Beware the ‘Moon on a Stick’

After decades of being told to shoot for the moon, leaders are being warned to beware ‘the moon on a stick’. That is unrealistic strategies and initiatives.

For decades, leaders were told they needed to be more ambitious.  Rather than just setting goals, they needed to set ‘big hairy and audacious goals’ (BHAG). Moreover, an ordinary strategy was no longer enough – leaders needed blue ocean strategies, moon shots too!

Today, there is the danger of too much ambition, as well as too little.  Within many organizations, moonshots abound. But some leaders may be looking for ‘the moon on a stick’. The inherent contradictions of looking for the moon on the end of a stick are plain to see. But what about ambitious projects that are out of touch with reality? Especially, given available resources, timelines, legacy challenges and so on.

Q: Is your initiative a moonshot or ‘the moon on a stick’?

When leaders go into a room, they are often prone to come out with ‘hockey stick forecasts’. That is, projections that literally take off in the shape of a hockey stick. In simpler times, this effect might have been called ‘one-upmanship’, now we call it ‘cognitive bias’. It is a mix of over-simplification, optimism, social comparison, and groupthink.

Ensuring that ambitious strategies are grounded and realistic can be a challenge. Once ambitious plans have been publicized (or even socialized) they can be difficult to walk back. Moreover, telling people that their plans are too ambitious is not easy. In a fast-changing and increasingly competitive marketplace, the pressure to perform is too great. A less ambitious strategy may not be acceptable, or even viable, especially when your competitors seem to be racing ahead.

Q: How to ensure that your initiative is grounded and realistic?

Typically, leaders must demonstrate an unshakable commitment to their projects and initiatives. Anything less than a ‘gung-ho’ attitude may be seen as a lack of commitment or engagement. The result is that people often stay silent, or nod in agreement, rather than saying what they are really thinking. Cynics and skeptics are ‘left out in the cold’.

In a public escalation of commitment, leaders will often be heard saying, ‘failure is not an option – we will make this happen no matter what’. However, many forget their organization’s legacy of initiatives that floundered or failed. They also forget the doom-filled industry transformation failure statistics.

There is another form of looking for ‘the moon on a stick’, it is setting bold and ambitious plans and yet not being willing to entertain risk. It is never a ‘slam-dunk’, leaders must be able to talk about risks, obstacles and dependencies respecting their strategies and plans.

With infinite resources (in terms of money, manpower and time) anything is possible. But, of course, these things are very finite. While the ambition of the strategy, or the scope of the project has probably expanded, available resources have likely shrunk.  Leaders are being expected to do more with less, and to do it with greater speed and agility, too. Project leaders find it difficult to say ‘no’ that is out of scope, or ‘yes, you can have it, but only if… ’ The project triangle (scope, cost, and time) is no longer made of iron, it continually bends and flexes! 

Moonshot or ‘moon on a stick’, regardless leaders are faced with the challenge of balancing the ambition of strategy, with confidence regarding execution.  There is commercial ambition, as well as technical ambition, both need to be aligned in terms of confidence, as well as strategy, resources and even culture. This is connected to two of the issues address later in this document:

• Transform, Improve, or Modernize
• Enlighten Your C-suite & Its Board

One ambitious strategy or initiative may not be a problem, but what about when you have lots of them competing for scarce time, attention and resources? A bottleneck is that many projects depend on the same small pool of people to make it happen.

It is important to avoid siloed decisions regarding ‘stand-alone’ projects, instead looking at ambitious strategies through a portfolio lens.  In this way, synergies between different programs and initiatives (e.g. opportunities to share resources, learnings, and skills) can be leveraged, and interdependencies managed.

Similarly, looking at the bundle of constituent projects and work streams within any transformation initiative is important. The ability to deliver on the strategy depends on an integrated approach to how these elements are managed and resourced.