Why Strategy Without a Good Coalition Is Doomed to Fail

The subject of leadership has always fascinated me—from the different theories behind it to the implementation of those theories and how to rally people behind change.

Being an effective leader is incredibly difficult because you must demonstrate that you genuinely care and that following your lead is in the best interest of the organization. When people perceive that you truly care and that supporting your vision will improve the organization, they are more likely to accept change and actively help you achieve it.

Leading Change by John Kotter is a great book and an excellent resource for those looking to improve organizational performance. In the book, Kotter describes the eight-stage process of creating major change. One of the key aspects of being an effective leader is building a coalition that will help execute change.

Kotter emphasizes the importance of a strong coalition:

“Major transformations are often associated with one highly visible individual… After a while, one might easily conclude that the kind of leadership that is so critical to any change can come only from a single larger-than-life person. This is a very dangerous belief. Because major change is so difficult to accomplish, a powerful force is required to sustain the process. No one individual, even a monarch-like CEO, is ever able to develop the right vision, communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate all the key obstacles, generate short-term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches deep in the organization’s culture. Weak committees are even worse. A strong guiding coalition is always needed—one with the right composition, level of trust, and shared objective. Building such a team is always an essential part of the early stages of any effort to restructure, reengineer, or retool a set of strategies.”1

Kotter’s theories are applicable to organizations of any size, but applying them directly to a country with an estimated 340 million people—and influence over billions around the world—requires serious thought and adjustments.

What we have seen over the past month is a flawed execution of leadership—one that will create significant short-term pain but will ultimately fail because a strong coalition was never built. Naturally, things will return to the way they were once the current leader is replaced.

A coalition is not merely 49.8% of the U.S. electorate. An effective coalition must include enough of the remaining 50.2% to build consensus. In the case of this country, a leader must also garner support from global leaders representing billions of people. That is what a great coalition looks like, and if a leader can achieve that, then change will almost certainly endure.

Dismantling institutions, cutting funding, and firing people are not components of a sound national strategy. The underlying issues will not disappear; in fact, they will worsen. The money we are supposedly “saving” now is not a true saving—we will ultimately spend more rebuilding institutions and providing aid to those in need.

A well-planned and well-executed strategy changes minds and habits, often with lasting impact. However, because human nature tends to revert to past behaviors, a strong coalition is necessary to sustain change over time.

I won’t waste time discussing the incompetent leaders across the government, as they don’t deserve the attention. However, I will say this: hiring incompetent people to execute a flawed strategy may satisfy a poor leader in the short term, but it will not improve the quality of life for citizens of this country or the world.

A competent leader must articulate their strategy and vision, gain buy-in from internal and external stakeholders, and collaborate with department heads on execution. If budget cuts are necessary, the leader should clearly explain the purpose of those cuts and lay out his or her expectations, then allow departments to develop their own strategies to meet the objectives. Department heads can then brief the leader, propose areas for cuts, estimate savings, and assess risks—not just to the country but to the world. This process can be conducted efficiently, as many leaders within departments already know where cuts can be made to maximize efficiency while minimizing risk.

This informed approach allows the leader to approve plans and direct departments to execute cuts strategically. The same process can be applied to other aspects of governance.

What we are witnessing now is not the execution of a good strategy—unless the goal is simply to disrupt and create chaos. 

This approach is unsustainable because it lacks a strong coalition, and in the end, it will fail. It will take the return of a competent leader with a solid coalition to pull this country back from the abyss and rebuild the institutions and progress that have been achieved through decades of hard work.

I believe in the resilience of the American people, and I am confident that we will return to governing with the level of care expected of this nation.

  1. Kotter, John P. Leading Change. (pp. 51-52). Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. ↩︎

67 thoughts on “Why Strategy Without a Good Coalition Is Doomed to Fail”

  2. You clearly express what is on the minds of many of us, Edward. Kotter’s excerpt, “Major transformations are often associated with one highly visible individual… After a while, one might easily conclude that the kind of leadership that is so critical to any change can come only from a single larger-than-life person. This is a very dangerous belief. Because major change is so difficult to accomplish, a powerful force is required to sustain the process. No one individual, even a monarch-like CEO, is ever able to develop the right vision, communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate all the key obstacles, generate short-term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches deep in the organization’s culture,” holds words for us to contemplate.

    Your leadership ability and experience is evident in this post, as many of your other posts. Hopefully, those not already understanding all of this will read and ponder. Happy Sunday, my friend.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. I can see why in general this approach might fail, but they’re dismantling so many people, organizations, and key aspects of our checks and balances that I’m not convinced we can come back. I think it’s more likely our government will fall apart while many programs are privatized and we end up with an oligarchy of the rich.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I hear you, Brad. Here’s what I read in The Economist about oligarchs in the U.S. vs. Russia: “Big Tech is not a monolithic interest group, like the Russian oligarchs whose businesses mostly do not overlap. The technology tycoons’ interests are often in conflict. Messrs. Bezos and Musk compete in space. Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuckerberg own rival social media platforms. Amazon is taking a bite out of Meta’s online advertising business. Everyone is piling into artificial intelligence.” I’m with The Economist on this one, and I think Musk and others are just riding a temporary wave. Of course, I might be wrong, so we’ll see.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. I wish I felt your confidence Edward. As a Canadian, I am terrified about the implications of the threats the US Government is making against my country. From redrawing the border, to taking over the great lakes, and simply annexing us as the 51st state “because we’d all be better off if we were Americans”, I can hardly stand to watch the news any more.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I understand your frustration, and his fixation on Canada is bothersome because I served alongside Canadians. He is definitely interested solely in the natural resources, not the people.

      The U.S. took possession of my island, Puerto Rico, in 1898 after defeating Spain. Puerto Rico has been asking to become the 51st state for over 75 years without success. In recent years, the argument against admitting Puerto Rico—and D.C., for that matter—has clearly been based on the fact that Democrats would gain seats in the U.S. Senate and the House, given that both Puerto Rico and D.C. lean liberal politically.

      Clearly, Canada would also add more Democrats to Congress in the unlikely event it became a state. So again, it seems to me that our president is only after the natural resources and has no interest in the great people of Canada. This is extremely sad and speaks to the insanity of his line of thought.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Isn’t that the truth, Edward? It all comes back to money, greed and power, with no regard for humanity. One of the theories I heard is that, if the US annexes Canada, we would be like Puerto Rico, with no voice in the US Government, for exactly the reason you state. It would give more power to the democrats.

        It’s all very troublesome. I try to maintain my inner peace and calm but it gets harder with each passing day.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  5. Excellent post, Ed. You explained the status of this country right now without being personally derogatory toward another nor ambiguous. Provocative thought because change may be necessary but this is certainly not the best way to bring it. Thank you for sharing. Very informative.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. Love the hopefulness of your last sentence. I hope so. And I love your analysis. Especially, “A well-planned and well-executed strategy changes minds and habits, often with lasting impact.” I’ve seen that over and over again in the companies I’ve worked with. A change made by fiat rarely sticks.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. What I’ve seen as a fatal flaw of change management (mismanagement) is that the leader doesn’t take the time to find out how what he wants to change actually works. How does the saying go? Vision without execution is hallucination.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. Thanks for sharing this book and John Kotter’s theories of leadership. I’m certainly curious about his 8-step process, and may have to see if this is available in our local library system.
    “What we are witnessing now is not the execution of a good strategy—unless the goal is simply to disrupt and create chaos.” Sadly, this may be some people’s agenda. But hopefully we get to this: “I believe in the resilience of the American people, and I am confident that we will return to governing with the level of care expected of this nation.” I appreciate the way you lead your readers to think carefully and do more of their own research.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Rose, and thank you for your comments. You are absolutely right—it seems that is their agenda. Here are the eight stages just in case, and hopefully, you can find the book in the library: Establishing a Sense of Urgency; Creating the Guiding Coalition; Developing a Vision and Strategy; Communicating the Change Vision; Empowering Employees for Broad-Based Action; Generating Short-Term Wins; Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change; and Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thank you for the informative eight stage list, this makes me more interested in reading the book in full. It’s available in my library system, so I’ll be able to check it out.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  11. I’ve run a few projects and you’re absolutely right. People need to understand the plan, the schedule and goals and buy into them – our current leadership seems to have one goal – to make T a king but no plan other than follow his every insane edict.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. Hi Edward, I can see from what’s happened in the corporation where I work how a lack of buying to leadership fails. This is when the leadership abuses their power to implement personal goals rather than acting for the good of the employees as a whole. Government is no different although I’ve lived under disastrous governments my whole life here in South Africa.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Robbie, and great point about leaders’ personal goals. It’s just amazing how politicians in both of our countries missed opportunities to improve the quality of life for all the citizens because they are always chasing goals that will benefit them and those close to them.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. There is so much hope and wisdom in this post, Edward. Another beautiful essay. I read last night and came back again this morning to read again and find this excerpt to be especially uplifting — it resonates hopefulness…similar to what a dear colleague who would tell me when he said the “pendulum will swing back” when we were forced to deal with abysmal leaders:
    …”flawed execution of leadership—one that will create significant short-term pain but will ultimately fail because a strong coalition was never built”…
    Thank you for those words, Edward! 🥰

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  14. So much to love about this post, Edward! Thank you for speaking out and sharing your views in a sane rational way that I would think most could relate to but then; ya never know. But it beats me flipping a gasket with my out bursts. Ha!

    “ I won’t waste time discussing the incompetent leaders across the government, as they don’t deserve the attention. However, I will say this: hiring incompetent people to execute a flawed strategy may satisfy a poor leader in the short term, but it will not improve the quality of life for citizens of this country or the world.”

    Hear, hear! Well said!!!
    ❤️

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you so much, Cindy. It took some work, and I deleted a few things to keep it balanced and on the sane, rational side of the discussion. It’s really frustrating what’s going on, but again, that’s part of their plan.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. You’re so welcome and I salute you and your astute efforts always! I wish I could reign myself in a bit but you know, we all just need to be free, right, follow our own drummer but you catch more bees with honey as they say and it’s true. Truth be told, I’m not that good at formulating these thought in the moment which is the only place you MIGHT be heard and make a difference! 💗

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  15. Very insightful post, Edward! I think you said it all and in a very clear way. You pinpointed what’s truly important in good leadership. I look forward to a great coalition! One that is more interested in building (effective systems, benevolent paths, and solid bridges) than in destroying. One that is more inclusive rather than segregative. One that leads wisely while acknowledging all that are putting their energy on the societal wheels. The more we see it clearly, the closer it is! As for you, I believe! Thank you for this great read! Timely important! Sending lots of light and blessings to you, my friend; have a peaceful day 🙏✨

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  19. This is so true, “A well-planned and well-executed strategy changes minds and habits, often with lasting impact. However, because human nature tends to revert to past behaviors, a strong coalition is necessary to sustain change over time.” And it really starts from the top. Leaders have to talk the talk and walk the walk to expect change overall. No “Rules for thee, not for me.” Well done post as usual, Edward. I’ll toast ☕️ ☕️ to that! lol 😆

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Laura. The leaders who don’t lead by example are the worst. People don’t take them seriously. Well, it’s only 8 PM here, so I guess I can go for another cup of coffee. Cheers, my friend. ☕️☕️

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Edward, thank you for this incredibly well articulated discussion of the quality of leadership that is required. Collaboration and cooperation are critical for strong, effective, and fair leadership in every domain, and never more desperately required than in the situation in which the world finds itself.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You’re very welcome, Jane, and thank you for your comments. You’re so right—collaboration and cooperation are key, and it’s hard work because no one gets 100% of what they want, but we should strive to ensure that all parties involved get a fair share.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  22. “Dismantling institutions, cutting funding, and firing people are not components of a sound national strategy.” – I really like your statement here, because one can imagine applying this approach to a corporate enterprise and the. Imagine how quickly that company would fall apart. If a CEO was calling these shots they’d be ousted by the board of directors in no time flat.
    This is such a well articulated post by yourself and you are obviously well versed in good leadership and conscientious. The problem, in my opinion and I think many others, is that this well reasoned and stable argument would fall on the deaf ears of a malignant narcissist in control of a company or organization. Because they just don’t think in this way. So then you have a malignant narcissist supported by a bunch of yes men and yes women and it’s an ugly sight and certainly a concerning one. And half the board of directors, as it were, congress, appear unable or unwilling to do much about it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, and you’re absolutely right. A lot of CEOs and managers get fired all the time for less than that.

      It probably will fall on deaf ears, but if the post reaches one person and that person changes their way of thinking and chooses to do the right thing, then I would call that a win.

      By my estimation, there were about 3 million people who didn’t vote, and if they had, I think the country would be on a better path—at least better than what we have now. We need to start moving those people to the right side of history.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. It’s a good enough point that I think I’m going to reblog this on my site for more exposure. You’re absolutely right, I hadn’t considered attempting to reach non voters, previously apoliticals, young people, etc. It’s useful not only for people to see your well written post but also the entire conversation thread.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a reply to ZeroSpace Cancel reply