How to respond to the following.

In its ideal form, strategic planning serves as a blueprint for stakeholders across an organization to drive the organization to new heights of achievement. The usual (and frequent) arguments against strategic planning are that it takes too much time, money, and results in too little action. Lack of leadership. The plan will not succeed if it is not endorsed by the departmental, programmatic, or organizational leaders. This idea may seem apparent, but all too frequently, leaders will stress the value of a strategic plan as the planning process gets began, only to lose interest later on. I'm thinking of a senior administrator who appeared exactly three times, for about 15 minutes each time, over a period of one year to express to his strategic planning task force how important their work was to the institution. At virtually every other gathering associated with the process, he sent an emissary to convey the importance of the strategic plan. Do you suppose those task force members viewed the process as extremely important?How do leaders contribute to the success of the plan? They are present and engaged at the right times with the right people. Most important is their ongoing leadership responsibility: they think strategically. Strategic thinking is guided by vision, mission, and values. Strategic thinking and consequent action aligned with a clear vision of the future are an antidote to the inevitable environmental changes that undermine the details of strategic plans. Strategic thinking is ultimately about staying the course over time, in spite of detours caused by unforeseen circumstances.