Slashdot Mirror
Your Strategic Plans Probably Aren't Strategic, or Even Plans (hbr.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Unfortunately, while C-suite executives talk "strategy," they're often confused about what it means. Why this confusion? The problem starts with the word itself -- a scarily misunderstood concept in management and board circles. The most basic mix-up is between "objective," "strategy," and "action." (I see this frequently in published strategic plans as well.) Grasp this, I tell my audience, and your day will be well spent.
An "objective" is something you're trying to achieve -- a marker of the success of the organization. At the other end of the spectrum is "action." This occurs at the individual level -- a level that managers are presented with day after day. So naturally when they think "strategy" they focus on what they do. But this isn't strategy either. "Strategy" takes place between these two at the organization level and managers can't "feel" that in the same way. It's abstract. CEOs have an advantage here because only they have a total view of the organization.
The key to strategy is that it's the positioning of one business against others -- such GM against Ford and Toyota, for example. What exactly is positioning? It's placement on the strategic factors relevant to each key stakeholder group.
An "objective" is something you're trying to achieve -- a marker of the success of the organization. At the other end of the spectrum is "action." This occurs at the individual level -- a level that managers are presented with day after day. So naturally when they think "strategy" they focus on what they do. But this isn't strategy either. "Strategy" takes place between these two at the organization level and managers can't "feel" that in the same way. It's abstract. CEOs have an advantage here because only they have a total view of the organization.
The key to strategy is that it's the positioning of one business against others -- such GM against Ford and Toyota, for example. What exactly is positioning? It's placement on the strategic factors relevant to each key stakeholder group.
The key to success is the following.
1. A product or service good enough not to get legal action against you.
2. A sales and marketing team who can exaggerate how great this product is without crossing the line and making legal actions against you, and who knows the people who have the pockets to buy the product.
If you are going to error, you should error on the side of getting legal action, because if you sell more then the cost of the legal you are still making out.
3. Don't barrow more money then you are able to bring in in the long term (Like Toys R' Us and iHeart Media).
Me, I have too much respect for my work to get past #1. And I suck at sales.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Objective - goal - win the war
Strategy - how you will get there in broad terms - drive the enemy back to its borders
Tactics - what you will do in specific terms - bomb the *^&$ out of them"
I'd say your your 'strategy' is just a sub-objective.
Strategy is more the overarching *reasoning* that informs your tactics. Why are you driving the enemy back to its borders? How will that win the war? For example, if the enemy border happens to align with a natural terrain feature - a river that is difficult to cross for example, where defending at that point is easier for you. Or maybe your enemy has excellent antimissile capabilities and air/ground so you can't penetrate their airspace.. but if you can drive them back to their border then your artillery will be able to hit key production facilities, airfields, and impact on fuel / ammunitions / supply lines etc; and will further your edge in conflicts; lead to their airforce being unable to engage. That *reasoning* is the strategy.