Over the last few decades, philanthropy and other sectors of the progressive movement have made an enormous leap forward in setting dramatically more ambitious goals. It was not so long ago that few foundations or community organizations would have been focused on eradicating structural racism and narrowing economic inequality, but today, those and similar goals animate broad swathes of the movement (however long-term the aspiration may be).

Having struggled with these goals for six decades, I have come to understand that the most pressing question has to do with strategy: How to get from here to there? A three-year plan might suffice for more modest objectives, but what is needed to achieve the transformational goals we have for addressing poverty, racism, and inequity?

The term “strategy” has a multiplicity of meanings and a considerable literature. Movement leaders have much to learn from strategic thinkers in other fields. In this article, I want to consider the ways in which military strategy can provide guidance for the task ahead.

For one thing, a key aspect of military strategy is engagement with an enemy, an extreme oppositional force. This is important: Structural racism and economic inequality are not only deeply embedded in our society, but powerful, system-level political, economic, and social institutions work to keep it that way. Because of this active and powerful opposition to change, the challenge of achieving a complex, system-level goal in the face of powerful opposition is uniquely well served by military strategy, rather than business or campaign strategies.

For example, power analysis—of the opposition, our forces, and the overall context—is an integral part of military strategic thinking, yet macro and ecosystem-level power analysis is often absent in the organizational strategizing and planning of progressive philanthropy and allies. But without an analysis of conservative power, progressives are left with overly optimistic assumptions (or, worse, they implicitly ignore the opposition and operate with willful ignorance of the full terrain).

Read the full article about strategic movement building by Richard Healey at Stanford Social Innovation Review.