Tag Archive for: #strategicplanning

Posts

Your Budget Is a Strategy Document. Please Read It Like One.

/0 Comments/in /by

by Someone Who Actually Read the Assumptions Tab

It is November. The budget has arrived.

It arrived in the board packet on Thursday, which gave everyone the weekend, which everyone used for other things. It is forty-one pages long. It has a cover memo, a summary, a balance sheet projection, an income statement projection, a capital expenditure schedule, a staffing plan, and an appendix that nobody has opened since appendices were invented.

At the meeting, the CFO walks the board through the highlights. The board listens attentively. Then a director asks why the training and travel line went up eleven percent. A second director asks whether the holiday event really needs to be at that venue again. There is a brief and spirited conversation about the cost of branded fleece vests.

Twenty-six minutes later, the budget is approved unanimously.

Somewhere on page nineteen, there was a $1.8 million technology investment that will determine whether the credit union’s digital strategy succeeds or fails over the next three years. Nobody asked about it. It seemed like the kind of thing management had handled.

This is not a story about a careless board. It is a story about a board that reads its budget as an accounting document, when it is actually the most honest strategy document the credit union will produce all year.

The Two-Meeting Problem

Most credit union boards discuss strategy and money in two different meetings, often months apart, in two different vocabularies.

Strategy happens at the retreat. It is spoken in verbs and aspirations: grow, deepen, transform, serve, become. Everyone is relaxed. There are sticky notes.

The budget happens in the fall. It is spoken in numbers: basis points, FTEs, cost of funds, provision expense. Everyone is in their regular chairs. There are no sticky notes.

Nobody is officially responsible for translating between the two. So the board approves a strategy in September that says the credit union will become the primary financial institution for young families in its market, and approves a budget in November that contains no meaningful money for reaching young families, no new lending products designed for them, and no staff whose job description includes the words “young families.”

Both votes were unanimous. Both votes were sincere. They just weren’t about the same credit union.

Why Boards Read Budgets Backwards

Groups tend to spend the most time on the items they understand best, which tend to be the smallest. (We have written about bikeshedding before. Boards remain committed to it.)

Every director has an opinion about travel expense. Every director has attended a holiday party. Comparatively few directors feel confident challenging the assumptions behind a core processing conversion, a loan growth projection, or a deposit pricing strategy. So the board’s attention distributes itself in inverse proportion to the dollars involved.

The result is a budget review that is thorough about the things that don’t matter and polite about the things that do.

Management notices this. Management is not foolish. Over time, budget presentations evolve to match the questions the board actually asks, which means more detail on the line items and less discussion of the choices. Nobody designed it this way. It simply happened, one fleece vest at a time.

Reading the Budget for Strategy

Reading a budget strategically does not require a CPA. It requires asking a different set of questions. Here are five worth bringing to your next budget meeting.

Where does each strategic priority show up in dollars? Take the three to five priorities in your strategic plan and find them in the budget. Not in the cover memo. In the numbers. If a priority has no identifiable funding, staffing, or capital allocation, it is not a priority. It is a sentiment.

What did we stop doing to pay for it? A strategy that only adds is not a strategy. It is a wish list with a budget attached. If the plan calls for new investments and the budget shows every existing program funded at the same or higher level, the board should ask where the tradeoffs went. Usually the answer is “into a lower net income projection,” which is a choice the board should make on purpose.

What are the assumptions, and what happens if they’re wrong? Every budget rests on a handful of assumptions about loan growth, deposit growth, rates, credit losses, and operating costs. The board does not need to second-guess each one. It does need to know which two or three assumptions the whole budget depends on, and what the results look like if those assumptions miss by a reasonable margin.

Does the bottom line match the capital strategy? The projected ROA and net worth ratio are not just outcomes. They are statements about how much the credit union intends to return to members, reinvest, or retain. If the board has a view on how much capital is enough, and it should, the budget is where that view either shows up or quietly doesn’t.

Does the staffing plan follow the strategy? People are usually the largest expense, and where the credit union adds, moves, or declines to replace staff tells you more about its real priorities than any slide at the retreat.

What to Ask Management For

The most useful thing a board can request is simple: a one-page crosswalk that connects each strategic priority to the budget dollars behind it and the measurable result the board should expect in return.

Priority. Dollars. Expected outcome. One page.

If your board has adopted a strategic dashboard (and if you read our last post, you know how we feel about that), the crosswalk ties directly to it. The budget funds the strategy; the dashboard tells you whether the funding is working. Together, they turn the strategic plan into something the board can actually govern rather than something it admires once a year.

The second useful thing is timing. By the time a complete budget reaches the board in November, most of the meaningful decisions have already been made by people who had to make them without board input. Boards that want strategic budgets give management guidance earlier, often in late summer, on the priorities, tradeoffs, and financial targets the budget should reflect. This is not micromanagement. It is the board doing its part before asking management to do theirs.

If it’s already too late for that this year, ask for the crosswalk anyway. Put a note on next year’s calendar. Governance is allowed to improve incrementally.

The Real Approval

When the board approves the budget, it is not approving a spending plan. It is approving the strategy for the next twelve months in the only form management can actually execute.

The strategic plan says what the credit union hopes to become. The budget says what it is willing to pay for. When the two disagree, the budget wins. It always wins. It has the money.

So read it like it matters, because it does. Ask where the strategy is. Ask what was given up. Ask what happens if the assumptions are wrong. And by all means, ask about the fleece vests. Just maybe after page nineteen.

The budget is the strategy with the adjectives removed.

#boardgovernance #creditunionboards #budgeting #strategicplanning #financialoversight #boardaccountability #governancematters #creditunions

Your Board Approved a Strategy. Now What?

/2 Comments/in /by

   by That One Consultant You Hired and Then Ignored

Congratulations. The retreat was excellent. The facilitator was engaging. The catering was better than last year. Someone brought a whiteboard marker that actually worked, which felt like a sign. You debated the difference between a mission and a vision for forty-five minutes, landed somewhere everyone could live with, and produced a strategic plan that is ambitious, realistic, member-focused, and aligned with the credit union’s core values.

You took a group photo.

You went home.

And now it is four months later and someone at the board table has asked how the strategic plan is going, and the CEO has said “well” and moved to the next agenda item, and the board has moved with them, because the strategic plan is in a binder somewhere and the quarterly financials are right here and they are also well, more or less, and there is a lot on the agenda tonight.

This is not a story about a bad strategic plan. This is a story about what happens to good strategic plans when the board confuses approving a strategy with governing one.

The Binder Problem

Strategic plans love binders. Binders are where strategic plans go to be important without being inconvenient. A binder communicates seriousness. It has tabs. It has page numbers. It was printed on nice paper, possibly at a copy shop, possibly by a staff member who has quietly resented this task for eight years.

The binder sits on a shelf. The shelf is in a room. The room is at the credit union. The plan is technically accessible at all times. This is often the last thing that happens to it.

The failure mode here is not negligence. It is a category error. Boards that produce a strategic plan and then wait to hear how it went have mistaken strategic approval for strategic governance. Approval is a moment. Governance is a continuous process. One of them requires a vote. The other requires showing up for the next thirty-six months and asking uncomfortable questions at regular intervals.

The board’s job does not end when the motion carries. It begins there.

What “Monitoring” Actually Means

Most boards receive strategic plan updates in the form of a management report that arrives quarterly in the board packet, usually buried between the financial statements and a committee report that nobody has read in three years. The update is generally optimistic. It contains phrases like “on track,” “progressing as planned,” and “continued momentum.” It does not contain the phrase “we are behind and here is why.”

This is not necessarily dishonesty. It is the natural behavior of a management team reporting to a board that has not told them what it wants to know. If the board has never defined what strategic success looks like in measurable terms — if it has never said “by September we expect X, and here is how we’ll know if we have it” — then management will report what it has, which is activity. Activity is not strategy. Activity is what organizations do while strategy either happens or doesn’t.

Effective strategic monitoring starts before the monitoring does. It starts at the retreat, or immediately after, when the board and CEO agree on the specific indicators that will tell them whether the strategy is working. Not “we will grow membership” but “we will grow membership by 3.5% with net new members disproportionately from the 25-40 age segment by December.” Not “we will improve member experience” but “our member satisfaction score will reach 87 by Q3, and here is the survey that will measure it.”

Vague strategies produce vague progress reports. Vague progress reports produce unanimous board votes to continue. Unanimous board votes to continue are not governance. They are theater.

The Accountability Gap

Here is the thing about strategic plans that nobody says out loud at the retreat: the board approved the plan, but the CEO is responsible for executing it. That is the right division of labor. That is also the source of a persistent accountability gap that most boards quietly decide not to think about.

The gap works like this. The board approves a strategy that includes, say, a digital transformation initiative that will modernize the credit union’s technology infrastructure, improve member-facing services, and position the institution competitively for the next decade. Everyone is excited about this. It is in the plan. It has a timeline.

Eighteen months later, the initiative is behind schedule, over budget, and the vendor relationship has become complicated in ways that the CEO is managing. The board has received three quarterly reports describing the situation as “progressing.” Nobody has lied. Nobody has said “everything is fine.” They have said “progressing,” which is the strategic planning equivalent of “it’s complicated” — technically true, substantively uninformative, and carefully calibrated to not require a board conversation that anyone is eager to have.

The board’s job in this scenario is to notice. To ask. To say: our last three quarterly reports have described this initiative as progressing, and I would like to know specifically what progressing means, what the original timeline was, where we are against it, what the variance costs, and what management’s plan is for the remainder of the initiative.

Not because the board wants to manage the initiative. It does not. That is the CEO’s job. Because the board approved the strategy, which means the board is accountable to the membership for whether that strategy is working, which means the board needs enough information to make that determination, which means the board has to ask.

The board that never asks inconvenient questions about strategic execution is not a supportive board. It is an absent one.

What a Functioning Strategic Governance Process Actually Looks Like

It is not complicated. It is just consistent, which turns out to be harder.

The board and CEO agree, before the retreat ends or immediately after, on a strategic dashboard: the four to eight indicators that will tell them whether the strategy is on track. These indicators are specific, measurable, and tied to the actual goals in the plan — not proxies, not activity metrics, not things that always go up.

The dashboard appears on every board agenda. Not buried in the packet. On the agenda, at the front, before the financial statements, while everyone is awake and paying attention. It takes ten minutes. It surfaces what is on track and what is not. It creates a standing expectation that strategic progress is a governance conversation, not a management report.

When something is off track, the board asks what happened, what management is doing about it, and what the board needs to decide or provide to support the response. When something is on track, the board notes it and moves on. The point is not to celebrate or interrogate. The point is to maintain the board’s visibility into whether the strategy it approved is actually happening in the organization it governs.

Once a year — usually at the annual retreat — the board steps back from the dashboard and asks a larger question: does this strategy still make sense? Have the competitive environment, regulatory landscape, membership demographics, or economic conditions changed in ways that require us to revisit the plan? Is the strategy we approved eighteen months ago still the right strategy for the next eighteen months?

That conversation is the board at its most valuable — not approving management’s work, not monitoring management’s execution, but doing the thing that only the board can do, which is bringing an independent perspective to whether the organization is going in the right direction.

The binder is a prop. The retreat is a beginning. The strategy is a commitment the board made on behalf of its members to govern the institution in a specific direction, with specific priorities, toward specific outcomes.

The vote was the easy part.

The hard part is the next thirty-six months of board meetings, during which the board will be tempted, repeatedly, to receive a progress report, note that things are progressing, and move on.

That temptation is the thing to govern.

#boardgovernance #creditunionboards #strategicplanning #strategyexecution #CEOoversight #boardaccountability #governancematters #creditunions

 

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Hidden Perils of Capital Hoarding

/0 Comments/in /by

by That One Consultant You Hired and Then Ignored

If you’re a board member at a credit union, chances are you’ve said it. Maybe in a hushed boardroom voice, maybe with great conviction over lunch, maybe carved into stone tablets. It goes something like this:

“You can never have too much capital.”

Cue the heavenly choir and the flutter of regulatory examiners descending on clouds of GAAP. Capital, after all, is safety. Capital is security. Capital is your warm, fuzzy blanket on a cold night of economic uncertainty.

Except—and please, clutch your pearls tightly here—you can have too much of it. Yes, really. And when you do, it’s not just inefficient. It’s strategically dangerous.

Let’s talk about it, shall we?

Capital: From Safety Net to Strategic Straitjacket

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way. Capital is good. Regulatory capital is essential. You need it. The NCUA says so, and if the NCUA says jump, most credit unions are halfway to orbit before they ask how high.

But capital is a tool, not a trophy. When your capital ratio drifts into the teens— 13%, 14%, 15% and beyond—you’re not just safe. You’re overdressed for the occasion.

Imagine showing up to a beach party in full medieval armor. That’s what it’s like running a 15% capital ratio in today’s credit union market. Impressive? Sure. But also a bit ridiculous, and not particularly helpful when it’s time to swim—or compete, innovate, or grow.

The Law of Diminishing Return on Paranoia

Many boards live by a simple mantra: More capital equals more safety. It’s neat. It’s easy. It’s… mathematically adorable.

But here’s the truth: every extra dollar of capital that sits unleveraged on your balance sheet is a member dollar not working, not producing value, not returning benefit.

Imagine telling your members, “We’ve taken your money, and we’re keeping it locked away in a vault, doing nothing, because someday the sky might fall. And if it doesn’t? Well, at least we felt warm and fuzzy.”

Not exactly the value proposition credit unions are known for.

And if your board’s idea of risk management is “hoard capital like it’s 2008 and Ben Bernanke just texted ‘brace yourself,’” then you’ve essentially traded strategic growth for a very expensive security blanket.

The Catastrophe That Never Quite Arrives

Boards often justify massive capital buffers by invoking a theoretical calamity so devastating it would make Mad Max look like a municipal planning meeting.

“We need to be ready for the worst-case scenario.”

Great. Let’s play that out.

Say a 500-basis-point rate shock, a recession, a regulatory overhaul, and a complete collapse of consumer confidence all hit at once. Terrifying? Yes. But unless your balance sheet is made entirely of subprime balloon loans and wishful thinking, the odds of such a cataclysm wiping out your 10% capital buffer and then some are vanishingly low.

And even if it did, your regulator is unlikely to high-five you for sitting on a 15% buffer when 12% would have sufficed and the other 3% could have been used to actually serve members. You don’t get a trophy for hoarding potential.

The worst-case scenario your board keeps preparing for has a name: it’s called opportunity cost. And it’s happening right now, quietly, while you congratulate yourselves on your capital ratio.

“But the Regulators Like It!”

Sure. And your dentist likes it when you floss twice a day. Doesn’t mean it’s a viable identity.

Yes, regulators appreciate strong capital. But they also value operational effectiveness, loan growth, membership value, and risk-informed decision-making. They don’t want to see you building capital castles while the market passes you by.

Running a credit union solely to appease your examiner is like designing a car for your mechanic. Sure, they’ll love the engine access, but no one’s going to buy the thing.

There is a term for what happens when capital accumulation becomes the mission rather than the means: pathological aversion to lending. It shows up in your Call Report. It shows up in your loan-to-share ratio. And eventually it shows up in your membership numbers, as the members who actually needed a credit union found one that wasn’t afraid to be one.

Strategic Growth: Now Hiring Capital

Every dollar sitting in capital at a 14% ratio—when 10% would suffice—is a dollar not deployed into strategic initiatives. That’s a new loan program not launched, a branch not modernized, a digital upgrade not implemented, a member segment left underserved.

You are, quite literally, overcapitalized and underutilized. That’s not caution—it’s stagnation dressed up as virtue.

And CEOs? If your board is holding you hostage with ultra-conservative capital policies, congratulations: you’ve been promoted to Chief Preservation Officer. Your job is to sit on a pile of money and politely decline to use it. You will be evaluated on how well the pile stays piled.

That’s not strategy. That’s surrender with excellent documentation.

The PR Problem You Didn’t Know You Had

There’s also a transparency problem with excessive capital. NCUA Call Reports are public. Peer comparisons are available to anyone who cares to look. And when your capital ratio sits at 15% while your peers are competing effectively at 10%, people start asking questions.

Why is this credit union sitting on all that capital?

Is it strategic discipline? Institutional caution? Or is it, perhaps, a board that has quietly confused accumulation with achievement—and hasn’t noticed that the members stopped benefiting from either?

The story the market tells about an overcapitalized credit union is rarely flattering. It usually rhymes with “afraid” or “stuck.” Neither is a brand position worth defending.

So, What Should a Board Do?

Ah, finally, solutions. You were getting anxious, weren’t you?

  1. Set a capital target, not a capital shrine. Create a realistic, risk-informed capital target based on actual scenario modeling—not vibes, not trauma from the Great Recession, not the vague sense that more is always better. A target implies a ceiling. A shrine implies worship. Know the difference.
  2. Regularly reassess the buffer. If you’ve carried 300+ basis points of excess capital for five consecutive years, that’s not a buffer—that’s a moat. And you’re the dragon asleep in the middle, guarding assets your members can’t access and your mission can’t use.
  3. Tie capital deployment to strategy. Capital should be the fuel for your mission, not a museum piece. Lend it. Invest it. Modernize with it. The cooperative model was not designed to produce the tidiest balance sheet in the graveyard.
  4. Educate the board—yes, again. A board stuck in the “more is always better” loop may need a structured conversation about how capital, risk, and growth actually interact. This is not an insult. It is a fiduciary necessity. Hoarding is not a strategy. It is a habit. And habits can be broken.

Closing Thoughts from Your Favorite Snarky Consultant

No one is asking you to gamble with your capital. Prudent reserves matter. Regulatory compliance matters. The ability to weather a genuine storm matters.

But don’t confuse risk management with strategic paralysis. The real danger isn’t the next economic downturn—it’s the slow erosion of relevance while your capital ratio quietly creeps toward 16% and your members quietly wonder why nothing ever changes. Why the rates aren’t better. Why the app still looks like that. Why the loan got declined when the bank down the street said yes.

So be brave. Be strategic. Be willing to sweat a little. And for the love of all that is cooperative and not-for-profit, stop worshipping at the altar of excessive capital.

Because in the end, the goal isn’t to die the richest credit union in the graveyard.

It’s to live boldly enough that your members actually notice.

———

Word count: ~1,100

Scenario Planning Is Dead. Long Live Strategic Posture

/0 Comments/in /by

by That One Consultant You Hired and Then Ignored

Somewhere in your credit union, there is a binder. It may be physical — a three-ring monument to optimism, with color-coded tabs labeled Best Case, Worst Case, and Most Likely. Or it may live on a shared drive that nobody has opened since the last board retreat, tucked between the updated org chart and a strategic planning template from 2019.

This binder represents somewhere between forty and four hundred hours of staff time, depending on how many consultants were involved. It was presented with great confidence. It was approved with great ceremony. It is now, with all due respect to everyone in that room, largely fictional.

Not because your team didn’t work hard. Because the future stopped cooperating.

The Quiet Failure of the Scenario Binder

Traditional scenario planning rests on a few reasonable assumptions: that the future will arrive in one of a limited number of identifiable shapes, that cause and effect will behave more or less as expected, and that there will be enough time between “uh oh” and “what do we do now” to actually consult the plan.

These assumptions are increasingly adorable.

Interest rates do not wait for your quarterly review cycle. Technology adoption accelerates in ways that make last year’s roadmap look like a historical document. Member expectations shift before you finish the survey designed to measure them. Regulatory guidance evolves mid-implementation, with the cheerful indifference of a weather system that didn’t read your forecast.

The result is that many credit union boards are doing enormous amounts of planning work to produce documents that are obsolete before the lamination dries. This is not a planning problem. It is a planning philosophy problem. And the fix isn’t to plan harder. It’s to plan differently.

The Question You’re Asking Wrong

Most boards in strategic planning mode are trying to answer one central question:

What will happen?

It is a reasonable question. It is also, at this particular moment in economic and technological history, almost impossible to answer with any useful precision. And yet boards keep asking it, commissioning elaborate answers to it, and then updating those answers every quarter when reality declines to match the projection.

Here’s the better question:

How do we intend to behave no matter what happens?

That is not a forecast. That is a posture. And it turns out posture is considerably more durable than prediction.

What Strategic Posture Actually Means (Without the Buzzwords)

Strategic posture is not a new framework, a software platform, or something that requires a two-day offsite and a facilitator with strong opinions about sticky notes (of which, I’m one!). It is a set of explicit, pre-agreed stances about how your credit union will behave in the face of uncertainty.

Posture answers the questions that scenarios keep deferring:

  • Are we a fast follower or an early mover?
  • Will we partner, build, or wait?
  • How much margin compression are we willing to absorb in service of member experience?
  • What will we protect even when the pressure to cut is loudest?

These questions don’t require predicting the future. They require self-knowledge. And self-knowledge, unlike a five-year forecast, does not expire.

A credit union with clear posture might say, for example:

We will prioritize member experience even when it pressures short-term margins.

That sentence is useful in a rate environment that goes up. It is useful in a rate environment that goes down. It is useful when a fintech competitor enters the market and when one quietly fails. Posture travels. Scenarios don’t.

Why Boards Are Uniquely Suited to Set Posture (and Rarely Do)

Here is a governance irony worth sitting with: boards are actually better positioned to define posture than to validate forecasts, and yet most boards spend most of their strategic time on forecasts.

Forecasts require operational depth that management has and boards generally don’t. A board that tries to critically evaluate a five-year projection model is largely dependent on the people who built it to explain why it’s credible. This is not oversight. This is nodding.

Posture, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of judgment boards are built for. Risk tolerance. Long-term values. Institutional identity. The question of what kind of credit union we want to be is not an operational question. It is a governance question. It belongs in the boardroom.

And when boards get posture right, something useful happens downstream: management stops needing permission for every decision that falls outside the scenario binder. When the CEO knows that the board’s posture is “invest ahead of demand in digital capabilities,” she does not need to schedule a special board meeting every time a digital investment opportunity appears. The posture is the guidance. The trust is built in.

When posture is vague, every decision becomes a board-level event. Which explains a lot about certain board agendas we could mention but professionally won’t.

How to Actually Do This

This is not about throwing out the strategic plan. It is about rebalancing where the board’s attention goes during strategy discussions. Specifically:

  1. Spend less time refining forecasts, more time clarifying intent. The forecast will be wrong. The intent will still be yours. Invest accordingly.
  2. Write the posture down. Unwritten posture is just a vibe. Vibes don’t survive leadership transitions, and they don’t guide management during a crisis at 11pm on a Tuesday. Explicit posture does.
  3. Test decisions against posture, not just scenarios. Before approving the next major initiative, ask: does this reflect who we said we are? That question is faster, more honest, and considerably less likely to produce a forty-slide deck in response.
  4. Revisit posture annually — not assumptions quarterly. Posture should be stable enough to anchor decisions and flexible enough to evolve when the institution genuinely changes. It is not a living document in the sense of “we update it every time someone gets nervous.”

Questions Worth Asking at Your Next Strategy Session

If your board is ready to try this, here are five questions that will either produce clarity or a very productive argument. Both outcomes are useful.

  • How would we describe our current strategic posture — and is it actually explicit, or is it just implied and quietly disagreed upon?
  • Where are we relying on forecasts that we know, privately, are unlikely to hold?
  • What assumptions do we keep revisiting every quarter instead of making a decision about once?
  • How confident is management in making decisions without seeking board approval — and is that level of confidence appropriate or alarming?
  • If conditions changed abruptly tomorrow, would our posture guide us forward — or send us back to the binder?

Final Thoughts: The Binder Had a Good Run

Scenario planning is not worthless. It is, in the right doses, genuinely useful for stress-testing assumptions and preparing management for specific contingencies. Nobody is suggesting you throw the binder into the recycling bin with great ceremony, however satisfying that might feel.

But as the primary output of board-level strategic work, it has reached its limits. The world is producing disruptions faster than planning cycles can absorb them, and boards that spend their strategic energy predicting which disruption comes next are playing a game they will keep losing.

Organizations with clear posture move faster, argue less, and adapt better. They are not always right. But they are almost never paralyzed. And in a world where the future has stopped arriving on schedule, coherence may be the most underrated competitive advantage available.

The problem was never that you didn’t plan enough. It’s that you planned for a future that had other ideas. Time to plan for yourself instead.

Your Strategy Isn’t Failing — Your Decision Velocity Is

/0 Comments/in /by

By Kevin Smith

Credit union boards love to say they are “strategic.” They hold retreats. They commission market studies. They debate mission drift versus growth. They approve multi‑year strategic plans that are color‑coded, laminated, and confidently optimistic.

And yet, somehow, the credit union still feels stuck.

Products lag peers. Growth underperforms projections. Fintechs feel faster. Members behave differently than expected. Management keeps coming back with revisions, extensions, or “next‑phase” initiatives.

At some point, someone asks the uncomfortable question: Is our strategy wrong?

Usually, the answer is no.

More often, the problem isn’t strategy. It’s decision velocity.

What Decision Velocity Really Means (and Why Boards    Underestimate It)

Decision velocity is not about rushing. It’s about how quickly an organization:

  • Identifies a decision that actually matters
  • Gets it to the right level of authority
  • Makes a clear call
  • Moves on

Credit unions are generally thoughtful, risk‑aware, and consensus‑oriented. Those are strengths — until they aren’t.

In many boardrooms, strategic decisions move slowly not because they are complex, but because:

  • The decision is revisited multiple times “for comfort”
  • The board is unclear whether it is setting direction or approving execution
  • Risk conversations sprawl without resolution
  • Additional data is requested long after the signal is clear

The result is strategic drift disguised as prudence.

Why Slow Decisions Quietly Undermine Strategy

Markets do not pause for governance hygiene.

When decision velocity is low:

  • Opportunities age out before approval
  • First‑mover advantages disappear
  • Management defaults to incrementalism
  • Strategy becomes retrospective instead of directional

Boards then misdiagnose the problem. They conclude the strategy needs updating, refreshing, or re‑visioning — when what actually needs fixing is how long it takes to decide anything consequential.

A slow organization with a brilliant strategy will still lose to a faster one with a merely adequate plan.

The Hidden Governance Causes of Slow Decision Velocity

Credit union boards rarely intend to slow things down. But governance design often does the work for them.

Common culprits include:

  1. Blurred Decision Rights

Boards sometimes drift into execution decisions while avoiding strategic ones. Management waits for clarity. Everyone is polite. Time passes.

If the board cannot clearly answer, “Is this a direction decision or an implementation decision?” velocity will suffer.

  1. Risk Without Resolution

Risk discussions expand easily. Resolution does not.

Many boards are excellent at surfacing risk and less comfortable deciding how much risk is acceptable in pursuit of strategy. Without explicit risk boundaries, every decision feels unprecedented.

  1. Consensus as the Default Setting

Consensus feels cooperative. It is also slow.

Not every strategic decision requires unanimous comfort. When consensus becomes the goal rather than clarity, velocity drops — and accountability blurs.

  1. Board Calendar Mismatch

Strategy discussions that occur quarterly cannot support environments that change monthly. Boards then respond with special meetings, email votes, or delayed approvals — none of which are efficient substitutes for intentional governance design.

What Faster Boards Do Differently (Without Being Reckless)

High‑functioning boards do not move faster by caring less. They move faster by deciding better.

They:

  • Separate direction from execution
  • Define risk tolerance before decisions appear
  • Use consent or majority‑based decisions when appropriate
  • Escalate fewer items because authority is clearer

Most importantly, they recognize that speed itself is a strategic variable.

Questions Credit Union Boards Should Be Asking

If your strategy feels stalled, try these instead of another planning refresh:

  • How long does it take us to make a strategic decision once it reaches the board?
  • Which decisions do we routinely revisit — and why?
  • Where are we asking for more certainty than the environment can provide?
  • What decisions should management be empowered to make without us?

The answers are often more revealing than the strategy document.

The Real Strategic Advantage

In the next decade, credit unions will not out‑strategize competitors on paper.

They will out‑decide them in practice.

And the boards that learn to measure, manage, and intentionally improve decision velocity will discover something surprising:

Their strategy was never broken.

It was just waiting for permission to move.

Board Discussion Questions

  • Where do we see decisions consistently slowing down — and what is actually causing the delay?
  • Which strategic decisions have we revisited multiple times without materially new information?
  • Are we clear about which decisions belong to the board versus management?
  • Where might our desire for consensus be reducing accountability or speed?
  • If decision speed became a competitive advantage, what would we change first?

Your Real Strategy Is Risk Avoidance (Even If You Won’t Admit It)

/1 Comment/in /by

By Kevin Smith

If you asked your credit union board to describe its strategy, you’d likely hear words like growth, innovation, member-centric, or future-ready. No one ever says, “Our strategy is to avoid risk at all costs and hope nothing bad happens on our watch.”

And yet.

If we’re being honest—and governance works better when we are—many credit union strategies quietly default to risk avoidance. Not because boards are lazy or disengaged, but because avoiding risk feels responsible. It feels safe. It feels like the kind of thing a regulator would nod approvingly at while flipping through your exam report.

Unfortunately, risk avoidance is still a strategy. It’s just rarely the one boards think they’re executing.

The Strategy You Get When You Don’t Choose One

Risk avoidance rarely shows up as a formal board resolution. It emerges slowly, almost politely.

It sounds like:

  • “Let’s wait and see how this plays out.”
  • “Other credit unions are doing it—let’s see how it goes for them first.”
  • “We don’t want to get ahead of the regulators.”
  • “This feels like a distraction from our core business.”

Individually, these statements seem reasonable. Collectively, they form a strategy of inertia. Over time, the credit union becomes very good at not doing things. No failed pilots. No uncomfortable conversations. No bold moves that might require explaining later.

The board doesn’t explicitly decide to avoid risk. It just consistently chooses the least controversial option available. And eventually, that is the strategy.

Remember how Tim Harrington puts this –  “There’s risk foolishness, and risk intelligence.” There’s a way to do this intelligently while taking on the risk in your approach, rather than avoiding it altogether. 

When “Being Careful” Becomes the Business Model

Credit union boards are, by design, conservative. You are fiduciaries of member assets. You’re not supposed to gamble. That’s good.

The problem arises when caution stops being a filter and becomes the destination.

Boards that lean too far into risk avoidance often share a few traits:

  • They spend far more time discussing what could go wrong than what could go right.
  • Innovation is something management “brings back later with more detail.”
  • Strategic discussions end with no decisions, but lots of appreciation for the conversation.
  • The phrase “that’s not how we’ve done things” is treated as wisdom rather than a warning sign.

Ironically, these boards often believe they are being strategic simply because they are thoughtful. But thoughtfulness without action is just well-documented hesitation.

The Risk No One Puts on the Heat Map

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: boards are very good at tracking certain kinds of risk—credit risk, liquidity risk, compliance risk. There are dashboards. Color-coded charts. Reassuring acronyms.

But there’s one risk that rarely gets equal treatment: the risk of doing nothing.

What is the risk of:

  • Not modernizing your delivery model while member expectations evolve?
  • Not addressing declining relevance with younger members?
  • Not investing in talent because it feels expensive?
  • Not exploring partnerships because they feel unfamiliar?

These risks don’t trigger examiner findings. They don’t show up in next quarter’s numbers. They unfold slowly, quietly, and with remarkable patience.

By the time they’re obvious, the board often says, “This came out of nowhere.” It didn’t. It just wasn’t on the agenda.

Regulation as a Convenient Excuse

Let’s talk about the regulator in the room.

Yes, credit unions are heavily regulated. Yes, compliance matters. And yes, no one wants to be the board that explains a preventable problem to an examiner.

But sometimes “the regulator won’t like it” becomes a catch-all excuse for avoiding difficult strategic decisions—especially when the real issue is uncertainty, not prohibition.

Many boards don’t ask, “Is this allowed?” They ask, “Could this possibly create discomfort?” Those are very different questions.

Regulators generally expect boards to manage risk, not eliminate it entirely. When boards confuse compliance with strategy, they unintentionally shrink the organization’s future to the size of its last exam.

That’s not safety. That’s stagnation with good intentions.

Innovation Theater and Other Safe Performances

Some boards respond to this tension by engaging in what might be called innovation theater.

There are presentations. There are task forces. There are discussions about “keeping an eye on trends.” Sometimes there’s even a pilot project that never quite scales.

This creates the appearance of forward thinking without the inconvenience of real change. Everyone can feel progressive without actually taking responsibility for outcomes.

Innovation theater is comforting. Real innovation is messy, uncertain, and occasionally unsuccessful. One of these aligns better with risk-averse cultures than the other.

What Risk-Tolerant Strategy Actually Looks Like

To be clear, this is not an argument for reckless decision-making. It’s an argument for intentional risk-taking.

Boards that align risk and strategy tend to do a few things differently:

  • They explicitly define their risk appetite in plain language, not just policy documents.
  • They evaluate opportunities alongside the risk of inaction.
  • They expect management to bring forward options, not fully risk-neutralized proposals.
  • They treat learning from failure as part of governance, not a breach of trust.

Most importantly, they recognize that avoiding all risk is itself a high-risk position in a changing financial services landscape.

The Question Boards Rarely Ask (But Should)

Here’s a question worth adding to every strategic discussion:

“What are we choosing not to do—and what does that choice cost us?”

This forces the board to acknowledge that declining an opportunity isn’t neutral. It’s directional. It shapes the credit union just as much as a bold initiative would.

When boards fail to ask this question, they quietly accept a future that looks a lot like the past. Which feels comfortable. Right up until it doesn’t.

Final Thought: Honesty Is a Strategic Asset

Risk avoidance isn’t a moral failing. It’s human. It’s understandable. And in moderation, it’s responsible.

But when boards refuse to acknowledge that fear and caution are driving strategic outcomes, they lose the ability to course-correct.

The most effective boards aren’t fearless. They’re honest—about tradeoffs, about uncertainty, and about the fact that every strategy involves risk, including the strategy of standing still.

Because at the end of the day, “We played it safe” is rarely the legacy boards intend to leave behind.

Organic Growth Isn’t Dead: A Memo for Boards Who Think Mergers Are the Only Muscle Left

/0 Comments/in /by

Remember when your credit union’s growth strategy didn’t involve acquiring the one across town and calling it “synergy”? Those were quaint times — like rotary phones, free toasters, and when “branch transformation” meant adding a fake ficus and a new carpet pattern.

Today, we’re told growth equals mergers. “Economies of scale!” they say. “Efficiency!” they say. And indeed, there’s nothing like doubling your size overnight to make the chart at the annual meeting look like a hockey stick. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: a merger may make you bigger, but it doesn’t always make you better.

And sometimes it doesn’t even make you… you.

By TEAM Resources

The Myth of Mergers as Growth

Let’s be clear: mergers have their place. When done thoughtfully, they can combine complementary strengths, fill product gaps, and offer long-term sustainability. When done reflexively, they can resemble two tired swimmers clinging to each other in a riptide.

Many credit union boards have quietly accepted the idea that “organic growth” — growing through relevance, innovation, and member engagement — is no longer realistic. They assume the game is now about consolidation and survival. After all, “everybody’s doing it.”

This mindset, while understandable, is also a slow surrender of the cooperative DNA that made the movement powerful in the first place. It replaces local connection with administrative convenience. It trades story for scale. And while scale can buy a lot of things, authentic member loyalty isn’t one of them.

When Bigger Isn’t Better

If we were brutally honest, some credit union mergers are like two people getting married mainly because they both happen to dislike dating.

Yes, the combined institution gets a larger balance sheet, a few operational efficiencies, and an expanded field of membership that looks great in a press release. But culture? Mission clarity? Member intimacy? Those things often end up as “non-core assets” quietly written off in the post-merger accounting.

A common board refrain goes something like this:

“We’re not getting enough new members. We can’t keep up with technology. Our growth has stalled. Maybe a merger is our best strategic option.”

Translation:

“We’re not sure how to adapt, so let’s find someone else who’s also not sure how to adapt and see if we can confuse the regulators into thinking it’s progress.”

The Case for Organic Growth (Yes, Still a Thing)

Organic growth isn’t flashy. It doesn’t make headlines. It requires patience, curiosity, and the courage to look uncomfortably inwards. But it is the only kind of growth that builds lasting strength — because it’s rooted in actually being valuable to your members.

Here’s what that looks like in real life:

  1. Deepening Existing Relationships

Your best source of growth is usually the people who already like you. Radical concept, right? Yet many boards are so focused on attracting new members that they overlook the gold mine of existing members who would do more business if someone just asked.

How well do you know your members’ needs today — not when they joined 15 years ago? Are you still talking to them about car loans while they’re quietly launching small businesses or planning retirement?

The most successful credit unions in 2026 will be those that treat data like empathy fuel — not marketing ammo.

  1. Rediscovering Niche Markets

Some of the strongest growth stories in the credit union system right now are small or mid-sized institutions that found their “tribe.” They serve gig workers, healthcare staff, teachers, or specific communities — and they know them inside out.

It turns out that serving a niche exceptionally well beats serving everyone marginally. That’s not just a marketing slogan; it’s a governance philosophy. A board that knows its niche can make strategic bets with confidence instead of wandering through market trends like tourists without a map.

  1. Partnership as Leverage, Not Rescue

    Levers (simple machine)

Partnership doesn’t have to mean merger. It can mean shared back-office systems, fintech collaborations, or joint community projects that expand reach without erasing identity.

The future of cooperative finance might look less like “big fish eats small fish” and more like “schools of fish swimming in coordinated patterns.” (And yes, some of those fish will have better mobile apps than others.)

  1. Relevance Before Reach

Before you try to grow, be worth growing. Members today — especially younger ones — care about whether their financial institution reflects their values.

If your credit union’s last community post was a check presentation in 2018, you might have a relevance problem. Organic growth flows naturally from authenticity: people join and stay where they feel understood, not where they’re sent a quarterly postcard.

Boards: The Gatekeepers of Growth Strategy

Here’s the tricky part — this isn’t a CEO problem alone. Boards often unconsciously reinforce merger dependency. Why? Because mergers feel strategic — they check the “action taken” box.

But true strategic leadership asks harder questions:

  • What do we offer that members can’t get elsewhere?
  • How are we measuring member engagement and satisfaction, not just balance sheet growth?
  • If we weren’t allowed to merge for five years, how would we grow?

That last one is the killer question. It forces creativity, relevance, and discipline. It also reveals whether your credit union has a living strategy or just a growth habit.

When Identity Becomes a Footnote

Mergers change more than logos. They change purpose. When your credit union merges, what happens to your origin story? Your local legacy? The member who remembers when the teller knew their dog’s name?

Those intangible assets are part of your capital base, too — just not in a Call Report cell. And once they’re gone, they’re gone.

This doesn’t mean every merger is bad. Some are necessary and even noble. But the problem arises when boards stop asking the “why” and focus only on the “how fast.”

Because once your identity is gone, growth becomes just arithmetic. And arithmetic is not a mission.

Signs Your Board Might Have Merger Tunnel Vision

  • Every strategic discussion eventually ends with “maybe we should merge.”
  • Your marketing budget is smaller than your merger legal fees.
  • You call it “scale” but secretly mean “retirement plan for the CEO.”
  • The board hasn’t discussed organic member growth in three fiscal years.

If any of these sound familiar, it’s time for a governance intervention.

The Organic Growth Mindset

Reclaiming organic growth doesn’t require a radical overhaul — just a shift in perspective:

  • Growth isn’t a transaction. It’s a relationship.
  • Bigger isn’t safer if it makes you forget who you are.
  • Strategy means deciding what not to chase.
  • Relevance is renewable — if you pay attention.

Boards that embrace this mindset will not only survive but thrive, because they’ll be steering institutions that members actually want to belong to.

Final Thought: The Return of Cooperative Courage

The credit union movement was born from local people solving local problems — together. No one merged their way into that success.

So before your next “strategic partnership exploration committee” meeting, ask yourselves: Are we still in the business of cooperation, or have we quietly pivoted to consolidation?

Because organic growth isn’t dead. It’s just waiting for its board to remember what it looks like.

And spoiler alert: it looks a lot like courage.

 

Strategic Scenario Planning in Uncertain Times: Because Nostradamus Retired Early

/0 Comments/in /by

If you’re serving on a credit union board, congratulations. You’re a volunteer who willingly signed up to guide an institution in a world that looks like a badly written dystopian novel. Pandemics, inflation, talent shortages, tech disruption, AI deciding it wants your job—these are the plot twists. And, spoiler alert, you don’t get to close the book and walk away.

That’s why “strategic scenario planning” has become the new hot buzzword in board governance circles. Don’t worry: this isn’t another corporate fad, like “synergizing our holistic mindfulness KPIs.” Scenario planning is simply what happens when you admit you don’t actually know what the future holds (and yes, your strategic plan still pretends otherwise). It’s about creating structured “what ifs” so that when life happens—and it will—you’re not left blinking into the boardroom’s fluorescent lights saying, “Well, nobody could’ve seen this coming.”

Let’s break this down for the credit union world, with equal parts practicality and deadpan honesty.

Why Scenario Planning Exists (a.k.a. Reality Hurts)

Boards love certainty. You want to know the capital ratio target, the branch count, the CEO’s bonus structure. Certainty is neat and tidy. Unfortunately, the economy, your members, and the regulators didn’t read your neat little plan.

Consider recent history:

  • The pandemic. Everyone’s “five-year growth strategy” didn’t include “shutting down branches, scrambling for PPP loans, and buying webcams by the pallet.”
  • Inflation and interest rates. Those 30-year fixed mortgages you thought were your golden ticket? Suddenly members aren’t so eager to borrow when the rate is north of “ouch.”
  • Technology. Remember when mobile deposit was cutting-edge? Now your members want real-time everything. And if you don’t have it, they’ll gladly let a fintech handle their money while you argue about whether the minutes were approved correctly.

Scenario planning doesn’t pretend to predict the future—it just forces you to admit you’re not in control and to make a menu of reasonable responses. That humility is your new superpower.

The Basic Ingredients of Scenario Planning

Think of it like cooking, except the dish is “your credit union’s survival.”

  1. Pick the Critical Variables

What are the three to five forces most likely to mess with your strategic plan? For credit unions, these might include:

  • Interest rate volatility
  • Technology disruption (a.k.a. fintechs eating your lunch)
  • Talent shortages
  • Regulatory shifts (new compliance acronyms you haven’t even met yet)
  • Member behavior (spoiler: they’re fickle)
  1. Develop the “What If” Scenarios

These are not “wild fantasies” like winning the lottery. These are grounded, plausible futures. Example:

  • Best case: Rates stabilize, members return to borrowing, and your fintech investments pay off.
  • Middle case: Growth is flat, but manageable. You scrape by.
  • Worst case: Rates keep swinging, the regulator drops new capital requirements, and members defect because your mobile app looks like it was designed in 2009.
  1. Play Out the Implications

For each scenario, ask:

  • What happens to our balance sheet?
  • How does this impact member service?
  • Which sacred cows do we need to barbecue?
  1. Decide on Triggers

Scenario planning is only useful if you know when to pivot. Agree on what signs will tell you, “Yep, we’re in Scenario B now. Time to adjust.”

  1. Create Contingency Plays

Write down—in advance—the actions you’ll take. This is critical, because when things get ugly, boards tend to freeze. (It’s not personal; humans are just wired that way. Ask any deer in headlights.)

Example: Interest Rates Gone Wild

Let’s take an issue boards love to obsess over: interest rates.

  • Scenario A: Rates stabilize at moderate levels. Great, your ALM reports look less like a heart monitor. You can focus on growth.
  • Scenario B: Rates drop significantly. Good luck managing margin compression. Members refinance everything, your loan income shrinks, and you’re suddenly “creatively rethinking” your expense structure.
  • Scenario C: Rates climb higher than your blood pressure. Lending slows, members hoard deposits, and your branch staff gets daily questions like, “Why does my HELOC cost as much as a Tesla lease?”

With each scenario, you should have pre-agreed strategies. Otherwise, the conversation just goes in circles: “Should we cut expenses?” “Should we merge?” “Should we wait and see?” And by the time you’ve “waited and seen,” the opportunity window has closed.

Common Mistakes Boards Make in Scenario Planning

Let’s be honest: your board may already be doing scenario planning… poorly. Here’s how it usually goes off the rails:

 

  1. Confusing Wishful Thinking with Planning. Saying “the economy will probably bounce back by Q3” is not a plan. It’s optimism wearing a suit.
  2. Too Many Scenarios. Ten different futures? Forget it. You’ll drown in possibilities. Stick to three or four that actually matter.
  3. Treating it Like a One-Time Exercise. Scenario planning isn’t something you do once a year at the board retreat in a hotel conference room with stale muffins. It needs to be refreshed regularly.
  4. Failing to Link to Action. If your plan doesn’t identify specific triggers and responses, you’ve just written a choose-your-own-adventure novel.

Why This Matters for Credit Union Boards

So, here’s the punchline: scenario planning isn’t about accuracy, it’s about agility.

Your members don’t care that you “correctly” predicted the future. They care that you respond quickly and thoughtfully to whatever the world throws at them. If you’re nimble, you can turn uncertainty into opportunity:

  • Members anxious about rates? Provide education and reassurance before they defect to Google Bank.
  • Fintech competitors circling? Partner with them before they eat your lunch.
  • Staff stretched thin? Build contingency plans that prioritize member experience over vanity projects.

Boards that embrace scenario planning position themselves as strategic assets rather than ceremonial rubber stamps. And let’s face it: if you wanted to be ceremonial, you could’ve joined the local Rotary Club.

Final Thoughts: Embrace Your Inner Control Freak (But Be Flexible)

Credit union boards are not Nostradamus. You’re not here to predict the future with eerie accuracy. You’re here to prepare your institution so that no matter what happens, you don’t get blindsided into irrelevance.

So, do the unglamorous work:

  • Pick the big variables.
  • Sketch the futures.
  • Decide on triggers.
  • Practice making decisions in advance.

Because when the next big disruption arrives (and it will), you want your board to say, “We planned for this. Let’s execute.” Instead of, “Well, nobody could’ve seen this coming.”

And if nothing else, scenario planning at least makes board meetings more interesting than rehashing the treasurer’s report. Which, admit it, is a limbo-level, low bar.

 

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Hidden Perils of Capital Hoarding

/4 Comments/in /by

 by That One Consultant You Hired and Then Ignored

If you’re a board member at a credit union, chances are you’ve said it. Maybe in a hushed boardroom voice, maybe with great conviction over lunch, maybe carved into stone tablets. It goes something like this:

“You can never have too much capital.”

Cue the heavenly choir and the flutter of regulatory examiners descending on clouds of GAAP. Capital, after all, is safety. Capital is security. Capital is your warm, fuzzy blanket on a cold night of economic uncertainty.

Except—and please, clutch your pearls tightly here—you can have too much of it. Yes, really. And when you do, it’s not just inefficient. It’s strategically dangerous.

Let’s talk about it, shall we?

Capital: From Safety Net to Strategic Straitjacket

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way. Capital is good. Regulatory capital is essential. You need it. The NCUA says so, and if the NCUA says jump, most credit unions are halfway to orbit before they ask how high.

But capital is a tool, not a trophy. When your capital ratio drifts into the teens—13%, 14%, 15% and beyond—you’re not just safe. You’re overdressed for the occasion.

Imagine showing up to a beach party in full medieval armor. That’s what it’s like running a 15% capital ratio in today’s credit union market. Impressive? Sure. But also a bit ridiculous, and not particularly helpful when it’s time to swim—or compete, innovate, or grow.

The Law of Diminishing Return on Paranoia

Many boards live by a simple mantra: More capital equals more safety. It’s neat. It’s easy. It’s… mathematically adorable.

But here’s the truth: every extra dollar of capital that sits unleveraged on your balance sheet is a member dollar not working, not producing value, not returning benefit.

Imagine telling your members, “We’ve taken your money, and we’re keeping it locked away in a vault, doing nothing, because someday the sky might fall. And if it doesn’t? Well, at least we felt warm and fuzzy.”

Not exactly the value proposition credit unions are known for.

And if your board’s idea of risk management is “hoard capital like it’s 2008 and Ben Bernanke just texted ‘brace yourself,’” then you’ve essentially traded strategic growth for a very expensive security blanket.

The Zombie Apocalypse That Never Comes

Let’s address the Doomsday scenario. Boards often justify massive capital buffers by invoking a theoretical calamity so devastating, it would make Mad Max look like a family picnic.

“We need to be ready for the worst-case scenario.”

Great. Let’s play that out.

Say a 500-basis-point rate shock, a recession, a Martian invasion, and a Nickelback reunion tour all hit at once. Terrifying? Yes. But unless your balance sheet is made entirely of subprime balloon loans and vibes, the odds of such a cataclysm wiping out your 10% capital buffer and then some are vanishingly low.

And even if it did, your regulator is unlikely to high-five you for sitting on a 15% buffer when 12% would have sufficed and the other 3% could have been used to actually serve members. You don’t get a trophy for hoarding potential.

“But the Regulators Like It!”

Sure. And your dentist likes it when you floss twice a day. Doesn’t mean it’s a viable identity.

Yes, regulators appreciate strong capital. But they also value operational effectiveness, loan growth, membership value, and risk-informed decision-making. They don’t want to see you building capital castles while the market passes you by.

Running a credit union solely to appease your examiner is like designing a car for your mechanic. Sure, they’ll love the engine access, but no one’s going to buy the thing.

Strategic Growth: Now Hiring Capital

Let’s talk opportunity cost.

Every dollar that sits in capital at a 14% ratio (when 10% would suffice) is a dollar not deployed into strategic initiatives. That’s a new loan program not launched, a branch not modernized, a digital upgrade not implemented, or a member segment not served.

You are, quite literally, overcapitalized and underutilized. That’s not caution—it’s stagnation dressed up as virtue.

And CEOs? If your board is holding you hostage with ultra-conservative capital policies, congratulations: you’ve been promoted to Chief Preservation Officer. Your job is to sit on a pile of money and politely decline to use it.

Spoiler alert: That’s not strategy. That’s surrender.

The PR Problem You Didn’t Know You Had

There’s also a branding problem with excessive capital. If word gets out (and it does—NCUA Call Reports are public, remember?), members, vendors, and yes, even regulators may start wondering:

Why is this credit union sitting on 15% capital when their peers are doing just fine with 10%?

Is it inefficiency? Fear? A pathological aversion to lending?

Whatever the case, the story isn’t flattering.

So, What Should a Board Do?

Ah, finally, solutions. You were getting anxious, weren’t you?

  1. Set a Capital Target, Not a Capital Shrine.

    Create a realistic, risk-informed capital target based on actual scenario modeling. Not vibes. Not trauma from the Great Recession.

  2. Regularly Reassess the Capital Buffer.

    If you’ve had 300+ basis points of excess capital for five years running, that’s not a buffer—that’s a moat. And you’re the dragon asleep in the middle.

  3. Tie Capital Deployment to Strategy.

    Capital should be the fuel for your mission, not a museum piece. Use it. Lend it. Invest it. Innovate with it.

  4. Educate the Board—Yes, Again.

    A board stuck in the “more is better” loop may need a refresher on how capital, risk, and growth actually interact. Spoiler alert: hoarding isn’t growth.

Closing Thoughts from Your Favorite Snarky Consultant

Let’s be clear: no one’s asking you to gamble with your capital. But don’t confuse risk management with strategic paralysis. The real danger isn’t the next economic downturn—it’s the slow erosion of relevance while your capital ratio quietly creeps toward 16% and your members quietly wonder why nothing ever changes.

So be brave. Be strategic. Be willing to sweat a little. And for the love of all that is cooperative and not-for-profit, stop worshipping at the altar of excessive capital.

Because in the end, the goal isn’t to die the richest credit union in the graveyard.

It’s to live boldly enough that your members actually notice.

Plans from Which We Deviate: The Joys of Strategic Planning for Credit Unions

/2 Comments/in /by

By Kevin Smith

“Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man who knew a thing or two about logistics, once made this insightful remark about planning. Since his time, the philosophy of planning has evolved, giving us NASA’s Dr. Laura Gallaher’s version: “Plans from which we deviate.” If that isn’t the most honest and depressingly accurate description of strategic planning, I don’t know what is.

Dr. Laura Gallaher

Dr. Laura Gallaher

For credit unions, strategic planning is not just a fun corporate retreat where executives pretend to be excited about PowerPoint slides. It’s an annual exercise in educated guesswork, wishful thinking, and attempting to predict the future with the accuracy of a weather forecast in the middle of hurricane season. The real value of planning, as Dr. Gallaher puts it, is not the document itself, but the process of thinking through how to react when reality inevitably ignores our best-laid plans.

The Art of Predicting the Unpredictable

Strategic planning is often presented as a structured and rational process, but let’s be real: it’s an exercise in educated fortune-telling. Credit unions operate in a world where economic shifts, regulatory changes, technological advancements, and the ever-evolving expectations of members make long-term planning feel like building a sandcastle at high tide.

Consider the many external factors credit unions must navigate:

  • Economic downturns: Because nothing says “stable financial future” like an unpredictable market.

  • Regulatory changes: Just when you think you understand the rules, a new compliance update appears like an unwanted sequel to a bad movie.

  • Technology disruptions: Fintech startups and AI-powered everything are here to remind you that whatever system you’re using is probably already outdated.

  • Member expectations: People want convenience, security, personal service, and cutting-edge tech—all at the same time, immediately, and preferably for free.

Given these moving targets, it’s no wonder that strategic plans are more useful as artifacts of optimism rather than actionable roadmaps.

The Illusion of Control

One of the great myths of strategic planning is that it gives leaders a sense of control. You can map out all the goals, objectives, and key performance indicators you want, but at some point, reality will step in and say, “That’s cute.”

It’s much like plotting a cross-country road trip with detailed stops and scheduled breaks, only to find that half the roads are under construction, your GPS reroutes you through a cow pasture, and your car develops an unexplained rattling noise somewhere in Kansas.

At best, a strategic plan gives you a general sense of direction—like a compass in a storm. It helps credit unions establish priorities, allocate resources, and identify potential risks. At worst, it’s a highly polished document that will be revisited in a year just to confirm how wrong everyone was.

The Real Benefit: Learning to Adapt

Dr. Gallaher’s take—that planning is about preparing for deviation rather than rigidly following an agenda—is probably the most useful way to think about strategic planning. The real benefit isn’t in the plan itself but in the discussions, debates, and critical thinking that happen during the process.

Strategic planning forces leadership teams to ask important questions:

  • What will we do if interest rates rise/fall/stay the same but somehow still ruin everything?

  • How do we attract younger members who think a credit union is either a dance club or a medieval trade guild?

  • What happens if our core banking system decides to take an unscheduled vacation?

  • How do we balance personalized member service with the fact that nobody wants to talk to a human anymore?

These conversations are where the real value lies. When (not if) the unexpected happens, a credit union that has engaged in rigorous planning is better equipped to pivot rather than panic.

Embracing the Chaos

So, if strategic planning is essentially about preparing to abandon the plan, does that mean we should stop doing it? Of course not. That would be like saying you shouldn’t wear a seatbelt because you might never get into an accident.

The process of strategic planning fosters collaboration, highlights blind spots, and builds a culture of adaptability. It helps leaders anticipate challenges, even if they can’t predict the exact form those challenges will take.

Credit unions that embrace this reality—those that treat their strategic plans as living, flexible frameworks rather than sacred texts—are the ones that thrive. The key is to plan with the understanding that deviations are not failures; they’re just part of the journey.

Planning as a Necessary Illusion

Eisenhower was right—plans may be useless, but planning is indispensable. And if strategic planning for credit unions has taught us anything, it’s that success lies not in rigid adherence to a document but in the ability to adapt, respond, and move forward even when the best-laid plans go sideways.

So, go ahead and create that beautiful, color-coded, data-backed strategic plan. Just don’t be surprised when reality turns it into a “Plan from which we deviate.” After all, that’s the plan all along.

Dedicated to YOUR Success . . .

Join our Newsletter

Sign up now to receive Tim’s blog, our newsletter and occasional updates.

Sign Up Now

The TR Blog

Contact Us

TEAM Resources
2665 N. Indian Ridge Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85715
Phone: 520.290.5721

Email Us

Return Info

© Copyright 2022 - Site design by Sprout Studio in Madison, WI