Planning as a GR function — the good, the bad & the ugly
Fall — the leaves are falling, Q3 just closed and you’re getting the first E-mails about…… planning for next year!
The simple ask to put together a plan, strategy or even (sic!) goals for the year to come can sometimes lead to existential questions for GR functions. Given the political volatility who knows what the world looks like even 2 weeks from now? The business doesn’t even have a clear plan why should we have one? Why do we exist in the first place?
These are good questions and we think GR and Public Policy teams don’t often enough fundamentally rethink how they can be most impactful for the institution that employs them.
Below we offer a few pointed takes on patterns and ideas around how GR teams can approach planning season.
It might just allow us to answer the question de jour in a better way next year:
What did you get done this week?
Even more importantly making sure that the answer doesn’t lead to a “this is a waste of time” thought by your leadership…
4 questions to start with
We are fans of simple structures (the world is complicated enough as it is) so 4 steps to think through in that order are:
What → Get clear on what work needs to happen.
How → What capabilities do you need to get that work done.
Where → Where in the org that work is most effectively placed.
Who → Who is best positioned to lead the work.
Common traps in planning
We’ve already got some articles on the blog about the where [0] and who [1] so we’re going to focus on the what and how in this post.
There are some common traps in how to arrive at the what that are worth bearing in mind:
- Outside-in — Have your plan be dictated almost exclusively by the outside world (legislative proposals, policy & political trends, regulatory decisions). These are of course important factors and will in many ways be central to what you do as a team but they shouldn’t be the first prism through which you derive at the core of what you want to achieve. Start with the inside. How does the world look like through the lens of the institution you work for now and how will the world (the small or big part that matters) look like if they achieve their vision and goals?
- Cater to “who” to get to “what” — We are fans of not doing your hiring or planning based on regional structures but focus instead on skills, capabilities and curiosity and then think about the regions. A common mistake is to look at where you have people on your team and which geographies and markets they know best to then think about what they should be doing. This leads at best to incremental strategy changes (i.e. I can’t have my Brazil lead think through this new product we are launching) and at worst being out of touch with the business and spending resources on things that don’t really matter.
- Policy first, company second — We’ve seen policy teams draw up their plans in isolation and not backed in the reality of the business. It makes it harder to then go back to leadership to build your policy positions and what you want to influence if you didn’t get the buy-in and derive it from their priorities in the first place. We thus think the company (whether that is your corporate strategy function, regional leadership, product leads or the C-suite) should draw first when it comes to putting down a plan of what they want to achieve and get done in a given time-frame.
Pointers on how it could be done better?
Fundamentally GR is a cost centre and doesn’t build products, does R&D or is in charge of the strategic direction of the company in the first place. It is a team that helps those that do these things make better informed decisions based on an understanding of the changing legislative, regulatory and political landscape they operate in. We’re not steering the ship but can help navigate it through choppy waters (or occasionally argue to change course).
Hence, a plan of a GR function needs to be deeply rooted in the plan of the business in the first place. What is it trying to achieve (mission), what is the current idea of how to bring the change about (strategy) and which specific actions is it taking to do so (tactics).
You might get by with “building relationships”, “monitoring legislation” or “stakeholder management” for a while or with pure crisis management when things are on fire but it’ll catch up with you sooner or later if you’ve build a plan for the GR function itself rather than the GR function as an enabler for the business it serves.
What — so what?
Ok so what should be the way to get to the what then? Are you telling me we shouldn’t care or think about public policy when drafting our strategy?
Well — kind of.
Read through (if you don’t get the documents in the first place that’s a bigger problem) the company strategy, product and sales priorities and ask questions — lots of questions!
Only then should you think about your own plan and arrive at the what of the work of your team. Ideally you can do that as part of a conversation with those who drafted the overall business plan. Suggest and talk through levers your team could pull that can increase the likelihood of achieving the company’s long-term vision as well as short-term goals and tactics.
Remind me to write a blog post in the future about the ability of policy professionals to read (and understand) business plans and product roadmaps not just legislative proposals…
GR and Public Policy comes in!
Once you have a good sense of the direction of travel and goals of the business you should reflect on the role of your team and your understanding of the upcoming legislative, regulatory and political changes and how they impact the plans of the business.
Some questions to ask could be:
- Which legislative changes have the highest impact on the existing and upcoming products and services?
- How well are our competitors and peers able to utilize their agenda-setting power to put stones in our way?
- Where will a shift in political and policy trends and behavior impact the ability of the business to operate?
- Where would a change in regulatory practices or legislative texts allow us to move quicker and faster on our roadmap?
- What opportunities and risks will the company run into as it moves forward with its mission and plan assuming success?
- Which strategic questions is the company grappling with that we can help answer?
These are some of the must fun and rewarding conversations to have as a Public Policy function but they are hard! They really get to that existential question of the raison d'être of the team in the first place.
How? build capabilities to drive change
Once you have 4–5 (there shouldn’t be more then that) crisp answers to the what and you feel confident they are rooted within the core of the business it’s time to then think about the how, where and the who.
A neat way to think through the how is a capability tree (hat tip to nicklaslundblad for that one) of the things your team should be able to do routinely and well in order for you to have the impact needed. Capabilities can be things like foresight, political agency, strategic advice, networks of influence, etc.
Then it will get to the more usual practice of setting OKRs. The objectives should be the what questions so that if executives see them they translate to the way they think about the business and its goals.
Transparency — not numbers
Ultimately this is also a reflection of the fact that we don’t think GR is best managed by tracking numbers but by being transparent about what you are trying to achieve for the business.
Causation and correlation is a tricky one for GR functions and trying to quantify how well you have achieved your plan can lead you down paths that we don’t think are healthy nor effective.
Summing up:
We think that a GR plan is credible if it can show what your team is doing that closely connects to the goals of the business, how you are building the capabilities you need to do so, where in the organization (cross-functionally) the work is best placed and who on your team is going to lead on which parts of the work based on their skills and interest.
How many people in your C-suite have a good answer to the question “what has the policy team done for me lately?” The closer you attach your work to their pain points, opportunities and plans the more likely they are vetted in the success of your team and your work.
These might be fairly obvious points to make but getting them right is really hard but rewarding work.
How have you approached planning for GR functions in the past? Agree or disagree with our take? Have a great template or structure for a plan that you want to share?
We are eager to hear about it!
[0]
[1]
