Catchball in strategy deployment is a two-way dialogue that tests and refines proposed goals, actions and resource commitments. Senior leaders describe the intended direction; the people closer to the work respond with evidence about feasibility and dependencies. The plan is refined rather than simply passed down for acceptance.
The Lean Enterprise Institute's strategy deployment definition describes dialogue between management and project teams to match desirable work with available resources. This resource offers illustrative questions for one priority, not a complete hoshin kanri implementation or a promise that discussion alone resolves every conflict.
Start with a proposal people can examine
State the intended outcome, why it matters, the time horizon and the boundary of the proposed work. Explain what is fixed and what is open to challenge. People cannot contribute usefully if they are invited to improve a target that has already been presented as non-negotiable in every detail.
Separate the outcome from the proposed method. Reducing a recurring delay is an outcome; introducing a particular software tool is one possible method. Keeping that distinction visible lets teams raise a better way to address the work without appearing to reject the objective.
Questions about the receiving team's interpretation
Ask the team to describe the priority in its own language and identify the decisions that would change. Which customers or receiving teams would see a difference? What should remain unchanged? What existing work might conflict with the proposal?
Compare interpretations before requesting commitments. If one team hears faster turnaround and another hears lower cost, they may make incompatible choices while believing they accepted the same goal. Alignment Drives Speed explains why shared direction matters; catchball makes the interpretation available for examination.
Questions about capacity and required support
Ask what effort, skills, information and authority the work requires. What must stop, reduce or wait to create the capacity? Which resources are available now, and which are assumptions? Who can authorize a trade-off between this priority and existing commitments?
Distinguish a resource request from reluctance. A team that identifies a capacity limit may be making the plan more credible. Conversely, a proposed resource demand should be supported with evidence rather than treated as automatically correct. The dialogue tests both the goal and the proposed means.
Questions about dependencies between teams
Identify the inputs each team needs and the outputs it owes others. Ask who accepts each transfer, what makes it usable and when it is required. Bring the supplying and receiving teams into the discussion rather than letting one side promise another side's capacity.
In a hypothetical improvement, operations plans an earlier customer response while another function supplies a necessary confirmation. If the confirmation timing cannot change, the proposed response target needs adjustment or a different process. The useful finding is the dependency, not which department wins the argument.
Questions about ownership and unresolved decisions
Name the leader authorized to approve the final direction and the owner of each proposed action. Determine how unresolved factual questions will be investigated and how competing priorities will be decided. Catchball is not endless consensus-seeking or a way to make teams negotiate authority they do not have.
The middle-manager development plan examines the interface between senior priorities, peers and frontline work. A manager can help translate the proposal and surface the constraints, while senior leadership retains responsibility for its own trade-offs.
Capture the response as a revised agreement
Record the original proposal, evidence raised, change made and remaining uncertainty. A revised agreement should show which resources are committed, what assumptions need testing and where the authorized owner made a decision. Merely collecting suggestions does not show how they influenced the plan.
A copyable response format is: We understand the intended outcome as [outcome]. We can contribute [work] under [conditions]. We need [input or decision]. The main conflict is [competing commitment]. Our proposed adjustment is [change], supported by [evidence]. The unresolved question is [question and owner].
Return to the agreement after work begins
Review an actual decision or result after teams have had an opportunity to act. Ask whether the capacity assumption held, whether the receiving team got what it needed and which trade-off remains unclear. Refine the plan using those observations rather than defend it because it was approved.
If the same disagreements return across priorities, review how the leadership system works or discuss the situation with Shannon. Catchball is useful when the dialogue changes the quality of the commitment—not when it adds another presentation between planning and execution.
About this resource: Prepared with AI-assisted drafting from published guidance. Examples are illustrative, not reported client results. Cover illustration: AI-generated.