THE world is changing at an unprecedented pace. Societies are undergoing major shifts, from ageing populations in the Global North to a youth surge in the Global South. The fourth industrial revolution is accelerating automation, platform economies and the growing influence of artificial intelligence is reshaping labour markets and redefining human-machine relationships. Politically, authoritarian populism, geopolitical tensions and declining trust in democratic institutions are reshaping the global order and weakening long-standing commitments to free trade. Environmental and climate crises are intensifying, demanding new development paradigms. Cultural identities are becoming more hybrid, with younger generations demanding equity, accountability, inclusivity and purpose-driven leadership. In such a dynamic context, addressing social, economic, political, environmental and cultural issues requires actors and entities to ponder on multiple fronts while framing their respective strategies. Hence, the notion of adaptive and transformative strategy is becoming paramount while navigating an ever-changing context.
Both terms, adaptive and transformative strategy, describe different approaches, but they complement each other. An adaptive strategy is flexible, emphasising continuous learning and incremental adjustments to changing circumstances without altering core structures. In contrast, a transformative strategy involves deep, systemic change that redefines an organisation’s direction or the structure of a system, creating a more resilient state when incremental shifts are insufficient. When an organisation’s core systems are flexible and adaptive, they can more effectively support regular operational adjustments. Combining both terms, this article takes an integrated and iterative approach to frame an adaptive and transformative strategy. Though there is no hard and fast rule to develop an adaptive and transformative strategy, certain aspects necessitate greater attention and critical assessment.
Problem identification matters the most
IN AN evolving situation, problem identification should take a multi-pronged approach and an iterative process to understand a problem within the spectrum of a broader context, uncovering root causes of the problem and determining if the drivers of the problem are cross-linked, causing other problems. There are many tested tools available for problem mapping, such as problem tree exercise, fishbone analysis, root cause analysis, the 5 Whys technique, SWOT analysis, etc.
Strategy experts suggest employing an evidence-based approach to triangulate information from different sources to substantiate identified problems with data from systematic sources such as formal studies, internal and external reports, surveys, etc. It is also important to consult with stakeholders — primarily those who are directly and indirectly impacted by prevailing problems, subject matter experts, observers, etc — not only to identify problems or ‘problems of problems’ but also to validate issues that are found through other sources.
Evidence makes it work
AN ADAPTIVE and transformative strategy is backed by strong evidence, which may have a track record of success in other contexts. However, the feasibility exercise of a strategy must be undertaken before it is replicated in another context. It is important to review the effectiveness of the strategy adopted in other contexts, the processes followed to implement it, challenges faced, risks posed and the measures taken to address challenges and mitigate risks. It is also important to review the institutional setting and organisational framework, including resources allocated and culture fostered, to adopt and implement the strategy.
Trial and error
A NEW strategy that was never tested before must undergo a trial period, where the strategy can be rigorously piloted in a full or semi-controlled setting under different scenarios and refine the strategy based on its performance of the strategy and lessons learned along the way. It is important to create a feedback loop to garner continuous feedback and insights from a range of actors, particularly who would be directly and indirectly impacted by the strategy. The conventional way of developing a fully-fledged strategy and testing it in a context often does not have the wiggle room to test and further develop it because of resource constraints. Hence, taking a phased approach and starting with a simple idea and refining it at different points in time based on new learning and insights could enhance the likelihood of the effectiveness of the strategy in a larger context.
Finding the most effective strategy
CHOOSING the most effective adaptive and transformative strategy over other available options is sometimes a daunting task. A rational and structured approach involving a rigorous multidimensional cost-effectiveness analysis of available strategies may help find the most suitable strategy to address a problem under a certain context, assuming some broad critical assumptions hold. It is important that a core group — comprising representations of actors who are likely to be impacted by the strategy and foot soldiers operationalising the strategy — drives the process of finding the best strategy. This will also help create a sense of ownership among key actors, which will be critical for implementing the strategy going forward. For instance, in 2022, in New Delhi, India, to tackle severe urban air pollution, policymakers evaluated various strategies and adopted a hybrid solution involving electric mobility subsidies and biodegradable crop residue treatment. This strategy was informed by a multi-stakeholder task force that included participation of farmers, scientists and public agencies, fostering ownership and improving policy acceptance.
It is a paradox that agencies sometimes may not be willing to pursue the apparently best strategy, simply, it may not be in their manageable interest in terms of resources, alignment with broader organisational norms and goals and the likelihood of reputational risks.
It is noteworthy that a strategy is always time-bound and context-specific, denoting that after a certain period, a strategy may not work as some core properties of the context may change. Therefore, it is important to review the validity of a strategy in light of assessing the context and associated broad critical assumptions. A clear example is New Zealand’s Covid-19 elimination strategy, which was initially effective in preventing widespread transmission through strict lockdowns and border controls. However, with the emergence of more transmissible variants, rising vaccination coverage and changing public sentiment, the government transitioned to a mitigation-focused strategy, introducing the Covid-19 Protection Framework in December 2021 to manage the virus’s presence in the community.
System readiness to adapt to changes
AN ORGANISATION’S readiness to formulate and adopt adaptive and transformative strategy relies on its foundational structure, including its core systems, guiding policy instruments, institutional norms, business culture and overall visionary leadership, to be able to foresee progressive changes and the willingness to bring changes to the organisational structure and business processes to adapt to the changing context. It boils down to the fact that when an entity’s core organisational structure is transformative in nature, denoting forward-looking, flexible and embracing change management, it eventually helps the organisation to adapt to changes. Singapore has deliberately built a transformative core governance structure — characterised by long-term planning, policy coherence, strong institutions and adaptive leadership. Its ‘Whole-of-Government’ framework, coupled with the Smart Nation initiative, embeds foresight, experimentation and continuous learning into public systems. This foundational setup allows ministries to rapidly adapt policies, reorganise processes and deploy new technologies in response to demographic change, economic shocks or climate risks.
Measurement makes the difference
AN ADAPTIVE and transformative strategy needs to be measured to see if it is capable of producing the targeted results even in the midst of constant changes. The measurement is tied to a robust complexity-aware monitoring and learning system that would not only track the performance of the strategy but also scan the context, identify possible risks and alert the system with real-time data to adapt to the evolving context. Hence, the monitoring and learning system is an integral part of the transformative structure of an organisational setting, fostering data-driven decision-making.
Concluding remarks
FRAMING adaptive and transformational strategies requires intentional efforts to face the challenges of evolving context and embrace necessary changes, even if they alter core organisational structures and systems. The decision makers must be ready to change their mindset in terms of letting go of strategies that worked for years and earned successes for their respective organisations. They should primarily facilitate the change management process rather than dictate the development of the strategy. It is important that the strategy framing process takes an inclusive and whole-of-system approach, where changes are felt and driven by the staff members across units and direct beneficiaries of the organisation, creating a strong sense of ownership over the changing direction of their organisations.
Motasim Billah is a development professional.
