During a recent presentation, I began to make the case against strategic planning when I was confronted, once again, with the usual "okay, so what do we do instead" response. Since this conversation thread emerged near the end of my session, there was no time for a full riff on the subject, so I shared a few brief thoughts and invited the attendees to e-mail me with any follow-up questions.

In the time that has passed since that talk, however, I have finally realized something that should have occurred to me years ago: there is simply no way to make a compelling process argument against strategic planning. No matter how much we rail against the inherent inadequacies of strategic planning, which are far too numerous to mention, the "what do we do instead" crowd will always successfully minimize those shortcomings with the "we do it differently" argument, or diminish alternative approaches with the claim that "it's all just semantics." The association community, with some exceptions, is committed to strategic planning because it chooses to be, and it chooses to be because it doesn't want to be convinced otherwise.

Last week, Umair Haque, who is quickly becoming my favorite blogger, had a great post on his new Harvard Business School blog that really crystallizes the issue:

Strategic imagination is tremendously difficult because it requires us to put aside yesterday's tired assumptions and orthodoxies, and begin to actively rethink from scratch the way value can be, should be, must be, will be created.

The surest, most lethal killer of strategic imagination is being reined in by orthodoxy: thinking that tomorrow must be like yesterday. (Emphasis added)

This is the definitive explanation of what is wrong with strategic planning in any form: it is grounded in the belief that tomorrow must be like yesterday. Above all else, it is this deep-seated assumption that has made strategic planning an enduring feature of the association landscape. The vast majority of leaders in our community are terrified by the prospect of imagining a future that looks radically different from a past many still revere and a present they find disquieting but familiar. Associations have always been more comfortable with incrementalism, despite the fact that it is a total mismatch with the times, and thus threatens our community's future prospects. As Umair writes:

Edge strategy isn't for incrementalists. Those who think games built for an industrial era are still the only ones worth playing need not apply.

Rather, it takes a profound appetite for revolution: a profound ability to let go of yesterday's stale, tired, and thoroughly toxic orthodoxies - to explode the shrunken, stunted strategic imagination the industrial-era firm suffers from.

Do you believe your association's tomorrow must be like its yesterday? Or are you willing to imagine a future for your organization that requires revolution? If you're still embracing the work of strategic planning, the answer is crystal clear.