Introduction

What is Strategy?

The role of the XRUK strategy is to unify the movement under a common purpose that will take us closer to achieving our primary goal: the three demands. It aims to be a guiding light in which rebels can find the information needed to employ their own knowledge, creativity, and passion to deliver a diverse, decentralised, but coordinated rebellion.

For a more detailed definition of strategy and how it differs from tactics please check out Our Shared Vocabulary.


Designing this Process

In designing this process, the Strategy Stewardship Team (SST) has used convergent facilitation to identify what the movement needs from a strategy process. SST has gathered learnings from the last strategy process and brought together The Hive, UKSupport (including Operations, CoLiberation, and the Justice Steering Group) to hear proposals on the ideal make-up of the strategy assembly.

The XRUK Strategy Review Process is intended to act as a ‘good enough’ starting point. It has been designed to be a more ‘always-on’, flexible, representative, and responsive process than we’ve had in the past. But it is only a starting point.

As the UK Strategy Assembly (UKSA) and Strategy Development Team (SDT) engage with this process over time, they will learn, adapt, and re-shape things as necessary. Nothing is fixed. There is no single ‘right way’ to do things. The only certainty is the need for the movement to constantly evolve the way it approaches strategy if it is to remain effective in a rapidly changing world.


Some of the tensions addressed in this process:

In collecting feedback from the movement on the 2020 strategy and the process by which it came together some of the tensions below were identified. This new strategy process looks to address each of these.

  • Strategy development is not transparent and inclusive enough, leading to strategies that don’t meet the needs of the whole movement.

  • No consistent, systematic use of movement feedback and other data sources, leading to a disputable evidence-base and limited use of the movement’s insights.

  • Iteration time for strategy development is too long - leading to out-of-date strategies not in tune with the current political and social context.

  • No mechanism for rapid strategic responses, leading to a lack of orientation for the movement in times of crisis and uncertainty.

  • Strategy process not integrated into the SOS, leading to a lack of legitimacy, too little attention, and susceptibility to representational bias.

  • Responsibilities for facilitation of the process and for its outcomes were not separated - leading to a lack of accountability and incentives for blame-shifting.

  • No continuity in the work on the actual strategy content, leading to a loss of knowledge and disconnected strategic approaches.

  • No systematic external input, leading to a lack of expertise and failure to compensate for confirmation bias.