This article appeared as "Guide and Seek" in the Winter 2023 issue of Independent School.Although I’m an admitted research geek, I glean valuable insights through informal conversations and one-on-one discussions that give data life and context. Case in point: At a recent breakfast with a head of school, I discussed the pandemic-related boost in independent school enrollment. The head questioned whether these new families would stay, noting that his school was already experiencing some attrition. He observed that, because these families did not actively choose the school for its mission and programs, they may have shorter tenures than families who made their decision based on such factors.
As I thought about that conversation, it struck me that families who enrolled in our schools during the pandemic may have had only one “job to be done”: to find a school where their child could learn in-person. Now that most every school can meet that “job,” families that choose to stay are doing so for a different purpose.
A foundational tenet of the Jobs-to-Be-Done methodology, which NAIS uses to better understand why parents and other constituents choose independent schools, is that a job is the progress that a person is trying to make in a particular circumstance. And, when that circumstance changes, so will the job. We are emerging from a period in which everyone’s context has changed in some way. How will those changes affect what families want and need for their child’s education? And will this volatile economy affect what they are willing and able to pay?
More than ever, schools need a clear strategy to successfully navigate change. Most schools have missions, and many have aspirational visions, but they seldom have a clear strategy to focus efforts and provide clarity about who they specifically are and what they will and will not do.
Strategy vs. Strategic Planning
School leaders have long used strategic planning methods to prepare for the future, navigate change, and focus resources and energies. But given the acceleration of change brought on by the pandemic, is traditional strategic planning up to the challenge? I don’t think so, and I suggest that leaders consider strategy work that allows them to be flexible given the twists and turns ahead.First, let’s step back and look at the difference between strategy making and strategic planning; these terms are often used interchangeably but are quite different. Two Harvard Business Review articles capture the essence of those differences: “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning” by Henry Mintzberg and “The Big Lie of Strategic Planning” by Roger L. Martin. The former, written in 1994 but still relevant, makes the case for strategy being more akin to vision, while strategic planning is more the articulation of existing purposes and efforts. In other words, one is future-focused, while the other maintains today’s status quo. Mintzberg stresses that visions not too precisely articulated need to guide us into the future so we can adapt to a changing environment.
In the latter article, from 2014, Martin makes the case that humans prefer strategic planning to strategy making because strategy making forces us to make hard choices. This is particularly difficult in mission-driven organizations because we want to meet all needs—and that is rarely a winning approach. Martin suggests that we need to accept a certain amount of fear and discomfort when setting strategy. It should not be about uninformed bets though; rather, Martin says we should test the logic of our thinking by asking questions such as: For your choices to make sense, what do you need to believe about customers, about the evolution of your industry, about competition, about your capabilities? Great questions for leaders to ponder as we approach the unknowable.
Three Elements of a Good Strategy
There are many guides to strategy making, but most agree the process involves three components: identifying your objective, defining your scope, and being crystal clear about your unique advantage. Identifying the objective may be the most daunting step as it forces school leaders to choose a specific path and, in doing so, intentionally choose not to follow another. The objective is not the same as the mission; rather, it is a precise statement that includes both an endpoint and a time frame.
The next step—defining the scope, which, in essence, defines the boundary—is another daunting task. The scope defines that portion of the landscape in which the school will operate and a statement of where it won’t.
The last element—the school’s advantage or distinct value proposition—is probably the most important but quite difficult to articulate. Generally, this advantage will have both an internal and external perspective. For a school, that means a value proposition that explains why a family would choose one school above others, and describes how internal activities are aligned so that only that school can deliver that value proposition in its unique way. This effort calls on us to describe a value proposition in a much more specific way than we are used to.
In a 2019 NAIS study, “Defining the Role of Independent Schools in the 21st Century Economy,” we asked school leaders to describe their distinct value propositions and to forecast how well those value propositions would serve them. Study respondents identified a specific curriculum, mission, or population served. Now, these elements might serve as an advantage, but are they specific enough to meet the test of both an internal and external perspective? Do they provide enough information for families looking for a specific job?
And, has the school aligned its business model to its strategic advantage? When asked about their school’s long-term viability and that of the industry, 46% of respondents felt that their school’s business model was not sustainable. This highlights a strong disconnect between schools’ value propositions and their financial sustainability. Implicit in any value proposition is that the school represents a good value in relation to its cost.
Given these challenges, I think it’s time for school leaders to ask the following questions about their stated “advantage” and the business model it’s built on.
- Is the school’s business model sufficiently linked to its key differentiators?
- Are the unique differentiators, while appealing, enough to sustain the business model or help the school stand out from its competition in a meaningful way?
- Are the unique differentiators what parents and students want?
- Is the school’s advantage well-defined and the student population in the current market large enough to sustain it?
The answers can serve as a first step to inform the strategy-making process.
Now is the time to move away from the past. What served us well at one time may not ensure success in the future. Strategy making can help us hone in on a school’s particular recipe for success—one that sets it apart from all others.
