie

← Back to the Governance Excellence Series