Good Strategy Bad Strategy 07: Proximate Objectives (Richard Rumelt)

"A proximate objective names a target that the organization can reasonably be expected to hit, even overwhelm."

In a nutshell, stay away from pie in the sky objectives. Focus on targets that you can hit. With every objective you reach, your confidence grows. With growing confidence and a string of successes next to your name, you strike fear into the hearts of the competition and you eventually win battles you logically shouldn't.

Proximate objectives require you to identify the challenge, define what success looks like, allocate resources, lay out the steps you will take to reach your target, and shoot for the moon. At least that's the example used in the book. Though many pundits or so called conspiracy theorists question whether the Americans really landed on the moon or faked the whole thing, the author insists that landing on the moon was a proximate objective for the United States. 

I will not offer my opinion. 

Let's keep going. 

You don't have to wait until you have perfect information or perfect conditions, sometimes you have to make educated guesses based on the information you have at your disposal. 

The idea is to create for yourself a workable situation instead of being held back by endlessly analyzing and not taking any steps forward. What is your best guess based on available information? 

Use that as the basis. You will deal with new challenges as they arise. This is similar to Jim Collins' fire bullets, then cannonballs observation. A proximate objective is like a bullet, it's like dipping your toe in to test the waters. It gets you to commit to moving towards a certain direction without betting the farm, or gambling all your chips on one roll of the dice.

The author challenges all leaders to resolve ambiguity for their teams and pass on to them a simpler problem - one that is solvable. Before announcing ambitious goals, first consider how the inherent obstacles will be overcome. Responsibility, he says, is not just about accepting blame when things go wrong. It's also about setting proximate objectives that are achievable for the organization. 

Rumelt states that the more unstable a situation, the more proximate your objectives need to be because it's that much more difficult to make an educated guess.

He compares this dynamic to a game of chess. In a chess game, you're not always looking to make bold moves. For much of the game you're just trying to get a better position for your pieces. Youre protecting your pieces against loss, while trying to induce a mistake from your opponent. Fire Bullets, Then Cannonballs. 

The magic question to ask is this: "What one feasible objective, when accomplished, would make the biggest difference?"

Importantly, make your objectives sound more like tasks and less like goals. What are you going to do, versus what do you wish would happen?

In doing all this, always consider your skills, resources and capabilities. If the failure of your objective will wipe you out, why do it? We're not betting the farm, remember?