The confusion over “strategy” has two sources. First, the word in everyday use can legitimately be used to mean rather different things in different contexts: for example, in the same news bulletin we can hear about “the government’s new healthcare strategy...” and “Arsenal’s strategy of playing 4-4-2…” and be comfortable with both uses whilst recognising that they don’t quite have the same sense.
Henry Mintzberg has distinguished 5 different definitions of strategy in this vein, conveniently all beginning with P – for example, a strategy can be a detailed, prepared plan, but also an opportunistic ploy, i.e. a feint or manoeuvre. Even if not pre-determined, we can call any series of moves, which ex-post add up to a distinguishable pattern, a strategy; and we can also use the word to refer to a deliberate choice of position e.g. against competitors – think of both in the context of chess, a game renowned for the importance of strategy. Finally, the plans we hatch and the patterns our actions make often stem from our fundamental perspective on the world – Bobby Fischer’s strategies are perhaps a good case in point.
But the debate and disagreement over “the meaning of strategy” is not really at this level of subtle distinction. The second and more important reason behind the confusion over strategy is one of conceptual misunderstanding, reinforced at times by wilful obfuscation.
There is a real danger that the concept is becoming so woolly that it begins to impact the actual development and execution of strategy in many companies. It is the failure on the part of many in business to recognise this danger that has, in my opinion, led to significant costs and in some cases complete business (and career) failures.
Strategy vs Vision, Mission, Purpose…
At the very least, we must be quite clear about what strategy is not – and what is not strategy. And we can start by placing strategy within the overall hierarchical lexicon of business, distinguishing it from mission, objectives, tactics et al.
Figure 1 below, taken from a recent survey of 300 members of the Strategic Planning Society, and quoted in the MCA report “An arc of certainty: From Strategy to Execution”, highlights the problem.
Even setting aside the 10% of cynics at the end, this shows a remarkable degree of confusion. 23% of respondents think strategy is “a high-level vision statement”. This is perhaps understandable when one reads countless annual reports from major companies with statements such as “Our strategy is to be the leading firm in the market…”
But if strategy means anything at all, it is a word that conveys “how to”, as opposed to “end-point”. As Mintzberg puts it: “To almost anyone you care to ask, strategy is a plan, some sort of consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or set of guidelines) to deal with a situation” (original italics).
Mintzberg goes on to play with the notion of how conscious, or elaborate, or pre-planned, or firm, these ‘plans’ might actually be in practice – but at no point should the word be allowed to slip over from its core sense of being about the means rather than the end.
For now, we can say that those companies in the survey who have a “high-level vision statement” – presumably, a description of how they’d like the world and their business to look in a few years time – do not necessarily have a strategy. Only if they have a clear idea of how they will achieve the vision, can they be said to have a strategy.
Let me be clear: I believe statements of vision or purpose or mission or intent – again, subtle differences in terminology, but in each case we are talking broadly of end-goals – are vital prerequisites of strategy (what is the point of a plan if you don’t know where you’re going?), but they should not be confused with strategy.
Yes, there are companies whose success has been traced primarily to the emphasis they place on developing a noble and inspiring Purpose to drive corporate activity. Such purpose statements provide an excellent context for developing strategies, but they do not on their own obviate the need for a strategy as well. Even the noblest goal doesn’t just achieve itself!
Strategy vs Tactics – the meaning of strategic
Perhaps even more important, and also more difficult, than disentangling strategy from vision/mission, is to draw the line at the other end of the hierarchy, to distinguish strategy from tactics or (to use the collective term often heard in business) operations. Here there is no clear distinction such as end vs. means. But now we have to appreciate the concept of strategic, for what really distinguishes strategy from tactics is the nature of the impact.
What is the most strategic decision you have faced – at work or at home – in the last 3 months? Just have a think for a minute and write an answer down.
When I ask this question on my strategic thinking workshops, typical answers are: how to enter a new market; should we move house; whether to change jobs; which IT provider to go with; which school should we choose for our child; should we outsource our design department or do it in-house…
I then note (as is invariably the case) that everyone has come up with a few examples and that no-one needed to ask me to define what I meant by “strategic”– the word is obviously readily understood in everyday life, let alone in business circles – before moving on to ask: what links all these very different decisions? What makes them all “strategic”?
For all the ease with which people list out their decisions, actually putting their finger on this link proves to be not quite so straightforward. But a few minutes discussion brings out that these “strategic” decisions all tend to be at least one of:
Taken together, these three qualities mean that strategic decisions tend to affect the whole (organisation, family, team) even if initially directed at just one part. They change the whole system.
I want to stress the first two points over the third, which tends to get mentioned most. Strategic decisions may involve billions of pounds and require a 10-year perspective, but often in fact appear minor in themselves, then have a huge impact in subtle ways. This introduces the notion of a tipping point, where a small nudge to a system just pushes it over the edge, resulting in radical change. Knowing where to nudge – at the core of a system, and when – at the critical moment – is the art of strategy…
We might then confirm these definitions by considering typical uses of the word in the media: a “strategically timed” wicket/goal/try – is one that has more impact than just any score, probably changing the whole match. Or think of a “strategically placed fig leaf” – a small item but at exactly the right place! And a strategic – cf. tactical – missile wins the whole war not just the battle. Figure 2 summarises these three key components of “strategic”.
So whilst the word “strategy” may have several subtly different nuances in different situations, it should always be broadly understood as the overall approach to achieving a goal. This may be an actual pre-determined plan of actions, but it may equally be just a set of broad guidelines, perhaps no more than an attitude. It may only be revealed ex-post, rather than fully intended ex-ante. But it will be more than just a list of to-dos. A strategy must be …strategic: it must describe measures that have a defining and/or transformational effect on the fundamentals of the whole organisation.
© Ken Whitton 2008
But the debate and disagreement over “the meaning of strategy” is not really at this level of subtle distinction. The second and more important reason behind the confusion over strategy is one of conceptual misunderstanding, reinforced at times by wilful obfuscation.
There is a real danger that the concept is becoming so woolly that it begins to impact the actual development and execution of strategy in many companies. It is the failure on the part of many in business to recognise this danger that has, in my opinion, led to significant costs and in some cases complete business (and career) failures.
Strategy vs Vision, Mission, Purpose…
At the very least, we must be quite clear about what strategy is not – and what is not strategy. And we can start by placing strategy within the overall hierarchical lexicon of business, distinguishing it from mission, objectives, tactics et al.
Figure 1 below, taken from a recent survey of 300 members of the Strategic Planning Society, and quoted in the MCA report “An arc of certainty: From Strategy to Execution”, highlights the problem.
Even setting aside the 10% of cynics at the end, this shows a remarkable degree of confusion. 23% of respondents think strategy is “a high-level vision statement”. This is perhaps understandable when one reads countless annual reports from major companies with statements such as “Our strategy is to be the leading firm in the market…”
But if strategy means anything at all, it is a word that conveys “how to”, as opposed to “end-point”. As Mintzberg puts it: “To almost anyone you care to ask, strategy is a plan, some sort of consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or set of guidelines) to deal with a situation” (original italics).
Mintzberg goes on to play with the notion of how conscious, or elaborate, or pre-planned, or firm, these ‘plans’ might actually be in practice – but at no point should the word be allowed to slip over from its core sense of being about the means rather than the end.
For now, we can say that those companies in the survey who have a “high-level vision statement” – presumably, a description of how they’d like the world and their business to look in a few years time – do not necessarily have a strategy. Only if they have a clear idea of how they will achieve the vision, can they be said to have a strategy.
Let me be clear: I believe statements of vision or purpose or mission or intent – again, subtle differences in terminology, but in each case we are talking broadly of end-goals – are vital prerequisites of strategy (what is the point of a plan if you don’t know where you’re going?), but they should not be confused with strategy.
Yes, there are companies whose success has been traced primarily to the emphasis they place on developing a noble and inspiring Purpose to drive corporate activity. Such purpose statements provide an excellent context for developing strategies, but they do not on their own obviate the need for a strategy as well. Even the noblest goal doesn’t just achieve itself!
Strategy vs Tactics – the meaning of strategic
Perhaps even more important, and also more difficult, than disentangling strategy from vision/mission, is to draw the line at the other end of the hierarchy, to distinguish strategy from tactics or (to use the collective term often heard in business) operations. Here there is no clear distinction such as end vs. means. But now we have to appreciate the concept of strategic, for what really distinguishes strategy from tactics is the nature of the impact.
What is the most strategic decision you have faced – at work or at home – in the last 3 months? Just have a think for a minute and write an answer down.
When I ask this question on my strategic thinking workshops, typical answers are: how to enter a new market; should we move house; whether to change jobs; which IT provider to go with; which school should we choose for our child; should we outsource our design department or do it in-house…
I then note (as is invariably the case) that everyone has come up with a few examples and that no-one needed to ask me to define what I meant by “strategic”– the word is obviously readily understood in everyday life, let alone in business circles – before moving on to ask: what links all these very different decisions? What makes them all “strategic”?
For all the ease with which people list out their decisions, actually putting their finger on this link proves to be not quite so straightforward. But a few minutes discussion brings out that these “strategic” decisions all tend to be at least one of:
- Pivotal/transformational – many consequences flow from them (“this might change my whole life…”), many other decisions rest on them. So these are highly leveraged decisions.
- Fundamental/core – to who we are, our values, dreams…a sense that a decision is “what it’s all about”, “defining” or “seminal”.
- Large/long-term – most simply, these decisions often involve high-cost, chunky expenditure, made more so by being relatively irreversible, and thus have enduring impact.
Taken together, these three qualities mean that strategic decisions tend to affect the whole (organisation, family, team) even if initially directed at just one part. They change the whole system.
I want to stress the first two points over the third, which tends to get mentioned most. Strategic decisions may involve billions of pounds and require a 10-year perspective, but often in fact appear minor in themselves, then have a huge impact in subtle ways. This introduces the notion of a tipping point, where a small nudge to a system just pushes it over the edge, resulting in radical change. Knowing where to nudge – at the core of a system, and when – at the critical moment – is the art of strategy…
We might then confirm these definitions by considering typical uses of the word in the media: a “strategically timed” wicket/goal/try – is one that has more impact than just any score, probably changing the whole match. Or think of a “strategically placed fig leaf” – a small item but at exactly the right place! And a strategic – cf. tactical – missile wins the whole war not just the battle. Figure 2 summarises these three key components of “strategic”.
So whilst the word “strategy” may have several subtly different nuances in different situations, it should always be broadly understood as the overall approach to achieving a goal. This may be an actual pre-determined plan of actions, but it may equally be just a set of broad guidelines, perhaps no more than an attitude. It may only be revealed ex-post, rather than fully intended ex-ante. But it will be more than just a list of to-dos. A strategy must be …strategic: it must describe measures that have a defining and/or transformational effect on the fundamentals of the whole organisation.
© Ken Whitton 2008
0 comments:
Post a Comment