Library F.U.T.U.R.E.S.™
Friday Flummox: Response
Introduction
The Conundrum: Vision vs. Execution Trap
Conundrum: Should you prioritize strategic vision or operational execution?
Answer: Both: align execution with vision through cross-functional leadership.
Why it matters: Vision without action is futile; action without vision is misguided.
What the Conundrum Means (and Why It’s Sticky)
Leaders are pulled between two gravitational forces:
Vision: Where we’re going and why. It sets direction, mobilizes meaning, and attracts talent and resources.
Execution: How we deliver value today. It turns resources into results, builds credibility, and protects the brand.
The trap: organizations swing like a pendulum. In “vision mode,” they draft elegant strategies that die in PowerPoint. In “execution mode,” they optimize yesterday’s process and miss tomorrow’s opportunity. The real work is coupling the two and keeping them synchronized under real-world constraints (budgets, staffing, policy, politics, and time).
Implications
Cultural: Teams take their cue from what’s inspected, not what’s expected. Over-index on vision and you breed cynicism; over-index on execution and you breed burnout.
Operational: Without translation layers (roadmaps, OKRs, service charters), strategy won’t survive the initial review of the desk schedule.
Leadership: Your job isn’t to pick one; it’s to architect the interfaces between vision and execution: priorities → portfolios → projects → procedures → performance.
Strategic Implications
1. Portfolio discipline: Strategy must show up as a funded, sequenced portfolio. If it’s not on a roadmap with owners and dates, it’s not strategy; it’s poetry.
2. Learning loops: Execution should generate evidence (measures, stories, signals) that refine vision. That’s strategic foresight in practice.
3. Capacity as a strategy: Bandwidth is your scarcest asset. You must retire work to fund new work; otherwise, “vision” is a promise you pay for with staff goodwill.
4. Narrative alignment: People follow stories, not spreadsheets. Tie tasks to outcomes to the mission in a line that everyone can repeat.
Why This Conundrum Is Strategically Vital
Risk: Bias to vision risks drift; bias to execution risks obsolescence. Either way, you lose relevance.
Timing: Advantage comes from when you pivot, not that you can. Vision tells you why; execution tells you how fast.
Trust: Credibility = promises kept + value delivered. You need both to lead change.
Table: Strategic Responses Leaders Actually Choose (and How Well They Work)
Response Name - Why Leaders Pick It - Strategic Benefit (Low/Med/High) - When It Works - Pitfalls to Watch
Vision-First Rally - Energize stakeholders; buy time; please boards/funders - Medium - Early in a strategy cycle to reset direction - Fatigue if delivery lags; “strategy theater”
Execution-Only Crunch - Short-term metrics, pressure, crises, and budget cycles - Low–Medium - Stabilization after disruption - Fixes symptoms, not causes; staff burnout
Balanced OKR (Objectives and Key Results) Stack - Clear line-of-sight; measures that matter - High - When leaders review OKRs monthly and prune work - Gaming metrics; too many KRs; no retros
Skunkworks Sandbox - Protect innovation from bureaucracy - Medium–High - Prototyping new services/UX/test tech - Orphaned pilots; no scale path -
Portfolio Kill-to-Fund - Resource reality; focus - High - Annual/quarterly portfolio reviews - Politics over evidence; zombie projects linger
Policy-First Compliance - Risk aversion; public accountability - Low–Medium - Regulated contexts, audits looming - Policy becomes the product; agility dies
Community Co-Design - Build legitimacy; reduce change resistance - High - Service redesign, space planning - Over-consulting; scope creep
Data-Driven Priorities - Appear objective; align to outcomes - High - Mature data practices with context - Analysis paralysis; metrics without meaning
Heroic Firefighting - Rewarded culturally; looks decisive - Low - Acute incidents only - Normalizes crisis; hides root causes
“Pilot Forever” Mode - Safe exploration; grants fit pilots - Low–Medium - When uncertainty is high - Never scales; staff whiplash
Why Are These All “Possible”?
Each response solves a real pain (funding, risk, morale, politics, timing).
Organizations face bounded rationality, limited information, and time.
Incentives vary: boards want vision; patrons want service; staff want sanity; finance wants predictability.
Why Are Only Some “Beneficial”?
Benefit depends on fit (strategy maturity, culture, constraints).
Responses that connect learning to decisions (OKRs, portfolio reviews, co-design, data-driven priorities) create a compounding advantage.
Responses that optimize the wrong thing (policy as product, firefighting) generate hidden debt.
Why This Conundrum Matters Especially to Library Leaders
Mission complexity: Equity, access, literacy, and digital inclusion are big visions, but daily execution is granular (scheduling, cataloging, programming, vendor wrangling).
Stakeholder plurality: Boards, city/campus finance, unions, Friends groups, donors, faculty, public; each pulls a different lever.
Resource ceilings: Flat budgets, rising expectations. Prioritization isn’t a luxury; it’s survival.
Relevance pressure: If you over-execute the past, you look obsolete. If you only pitch the future, you look theatrical. Libraries must prove today and build tomorrow.
Leadership Moves: What Actions Should Be Taken
1. Translate mission → 3 strategic themes → 6–9 annual outcomes.
2. Stack these outcomes into an OKR set and a single portfolio roadmap.
3. Prune quarterly: stop or pause 10–20% of work to fund the next 10%.
4. Cadence: monthly ops reviews; quarterly strategy retros; biannual community showcases.
5. Narrate relentlessly: “This task → this outcome → this patron impact.”
6. Instrument services with measures (output + outcome + story).
7. Develop cross-functional leads as “bridge people” (vision ↔ execution).
Strategic Perspectives and Possible Responses
Strategic Perspective - Why It’s Possible - Strategic Benefit (Low/Med/High) - Explanation
Mission → Outcomes - Everyone can agree on the purpose - High - Clarifies value; guides decisions under pressure
Portfolio Management - Scarcity demands choice - High - Focus beats dilution; funds the future
OKRs/Scorecards - Simple, repeatable alignment tool - High - Makes strategy inspectable; supports learning loops
Service Design/Co-Design - Proximity to patrons = relevance - High - Reduces rework; builds legitimacy
Sandboxing/Prototyping - Uncertainty needs experimentation - Med–High - Safe-to-try; informs scale decisions
Policy & Risk Controls - Public trust and compliance - Med - Keeps the license to operate; must not dominate
Crisis Playbooks - Disruptions are inevitable - Med - Protects execution; prevents ad-hoc chaos
Vendor Partnerships - Leverage external capability - Med - Speeds execution; watch lock-in
Talent & Capacity Planning - Work follows people, not slides - High - Proper skills/time → reliable delivery
Conundrum Application in Leadership Practice
My Answer - Align execution with vision through cross-functional leadership and portfolio discipline.
Why It’s my Answer
It removes the false choice and replaces it with a system: vision → funded portfolio → OKRs → reviews → learning → refined vision.
It matches reality: resources are finite, stakeholders are diverse, and missions are long-horizon.
Strategic Importance for Library Leaders
Creates relevance flywheel: today’s service wins trust; trust funds tomorrow’s innovation.
Reduces initiative fatigue by killing work to fund new work.
Protects staff well-being: fewer, clearer priorities; better load management.
How to Put It Together: Step-by-Step
1. Name the North Star (30–60 days):
o Draft 3 strategic themes (e.g., Digital Inclusion, Community Learning, Research Acceleration).
o For each, define 2–3 measurable outcomes for this year.
2. Build the Portfolio (2–3 weeks):
o List all active work; tag each to a theme/outcome.
o Score initiatives on impact, effort, risk, and evidence.
o Cut or pause the bottom 15%. Reinvest capacity.
3. Set OKRs (1 week):
o 1–3 Os per team; 3–5 KRs per O; mix output and outcome KRs.
o Publish owners and cadences.
4. Wire the Cadence (ongoing):
o Monthly Ops Review: health of services, blockers, decisions needed.
o Quarterly Strategy Retro: progress on outcomes; portfolio reshuffle; stop/start/scale.
o Biannual Showcase: tell patron-impact stories to funders/boards.
5. Instrument & Story tell (ongoing):
o Add lightweight metrics to priority services (usage, satisfaction, reach, equity).
o Tie every update to a patron story: “Because of X, a resident/student achieved Y.”
6. Develop Bridge Leaders (quarterly):
o Identify 5–7 cross-functional leads; train in service design, data basics, facilitation.
o Give them decision rights on small bets.
7. Guardrails (immediate):
o Policy supports value, not the other way around.
o Set WIP limits: no team runs >3 major initiatives simultaneously.
Standard Failure Modes (and Fixes)
Failure Mode - Description - Fix
Strategy Theater - Beautiful decks, no delivery - Tie every objective to a funded project with an owner/date
Zombie Projects - No one can kill low-value work - Quarterly portfolio reviews with explicit stop criteria
Metric Myopia - Hitting numbers, missing meaning - Pair metrics with patron stories and outcome measures
Pilot Purgatory - Perpetual pilots, no scale - Stage gates with “scale or stop” decisions and resourcing
Firefighting Culture - Crisis normalized as competence - Root-cause reviews; capacity buffers; incident playbooks
Policy as Product - Rule-following over value creation - Policy review for purpose; sunset old policies
Siloed Teams - Work optimized locally, not systemically - Cross-functional squads with shared OKRs
Overload by Good Intentions - Too many priorities - WIP limits; kill-to-fund rule; visible no-list
Change Fatigue - People tune out new ideas - Cadenced change; fewer, more explicit messages; celebrate wins
Data Without Context - Numbers mislead decisions - Mixed-method dashboards; narrative interpretation
A Parable: The Lighthouse and the Harbor
A coastal town argued over two budgets. The Vision Council wanted a taller lighthouse; a beam visible for miles, a symbol of progress. The Dock Guild wanted more tugboats for faster towing and fewer accidents. Each group blocked the other’s funding.
A storm hit. Without tugboats, two ships drifted toward the rocks. Without a brighter lighthouse, the third never found the channel. By dawn, the town had three wrecks and a meeting.
An old mariner stood and said, “A lighthouse shows the way. Tugboats bring you home. We needed both all along: one for direction, one for delivery.” The next budget funded one lighthouse keeper, two tug crews, and a radio that kept them talking. The harbor prospered.
Moral: Vision guides. Execution saves. Alignment sustains.
Call to Action (CTA)
Title: From Slides to Services: Align Your Next Quarter
Description: In the next 90 days, convert your strategic themes into a funded, visible delivery system that staff can believe in and patrons can feel.
Action Step(s):
1. Host a 2-hour Strategy → Portfolio workshop this month; tag every active initiative to one outcome; cut 10%.
2. Publish a one-page roadmap with owners, dates, and success measures; share it with staff, board, and community.
3. Stand up a monthly ops review + quarterly strategy retro with a stop/start/scale decision at each retro.
4. Tell one patron impact story per month aligned to each strategic theme, at all-hands meetings, and to your funders.
Bottom line: Don’t choose between vision and execution. Architect the bridge, staff it, and conduct monthly inspections.