As long as you have enough power over people, you can harness them for strategies that they didn't develop themselves, that don't suit them, and that lead to results they don't approve of. It's like a chess game. Someone thinks and moves his pieces around the board. If today entrepreneurs are upset that people behave like wooden pieces, don't think for themselves and don't show any initiative, then it amay have something to do with the fact that these people have been standing around on a chessboard for too long. What can be done about it? If you look closely enough, you wonder who is still a player at all among all those pieces. And there is another problem. In a game that is becoming more and more complex and diverse, the isolated strategists no longer have a sufficient overview of the situation to be able to build a central control that works. So a new form of strategy is needed that integrates the intelligence of the entire team or community.

There are not an excessive number of people in a group who have strategic talent. One might argue that, in principle, anyone who can tell white from black can play chess. To this one may remark that, of course, just about anyone can lose at chess. However, to win at an appealing level requires a suitably gifted, trained and informed mind that is comfortable in the abstract strategic realms. Incidentally, this is exactly how it is with the visionaries of a society. These people should be identified and then used for visioning and strategic planning. If a team now wants to steer itself with NVC-plus against this background, the question arises whether this is not a contradiction. Self- direction and following a strategy developed by someone else. To resolve this paradox, we have developed the NVC-plus strategy.

The NVC-plus strategy is intended to bring together the capabilities of all in an integrative manner. At the same time, however, everyone is to retain their freedom of decision without deviating from the course of the common vision. We do this? Simple. The NVC-plus strategy consists only of questions, or more precisely, a concentric context of questions. In the center is the central question to be answered by everyone's actions. e.g. a few people start a new educational institute. What is the central strategic question of this institute? Perhaps the strategists start with, "What does the education of the future look like?" Then the strategists consider that play and learning are related, and they ask the next level question, "How do we make education/teaching the most fun?" Also, "How do we measure progress?" After that comes the next level. There, a question can be, "How does play and learning connect?" and "What existing games do we want to use and how?" etc.

There are as few questions as possible and these are laid out in an order. The constant work is now to optimize this strategy plan, especially to improve the questions, possibly to move them to other levels and to add missing questions. The strategists are helped in this by feedback from the field. In the end, you have a very small strategic question context that is provided to the practitioners and executors. As long as the staff provide good "answers" to the questions with their actions, they will always act within the strategy without anyone pushing anything on them. You therefore have guidance without any loss of freedom.