What is a SOAR Analysis?

SOAR analysis is a strengths-based strategic planning framework that examines an organization's Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results. Developed in 2003 by Jacqueline Stavros with David Cooperrider and D. Lynn Kelley, it applies appreciative inquiry to strategic planning, replacing the deficit focus of SWOT with a future-oriented, outcomes-driven conversation.

TL;DR

Strengths-first framework: SOAR swaps SWOT's weaknesses and threats for aspirations and measurable results.
Built on appreciative inquiry: Stavros, Cooperrider, and Kelley formalized SOAR in 2003 as a positive-psychology alternative to deficit-based planning.
Best for vision-setting cycles: Use it when the goal is to mobilize energy around a future state, not to triage operational risk.
Watch the blind-spot trap: Pair it with risk reviews when the cost of missing a threat is high.

Definition: SOAR Analysis is a strategic planning tool used by organizations to focus on their strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results, aiming to create a positive outlook for future developments.

How SOAR turns appreciative inquiry into a planning method

SOAR translates Cooperrider's appreciative inquiry into a four-step planning conversation. Where appreciative inquiry asks "what gives life to this organization at its best?", SOAR makes that inquiry actionable by tying it to opportunities the team can pursue, aspirations the team will commit to, and results the team will measure.

The framework assumes that organizations grow in the direction of what they study, so studying strengths and aspirations is itself a strategic act.

SOAR is usually run as a facilitated workshop with cross-functional stakeholders. The facilitator opens with generative questions ("describe a time when this team performed at its peak"), then maps the responses into the four SOAR categories before converting them into commitments and key results.

The four components of SOAR

SOAR stands for:

Strengths. What the organization does best, including its distinctive capabilities, assets, and cultural advantages.
Opportunities. External possibilities the organization can act on, such as market shifts, emerging technologies, and partnership openings.
Aspirations. The future state the organization wants to create, expressed as a shared vision the team is willing to commit to.
Results. The measurable outcomes that will signal the aspirations have been achieved, typically expressed as KPIs or key results.

The first two letters (S and O) overlap with SWOT, which makes SOAR easy to adopt for teams already familiar with traditional planning. The shift happens in the second half: aspirations replace weaknesses, and results replace threats.

SOAR vs SWOT: when to use which

SWOT and SOAR are both 2x2 strategy frameworks, but they ask different questions of the team. SWOT scans the environment for risk; SOAR mobilizes the team around a future state. The table below maps the trade-offs.

Dimension	SOAR Analysis	SWOT Analysis
Origin	Stavros, Cooperrider, Kelley (2003)	Albert Humphrey, Stanford Research Institute (1960s)
Foundation	Appreciative inquiry, positive psychology	Gap analysis, problem identification
Internal focus	Strengths only	Strengths and Weaknesses
External focus	Opportunities only	Opportunities and Threats
Forward element	Aspirations and Results	None built in
Conversation tone	Generative, vision-led	Diagnostic, risk-led
Best for	Vision setting, culture change, early-stage strategy	Competitive analysis, risk-heavy industries, due diligence
Risk if used alone	Missed threats and unaddressed weaknesses	Defensive culture, deficit framing

A common pattern is to run SOAR first to set the direction, then run a focused SWOT or pre-mortem on the top one or two aspirations to surface the threats SOAR doesn't ask about.

SOAR was designed to give strategy a generative voice. When teams start with what they do best and what they aspire to become, the conversation shifts from defending the past to building the future.

― Jacqueline Stavros, Co-Creator of SOAR and Professor, Lawrence Technological University

Running a SOAR workshop in five steps

Preparation. Assemble a cross-functional group that represents every layer affected by the strategy. Diversity of role and tenure matters more than seniority at this stage.
Strengths inquiry. Use generative prompts ("tell me about a moment when we were at our best") to surface strengths through stories rather than self-assessment scores.
Opportunities mapping. Scan the external environment for market, technology, and partnership openings the team's strengths can capitalize on.
Aspirations definition. Co-create a shared statement of where the team wants to be in 3 to 5 years. Keep it concrete enough to test against, ambitious enough to mobilize energy.
Results commitment. Translate aspirations into 3 to 5 measurable results per aspiration, then assign owners and review cadence. This is where SOAR connects to operational systems like OKRs and KPIs.

Where SOAR rollouts typically break

SOAR's optimism is its greatest asset and its most predictable failure mode. Three patterns recur:

The first is the blind-spot trap. By skipping weaknesses and threats, SOAR can produce a strategy that looks energizing on the whiteboard but ignores a structural risk the team did not want to discuss.

The fix is to pair SOAR with a separate pre-mortem or risk review on the top aspirations.

The second is aspiration drift. When aspirations are not tied to specific, measurable results, they tend to be reused as motivational language rather than as strategic commitments. The results column exists precisely to prevent this; treat empty results cells as a red flag.

The third is performative positivity. SOAR works because it surfaces what the team genuinely believes; it fails when it becomes a forced exercise in optimism. If participants describe the workshop afterward as "the meeting where we couldn't say what was broken", the framework has been misapplied.

Research published by Harvard Business Review shows that roughly 70% of strategy implementations fail to deliver their intended results (HBR, 2022), and the failures cluster around execution rather than the framework itself.

SOAR survives this by forcing a results column at the end of every workshop, but only if facilitators hold the line on measurability.

When to use SOAR (and when to reach for something else)

Use SOAR when:

The team is setting a fresh long-term vision and needs to mobilize energy around it.
Culture change or trust rebuilding is part of the strategic objective.
The previous planning cycle felt defensive or deficit-led.
You want to involve a wide group of employees in shaping the direction.

Reach for SWOT, a pre-mortem, or a PESTLE analysis when:

The industry is in crisis or facing a known existential threat.
Due diligence, board reporting, or M&A analysis is the use case.
The dominant risks are external and the cost of missing them is high.

Many high-performing strategy teams run SOAR for the vision phase and a structured risk review for the execution phase. The two frameworks are complements, not substitutes.

Who created SOAR analysis?

SOAR was introduced in 2003 by Jacqueline Stavros, with contributions from David Cooperrider (the originator of appreciative inquiry) and D. Lynn Kelley. Stavros developed the framework while at Lawrence Technological University as an alternative to SWOT's deficit framing.

How is SOAR different from SWOT?

SOAR replaces SWOT's Weaknesses and Threats with Aspirations and Results. SWOT is diagnostic and risk-focused; SOAR is generative and outcomes-focused. The two share the Strengths and Opportunities quadrants.

Is SOAR analysis better than SWOT?

Neither is universally better. SOAR is the stronger fit for vision setting, culture change, and early-stage strategy. SWOT is the stronger fit for risk-heavy industries, competitive analysis, and due diligence. Many teams use both in sequence.

How long does a SOAR workshop take?

A facilitated SOAR workshop typically runs 3 to 6 hours for a single team and 1 to 2 days for an organization-wide cycle. The Results step is the most time-intensive because it converts aspirations into measurable commitments.

Can SOAR be used with OKRs?

Yes. SOAR's Aspirations map cleanly to OKR Objectives, and SOAR's Results map to Key Results. Many organizations use SOAR to set the annual direction and OKRs to operationalize it quarter by quarter.

What are the main limitations of SOAR analysis?

SOAR can produce strategies that ignore weaknesses and external threats, leading to blind spots. It also depends on honest participation; if the workshop becomes performative optimism, the resulting strategy will not hold up under pressure.

Using SOAR in your strategy execution cycle

SOAR delivers the most value when it is not treated as a standalone exercise. Run it at the start of an annual or multi-year planning cycle to set the direction, then translate the Results column into OKRs, KPIs, or strategic goals that feed your quarterly review cadence.

Pair it with a separate risk review before locking the strategy, and revisit the Aspirations whenever the external environment shifts. Used this way, SOAR is less a one-off framework and more a recurring conversation about what the organization is becoming.